GP4 ignore fps

Hi, I have just spent the last couple of days playing with the settings in GP4. I'm using FRAPS to monitor the "true" frame rates. I have an XP1800+, GF3 Ti500, 512 DDR, Acoustic Edge system. Here are my findings: 1. As others had found out before me (thank God), I can't save settings on exit otherwise the game will not restart. A black screen. So get rid of any f1gstate files. 2. Sound settings don't work properly. I have uncheck both 2D and 3D acceleration. It will even let me check both? I actually get more sound from 2D. But all shitty, so I have turn both accerelations off. 3. The biggest news is fps. I can leave the graphics settings unchanged and hit test 3 times in a row and get very different numbers. With my current settings, I sometimes get anything from 25 to 37 fps. Without changing anything!. In fact most changes to the graphics settings make only a slight change in fps. I even decrease some setting and the fps go DOWN? 4. So I ignored the fps and set it to the max 60 fps. To my amazement I often get (according to FRAPS) 40 and sometimes over 50 fps as long as I'm the only car on track. So why use test? And why restrict fps to anything? Anyone have any ideas? 5. I can actually get a drop from 37 to 27 fps simply because a damn "fastest lap" message appears on the screen. It actually noticably slows to game and fps. I hate it. It speeds back up and fps rise again once the message goes. 6. All the graphics tweaks in the world will not get around the fact that what is controlling the fps is the number of other cars and their AI. With all cars is slows dramatically period. Pity. Any comments or thoughts on my findings, particluarly (4). I currently just leave it maxed at 60 fps. Richard

<[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hi, > > I have just spent the last couple of days playing with > the settings in GP4. I'm using FRAPS to monitor the > "true" frame rates. I have an XP1800+, GF3 Ti500, 512 > DDR, Acoustic Edge system. Here are my findings: > <snip>

Measuring FPS in GP4 to gauge performance is futile as it will not drop frames to keep the game moving. I.e. if you set it to draw 60 frames per _game_ second, it will draw 60 frames no matter how long it takes in real time. This is why you see the wildy differing frame rates regardless of settings. Certain things like smoke, messages (be it on screen or audio) load the processor so the frames don't get drawn in real time and the game slows down. The parameter which measures this most accurately is "Processor Occupancy" ("o" -key while driving). You will notice with the 60fps setting it will always be over 100%. The game just can't draw 60fps on current hardware. Reading processor occupancy works like this. If it's 200% it takes twice as long to draw 60 frames than is should, i.e. one game second equals two seconds of real time (and fraps measures 30fps). If it's 100% your computer just about manages to draw the required frames within a second (game fps = fraps fps). Anything more than it's showing now (AI, smoke, text, etc...) will cause the game to slow down. If the occupancy is less than 100% (and you should get it to like 90% with all AI in view for smooth play), say: at 50%, it would take only half a second to draw 60 frames, this does not mean the game starts running at twice normal speed (Geoff is not *that* crap a programmer), but it does mean your PC sits idle for a while between frames. Hope this clears things up for you a little. Jan. =--- "It's for the fun." - Gilles Panizzi

>>Any comments or thoughts on my findings, particluarly (4). I currently >>just leave it maxed at 60 fps. >>Richard go buy F1 2002!

><[email hidden]> wrote > I have just spent the last couple of days playing with the settings in > GP4. I'm using FRAPS to monitor the "true" frame rates. I have an > XP1800+, GF3 Ti500, 512 DDR, Acoustic Edge system. Here are my > findings: Here are my findings : Try to give yourself a refund for GP4 and go buy F12002 (or F1RC, but that's another thing...) ;-) I mean, you've wasted all that valuable gaming time just tweaking with some framerate, getting yourself mad against the simulator when you could had enjoyed that time for the actual purpose of a simulator, which is racing! :) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

