Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a
P166? Does MMX have any bearing on the matter?
--
Dave Taylor
IT Training, Assessment and Consultancy
London England
Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a
P166? Does MMX have any bearing on the matter?
--
Dave Taylor
IT Training, Assessment and Consultancy
London England
> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a
> P166?
Little, if any at all, but still worth having over a standard P166 IMHO,
but a P200MMX is a better buy ATM.
Cheers!
Marc
--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com
<remove '_*_' before replying>
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:58:00 -0800, "Marc J. Nelson"
>Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an
>acceptable fps.
---
The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
What!!! 15fps? - that's so slow. I only like to play with 35+ fps and <100%
occupancy. I think it's more driveable with a faster frame rate. It's like
driving a real car and blinking your eyes. The slower you blink you eyes,
the more likely you are to hit a wall!!
j
PS - has anyone played GP2 on a 333Mhz Pentium II (with AGP graphics) ? -
i'm thinking of upgrading, but only if GP2 kicks arse on it.
Thanks
>>> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a
>>> P166?
>>Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an
>>acceptable fps.
>What`s your definition of acceptable? I have everything but the track
>textures on, and get a consistent 15fps. (Hell, at some of the sparser
>tracks, I could probably push 20+, only 48% occupancy on some tracks)
>---
>The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
8?)
*Peter* 8-)
with
>>> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a
>>> P166?
>>Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an
>>acceptable fps.
>What`s your definition of acceptable? I have everything but the track
>textures on, and get a consistent 15fps. (Hell, at some of the sparser
>tracks, I could probably push 20+, only 48% occupancy on some tracks)
>---
>The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
"To be, or not to be- that is the question" William Shakespeare
is not a multiple choice question
The subject at hand was P100 vs P166 and GP2...I find it dificult to
accept your claim of full detail (less track) 15-20fps + occ at 48%...
(I guess anything's possible though) Unless you were refering to a
faster chip (P200 or PP200 and above).
However, 15fps sounds about right, but I'd wager your occ is closer to
100-150%, with occational spikes in the 200 range (hot laping). I'm
just shooting in the dark, since I don't know a thing about your system.
Cheers!
Marc
--
Marc J. Nelson
Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com
<remove '_*_' before replying>
It`s a game, it`s playable, who cares? It runs fine for me, I play it
for FUN, i`m not obsessed. 15fps or 35fps, i`m still just as likely to
hit a wall.
---
The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:42:53 -0800, "Marc J. Nelson"
Aside from Monaco, and (for some reason) one particular corner at
Hockenheim, the average is around 80%, but on some of the add on
track`s it`s as low as 40%.
---
The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
% It`s a game, it`s playable, who cares? It runs fine for me, I play it
% for FUN, i`m not obsessed. 15fps or 35fps, i`m still just as likely to
% hit a wall.
I my opinion, I have found that I am less likely to hit a wall the
faster the frame rate is. This provides better control. It seems that
every fps gained in GP2 translates to better lap times (for me at least).
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
with
>> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures
>> turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes
>> down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better.
>> --
> What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong!
"To be, or not to be- that is the question" William Shakespeare
is not a multiple choice question
> with
> >> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures
> >> turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes
> >> down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better.
> >> --
> > What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong!
> Nothing. I'm happy with the current frame rate. The point of the post
> was to backup what was already said. You don't need to have a mega high
> frame rate to enjoy the game.
> --
Anyway, I should have been more clear about what I was saying. I
mean't that I would have thought a higher frame rate would be easier on
the eyes as are higher refresh rates with the monitor. Better fps
certainly enable smoother driving, better lap times, better control,
better feel, better appreciation of physics model and a far more
enjoyable experience generally. After using ICR2 for the last 6 months,
less than 30fps is no longer worth it. If you use GP2 at 25fps you will
have a very noticably more precise car.
>I my opinion, I have found that I am less likely to hit a wall the
>faster the frame rate is. This provides better control. It seems that
>every fps gained in GP2 translates to better lap times (for me at least).
JoH
Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When everything else failed, we can still become im-
mortal by making an enormous blunder....
John Kenneth Galbraith
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
with
>> with
>> >> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures
>> >> turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes
>> >> down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better.
>> >> --
>> > What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong!
>> Nothing. I'm happy with the current frame rate. The point of the post
>> was to backup what was already said. You don't need to have a mega high
>> frame rate to enjoy the game.
>> --
> "Nothing"? I don't understand.
> Anyway, I should have been more clear about what I was saying. I
>mean't that I would have thought a higher frame rate would be easier on
>the eyes as are higher refresh rates with the monitor. Better fps
>certainly enable smoother driving, better lap times, better control,
>better feel, better appreciation of physics model and a far more
>enjoyable experience generally. After using ICR2 for the last 6 months,
>less than 30fps is no longer worth it. If you use GP2 at 25fps you will
>have a very noticably more precise car.
Keep an eye on this thread when I get back.
--
Ian Blakeley RN
http://www.blakeley.demon.co.uk
"To be, or not to be- that is the question" William Shakespeare
is not a multiple choice question