RBR min req

Hello, I am curious what is the oldest slowest system being used by someone running RBR. I have a celeron 1000, 384 M mem, ATI 9200, Creative audigy zs. Any hope for me. I now run Rally trophy quite well with almost full detail on. Thanks for input. Wish there was a demo so I could test system

> I am curious what is the oldest slowest system being used by someone > running RBR. I have a celeron 1000, 384 M mem, ATI 9200, Creative audigy > zs. Any hope for me. I now run Rally trophy quite well with almost full > detail on. Thanks for input. Wish there was a demo so I could test > system Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very poorly on Radeon 9200s and doesn't run at all on GF2s or even GF4MXs. It runs OK on a GF4 Ti4600 and runs pretty well on a Radeon 9600 Pro or higher. Also 2.0GHz is about the minimum CPU speed for decent performance. Worth the upgrade though. Game of the year in my books (despite a few bugs.)

"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > I am curious what is the oldest slowest system being used by someone > > running RBR. I have a celeron 1000, 384 M mem, ATI 9200, Creative audigy > > zs. Any hope for me. I now run Rally trophy quite well with almost full > > detail on. Thanks for input. Wish there was a demo so I could test > > system > > Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very poorly on Radeon 9200s > and doesn't run at all on GF2s or even GF4MXs. It runs OK on a GF4 Ti4600 > and runs pretty well on a Radeon 9600 Pro or higher. Also 2.0GHz is about > the minimum CPU speed for decent performance. > > Worth the upgrade though. Game of the year in my books (despite a few > bugs.)

RBR, Doom3, Half Life 2..... My old xp1600+ and GF3ti200 can't handle all this. Right now it's either do a major upgrade or buy a xbox. Have hardly played anything at all on my computer the last year, so I really don't know if spending $700+ for a total upgrade is worth it right now. -- Olav Malmin remove .spam when replying

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Olav Malmin) wrote: > Have hardly played anything > at all on my computer the last year I think you probably just answered your own question :-) This is a good time to be a PC gamer though. But it's a hobby that requires either regular saving or regular incremental upgrades to help you keep in touch with the fun. At the moment with HL2 and the GTR sim on the horizon, and Lomac, Doom3, and RBR currently satisfying my various virtual needs, I'm having quite a lot of fun, and it helps justify the money I've spent this year. But it's not always easy to justify the cost, good titles or no good titles. Good software certainly helps though :-) Andrew McP

Can someone confirm that a GF3 ti200 wont work with RBR pls? "Olav Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > I am curious what is the oldest slowest system being used bysomeone > > > running RBR. I have a celeron 1000, 384 M mem, ATI 9200, Creativeaudigy > > > zs. Any hope for me. I now run Rally trophy quite well with almostfull > > > detail on. Thanks for input. Wish there was a demo so I could test > > > system > > > > Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very poorly on Radeon9200s > > and doesn't run at all on GF2s or even GF4MXs. It runs OK on a GF4Ti4600 > > and runs pretty well on a Radeon 9600 Pro or higher. Also 2.0GHz isabout

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > the minimum CPU speed for decent performance. > > > > Worth the upgrade though. Game of the year in my books (despite a few > > bugs.) > > RBR, Doom3, Half Life 2..... > > My old xp1600+ and GF3ti200 can't handle all this. Right now it's > either do a major upgrade or buy a xbox. Have hardly played anything > at all on my computer the last year, so I really don't know if > spending $700+ for a total upgrade is worth it right now. > > -- > Olav Malmin > remove .spam when replying

In article <xBY_c.481$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Paul Harrington) wrote: > Can someone confirm that a GF3 ti200 wont work with RBR pls? If it helps, the minimum specs on the box are "1.6GHz, 256Mb, 64Mb vid card (card must support pixel shading), at least 3.1Gb HD space". I reckon that means a 64Mb GF3 ti200 ought to be ok, as it certainly has dx8 level pixel shader support. How much more than ok it'll be, I'm not sure, but RBR doesn't say anything about needing hardware dx9 support. >> Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very >> poorly on Radeon 9200s and doesn't run at all on GF2s >> or even GF4MXs. Well, the 9200 is pretty slow as hardware goes so that's no surprise. And both the GF2 & GF4MX are based on the GF2 which is inferior to the GF3 architecture. Andrew McP

> Can someone confirm that a GF3 ti200 wont work with RBR pls? It works. It's only graphics cards without pixel shaders that won't work like GF2s or GF4MXs. You'll be restricted to 800x600 or lower most likely and you'll still need at the absolute minimum a 1.4GHz CPU.