I have actually just found the setting that makes THE difference for my hardware setup. "Environment Maps". I thought I had played with it before, but obviously not. I changed it to "static" and the framerate improvement is about 40%! And I can't tell any difference in quality. In fact I have now got everything maxed, res of 1280x1024, -1 detail (max), all "advanced" settings maxed, except mirrors = cars only and env map = static NOT dynamic. I still have video walls "off" and I have never even seen a "heat haze", so it's off. In a quickrace, I get a frame rate of about 40 on the grid at Monaco. It can drop to about 30 with lots of AI cars in shoot, but is now mainly running about 40 to 55 fps at Monaco. This is according to fraps. And is certainly runs great. Lots of fun. Going back to your reply. I guess my only question is still - why set the game fps and restrict it? Does it actually do any harm to set it to the max of 60 and at least give it the chance to reach it? I sometimes actually get fraps to hit high 50s even maybe 60. Those on screen messages slowing it down are really beginning to piss me off though. Thanks, Richard. On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:13:41 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

><[email hidden]> wrote... >> Hi, >> >> I have just spent the last couple of days playing with >> the settings in GP4. I'm using FRAPS to monitor the >> "true" frame rates. I have an XP1800+, GF3 Ti500, 512 >> DDR, Acoustic Edge system. Here are my findings: >> <snip> > >Measuring FPS in GP4 to gauge performance is futile as it will not drop >frames to keep the game moving. I.e. if you set it to draw 60 frames per >_game_ second, it will draw 60 frames no matter how long it takes in real >time. >This is why you see the wildy differing frame rates regardless of settings. >Certain things like smoke, messages (be it on screen or audio) load the >processor so the frames don't get drawn in real time and the game slows >down. > >The parameter which measures this most accurately is "Processor Occupancy" >("o" -key while driving). You will notice with the 60fps setting it will >always be over 100%. The game just can't draw 60fps on current hardware. >Reading processor occupancy works like this. If it's 200% it takes twice as >long to draw 60 frames than is should, i.e. one game second equals two >seconds of real time (and fraps measures 30fps). If it's 100% your computer >just about manages to draw the required frames within a second (game fps = >fraps fps). Anything more than it's showing now (AI, smoke, text, etc...) >will cause the game to slow down. If the occupancy is less than 100% (and >you should get it to like 90% with all AI in view for smooth play), say: at >50%, it would take only half a second to draw 60 frames, this does not mean >the game starts running at twice normal speed (Geoff is not *that* crap a >programmer), but it does mean your PC sits idle for a while between frames. > >Hope this clears things up for you a little. > >Jan. >=--- >"It's for the fun." - Gilles Panizzi > > >

OK Jan. I think I'm getting my head around what you are saying. If I decrease the fps, I will get smoother play with AI cars on the screen. And anyway, I bet it's impossible to tell 60fps from 40fps anyway. In fact if 36fps is good enough to race GPL, then it's got to be ok for GP4. I have lowered my fps setting in GP4 to 36 and I'm sure it runs faster now with AI cars on the screen. Did I get there finally? Thanks for your help. Richard. P.S. Any ideas on getting FF to work with Logitech Wingman Forumla Force (original one)? P.P.S. Any ideas on sound settings? No acceleration? 2D? 3D? 3D with EAX? 3D with EAX and mutli speaker? Or do we just wait for the patch on both of these questions? On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:59:48 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (69 lines)

