Re: GP3 demands system upgrade?

Andrew Busch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 16 Jul 2000, GUCCIPHILE wrote: > > > I have a Celeron 266 with 64Mb RAM, ATI Rage Pro graphics card with 2Mbvideo > > RAM. Is my PC spec not good enough for this game? > > Probably not as it is.. the video card at least will need an upgrade.. > > > What would be the most cost effective and "must-have" upgrade if I wantto play > > this game with decent performance? > > overclock your celery as fast as you can get it to go - probably around > 333 or so, perhaps higher if you're lucky (you might need a new fan or > something else to keep it cool). Bear in mind that the Celeron didn't have on die L2 cache until 300mhz so this chip won't scale so well with o'clocking . He'll also need a mobo with 100mhz FSB . A newer chip with on die cache would help if his system can handle it Andrew

I have a Celeron 266 with 64Mb RAM, ATI Rage Pro graphics card with 2Mb video RAM. Is my PC spec not good enough for this game? What would be the most cost effective and "must-have" upgrade if I want to play this game with decent performance?

On 16 Jul 2000, GUCCIPHILE wrote: > I have a Celeron 266 with 64Mb RAM, ATI Rage Pro graphics card with 2Mb video > RAM. Is my PC spec not good enough for this game? Probably not as it is.. the video card at least will need an upgrade.. > What would be the most cost effective and "must-have" upgrade if I want to play > this game with decent performance? overclock your celery as fast as you can get it to go - probably around 333 or so, perhaps higher if you're lucky (you might need a new fan or something else to keep it cool). Then go out and buy a cheap 3D graphics card, maybe a voodoo3 or TNT2 of some variety. That *should* let you run GP3 if what microprose says is true, but of course you won't get top graphics performance out of it. Otherwise, cough up another few grand and go get a killer system ;) regards, Andrew -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Andrew Busch | email : [email hidden] | + PhD Student | + | Research Concentration in Speech, | Just when you think something is | + Audio and Video Technology | idiot-proof, somebody builds a + | QUT, AUSTRALIA | better idiot. | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

You will only be able to run gp3 in software mode with a 2mb v/card. 3d hardware support requires 8mb minimum. Cheers Phil GUCCIPHILE <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have a Celeron 266 with 64Mb RAM, ATI Rage Pro graphics card with 2Mbvideo > RAM. Is my PC spec not good enough for this game? > > What would be the most cost effective and "must-have" upgrade if I want toplay > this game with decent performance?

Celeron II and a video card with at least 32 MB of memory. Anyway, you should wait for some first experience before you make your decision. What if the game is poorly coded like F1 2000 and it won't even run well on a 1 GHz system and a $300 video card? :-) "GUCCIPHILE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have a Celeron 266 with 64Mb RAM, ATI Rage Pro graphics card with 2Mb video > RAM. Is my PC spec not good enough for this game? > > What would be the most cost effective and "must-have" upgrade if I want to play > this game with decent performance?

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:14:08 GMT, "Victor Chan" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Celeron II and a video card with at least 32 MB of memory. Have you seen specs that say it needs 32mb of video memory? The Voodoo3 seires has 16mb and I'm sure it would run fine on that card. -- Nos

celery 266, i run the same cpu at 448 mhz, by increasing the bus speed, but be wrned ya fry it, yer done Martyn_D Andrew Busch wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> On 16 Jul 2000, GUCCIPHILE wrote: > > > I have a Celeron 266 with 64Mb RAM, ATI Rage Pro graphics card with 2Mb video > > RAM. Is my PC spec not good enough for this game? > > Probably not as it is.. the video card at least will need an upgrade.. > > > What would be the most cost effective and "must-have" upgrade if I want to play > > this game with decent performance? > > overclock your celery as fast as you can get it to go - probably around > 333 or so, perhaps higher if you're lucky (you might need a new fan or > something else to keep it cool). Then go out and buy a cheap 3D graphics > card, maybe a voodoo3 or TNT2 of some variety. That *should* let you run > GP3 if what microprose says is true, but of course you won't get top > graphics performance out of it. Otherwise, cough up another few grand and > go get a killer system ;) > > regards, > Andrew > > -- > +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ > | Andrew Busch | email : [email hidden] | > + PhD Student | + > | Research Concentration in Speech, | Just when you think something is | > + Audio and Video Technology | idiot-proof, somebody builds a + > | QUT, AUSTRALIA | better idiot. | > +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

Come on, we all know that meeting the game's hardware requirement does not mean anything at all. :-) 32 MB is better since it will avoid texture memory trashing all together. You really don't want the game to slow down just because your video card runs out of texture memory. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:14:08 GMT, "Victor Chan" > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >Celeron II and a video card with at least 32 MB of memory. > > Have you seen specs that say it needs 32mb of video memory? The > Voodoo3 seires has 16mb and I'm sure it would run fine on that card. > > -- > Nos

Or would I be better off just getting a brand new system instead of doing individual upgrades? I'd figure this may be "cheaper" in the long run. What's the cheapest system you would recommend right now?