Ok I've got a question about getting a new video card then... I'm currently running a GF4MX 64 meg card, so it isn't going cut it for this game, and as newer titles come out will most likely have issues with them as well. I'm only running an AMD 1.8 Ghz processor w/512 RAM, I believe my mobo is only a 133mhz FSB, but am not 100% sure as it was a hand-me-down from my Father-in-law and I don't have any manual's to tell for sure... In any case, I'd like to upgrade to a better video card, but given that my CPU and motherboard will be a bottleneck, I'm not sure just how fast/powerful of a card would be worthwhile getting? I wouldn't mind spending some big bucks for a top of the line card, as I may plan to get a new CPU in another year or so, that I could move it to, but of course by then, there will be better cards on the market. Any suggestions as to the best bang for my buck right now? Thanks! Jay J "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Can someone confirm that a GF3 ti200 wont work with RBR pls? > > It works. It's only graphics cards without pixel shaders that won't work > like GF2s or GF4MXs. > You'll be restricted to 800x600 or lower most likely and you'll still need > at the absolute minimum a 1.4GHz CPU. > >

[email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> In article <xBY_c.481$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Paul Harrington) wrote: > >> Can someone confirm that a GF3 ti200 wont work with RBR pls? > > If it helps, the minimum specs on the box are "1.6GHz, 256Mb, 64Mb vid > card (card must support pixel shading), at least 3.1Gb HD space". > > I reckon that means a 64Mb GF3 ti200 ought to be ok, as it certainly > has dx8 level pixel shader support. How much more than ok it'll be, > I'm not sure, but RBR doesn't say anything about needing hardware dx9 > support. > >>> Reports from the RBR forum suggests that it runs very >>> poorly on Radeon 9200s and doesn't run at all on GF2s >>> or even GF4MXs. > > Well, the 9200 is pretty slow as hardware goes so that's no surprise. > And both the GF2 & GF4MX are based on the GF2 which is inferior to the > GF3 architecture. > > Andrew McP

Anyone buying a video card as an UPGRADE would be poorly served by getting a card with less than 128mb of vid ram. If you are upgrading you are trying to improve things...many of the current titles are even happier with 256mb so STARTING an upgrade with just a 64mb card is going to be a short term solution at best. I'm sure there are 64mb cards out there that can run many of the new titles, but you are really just setting yourself up for another purchase in the not too distant future. dave henrie ps..NEVER beleive the 'minimum' spec list.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:27:40 -0500, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote something like: >are trying to improve things...many of the current titles are even >happier with 256mb so STARTING an upgrade with just a 64mb card is going The only current title that actually benefits from 256MB is Doom3. Many 256MB cards are actually slower than their 128MB counterparts due to lower spec memory used on the boards. And most current 256MB cards will be outdated anyway before games actually start to benefit from it. 256MB is just overkill atm, not worth the extra cost IMO. -- - Jussi Koukku -

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Dave Henrie) wrote: > Anyone buying a video card as an UPGRADE would be poorly served by > getting a card with less than 128mb of vid ram Agreed, but I think Paul already has the 64mb ti200, hence his question. And I also agree with you about minimum specs. However the GF3 is still a good card IMO, especially if you avoid fsaa, and it certainly ought to be up to running RBR acceptably at low res. I may be wrong though. If I hadn't given my GF3 away to a friend a long time ago I'd test it out. Andrew McP

Thx for the info. Andrew is right that I'm asking because the gf3 is what I currently use. An upgrade is rather overdue but funds are limited atm, so it will have to wait. Paul "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Dave Henrie) wrote: > > > Anyone buying a video card as an UPGRADE would be poorly served by > > getting a card with less than 128mb of vid ram > > Agreed, but I think Paul already has the 64mb ti200, hence his question. > > And I also agree with you about minimum specs. However the GF3 is still a > good card IMO, especially if you avoid fsaa, and it certainly ought to be > up to running RBR acceptably at low res. I may be wrong though. If I > hadn't given my GF3 away to a friend a long time ago I'd test it out. > > Andrew McP

In article <aTi%c.388$[email hidden]>, Paul Harrington <[email hidden]> writes >Thx for the info. Andrew is right that I'm asking because the gf3 is what I >currently use. An upgrade is rather overdue but funds are limited atm, so it >will have to wait. > >Paul >Don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm about to upgrade my GF4 ti600, you can have that cheap if you want it. No idea how much of an improvement you'll get over the gf3. -- Sean Black

Hi Sean Thx for the offer. What's 'cheap' and where are you based? I'll try and have a look at what the improvement might be so I can work out the cost/benefit. cheers Paul "Sean Black" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <aTi%c.388$[email hidden]>, Paul Harrington > <[email hidden]> writes > >Thx for the info. Andrew is right that I'm asking because the gf3 is whatI > >currently use. An upgrade is rather overdue but funds are limited atm, soit

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >will have to wait. > > > >Paul > > > Don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm about to upgrade my > GF4 ti600, you can have that cheap if you want it. No idea how much of > an improvement you'll get over the gf3. > -- > Sean Black

> > >> Don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm about to upgrade my >> GF4 ti600, you can have that cheap if you want it. No idea how much of >> an improvement you'll get over the gf3. >> -- I went from a GF3 to a Gainward Ti4600 and the improving, at the time, was dramatic. No idea what the advantages will be with RBR, 'cause I've moved on to another obsolete product..9800 XT :(

"redTed" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > >> Don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm about to upgrade my > >> GF4 ti600, you can have that cheap if you want it. No idea how much of > >> an improvement you'll get over the gf3. > >> -- > I went from a GF3 to a Gainward Ti4600 and the improving, at the time, was > dramatic. > No idea what the advantages will be with RBR, 'cause I've moved on to > another obsolete product..9800 XT :( >