>I have actually just found the setting that makes THE difference for >my hardware setup. "Environment Maps". I thought I had played with it >before, but obviously not. I changed it to "static" and the framerate >improvement is about 40%! And I can't tell any difference in quality. >In fact I have now got everything maxed, res of 1280x1024, -1 detail >(max), all "advanced" settings maxed, except mirrors = cars only and >env map = static NOT dynamic. I still have video walls "off" and I >have never even seen a "heat haze", so it's off. In a quickrace, I get >a frame rate of about 40 on the grid at Monaco. It can drop to about >30 with lots of AI cars in shoot, but is now mainly running about 40 >to 55 fps at Monaco. This is according to fraps. And is certainly runs >great. Lots of fun. > >Going back to your reply. I guess my only question is still - why set >the game fps and restrict it? Does it actually do any harm to set it >to the max of 60 and at least give it the chance to reach it? I >sometimes actually get fraps to hit high 50s even maybe 60. > >Those on screen messages slowing it down are really beginning to piss >me off though. > >Thanks, > >Richard. > >On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:13:41 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >><[email hidden]> wrote... >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have just spent the last couple of days playing with >>> the settings in GP4. I'm using FRAPS to monitor the >>> "true" frame rates. I have an XP1800+, GF3 Ti500, 512 >>> DDR, Acoustic Edge system. Here are my findings: >>> <snip> >> >>Measuring FPS in GP4 to gauge performance is futile as it will not drop >>frames to keep the game moving. I.e. if you set it to draw 60 frames per >>_game_ second, it will draw 60 frames no matter how long it takes in real >>time. >>This is why you see the wildy differing frame rates regardless of settings. >>Certain things like smoke, messages (be it on screen or audio) load the >>processor so the frames don't get drawn in real time and the game slows >>down. >> >>The parameter which measures this most accurately is "Processor Occupancy" >>("o" -key while driving). You will notice with the 60fps setting it will >>always be over 100%. The game just can't draw 60fps on current hardware. >>Reading processor occupancy works like this. If it's 200% it takes twice as >>long to draw 60 frames than is should, i.e. one game second equals two >>seconds of real time (and fraps measures 30fps). If it's 100% your computer >>just about manages to draw the required frames within a second (game fps = >>fraps fps). Anything more than it's showing now (AI, smoke, text, etc...) >>will cause the game to slow down. If the occupancy is less than 100% (and >>you should get it to like 90% with all AI in view for smooth play), say: at >>50%, it would take only half a second to draw 60 frames, this does not mean >>the game starts running at twice normal speed (Geoff is not *that* crap a >>programmer), but it does mean your PC sits idle for a while between frames. >> >>Hope this clears things up for you a little. >> >>Jan. >>=--- >>"It's for the fun." - Gilles Panizzi >> >> >> >

<[email hidden]> wrote... > I have actually just found the setting that makes THE > difference for my hardware setup. "Environment Maps". > <snip> Glad you found a tweak to make the game run better. > Going back to your reply. I guess my only question is > still - why set the game fps and restrict it? Does it > actually do any harm to set it to the max of 60 and at > least give it the chance to reach it? I sometimes > actually get fraps to hit high 50s even maybe 60. Obviously, you didn't read carefully enough. GP4 is not like other games. It's core program is 6 years old. It doesn't work like other, newer games where, if the game starts running out of time, it just doesn't draw screen updates to keep the game moving in real time. If you set GP4 to draw 60 frames it will draw 60 frames, whether it can do it in a second or not. Ergo: if it can't draw the 60 frames in one second (real-time), game time slows down. Again, you may measure 55fps but the game still draws 60 frames per game second. It just takes 1.091 real time seconds to do it. I'll prove it to you: turn up the detail until you're down to about 50fps according to fraps. Drive a lap, even a slow one will do (say, 1m20s at Monaco), then time the replay with a stopwatch (stick to cockpit view as fps/occupancy should theoritically be the same). You'll notice the lap actually took 1m36s to do. Ergo, if you set a certain fps in GP4 and you PC can't attain that in real time, the game stops running in real time and slows down. I can't believe you haven't noticed that low fps, instead of stop motion as with today's games, introduces slow motion in GP4. The reason why this is bad is that a) you're kidding yourself you can drive the cars as things are not happening as fast as they should and, b) all hotlap tables and off-line leagues consider runnig more than 100% occupancy cheating. In GP4 you don't restrict fps, you set it... in frames per second of game time. Measuring fps on GP4 is futile... it's not a measure of how well it's running as it runs equally well regardless of the setting. You can crank it up to 1200% occupancy and drive an F1 race in extreme slow motion... it never recovers neither crashes. It just doesn't run in real time. Use the "occupancy" display to gauge how well your PC is shifting the game around and get it down to about 90% with a full field of AI in view. Even if you have to turn the fps setting down to 37 or lower to do it. If you want to play GP4, you'll have to do so by it's rules. There's no alternative, that's just the way it's programmed. This is true for a lot of stuff in the game and a major reason why some people are really pissed off with Geoff Crammond and his idiosyncratic coding style. Otherwise, follow the other poster's advice and exchange it for F1 2002. Then you can use fraps to tweak the settings in order to your desired number of fps. In real time. > Those on screen messages slowing it down are really > beginning to piss me off though. The messages are a minor annoyance to some of the stuff that will drive you up the wall once you get to a certain level in the game. But you'll find out about that in due course. Jan. =---

