PIII 1Ghz fast enough?

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?

".." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm trying to bring an older PC up to speed. Is PIII 1Ghz fast enough forGPL > 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.

I concur 100% with Rob. Marc "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_mY88.3631$7n.9151@shaw-ty1... > ".." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I'm trying to bring an older PC up to speed. Is PIII 1Ghz fast enoughfor

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 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. > >

get the p4 if you can. ".." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm trying to bring an older PC up to speed. Is PIII 1Ghz fast enough forGPL > and F1 2001 with a decent vid card like GeForce 2 MX400 64Mb?

>get the p4 if you can. > Wouldn't Athlon XP be a better choice and cheaper too?

".." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm trying to bring an older PC up to speed. Is PIII 1Ghz fast enough forGPL > and F1 2001 with a decent vid card like GeForce 2 MX400 64Mb? A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card, (I would call it ok, but just barely, as soon as it was purchased it would be outdated)it is now 2 generations old and the budget version at that.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

sure would. i thought you wanted pentium. the athlon thunderbird 1 gig is faster than both the pentiums. ".." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >get the p4 if you can. > > > > Wouldn't Athlon XP be a better choice and cheaper too?

That machine is fast enough, but I would recommend spending an extra $50 or so on a GF3 Ti200 to go with that machine. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash .. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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?

Dave Henrie ([email hidden]) wrote on 09 Feb 2002: > A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card<snip> Yes it bloody 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.hillclimbfan.f2s.com

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Dave Henrie ([email hidden]) wrote on 09 Feb 2002: > > > A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card > <snip> > > Yes it bloody 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

theGF2MX/ MX400 is an extreme bottleneck on my p4 1.6. My 3dmark score is almost 3 times higher if i had a ti-500. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V6a98.22427$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Dave Henrie ([email hidden]) wrote on 09 Feb 2002: > > > > > A Geforce2MX is NOT a decent card > > <snip> > > > > Yes it bloody 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 bean

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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 > >

Dave Henrie ([email hidden]) wrote on 09 Feb 2002: > 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. -- "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

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Dave Henrie ([email hidden]) wrote on 09 Feb 2002: > > > 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. >

Im with you there David. Same EXACT thing happened to me, except mine dorked out on Thanksgiving.

David Buttery <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Dave Henrie ([email hidden]) wrote on 09 Feb 2002: > > > 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.

it's getting stone age fast. the GF2 series lacks the DX8 features (ie. vertex and pixel shaders) and shouldn't even, imho, be considered for a "serious" gaming setup these days. a GF3ti200 is a lot better choice, and not much more expensive. 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

"rik zeppelin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZTY88.14391$[email hidden]... > get the p4 if you can. P4 is no faster in games than a P3 at the same clock speed.

This geforce 3 is better than mx and amd athlon is better than intel p4 is completely irrelant to most of us as all we want to play is good old GPL which maxes out at 36fps which it even reaches on quite a lowly system by todays standards. At the moment I just can't justify upgrading from my celeron 1.23Ghz (overlocked from 900) and GeForce DDR as everything I've got still runs really peachy. This system is as good you''ll ever need for GPL as even of the highest detail tracks such as Zeltwig with 20 cars and detail to max it is always at 36fps (well maybe it might drop to 25 at the start) The only time you ever need to upgrade is when you've bought a game that you really want to play a lot which just not fast enough to be playable. I guess this year it'll be Unreal 2, until then I'll just save up my cash (or more likely spend it down the pub) Some Call Me Tim

Gunnar Horrigmo ([email hidden]) wrote on 10 Feb 2002:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> David Buttery <[email hidden]> writes: >> I'm not riled - I just got slightly irritated at the implication >> that the MX was a *bad* card. > > it's getting stone age fast. the GF2 series lacks the DX8 features > (ie. vertex and pixel shaders) and shouldn't even, imho, be > considered for a "serious" gaming setup these days. a GF3ti200 is > a lot better choice, and not much more expensive.

<snip> A GF3 is about �100 more here - that's a *lot* to me. Anyhow, remember I've only just upgraded from a Voodoo 3 PCI - after that, *any* GeForce card looks very fast! -- "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

I don't beleive the gf3 ti200 is 100 pounds more than a gf2 mx 400, you might want to check again. They are only $50 more in the states so I find that very hard to believe. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Gunnar Horrigmo ([email hidden]) wrote on 10 Feb 2002: > > > David Buttery <[email hidden]> writes: > > >> I'm not riled - I just got slightly irritated at the implication > >> that the MX was a *bad* card. > > > > it's getting stone age fast. the GF2 series lacks the DX8 features > > (ie. vertex and pixel shaders) and shouldn't even, imho, be > > considered for a "serious" gaming setup these days. a GF3ti200 is > > a lot better choice, and not much more expensive. > <snip> > > A GF3 is about �100 more here - that's a *lot* to me. Anyhow, remember > I've only just upgraded from a Voodoo 3 PCI - after that, *any* GeForce > card looks very fast! > > -- > "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

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wmI98.5924$[email hidden]... > I don't beleive the gf3 ti200 is 100 pounds more than a gf2 mx 400, youmight want to check again. > They are only $50 more in the states so I find that very hard to believe. > > -- > Biz Better believe it! Hell of a price difference in the UK! And they seem to be going up - dunno if it's the price of ram or something but definitely prices are more skyward here!

"Some Call Me Tim" <[email hidden]> writes: > This geforce 3 is better than mx and amd athlon is better than intel p4 is > completely irrelant to most of us as all we want to play is good old GPL > which maxes out at 36fps which it even reaches on quite a lowly system by > todays standards. of course. no argument there. it must be sad only running GPL, though. :) > The only time you ever need to upgrade is when you've bought a game that you > really want to play a lot which just not fast enough to be playable. I agree, actually. but I bought over 50 games last year. I'll admit to owning a lot of crap, though. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 "Det er nok ingen ovn, men fartsm�leren v�r."

Biz ([email hidden]) wrote on 11 Feb 2002: > I don't beleive the gf3 ti200 is 100 pounds more than a gf2 mx 400, > you might want to check again. They are only $50 more in the states > so I find that very hard to believe. <snip> Current prices from www.dabs.com: 3D Power GeForce2 MX400 64Mb AGP OEM - �61.10 Dabs Value GeForce3 Ti200 64MB DDR AGP RP - �142.17 OK, so it's not quite �100, but �81.07 is a fair bit more than 50 dollars! (And that's the cheapest GF3 they stock!) -- "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