I'm trying to bring an older PC up to speed. Is PIII 1Ghz fast enough for GPL
and F1 2001 with a decent vid card like GeForce 2 MX400 64Mb?
Plenty fast enough for GPL, which ran fine (with a few things turned down)
for me on a PII 333 with Voodoo3. You may have frame rate problems on some
of the very newest add-on tracks if you use the newest track and car
graphics. But that won't be a common problem.
It'll be fine for F1 2001 but you may need to turn a few options off to get
decent framerates in races if you start at the back of the grid. You'll
probably have to do some tweaking to get it running the way you like but
that's hardly a boat-anchor PC, even if it isn't leading edge anymore.
Marc
> Plenty fast enough for GPL, which ran fine (with a few things turned down)
> for me on a PII 333 with Voodoo3. You may have frame rate problems on some
> of the very newest add-on tracks if you use the newest track and car
> graphics. But that won't be a common problem.
> It'll be fine for F1 2001 but you may need to turn a few options off to
get
> decent framerates in races if you start at the back of the grid. You'll
> probably have to do some tweaking to get it running the way you like but
> that's hardly a boat-anchor PC, even if it isn't leading edge anymore.
Wouldn't Athlon XP be a better choice and cheaper too?
A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card, (I would call it ok, but just barely,
as soon as it was purchased it would be outdated)it is now 2 generations old
and the budget version at that. At least it has 64megs but you would be
better served with a GF3 Ti(200) that should be fairly close in price. Many
users here have posted getting near GF3 TI 500 speeds with just an easy o/c
utility. The PIII 1 gig will do GPL just fine, but newer titles like F1
2001 and N 2002 will bog it down.
Now to more fully answer your question in the subject line:
No CPU is EVER 'fast enough.'
dave henrie
--
Biz
"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash
<snip>
Yes it ***y well is! It isn't a cutting-edge card by any means, and
sure the Ti is preferable if you have the choice, but it *is* decent.
"Decent" does not mean "incredibly fast".
(A slightly irritated Geforce2 MX owner!)
--
"After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.
The GPL Scrapyard: bits 'n' bobs at http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card
> <snip>
> Yes it ***y well is! It isn't a cutting-edge card by any means, and
> sure the Ti is preferable if you have the choice, but it *is* decent.
> "Decent" does not mean "incredibly fast".
> (A slightly irritated Geforce2 MX owner!)
> > > A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card
> > <snip>
> > Yes it ***y well is! It isn't a cutting-edge card by any means, and
> > sure the Ti is preferable if you have the choice, but it *is* decent.
> > "Decent" does not mean "incredibly fast".
> > (A slightly irritated Geforce2 MX owner!)
> sorry If I got you riled, but the guy was building a new box with F1
2001
> in mind and for that and most other new titles, the MX is starting to be
an
> underperformer. There is a second thread about that vid card and the
> other respondants pretty much agree. Especially since it is a new system,
> why hamstring it with an MX card? A GF3 TI(200) isn't a whole lot more $$
> and provides a clear performance upgrade.
> Thats why I said it was just "ok" as in barely adequate. The next
> Papyrus racing sim will require a hefty vid card for full out performance,
> I suspect that F1 2002 will also be a big drain. GP4, WSC, titles like
> these will benefit from a kick-ass vid card. And the MX line just ain't
KA
> any more.
> (ps, I also stated he was shorting himself on cpu power so I just wasn't
> picking on MXers.)
> dave henrie
<snip>
I'm not riled - I just got slightly irritated at the implication that
the MX was a *bad* card. My definition of the word "decent" is
"acceptable", not "lightning-fast". Obviously if I could start from
scratch on a new PC now, I'd go for something faster.
It's much the same as the Intel-AMD debate I suppose. My PC has a P4
because my PC blew up on Xmas Day(!) and I needed a replacement
instantly (ie Boxing Day morning). If I'd had time to think, it
probably would have had an AMD. But the difference isn't big enough to
worry me particularly.
--
"After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.
The GPL Scrapyard: bits 'n' bobs at http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com
> > sorry If I got you riled, but the guy was building a new box with
> > F1 2001
> > in mind and for that and most other new titles, the MX is starting
> > to be an underperformer.
> <snip>
> I'm not riled - I just got slightly irritated at the implication that
> the MX was a *bad* card. My definition of the word "decent" is
> "acceptable", not "lightning-fast". Obviously if I could start from
> scratch on a new PC now, I'd go for something faster.
> It's much the same as the Intel-AMD debate I suppose. My PC has a P4
> because my PC blew up on Xmas Day(!) and I needed a replacement
> instantly (ie Boxing Day morning). If I'd had time to think, it
> probably would have had an AMD. But the difference isn't big enough to
> worry me particularly.
> > sorry If I got you riled, but the guy was building a new box with
> > F1 2001
> > in mind and for that and most other new titles, the MX is starting
> > to be an underperformer.
> <snip>
> I'm not riled - I just got slightly irritated at the implication that
> the MX was a *bad* card.
of course DX9 is on the way....
--
Gunnar
#31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
gitaren er en sjingke
P4 is no faster in games than a P3 at the same clock speed.