><[email hidden]> wrote > Going back to your reply. I guess my only question is still - why set > the game fps and restrict it? Because the simulation is probably unable to do real-time FPS change in-game. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

><[email hidden]> wrote > And anyway, I bet it's impossible to tell 60fps from 40fps anyway. It's really possible ;-) Just take per example your monitor screen refresh. 40kHz gives you massive headache, while 60 gives you a mild one! > Or do we just wait for the patch on both of these questions? No patch can cure a Geoff Crammond simulation ;-P -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

<[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> OK Jan. I think I'm getting my head around what you > are saying. If I decrease the fps, I will get > smoother play with AI cars on the screen. And anyway, > I bet it's impossible to tell 60fps from 40fps anyway. > In fact if 36fps is good enough to race GPL, then it's > got to be ok for GP4. I have lowered my fps setting in > GP4 to 36 and I'm sure it runs faster now with AI cars > on the screen. Did I get there finally? Thanks for > your help.

Welcome. I don't know if you've got it straight yet. From your comments it's still open to interpretation. I hammered it out again in a further reply. Check it out and let me know. > P.S. Any ideas on getting FF to work with Logitech > Wingman Forumla Force (original one)? If you made a "custom" control set for your LWFF you can simply turn FF on from that screen. Check "save game state" as you exit and FF should be there next time if not right away. > P.P.S. Any ideas on sound settings? No acceleration? > 2D? 3D? 3D with EAX? 3D with EAX and mutli speaker? Not sure, I don't actually own GP4. Going on experience with earlier versions and what I've read here. Over to RAS on this one. > Or do we just wait for the patch on both of these questions? "We" might have to wait a very, very long time for a GP4 patch. Jan. =---

>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote > It's core program is 6 years old. F1GP was released on the Amiga in 1989 no? It's still the same core basis, so it's now closer to 15 years old now! > The messages are a minor annoyance to some of the stuff that will driveyou > up the wall once you get to a certain level in the game. But you'll findout > about that in due course. Yes... he will learn... he... will... learn... ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

I think I've got it. I have just decreased my GP4 setting to 26fps. Man it runs fast. Lots of fun. That keeps my CPU occ flickering in the 90s when I on the grid at the back of the grid at Monaco. Then flickers up into the low 100s when driving though the pack at the start. Drops back down quickly after the first corner. So that should be great for all other circuits. It's a very different way of thinking about frame rates. I'm sorry it took me some long to get. I appreciate your help. But this game actually feels "faster" when you set the frame rate lower and the graphics remain the same until if you set it too low (I set it at 10 to see what would happen), it drives fine but the graphics look choppy. This is very different from games like GPL which can become undriveable if the framerate drops below about 33. As you say you are setting the frame rate, and this directly controls how real the speed looks and feels. Thanks again, Richard On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:45:01 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (36 lines)