A faster videocard with on board T & L , such as the GeForce2 will make a bigger difference in your frame rates than overclocking your celeron, in all likelihood. If you look at the benchmarks for older videocards(i.e. TNT or TNT2) versus GEforce2 , you will see that slower cpu's are sometimes actually faster with a state of the art videocard than a state of the art cpu is with an older videocard, and that's not even taking on board T&L into consideration. I have little doubt that my 600 mhz p3 will be able to run GP3 acceptably with a GeForce2 or whatever newer cards debut over the next few months. Cpu speeds are becoming less and less important compared to videocard advances. A Sega Dreamcast can produce graphics that are as good as anything you will see on a top notch 1GHZ PC, and yet it only runs at 200MHZ.

Hmmm..........you mean GP3 supports NV T&L API? If not, T&L won't do a thing for GP3. He still needs a faster CPU and a faster video card. He can't have just either one since having either one would bottleneck the system. "Loosay2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> A faster videocard with on board T & L , such as the GeForce2 will make a > bigger difference in your frame rates than overclocking your celeron, in all > likelihood. If you look at the benchmarks for older videocards(i.e. TNT or > TNT2) versus GEforce2 , you will see that slower cpu's are sometimes actually > faster with a state of the art videocard than a state of the art cpu is with an > older videocard, and that's not even taking on board T&L into consideration. I > have little doubt that my 600 mhz p3 will be able to run GP3 acceptably with a > GeForce2 or whatever newer cards debut over the next few months. Cpu speeds are > becoming less and less important compared to videocard advances. A Sega > Dreamcast can produce graphics that are as good as anything you will see on a > top notch 1GHZ PC, and yet it only runs at 200MHZ.

Well, you may ask the wrong person here. :-) I only bought a system once as a newbie. As you can see, I build my own. I am sure you can look for Dell or Gateway for a new PC. However, I would suggest you to buy a new system from vendors like www.pcnut.com because they use conventional or retail hardware. Cheaper in the long run? Don't think of PC is expansive. Look, if you go by the AMD K7 Athlon system, a K7 700 costs about $150. A K7 motherboard using the KX133 chipset is about $130 to $150. I am sure you can use your memory if it is PC100. Add another 64 MB would be better. You can use your current hard drive and monitor. Then, you need a video card. A GeForce DDR would be nice and cheaper now (less than $200) since GeForce 2 is out. So, you are looking at about $580 to $600 (K7 700 + motherboard + GeForce DDR + 64 MB of memory). You can still use your monitor, CD-ROM drive, hard drive, and etc. A Pentium III 700 may cost you a bit over $210. But the board is a lot cheaper. $95 to $130 the most. To check for price, try www.pricewatch.com "GUCCIPHILE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Or would I be better off just getting a brand new system instead of doing > individual upgrades? I'd figure this may be "cheaper" in the long run. What's > the cheapest system you would recommend right now?

Bah BS Loosay, Geforce2 will run like sht on a celery266, its not fast enough to take advantage of the vid card. At the very least he has to look at new video card and clocking the cpu. The cheapest alternative would be a V3 and clock the cpu. If the mb won't support 100 mhz+ FSB, then he might as well price out a new MB and cpu combo as well as Video card Martyn_D Loosay2 wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> A faster videocard with on board T & L , such as the GeForce2 will make a > bigger difference in your frame rates than overclocking your celeron, in all > likelihood. If you look at the benchmarks for older videocards(i.e. TNT or > TNT2) versus GEforce2 , you will see that slower cpu's are sometimes actually > faster with a state of the art videocard than a state of the art cpu is with an > older videocard, and that's not even taking on board T&L into consideration. I > have little doubt that my 600 mhz p3 will be able to run GP3 acceptably with a > GeForce2 or whatever newer cards debut over the next few months. Cpu speeds are > becoming less and less important compared to videocard advances. A Sega > Dreamcast can produce graphics that are as good as anything you will see on a > top notch 1GHZ PC, and yet it only runs at 200MHZ.