So, how about going from a gf3ti200 to 9800xt, or even a 6800 ? Problem is my old xp1600 cpu. My MB can only handle 266 fsb, so I guess the fastest I can get is a xp2400. That is a 400 dollar upgrade and the system will still be a dog :-) -- Olav Malmin remove .spam when replying

Olav Malmin <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> "redTed" <[email hidden]> writes: > >> > > >> >> Don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I'm about to >> >> upgrade my GF4 ti600, you can have that cheap if you want it. No >> >> idea how much of an improvement you'll get over the gf3. >> >> -- >> I went from a GF3 to a Gainward Ti4600 and the improving, at the >> time, was dramatic. >> No idea what the advantages will be with RBR, 'cause I've moved on to >> another obsolete product..9800 XT :( >> > > So, how about going from a gf3ti200 to 9800xt, or even a 6800 ? > > Problem is my old xp1600 cpu. My MB can only handle 266 fsb, so I > guess the fastest I can get is a xp2400. That is a 400 dollar upgrade > and the system will still be a dog :-) > >

Spending big bucks on one item that is head and shoulders above the others does not provide value. HOWEVER...if you buy the card with the plan to continue the upgrade...then it's a good first step. Otherwise just a plain 9800 or 9800 pro would be a much better investment. Here is my only personal experience with large textures. I'm beta testing the SMM Le Mans 24hr mod for SCC...the SCC launcher has an option to use compressed textures. If I check that, I can run a 50 car field at RSDG's Le Mans track with pretty good framerates. BUt if I uncheck that option, my 128mb non pro ATI 9800 comes to a complete stop. 4 fps with only the driver's car graphic options set to full @ 1024x740x32. Go back to the launcher, recheck the compressed testures box and boom...fps is back up there... I have no way of testing how much better it would run with 256mb...any brave souls out there with a 256mb card wanna load up 50 cars using uncompressed textures in SCC? dave henrie

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:06:23 -0500, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote something like:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Olav Malmin <[email hidden]> wrote in >news:[email hidden]: >> >> So, how about going from a gf3ti200 to 9800xt, or even a 6800 ? > > Spending big bucks on one item that is head and shoulders above the >others does not provide value. HOWEVER...if you buy the card with the >plan to continue the upgrade...then it's a good first step. Otherwise >just a plain 9800 or 9800 pro would be a much better investment.

I'd second that. After all 9800xt is just 9800pro with slightly higher clocks. Definitely not worth the huge difference in price. Actually most current 9800pro cards come with the exact same chip (r360 core) that is in the 9800xt cards, only difference being in the bios software... -- - Jussi Koukku -

Jussi Koukku wrote: > I'd second that. After all 9800xt is just 9800pro with slightly > higher clocks. Definitely not worth the huge difference in price. > > Actually most current 9800pro cards come with the exact same chip > (r360 core) that is in the 9800xt cards, only difference being in the > bios software... -- - Jussi Koukku - And I'll third, just by saying that the 9800 Pro so far has served me very well in the past year. I can run Doom 3 at 1280x1024 with very decent framerates, so it should be able to run most things for at least the near future, RBR included.

Swervo <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Jussi Koukku wrote: > > > I'd second that. After all 9800xt is just 9800pro with slightly > > higher clocks. Definitely not worth the huge difference in price. > > > > Actually most current 9800pro cards come with the exact same chip > > (r360 core) that is in the 9800xt cards, only difference being in the > > bios software... -- - Jussi Koukku - > > And I'll third, just by saying that the 9800 Pro so far has served me > very well in the past year. I can run Doom 3 at 1280x1024 with very > decent framerates, so it should be able to run most things for at least > the near future, RBR included.

What cpu do you have? I'm this close to order a MSI 9800 pro (that is supposed to be real easy to clock to XT) and a amd xp2400+ cpu. My mobo (epox 8kha+) can't handle more than 266 fsb. -- Olav Malmin remove .spam when replying

Olav Malmin wrote: > What cpu do you have? > > I'm this close to order a MSI 9800 pro (that is supposed to be real > easy to clock to XT) and a amd xp2400+ cpu. My mobo (epox 8kha+) > can't handle more than 266 fsb. > I've got an Athlon 2700+ XP on a MSI KT3Ultra2 mobo w/ 512MB, and my 9800Pro is a 128MB model. For the record, I got RBR today, and have only played it at 800x600x32, but with all details turned up to high and get thoroughly playable framerates. I dunno how to check them, but it's very smooth and probably in the 40s somewhere. I'll have to try cranking up the res, but for now, I just wanted to play ;) Oh, and the thing floating around about changing the line in RichardBurnsRally.ini from waitRetrace = true to waitRetrace = false does seem to have made a significant improvement, it appears that that is the vsync setting. Also, I was getting what some are describing on RSC, where you can actually see the wireframe over the road textures when the angle gets too shallow, so it almost looked like the road was split up until 5-6 foot long plates that didn't quite line up. Turning off AF and AA cured that, I'm not sure which one did it, I'll experiment more later when it's not past midnight.