><[email hidden]> wrote... >> OK Jan. I think I'm getting my head around what you >> are saying. If I decrease the fps, I will get >> smoother play with AI cars on the screen. And anyway, >> I bet it's impossible to tell 60fps from 40fps anyway. >> In fact if 36fps is good enough to race GPL, then it's >> got to be ok for GP4. I have lowered my fps setting in >> GP4 to 36 and I'm sure it runs faster now with AI cars >> on the screen. Did I get there finally? Thanks for >> your help. > >Welcome. I don't know if you've got it straight yet. From your comments it's >still open to interpretation. I hammered it out again in a further reply. >Check it out and let me know. > >> P.S. Any ideas on getting FF to work with Logitech >> Wingman Forumla Force (original one)? > >If you made a "custom" control set for your LWFF you can simply turn FF on >from that screen. Check "save game state" as you exit and FF should be there >next time if not right away. > >> P.P.S. Any ideas on sound settings? No acceleration? >> 2D? 3D? 3D with EAX? 3D with EAX and mutli speaker? > >Not sure, I don't actually own GP4. Going on experience with earlier >versions and what I've read here. Over to RAS on this one. > >> Or do we just wait for the patch on both of these questions? > >"We" might have to wait a very, very long time for a GP4 patch. > >Jan. >=--- > >

<ACKK> newbie alert!!!!

Quoted text (7 lines)

><[email hidden]> wrote > I think I've got it. I have just decreased my GP4 setting to 26fps. > Man it runs fast. Lots of fun. That keeps my CPU occ flickering in the > 90s when I on the grid at the back of the grid at Monaco. Then > flickers up into the low 100s when driving though the pack at the > start. Drops back down quickly after the first corner. So that should > be great for all other circuits.

You really should always have the occ under 100% at all cost, or else you are going in slower real-time then reality (gosh that's complicated, damn you dirty Crammond... damn you!!! eh). When racing alone, it should be more around 60-70%, so that it never goes over 100% even in the worse racing event possible. If you have it a little under 100% under normal racing condition, you'll have difficulties handling big wrecks or avoiding incidents. Trust us, we've been handling this for 10+ years since F1GP and Grand Prix 2. > This is very different from games like GPL which can become > undriveable if the framerate drops below about 33. As you say you are > setting the frame rate, and this directly controls how real the speed > looks and feels. I guess that it's a way to see the situation, LOL. For the 100 bad things of Crammond's framerate method, there is a couple of good things for it. A couple, yeah ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

That's one reason you should stick to F1 2002 - it runs full speed no matter what and can usually maintain about 60fps on a half-decent system. -- Damien Smith [email hidden] ICQ: 77028579 F1 2001 rank: -11.512

"ymenard" wrote... > > <snip> > F1GP was released on the Amiga in 1989 no? It's still > the same core basis, so it's now closer to 15 years old > now! The framerate/occupancy concept is as old as the series itself, yes, but before GP2 the physics were different. Besides, I was trying to avoid giving the impression britdriver bought the biggest gaming lemon in recent history. > > <snip> > Yes... he will learn... he... will... learn... ;-) Let's not forget the game does certain things very well, I know I have. ;-) Jan. =---

I race GPL when I want a simulator. Nothing comes close. I like the GP series for the "hot seat" feature, as this is our "drinking game". Fun with other people over. Not as a serious simulator. But I appreciate Jan's help in understanding it better and getting running really well. I hope the rest of you all enjoy F12002. Richard. On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 21:13:55 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

>Hi, > >I have just spent the last couple of days playing with the settings in >GP4. I'm using FRAPS to monitor the "true" frame rates. I have an >XP1800+, GF3 Ti500, 512 DDR, Acoustic Edge system. Here are my >findings: > >1. As others had found out before me (thank God), I can't save >settings on exit otherwise the game will not restart. A black screen. >So get rid of any f1gstate files. > >2. Sound settings don't work properly. I have uncheck both 2D and 3D >acceleration. It will even let me check both? I actually get more >sound from 2D. But all shitty, so I have turn both accerelations off. > >3. The biggest news is fps. I can leave the graphics settings >unchanged and hit test 3 times in a row and get very different >numbers. With my current settings, I sometimes get anything from 25 to >37 fps. Without changing anything!. In fact most changes to the >graphics settings make only a slight change in fps. I even decrease >some setting and the fps go DOWN? > >4. So I ignored the fps and set it to the max 60 fps. To my amazement >I often get (according to FRAPS) 40 and sometimes over 50 fps as long >as I'm the only car on track. So why use test? And why restrict fps to >anything? Anyone have any ideas? > >5. I can actually get a drop from 37 to 27 fps simply because a damn >"fastest lap" message appears on the screen. It actually noticably >slows to game and fps. I hate it. It speeds back up and fps rise again >once the message goes. > >6. All the graphics tweaks in the world will not get around the fact >that what is controlling the fps is the number of other cars and their >AI. With all cars is slows dramatically period. Pity. > >Any comments or thoughts on my findings, particluarly (4). I currently >just leave it maxed at 60 fps. > >Richard