Based upon numbers I have obtained from Sharky Extreme and Thresh's Firing Squad. Quake III: Arena Test - Normal, @ 1280X1024 a 1GHZ Athlon with geforce2 = 87 FPS a 450 MHZ celeron geforce2= 69 FPS a 1GHZ athlon with geforce1 = 52 FPS As you can see a 450MHZ celeron not only can run at nearly as high a frame rate with a Geforce2 at high rez as a 1GHZ athlon. With a superior videocard a 450 celeron can actually run higher frame rates than a 1GHZ cpu. The videocard is far more important than the CPU in most cases. It is not inconceivable that a 266MHZ celeron could run 20+ FPS with a Geforce2 or a future Geforce 3 in games such as Quake 3 or Nascar 4 if you ran at 640X480 and turned off some of the details. For some of us, 640x480 and 20+ FPS is a reasonably playable and enjoyable minimum, before upgrading to a whole new system.Additionally, Geforce 2's will no doubt drop significantly in price by the time Nascar 4 is out. Admitedly, a 266 celeron is a long way from ideal,and decently fast cpu's and motherboards are dirt cheap compared to 2 years ago, but my point is that too many of us dismiss last years entry level systems as being virtual doorstops, implying that you would be lucky to get a 7 FPS slideshow even with the latest videocards available. Next year some people will be relegating 1GHZ cpu's as being barely adequate for a minimal gaming system, and alot of those opinions will be born of commercial hype and user egos,rather than hard numbers. Arguably, some people consider 100+FPS @ 1600x1200 full detail as a minimally acceptable playing environment, but I fully enjoyed playing GP2 on my 100MHZ 486 at low rez and full details @ 20+ FPS almost as much as I enjoy playing it at hi rez and full details on my 600MHZ P3. The actual differences in gameplay are not that huge even though the P3 is at least 15x as fast in theory, and the differences between a 1GHZ Athlon and a 266 Celeron are much less. Go the videocard upgrade route first, before investing in a complete upgrade. It may be acceptable enough to allow you to wait a bit longer and buy that 2GHZ P4.

That's because Q3 supports T&L API. That's why you see a very acceptable framerate on a Celeron 450 and a GeForce 2. "Loosay2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> Based upon numbers I have obtained from Sharky Extreme and Thresh's Firing > Squad. > Quake III: Arena Test - Normal, > @ 1280X1024 > a 1GHZ Athlon with geforce2 = 87 FPS > a 450 MHZ celeron geforce2= 69 FPS > a 1GHZ athlon with geforce1 = 52 FPS > As you can see a 450MHZ celeron not only can run at nearly as high a frame rate > with a Geforce2 at high rez as a 1GHZ athlon. With a superior videocard a 450 > celeron can actually run higher frame rates than a 1GHZ cpu. The videocard is > far more important than the CPU in most cases. It is not inconceivable that a > 266MHZ celeron could run 20+ FPS with a Geforce2 or a future Geforce 3 in games > such as Quake 3 or Nascar 4 if you ran at 640X480 and turned off some of the > details. > For some of us, 640x480 and 20+ FPS is a reasonably playable and enjoyable > minimum, before upgrading to a whole new system.Additionally, Geforce 2's will > no doubt drop significantly in price by the time Nascar 4 is out. Admitedly, a > 266 celeron is a long way from ideal,and decently fast cpu's and motherboards > are dirt cheap compared to 2 years ago, but my point is that too many of us > dismiss last years entry level systems as being virtual doorstops, implying > that you would be lucky to get a 7 FPS slideshow even with the latest > videocards available. > Next year some people will be relegating 1GHZ cpu's as being barely adequate > for a minimal gaming system, and alot of those opinions will be born of > commercial hype and user egos,rather than hard numbers. > Arguably, some people consider 100+FPS @ 1600x1200 full detail as a minimally > acceptable playing environment, but I fully enjoyed playing GP2 on my 100MHZ > 486 at low rez and full details @ 20+ FPS almost as much as I enjoy playing it > at hi rez and full details on my 600MHZ P3. The actual differences in gameplay > are not that huge even though the P3 is at least 15x as fast in theory, and the > differences between a 1GHZ Athlon and a 266 Celeron are much less. Go the > videocard upgrade route first, before investing in a complete upgrade. It may > be acceptable enough to allow you to wait a bit longer and buy that 2GHZ P4.