Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very poorly on Radeon 9200s
and doesn't run at all on GF2s or even GF4MXs. It runs OK on a GF4 Ti4600
and runs pretty well on a Radeon 9600 Pro or higher. Also 2.0GHz is about
the minimum CPU speed for decent performance.
Worth the upgrade though. Game of the year in my books (despite a few
bugs.)
> Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very poorly on Radeon 9200s
> and doesn't run at all on GF2s or even GF4MXs. It runs OK on a GF4 Ti4600
> and runs pretty well on a Radeon 9600 Pro or higher. Also 2.0GHz is about
> the minimum CPU speed for decent performance.
> Worth the upgrade though. Game of the year in my books (despite a few
> bugs.)
My old xp1600+ and GF3ti200 can't handle all this. Right now it's
either do a major upgrade or buy a xbox. Have hardly played anything
at all on my computer the last year, so I really don't know if
spending $700+ for a total upgrade is worth it right now.
--
Olav Malmin
remove .spam when replying
At the moment with HL2 and the GTR sim on the horizon, and Lomac, Doom3,
and RBR currently satisfying my various virtual needs, I'm having quite a
lot of fun, and it helps justify the money I've spent this year. But it's
not always easy to justify the cost, good titles or no good titles.
Good software certainly helps though :-)
Andrew McP
> > > I am curious what is the oldest slowest system being used by
someone
> > > running RBR. I have a celeron 1000, 384 M mem, ATI 9200, Creative
audigy
> > > zs. Any hope for me. I now run Rally trophy quite well with almost
full
> > > detail on. Thanks for input. Wish there was a demo so I could test
> > > system
> > Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very poorly on Radeon
9200s
> > and doesn't run at all on GF2s or even GF4MXs. It runs OK on a GF4
Ti4600
> > and runs pretty well on a Radeon 9600 Pro or higher. Also 2.0GHz is
about
> > the minimum CPU speed for decent performance.
> > Worth the upgrade though. Game of the year in my books (despite a few
> > bugs.)
> RBR, Doom3, Half Life 2.....
> My old xp1600+ and GF3ti200 can't handle all this. Right now it's
> either do a major upgrade or buy a xbox. Have hardly played anything
> at all on my computer the last year, so I really don't know if
> spending $700+ for a total upgrade is worth it right now.
> --
> Olav Malmin
> remove .spam when replying
It works. It's only graphics cards without pixel shaders that won't work
like GF2s or GF4MXs.
You'll be restricted to 800x600 or lower most likely and you'll still need
at the absolute minimum a 1.4GHz CPU.
I reckon that means a 64Mb GF3 ti200 ought to be ok, as it certainly has
dx8 level pixel shader support. How much more than ok it'll be, I'm not
sure, but RBR doesn't say anything about needing hardware dx9 support.
Well, the 9200 is pretty slow as hardware goes so that's no surprise. And
both the GF2 & GF4MX are based on the GF2 which is inferior to the GF3
architecture.
Andrew McP
I'm only running an AMD 1.8 Ghz processor w/512 RAM, I believe my mobo is
only a 133mhz FSB, but am not 100% sure as it was a hand-me-down from my
Father-in-law and I don't have any manual's to tell for sure...
In any case, I'd like to upgrade to a better video card, but given that my
CPU and motherboard will be a bottleneck, I'm not sure just how
fast/powerful of a card would be worthwhile getting?
I wouldn't mind spending some big bucks for a top of the line card, as I may
plan to get a new CPU in another year or so, that I could move it to, but of
course by then, there will be better cards on the market.
Any suggestions as to the best bang for my buck right now?
Thanks!
Jay J
>> Can someone confirm that a GF3 ti200 wont work with RBR pls?
> If it helps, the minimum specs on the box are "1.6GHz, 256Mb, 64Mb vid
> card (card must support pixel shading), at least 3.1Gb HD space".
> I reckon that means a 64Mb GF3 ti200 ought to be ok, as it certainly
> has dx8 level pixel shader support. How much more than ok it'll be,
> I'm not sure, but RBR doesn't say anything about needing hardware dx9
> support.
>>> Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very
>>> poorly on Radeon 9200s and doesn't run at all on GF2s
>>> or even GF4MXs.
> Well, the 9200 is pretty slow as hardware goes so that's no surprise.
> And both the GF2 & GF4MX are based on the GF2 which is inferior to the
> GF3 architecture.
> Andrew McP
dave henrie
ps..NEVER beleive the 'minimum' spec list.
The only current title that actually benefits from 256MB is Doom3.
Many 256MB cards are actually slower than their 128MB counterparts due
to lower spec memory used on the boards.
And most current 256MB cards will be outdated anyway before games
actually start to benefit from it. 256MB is just overkill atm, not
worth the extra cost IMO.
--
- Jussi Koukku -
And I also agree with you about minimum specs. However the GF3 is still a
good card IMO, especially if you avoid fsaa, and it certainly ought to be
up to running RBR acceptably at low res. I may be wrong though. If I
hadn't given my GF3 away to a friend a long time ago I'd test it out.
Andrew McP
Paul
> > Anyone buying a video card as an UPGRADE would be poorly served by
> > getting a card with less than 128mb of vid ram
> Agreed, but I think Paul already has the 64mb ti200, hence his question.
> And I also agree with you about minimum specs. However the GF3 is still a
> good card IMO, especially if you avoid fsaa, and it certainly ought to be
> up to running RBR acceptably at low res. I may be wrong though. If I
> hadn't given my GF3 away to a friend a long time ago I'd test it out.
> Andrew McP
cheers
Paul
> >Paul
> Don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm about to upgrade my
> GF4 ti600, you can have that cheap if you want it. No idea how much of
> an improvement you'll get over the gf3.
> --
> Sean Black