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:39:17 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That's one reason you should stick to F1 2002 - it runs full speed no matter >what and can usually maintain about 60fps on a half-decent system. Hmmm... what do you people would consider a "half-decent" system? No kidding, just plain curiosity. (I don't dare asking what a "full-decent" system should be expected to be like) -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

I guess by half-decent I meant about a 1.5GHz and a GF3. > >That's one reason you should stick to F1 2002 - it runs full speed nomatter

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >what and can usually maintain about 60fps on a half-decent system. > > Hmmm... what do you people would consider a "half-decent" system? > No kidding, just plain curiosity. (I don't dare asking what a > "full-decent" system should be expected to be like) > > -- > __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke > \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru > _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com > '-_____|( > > remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ahji94$tb906$[email hidden]... > I guess by half-decent I meant about a 1.5GHz and a GF3. agreed, anybody buying a NEW system with specs less than those will be guarenteed to have slowdowns with current games at max graphics etc and future games will bog even more meaning most of the graphics will need to be turned down. There are plenty of PIII 800 users still and that's not a complete slug yet, but if you are buying new....get as MUCH cpu speed as possible. dave henrie

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:36:23 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:ahji94$tb906$[email hidden]... >> I guess by half-decent I meant about a 1.5GHz and a GF3. > > agreed, anybody buying a NEW system with specs less than those will be >guarenteed to have slowdowns with current games at max graphics etc and >future games will bog even more meaning most of the graphics will need to be >turned down. > There are plenty of PIII 800 users still and that's not a complete slug >yet, but if you are buying new....get as MUCH cpu speed as possible. >dave henrie >

Actually, my system is a 700MHz PIII and a GF2MX 32MB card... somewhat over a year old, I believe. Oh, with 512MB SDRAM. Right now, I'm not thinking of upgrading it. Does it qualify at least as a quarter-decent one? In another year or so I may either upgrade it or build another system (and that's how I currently have a 486SLC-2 40 w/10MB and S3 VESA card with 2MB, 486DX/4 100 w/80MB and Trident 9685 PIC card with 4MB, and Celeron 466 w/128MB and Trident Blade3D with 8MB lying around... need to get a hub now, and another case for the Celeron to try some networked games) -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote > Actually, my system is a 700MHz PIII and a GF2MX 32MB card... somewhatover a > year old, I believe. You must've gone for a cheap PC a year ago then. My old 1.2 (just upgraded CPU to 1900+) is just over a year now and the CPU didn't cost a whole lot at that point. Then again, I got AMD so it probably cost the same as that 700 Moneytel. :) -- Frode

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:19:31 GMT, "Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Actually, my system is a 700MHz PIII and a GF2MX 32MB card... somewhat >over a >> year old, I believe. > >You must've gone for a cheap PC a year ago then. My old 1.2 (just upgraded >CPU to 1900+) is just over a year now and the CPU didn't cost a whole lot at >that point. Then again, I got AMD so it probably cost the same as that 700 >Moneytel. :)

