PDA

View Full Version : POST PROVEN SOLUTIONS FOR ALL OPEN GL RELATED PROB



06-22-2003, 03:47 PM
IF YOU FIND A SOLUTION TO OPEN GL PROBLEMS POST THEM IN THIS TOPIC PLACE, THAT WAY PPL CAN JUST CHECK HERE, INSTEAD OF READING 6 PAGES OF BULL C*R*A*P.

look people, we are all trying to do the same thing here but we r all going to have different soulutions. some people it is there cards, some people cards, some people S*H*I*T*y comp, and others. the moniter one is easy and the same with chip. follow instructions below.
first for chips,

start, control pannel, system then hardware, then device manager look under display adapters,, write down the name and maker of ur card. go on the web and search the maker then download the update for it so exemple i have a rage fury/xpert 2000 pro (ATI TECHNOLIGIES). made my microsoft, go to www.ati.com (http://www.ati.com) , look under find driver / download drivers, find ur driver and instal, then adjust ur settings and try ur game........ should work..
...REMEMBER IF UR CARD IS MADE BY A COMPANY U MUST UPDATE IT AT THAT COMPANY IF U DONT IT WONT EVEN WORK.

NOW moniters,

start, control pannel, system then hardware, then device manager, look under moniters and see how many are installed, if you have two installed click one one and disable it. (that is how to fix, but not the problem on my computer, my computer has a plug and play moniter because xp installs stuff itself)

i hope this helps people when u find ur chip name/ manufacteur just type the name in google and go to there website, u will find the update.

DONT POST WIN.INI FILES OR EROR MESSAGES ITS A ROOM EYESORE, FOR PPL LOOK IN OTHER FORUMS FOR THE ,DVA=O SOLUTION

06-23-2003, 03:59 AM
At least you're consistent dr. death. Maybe you should change your username to Ms. Information.

Most of the problems I see posted here are either application specific or due to very old video drivers (or someone using MS Update and thinking that's all they need).

In your case, again, I suggest upgrading the card itself... not that I don't think it will run something as old as say Counter-Strike or Half-Life, but because you're limiting the performance of your computer GREATLY by using such an old card. You also cannot run much of any modern computer games as they are just to graphically intensive for your card.

06-23-2003, 08:25 AM
Probably the most common problem people here seem to be having is that they have not installed the GL drivers for their graphics card. They think that because Windows can display correctly and DirectX games work, they don't need to do anything else. The first thing you should do when you get a new computer or a new graphics card is go to the vid card manufacturer's website (or the chip manufacturer's website in some cases) and get the latest display drivers. These will include accellerated GL drivers.

06-23-2003, 04:37 PM
dunno, stop calling me names anyways i think im buying a radeon 7000 should solve my problems

V-man
06-23-2003, 04:53 PM
Save up and get something more recent. Something like a Radeon 9700, NV 5800

PS: ATI is known to have buggy drivers, specially in the "old" days.

06-23-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by dr. death:
dunno, stop calling me names anyways i think im buying a radeon 7000 should solve my problems

The 7000 can be had for as little as $34 in the United States.

You'd be much better served to buy the MX 440 for $40 as it's about THREE TIMES as powerful.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-05.html
http://www.pricewatch.com

06-23-2003, 06:07 PM
Nah, go for the FX 5200. It's faster than the Raedon 7000, it's a "DX 9 video card", and it's only $64 (w/ 128 megs) and dropping. Unless I'm mistaken, it's the cheapest "DX 9 video card" available.


P.S. Always check Pricewatch before purchasing any computer hardware:
http://www.pricewatch.com/menus/m37.htm

06-24-2003, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by User2238467:
Nah, go for the FX 5200. It's faster than the Raedon 7000, it's a "DX 9 video card", and it's only $64 (w/ 128 megs) and dropping. Unless I'm mistaken, it's the cheapest "DX 9 video card" available.


P.S. Always check Pricewatch before purchasing any computer hardware:
http://www.pricewatch.com/menus/m37.htm

The 5200 is CRAP. It cannot even run DX9 stuff.

As I discussed in another thread, a person would be MUCH happier in the same price range to get a Radeon 8500 LE 128mb. It cost about the same $75-80 and is at least TWICE as powerful as the crappy FX 5200.

So what if it doesn't have DX9, at least it will be able to run DX9 games at an acceptable speed! You'll have to shut those same features off for the FX 5200 to run... only games will still be much slower than the 8500.

06-24-2003, 04:06 AM
BTW, don't take my word for it...
http://www.8dimensional.com/nVidia_GeForce_FX.html

or www.futuremark.com (http://www.futuremark.com)

The FX 5200s in the $80 range are getting ~3000-6000 3DMarks2001 and ~500-1500 3DMarks2003.

The 8500s are getting ~6000-12000 3DMarks2001 and ~1000-2000 3DMarks2003.

You won't reach 8500 performance without getting a FX 5200 Ultra for $130.

06-24-2003, 12:04 PM
The 5200 is CRAP. It cannot even run DX9 stuff. Yes, it can.


As I discussed in another thread, a person would be MUCH happier in the same price range to get a Radeon 8500 LE 128mb. It cost about the same $75-80 and is at least TWICE as powerful as the crappy FX 5200.First, you can't say that one is better than another in all cases since their capabilities are different. If you want to at least see what a game looks with all the features turned on, you can do that with FX 5200. I think some reviews of this card are designed to make it look bad. Sure, if you run a game at 1280x1024 in 32-bit color with high-res textures, a low-end card is going to get 10 fps. Personally, I'd rather run it at 640x480 with medium-res textures and be able to see the fragment shaders at work. John Carmack said that the preferred way to play Doom3 on a slow card will be to leave the shaders turned on and lower the texture and screen resolutions. And if you plan on doing any development, the FX 5200 is definately a better choice.

Second, it's not twice as fast. Frames per second is not directly proportional to the 3dmark scores.


The FX 5200s in the $80 range are getting ~3000-6000 3DMarks2001 and ~500-1500 3DMarks2003.

The 8500s are getting ~6000-12000 3DMarks2001 and ~1000-2000 3DMarks2003.You're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare the 3dmark03 scores of the two cards because the 8500 can't run all the tests.

DirectX 9.0 has already been released and there are DX9 games on the market. I personally wouldn't buy a new card that doesn't have full DX9 capabilities, no matter how fast it is. If you would rather have a faster but older, less capable card, that's your choice.

dorbie
06-24-2003, 12:50 PM
Yep apples to oranges. I dunno if most gamers care but in the value segment right now you have to trade performance for features. It's an honest choice, and you're welcome to choose either way. Some reviewers have totally missed this fact and slammed very nice cards based purely on performance with comparrisons based entirely on 'old' style graphics rendering. This is probably an easier choice for a developer interested in playing with the coolest features etc. For a gamer it's probably more difficult to decide. Games will continue to support older feature sets for a long time to come but they may not have the same eye candy as something like a DX9 class card, and they may be slower at newer stuff if they can even run it at all.

FYI this mostly down to how programmable the pixel shaders are (fragment shaders).

06-24-2003, 03:20 PM
how about a radeon 8500 or 8000?? look im in canadian $$$$ here two, im not mr. money bags im a 13 year old kid, i got other things to spend my money on here all i want is a good dependable card....

[This message has been edited by dr. death (edited 06-24-2003).]