The processor cost me about $180 back then, a short time after it had just been available. Now they sell 1,7GHz P IVs for less. But if you think that is "cheap", well, that shows the difference in living standards... -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote > >You must've gone for a cheap PC a year ago then. My old 1.2 (justupgraded > >CPU to 1900+) is just over a year now and the CPU didn't cost a whole lotat > >that point. Then again, I got AMD so it probably cost the same as that700 > >Moneytel. :) > The processor cost me about $180 back then, a short time after it had just > been available. A 700MHz Intel had not "just become available" a year ago... I happened to have stumbled upon a receipt for an old 700MHz Athlon while cleaning office today and it was dated sometime in 2000 (Q1 if I remember right). At about the price you quote even. Athlon launched their 700MHz in late 1999. Intel followed shortly after. If you bought it for that price in 2001 you were robbed. Anyways to get somewhat back on topic, a year ago your specs were half decent. Now they would barely qualify as quarter-decent, as you yourself put. :) That doesn't mean it's a useless computer. It's perfectly fine for everything but gaming. Not that it won't run recent games, but it obviously will be very hard to get them running like they're meant to be run (fair resolution, at least medium detail). With that kind of system that's only to be expected. New games will never be designed to run great on 2 yr old hardware. Those old boxes you mention are perfect candidates for being Linux servers and firewalls. I've got several stacked around the apartment myself. As for networking gaming with them.. Depends what you wanna play really. Not much of anything will run on any of them cept the celeron. And it'd have to be pretty old to run properly even on that. Hope you have old windows and DOS versions laying about, you'll likely need 'em to get those games running at all. -- Frode

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:59:07 GMT, "Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote >> >You must've gone for a cheap PC a year ago then. My old 1.2 (just >upgraded >> >CPU to 1900+) is just over a year now and the CPU didn't cost a whole lot >at >> >that point. Then again, I got AMD so it probably cost the same as that >700 >> >Moneytel. :) >> The processor cost me about $180 back then, a short time after it had just >> been available. > >A 700MHz Intel had not "just become available" a year ago... I happened to >have stumbled upon a receipt for an old 700MHz Athlon while cleaning office >today and it was dated sometime in 2000 (Q1 if I remember right). At about >the price you quote even. Athlon launched their 700MHz in late 1999. Intel >followed shortly after. If you bought it for that price in 2001 you were >robbed. >

Notice I originally said "somewhat over a year ago". I don't remember the exact date. It's likely that by now it's closer to two years... Hmmm... let me look for the receipts to find the exact date.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Anyways to get somewhat back on topic, a year ago your specs were half >decent. Now they would barely qualify as quarter-decent, as you yourself >put. :) > >That doesn't mean it's a useless computer. It's perfectly fine for >everything but gaming. Not that it won't run recent games, but it obviously >will be very hard to get them running like they're meant to be run (fair >resolution, at least medium detail). With that kind of system that's only to >be expected. New games will never be designed to run great on 2 yr old >hardware. >

The funny thing is that most machines around have lower specs, or if they have higher ones, they're overpriced. Here's an example, for $1399: Microtech Pentium IV 1.6 Ghz + Impresora Hewlett Packard Modelo 845 256 Mb de Ram Disco duro de 40 Gb Unidad de CD-RW / DVD Monitor de 17`` Parlante Inspire 5300 ( 5 satelitales y un sub-woofer ) Tarjetas Soundblaster Cart Live 5.1 While this one goes for $649.50: Computadora Dynamic Pentium III de 1 Ghz Velocidad 128 Mb de RAM 30 Gb de Disco duro CD de 52x Monitor 15``

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Those old boxes you mention are perfect candidates for being Linux servers >and firewalls. I've got several stacked around the apartment myself. As for >networking gaming with them.. Depends what you wanna play really. Not much >of anything will run on any of them cept the celeron. And it'd have to be >pretty old to run properly even on that. Hope you have old windows and DOS >versions laying about, you'll likely need 'em to get those games running at >all.

Definitely, with the 486DX/4 I wouldn't dare to play anything more recent than GP2, DooM, Duke Nukem 3-D, Descent (1, not 2!) or ATF (which could be run under Windows 95, as GP2 too). The Celeron is lacking a proper case with ATX power supply, once I finally buy one it will get my 6GB HD with two different Linux versions and Win95, I can use it to test MP maps for strategy games (something I can't do right now with the DX/4, which is the other system that's up and running, as the SLC-2 lacks a working HD) -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote > Notice I originally said "somewhat over a year ago". I don't remember theexact > date. It's likely that by now it's closer to two years... Hmmm... let melook > for the receipts to find the exact date. It's not really important. Let's just assume you got it when it was cutting-edge. Sad story is that 2 years is forever in this game. Unfortunately(?) these big boxes we toy with aren't consoles and they need constant upgrading :( > The funny thing is that most machines around have lower specs, or if theyhave > higher ones, they're overpriced. Here's an example, for $1399: Depends a bit. For the same price you can have an 1800+ XP with twice the harddrive and about the same specs otherwise. If you go and buy the pieces and put it together yourself you can kill that machine for that same price. > While this one goes for $649.50: You can't go by MHz alone. It's like comparing an original Athlon to the new XPs based on clockspeed alone. The entire architecture has changed meanwhiles allowing for greater advances in speed than just that. Buying a P3 now is pointless. You're stuck without upgrade potential etc. When I went from my 700 to 1.2 I had to swap mobo due to the socket A mobo and RAM as well. When I went from the 1.2 to 1800+ I just swapped CPU. That's why they're dirt cheap. If you just want a low-end machine for a server or otherwise though, it's handy they're dumping the prices to get rid of them :) The other box also had a few other things this one doesn't, so they don't seem directly comparable. > Definitely, with the 486DX/4 I wouldn't dare to play anything more recentthan > GP2, DooM, Duke Nukem 3-D, Descent (1, not 2!) or ATF (which could be rununder Ah.. The golden age of gaming, eh. -- Frode

On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 06:55:27 GMT, "Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Notice I originally said "somewhat over a year ago". I don't remember the >exact >> date. It's likely that by now it's closer to two years... Hmmm... let me >look >> for the receipts to find the exact date. > >It's not really important. Let's just assume you got it when it was >cutting-edge. Sad story is that 2 years is forever in this game. >Unfortunately(?) these big boxes we toy with aren't consoles and they need >constant upgrading :( >

I found the receipt, dated January 6th, 2001. Definitely it's more time than I remembered... That one replaced the Celeron 466 at the time (which I had had for less than a year (March 23rd, 2000). Hmmm, it should be time for another upgrade by now...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> The funny thing is that most machines around have lower specs, or if they >have >> higher ones, they're overpriced. Here's an example, for $1399: > >Depends a bit. For the same price you can have an 1800+ XP with twice the >harddrive and about the same specs otherwise. If you go and buy the pieces >and put it together yourself you can kill that machine for that same price. >

That's what I usually do... rather, I buy accessories first which can still be used with my current system (like video and sound cards, HDs, etc.) and once the system can't be upgraded anymore, change the MoBo and CPU.

Quoted text (15 lines)

>> While this one goes for $649.50: > >You can't go by MHz alone. It's like comparing an original Athlon to the new >XPs based on clockspeed alone. The entire architecture has changed >meanwhiles allowing for greater advances in speed than just that. Buying a >P3 now is pointless. You're stuck without upgrade potential etc. When I went >from my 700 to 1.2 I had to swap mobo due to the socket A mobo and RAM as >well. When I went from the 1.2 to 1800+ I just swapped CPU. That's why >they're dirt cheap. If you just want a low-end machine for a server or >otherwise though, it's handy they're dumping the prices to get rid of them >:) > >The other box also had a few other things this one doesn't, so they don't >seem directly comparable. >

Uh, no, what I intended to do was compare both of them to my current system. The second one has a CPU similar to my current system, but comes with less RAM and probably nothing more than a cheap 8MB video card... Oh, and seemingly no sound card or DVD-ROM drive. >> Definitely, with the 486DX/4 I wouldn't dare to play anything more recent >than >> GP2, DooM, Duke Nukem 3-D, Descent (1, not 2!) or ATF (which could be run >under > >Ah.. The golden age of gaming, eh. Ah, the stories of those days... Like when we managed to get access to the new Compaqs at the university's computer lab to test the Alpha release of DooM because nowhere else could we find a 486DX-40 with *8MB RAM* (and 15-inch monitor, wow!). -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying