Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU Scaling and New Video Cards

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2004 9:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I hope this crosspost is ok.

Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53 GHZ
machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.

Ok fine ...

So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
potential?

For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2004 9:20:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD
1.53 GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously
this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide
enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ
system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen
of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1,
1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>


I have seen some reviews in the past which put different video cards
with processors of different speeds, but such reviews are the exception
rather than the norm. It seems to me that most reviewers hand-pick the
very fastest processor (like as if everyone owns one) and then does
video card benchmarks with it. I agree it's good to know how a video
card will perform with high-end processors, but I think such reviews way
more useful if you benchmark using processors that people are more
likely to have in their computer at any given time. I think it's
reasonable to bench with processors ranging from 1.3GHz and up in this
day and age, not always 3.2GHz or 3.4GHz. Sometimes I swear it's
marketing at work...
April 18, 2004 10:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

hasn't it always been like this? p2-400 or 1ghz etc etc. If you want to play
the latest and greatest you'll have to upgrade eventually.
"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2004 10:54:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Yes this has always been the case. But prior upgrades were at least making
Windows and other applications faster.

Now many of us will be junking our already fast systems to no other benefit
than blowing away Carmack's new zombies at decent framerates. LOL

Xbox 2 anyone?

:) 


"PEACEMAKER" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> wrote in message
news:WGzgc.990$9kJ.612@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> hasn't it always been like this? p2-400 or 1ghz etc etc. If you want to
play
> the latest and greatest you'll have to upgrade eventually.
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > I hope this crosspost is ok.
> >
> > Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
> GHZ
> > machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously
this
> > system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
> >
> > Ok fine ...
> >
> > So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide
enough
> > power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ
system
> > with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> > potential?
> >
> > For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> > addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen
of
> > video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1,
1.4,
> > 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
April 18, 2004 10:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>

You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
needs...just an idea...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2004 10:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at Toms'
Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video card,
using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much as
25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the data.


"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5ufid$5ui30$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > I hope this crosspost is ok.
> >
> > Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
> GHZ
> > machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously
this
> > system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
> >
> > Ok fine ...
> >
> > So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide
enough
> > power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ
system
> > with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> > potential?
> >
> > For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> > addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen
of
> > video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1,
1.4,
> > 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
> >
>
> You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
> needs...just an idea...
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2004 11:12:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:20:25 GMT, "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:

>So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
>power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
>with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
>potential?

Pretty much.

I have the same card as you, with an Athlon 2000 XP, and am looking at
upgrading CPU, gfx card, mobe and case, all at the same time.

There;s no real point in me just getting a new card, as my CPU
wouldn't be able to shove the data across fast enough (although I
would probably see a small improvement).

It's a PITA, but there you have it. :( 

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 12:05:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

" For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ??? "


Many are familiar with the following article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html . If they were to
also span a number of CPUs, then it would be so much more work for them.
Would you also suggest they span a number of memory combinations and
motherboards? A review of 30 graphics card, 30 CPUs, 30 memory combinations
and 30 motherboards would turn into 30x30x30x30=810,000 system combinations.
Then times that by each test and you're looking at millions, which is
decades of work for one review. In order to properly test graphics cards in
a short space of time they have to limit the query of other hardware factors
being a bottleneck, which is why they use fast systems.

As for the Far Cry / Doom3 / HL2 issue, you have three choices: 1) Leave
your system as it is, 2) Upgrade your system, 3) Buy / build a new system.

Given that you have a 266FSB Athlon XP 1800+ (according to your stated
1.53Ghz), then your motherboard should take a 2400+ (or a 266FSB 2600+).
Upgrading to 2x 512MB PC2100 would also help, and then you can decide what
you want to do about a graphics card. Given that Nvidia have made *the
biggest generation-to-generation performance leap that we have ever seen
with a new GPU*, then it won't be long after the 6800 release that the
current high-end cards drop dramatically in price. If game developers want
to sell games, then they can't just make them playable on the highest-spec
systems.
April 19, 2004 12:09:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at
Toms'
> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video card,
> using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much
as
> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
data.
>

I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best possible rate,
its worth waiting to see what it actually needs, there's nothing really been
confirmed yet.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 12:09:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Oh waiting is the most important component ad far as I am concerned. I
probably won't build a new rig until Doom 3 is out for a while. There's
nothing dumber than having built a new machine at any point over the last
few months.

The wait is on!


"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
> news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> > New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at
> Toms'
> > Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video
card,
> > using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much
> as
> > 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
> data.
> >
>
> I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best possible
rate,
> its worth waiting to see what it actually needs, there's nothing really
been
> confirmed yet.
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 12:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks


>
>
>
April 19, 2004 12:29:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Jumpkick wrote:

> firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks
>
>
> >
> >
> >





You guys have to take these games with a grain of salt.



Sure, they're the latest and greatest craze now (or will be), but what
about after them?


If you have the money to upgrade, upgrade to a system thats at least 2
years in advance, so that by the time the developers catch up your
system has found its niche.




A lot of software can be tweaked to accomodate what needs to be
accomodated.

Look at Windows XP.
Sure, it says it requires a 350mhz processor with 256mb of ram.... but
once you turn off all the bullshit, what do you have? Voila!




And the Dawn demo that supposedly required a Geforce FX to run?
Weeks later, college kids had it running on a Radeon... and running
BETTER at that. A patch was later released for the Geforce 4 and lower
series to emulate an FX... didn't do a bad job either.



Software will always be behind hardware in development. Intel has the
capability of developing 20 different processors by the time a new
version of Windows comes out.


If they worked together... we'd have a lot better performance.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 2:30:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The slow CPU will limit your video speed.

--
DaveW



"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 2:59:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look at
Toms'
> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video card,
> using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can gain as much
as
> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
data.
>
>

If you go to higher resolution or image quality, you will need a faster
graphics card, not CPU. At higher resolutions games are graphics card
limited, not CPU limited. This means unless you game at 800x600 or
1024x768, you might benefit from a faster video card even if you have a
slower CPU.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 4:00:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com> wrote in message news:<
> You guys have to take these games with a grain of salt.
> And the Dawn demo that supposedly required a Geforce FX to run?
> Weeks later, college kids had it running on a Radeon... and running
> BETTER at that. A patch was later released for the Geforce 4 and lower
> series to emulate an FX... didn't do a bad job either.

That was a good story but did you ever try it yourself? It wasn't just
a Radeon, it had to be a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256MB memory.
Personally, tried the patch on a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB and it
didn't work. So much for that anecdote. Besides, that was yesterday's
news. Have you tried the Dusk 5900 demo? Funny how there isn't any
claim that it can be run on a Radeon or that it can be patched down to
a Geforce 4. Don't believe everything you read except those things you
already have a preconceived notion about seems to be a common theme on
the Internet.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 4:35:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:c5ufid$5ui30$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de:


> You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
> needs...just an idea...
>
>

That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 4:35:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
news:Xns94CFBD1453FDCgrinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
>
> That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!
>


With a name like yours?...c'mon. :-)

(Just kidding of course)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 4:44:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:

>So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
>power to the new card?

Of course not! You need a new vid card, processor, and therefore new
motherboard ... basically you need a new computer except for
peripherals like your mouse/kb and monitor.

Remember the hype a few years back about how you wouldn't need to do
this in the GeForce age? Nothing but marketing lies.

Joe
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 4:55:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:

>Xbox 2 anyone?

Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
game industry.

Joe
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 5:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:

>"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
>news:c5ufid$5ui30$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>
>
>
>>You know you could always wait until Doom 3 to see what it *really*
>>needs...just an idea...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!
>
>
>

I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.

--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]
April 19, 2004 5:22:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Inglo" <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> wrote in message
news:lzFgc.24076$uM5.6345@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:
>
>
> I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.


Oh yeah baby! Nothing like Doom3 at 640x480 resolution.

(I know the XBox can do higher resolution than that... but even the scaled
down Doom3 that the XBox may get will bring it to it's knees...)
April 19, 2004 5:41:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
hardware? obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the game
industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones to
buy the games

"Joe62" <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mu86805uql67l5gbr4jve15ed24vh8m0v3@4ax.com...
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:
>
> >Xbox 2 anyone?
>
> Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
> game industry.
>
> Joe
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 8:07:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"PEACEMAKER" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> wrote in message
news:p 6Ggc.117481$2oI1.8683@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
> hardware? obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the
game
> industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones
to
> buy the games

I disagree. A few demanding FPS's don't make up the whole of the PC
gaming industry. Strategy games are more demanding than they were 3 years
ago, but they are a still a far cry (pardon the pun) from some action games.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 8:38:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Joe62" <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:o 68680h1beq25bq1ineb35dr64ret017i6@4ax.com...
> Remember the hype a few years back about how you wouldn't need to do
> this in the GeForce age? Nothing but marketing lies.

Not necessarily true. If you want to up the resolution or image quality,
a newer card on the same processor could still be do-able. The 6800 is only
CPU limited at LOWER resolutions and without antialiasing. The antialiasing
quality of the 6800 will be alot better than any of NVidia's previous cards.

I have a GeForce FX 5900 (non-pro) but I'm going to be saving up to buy an
FX 6800 (non-pro) if the benchmarks play out around the time of release.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 10:02:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2004 00:00:20 -0700, blog_smirk@yahoo.com (Blig Merk) wrote:

>That was a good story but did you ever try it yourself? It wasn't just
>a Radeon, it had to be a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256MB memory.
>Personally, tried the patch on a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB and it
>didn't work. So much for that anecdote. Besides, that was yesterday's
>news. Have you tried the Dusk 5900 demo? Funny how there isn't any
>claim that it can be run on a Radeon or that it can be patched down to
>a Geforce 4. Don't believe everything you read except those things you
>already have a preconceived notion about seems to be a common theme on
>the Internet.

You had another issue. I ran it with no problems on my 128 meg 9800
after reading about it here. Kind of silly really, but it works fine.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 10:24:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.games.development.industry,comp.games.development.design (More info?)

As long as game developers follow the lead of Crytek's Far Cry and make their games backwards compatible (as in decent framerates with reduced graphics detail) with at least 2 or 3 video chip generations, there won't be a problem with just about everyone buying (and enjoying) games.

PEACEMAKER wrote:
>
> then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
> hardware? obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the game
> industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones to
> buy the games
>
> "Joe62" <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:mu86805uql67l5gbr4jve15ed24vh8m0v3@4ax.com...
> > "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Xbox 2 anyone?
> >
> > Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
> > game industry.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 11:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 4/18/2004 6:22 PM Skippy brightened our day with:

>"Inglo" <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> wrote in message
>news:lzFgc.24076$uM5.6345@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:
>>
>>
>>I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.
>>
>>
>
>
>Oh yeah baby! Nothing like Doom3 at 640x480 resolution.
>
>(I know the XBox can do higher resolution than that... but even the scaled
>down Doom3 that the XBox may get will bring it to it's knees...)
>
>
>
>
If you can handle 5 minute level loads I bet it'll look fine on the XBox.
I'll be playing it on my overclocked like a mutha AthlonXP w/ Radeon
9600 Pro though too, and I imagine the 96/800s will do alright as well.

--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 11:59:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Tim O <timo56REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<lr8780hhcoijjaqnqpphivunnnqoame5ga@4ax.com>...
> On 19 Apr 2004 00:00:20 -0700, blog_smirk@yahoo.com (Blig Merk) wrote:
>
> >That was a good story but did you ever try it yourself? It wasn't just
> >a Radeon, it had to be a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256MB memory.
> >Personally, tried the patch on a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB and it
> >didn't work. So much for that anecdote. Besides, that was yesterday's
> >news. Have you tried the Dusk 5900 demo? Funny how there isn't any
> >claim that it can be run on a Radeon or that it can be patched down to
> >a Geforce 4. Don't believe everything you read except those things you
> >already have a preconceived notion about seems to be a common theme on
> >the Internet.
>
> You had another issue. I ran it with no problems on my 128 meg 9800
> after reading about it here. Kind of silly really, but it works fine.

Dusk? http://download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/nvidia...

Dusk Ultra? http://download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/nvidia...

Provide a link to a wrapper that works for these.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 12:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <9e2af5be.0404182300.6728d4f3@posting.google.com>,
blog_smirk@yahoo.com says...
> "teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com> wrote in message news:<
> > You guys have to take these games with a grain of salt.
> > And the Dawn demo that supposedly required a Geforce FX to run?
> > Weeks later, college kids had it running on a Radeon... and running
> > BETTER at that. A patch was later released for the Geforce 4 and lower
> > series to emulate an FX... didn't do a bad job either.
>
> That was a good story but did you ever try it yourself? It wasn't just
> a Radeon, it had to be a Radeon 9800 Pro with 256MB memory.
> Personally, tried the patch on a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB and it
> didn't work. So much for that anecdote. Besides, that was yesterday's
> news. Have you tried the Dusk 5900 demo? Funny how there isn't any
> claim that it can be run on a Radeon or that it can be patched down to
> a Geforce 4. Don't believe everything you read except those things you
> already have a preconceived notion about seems to be a common theme on
> the Internet.
>
I've run the Dawn wrapper no problem on both a Radeon 9600 and 9800.
Both with 128Mb RAM. Very nice too. Especially if you change the name of
the EXE to QUAKE3.EXE and it makes her come out in the nude. Hur, hur.

--

|
| Listen all y'all this is sabotage ...
|
April 19, 2004 1:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:07:22 -0400, "magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I disagree. A few demanding FPS's don't make up the whole of the PC
>gaming industry. Strategy games are more demanding than they were 3 years
>ago, but they are a still a far cry (pardon the pun) from some action games.

State of the art games have been pushing PC hardware sales for over 10
years now, and PC gaming is still going strong.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 1:27:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message
news:r937805sg6r82p2rvsnntcr86vilg0up1q@4ax.com...
> State of the art games have been pushing PC hardware sales for over 10
> years now, and PC gaming is still going strong.
>

Bust at least 3/4 of the games out there have very modest system
requirements.

Out of the hundreds of games available, there are maybe only about 5-10 I
would say are "demanding", and only maybe 2-3 I'd call "very demanding" (Far
Cry would be one of them).
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 2:14:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.games.development.industry,comp.games.development.design (More info?)

> As long as game developers follow the lead of Crytek's Far Cry and make
> their games backwards compatible (as in decent framerates with reduced
> graphics detail) with at least 2 or 3 video chip generations, there won't be
> a problem with just about everyone buying (and enjoying) games.

....except for people like me who didn't see written anywhere that the
game was on a DVD-Rom and who, of course, don't have a driver for
it...
April 19, 2004 4:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Your GF3 is holding your system back. That would be the next logical
upgrade. If you get something like a 5900 you will be runnings these games
fine.

DaveL


"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
April 19, 2004 4:36:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Joe62 wrote:

> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Xbox 2 anyone?
>
>
> Almost everyone ... extreme hardware requirements are killing the PC
> game industry.
>
> Joe

Link?

The Gaming Industry, are the ones who create those new 'hardware
requirements' by putting those new features 'in there new games'.
They knows the statistics on hardware and what people are buying or are
currently using from past sales. If they wish to create a game that only
performs great on 1% of the hardware. They have no one to blame but
themselves, if they are shrinking there market.

The last PC to be pushed to it's hardware limits (besides the PSX that
is a console) was the Commodore 64! Unfortunately, well written software
that pushes the hardware to the limit. Has been replaced by,
faster hardware to push along buggy, bloated software at an satisfactory
speed.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 6:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Inglo <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> brightened my day
with his incisive wit when in
news:blLgc.24173$o71.24048@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com he conjectured
that:

> On 4/18/2004 6:22 PM Skippy brightened our day with:
>
>>"Inglo" <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> wrote in
>>message news:lzFgc.24076$uM5.6345@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>>On 4/18/2004 5:35 PM Mr. Grinch brightened our day with:
>>>
>>>
>>>I've already got what I need to play Doom3, an XBox.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Oh yeah baby! Nothing like Doom3 at 640x480 resolution.
>>
>>(I know the XBox can do higher resolution than that... but even the
>>scaled down Doom3 that the XBox may get will bring it to it's
>>knees...)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> If you can handle 5 minute level loads I bet it'll look fine on the
> XBox. I'll be playing it on my overclocked like a mutha AthlonXP w/
> Radeon 9600 Pro though too, and I imagine the 96/800s will do alright
> as well.
>

OK, I've got my pedant head on today. Is this thread attracting the
biggest crock of bull this year or what?

OK. Tell us please, why will the levels will take "5 minutes" to load on
an XBox.

I'm dieing to know.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 6:05:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with his
incisive wit when in news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he
conjectured that:

>
> "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
> news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
>> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look
>> at
> Toms'
>> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video
>> card, using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can
>> gain as much
> as
>> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
> data.
>>
>
> I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best possible
> rate, its worth waiting to see what it actually needs, there's nothing
> really been confirmed yet.
>
>

Have you got Doom III tattooed on your ass or something? The question was a
general question about CPU v GPU in general. The Doom III issue was merely
a "games such as" point.
April 19, 2004 6:05:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94D08D0ACBA3Fwaltermitty@127.0.0.1...
> "Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with his
> incisive wit when in news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he
> conjectured that:
>
> >
> > "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
> > news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> >> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a look
> >> at
> > Toms'
> >> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same video
> >> card, using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video card can
> >> gain as much
> > as
> >> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out the
> > data.
> >>
> >
> > I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best possible
> > rate, its worth waiting to see what it actually needs, there's nothing
> > really been confirmed yet.
> >
> >
>
> Have you got Doom III tattooed on your ass or something? The question was
a
> general question about CPU v GPU in general. The Doom III issue was merely
> a "games such as" point.

Yes, games such as Doom III, and other such games that *aren't out yet*
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 6:23:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2004 07:59:00 -0700, blog_smirk@yahoo.com (Blig Merk) wrote:

>Dusk? http://download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/nvidia...
>
>Dusk Ultra? http://download.nvidia.com/downloads/nZone/demos/nvidia...
>
>Provide a link to a wrapper that works for these.

I don't know what Dusk, thought you were talking about the Dawn demo
which is what the person you replied to was talking about.
I did the search someone said when it was brought up before -"ATI
sleeps with Dawn" or whatever in Google. I downloaded it, set it up
like in the readme, watched it (there was a way to see it nude too),
and deleted it.
April 19, 2004 7:12:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

To get Far Cry to run at 1024x768x32 on medium settings you
need something like a 2ghz CPU, 512mb RAM and GF4 128mb.
you'll still get occasional hdd access and Windows takes a little while to
restore after you exit the game so an extra 256mb is really sweet.
I expect HL2 and Doom3 to need similar specs but you dont know for sure
until its out.

"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 7:43:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with his
incisive wit when in news:c60g2m$6dgtj$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he
conjectured that:

>
> "Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D08D0ACBA3Fwaltermitty@127.0.0.1...
>> "Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with
>> his incisive wit when in
>> news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he conjectured that:
>>
>> >
>> > "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
>> > news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a
>> >> look at
>> > Toms'
>> >> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same
>> >> video card, using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video
>> >> card can gain as much
>> > as
>> >> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out
>> >> the
>> > data.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best
>> > possible rate, its worth waiting to see what it actually needs,
>> > there's nothing really been confirmed yet.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Have you got Doom III tattooed on your ass or something? The question
>> was
> a
>> general question about CPU v GPU in general. The Doom III issue was
>> merely a "games such as" point.
>
> Yes, games such as Doom III, and other such games that *aren't out
> yet*
>

And your point is what exactly? We don't need to know the gameplay to
have some idea of GPU vs CPU bottlenecks when it comes to high volume DX
command strings.

And, incidentally, it may come as a surprise to you to realise that Far
Cry is, indeed, out.
April 19, 2004 7:43:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94D09AFBA75B9waltermitty@127.0.0.1...
> "Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with his
> incisive wit when in news:c60g2m$6dgtj$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he
> conjectured that:
>
> >
> > "Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94D08D0ACBA3Fwaltermitty@127.0.0.1...
> >> "Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with
> >> his incisive wit when in
> >> news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he conjectured that:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
> >> > news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a
> >> >> look at
> >> > Toms'
> >> >> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same
> >> >> video card, using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video
> >> >> card can gain as much
> >> > as
> >> >> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out
> >> >> the
> >> > data.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best
> >> > possible rate, its worth waiting to see what it actually needs,
> >> > there's nothing really been confirmed yet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Have you got Doom III tattooed on your ass or something? The question
> >> was
> > a
> >> general question about CPU v GPU in general. The Doom III issue was
> >> merely a "games such as" point.
> >
> > Yes, games such as Doom III, and other such games that *aren't out
> > yet*
> >
>
> And your point is what exactly? We don't need to know the gameplay to
> have some idea of GPU vs CPU bottlenecks when it comes to high volume DX
> command strings.
>
> And, incidentally, it may come as a surprise to you to realise that Far
> Cry is, indeed, out.

"Obviously this system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of
games."

I know that Far Cry is already out, but this is only one game out of many
that he is referring to...don't you think it would be a better idea to WAIT
until the majority of them are out to then upgrade the system accordingly...
That PC will run Far Cry fine, just not at maximum detail....he hasn't even
suggested that he's even tried Far Cry on that pc yet.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 8:43:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Phil you are right. Building a machine for the next gen of games sometime
after the release of Doom III is clearly the best upgrade. I remember when
Quake 3 came out and it was limping along on the current hardware at the
time. I'm thinking a few months after Doom 3 is a good start.

Also, I tried Far Cry on my current PC. The key to getting stuff to run on
older hardware seems to me reducing the resolution a lot. The game is
pretty scalable though, so the developers did their job.

They got my $50 :) 

"Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c60lno$6k74j$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D09AFBA75B9waltermitty@127.0.0.1...
> > "Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with his
> > incisive wit when in news:c60g2m$6dgtj$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he
> > conjectured that:
> >
> > >
> > > "Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns94D08D0ACBA3Fwaltermitty@127.0.0.1...
> > >> "Phil" <pjharding24_removethis@tiscali.co.uk> brightened my day with
> > >> his incisive wit when in
> > >> news:c5ujns$60gng$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de he conjectured that:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > "Sept1967" <sept1967@highstream.(Erase)net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:1085ig6dpmsdiad@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> >> New cards almost always NEED a fast CPU to "push" them. Take a
> > >> >> look at
> > >> > Toms'
> > >> >> Hardware. They have several charts (benchmarks) with the same
> > >> >> video card, using a slower CPU, and faster CPU. The same video
> > >> >> card can gain as much
> > >> > as
> > >> >> 25% (or more) performance just by having a faster CPU pumping out
> > >> >> the
> > >> > data.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I was just saying that if he wants to play Doom 3 to the best
> > >> > possible rate, its worth waiting to see what it actually needs,
> > >> > there's nothing really been confirmed yet.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Have you got Doom III tattooed on your ass or something? The question
> > >> was
> > > a
> > >> general question about CPU v GPU in general. The Doom III issue was
> > >> merely a "games such as" point.
> > >
> > > Yes, games such as Doom III, and other such games that *aren't out
> > > yet*
> > >
> >
> > And your point is what exactly? We don't need to know the gameplay to
> > have some idea of GPU vs CPU bottlenecks when it comes to high volume DX
> > command strings.
> >
> > And, incidentally, it may come as a surprise to you to realise that Far
> > Cry is, indeed, out.
>
> "Obviously this system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of
> games."
>
> I know that Far Cry is already out, but this is only one game out of many
> that he is referring to...don't you think it would be a better idea to
WAIT
> until the majority of them are out to then upgrade the system
accordingly...
> That PC will run Far Cry fine, just not at maximum detail....he hasn't
even
> suggested that he's even tried Far Cry on that pc yet.
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2004 10:20:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@no-mail-please.com> wrote in
news:1086nntthldud85@corp.supernews.com:

> "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
> news:Xns94CFBD1453FDCgrinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
>>
>> That's what I'm going to do. But the waiting is killing me! Argh!
>>
>
>
> With a name like yours?...c'mon. :-)
>
> (Just kidding of course)

I'm stuck on a dual P3-800 running Server 2003 right now! I want to buy a
new system right now SO BAD but I know it will be obsolete by the time Doom
3 comes out. So I keep waiting for Doom 3. But the system I have now just
doesn't cut it for games anymore. Something faster for converting AVI to
DVD would be nice too, but I have to wait. Argh!
April 19, 2004 11:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.games.development.industry,comp.games.development.design (More info?)

hrm when I got my game it was 5 normal cds not dvd-rom

"Hello World" <helloworld@500mghosting.com> wrote in message
news:35b5a05e.0404190914.4c3c0ce1@posting.google.com...
> > As long as game developers follow the lead of Crytek's Far Cry and make
> > their games backwards compatible (as in decent framerates with reduced
> > graphics detail) with at least 2 or 3 video chip generations, there
won't be
> > a problem with just about everyone buying (and enjoying) games.
>
> ...except for people like me who didn't see written anywhere that the
> game was on a DVD-Rom and who, of course, don't have a driver for
> it...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2004 5:04:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:29:57 +0200, "Jumpkick" <nospam@me.com> wrote:

>firingsquad.com has cpu scaling benchmarks

Where though? I read through a lot of reviews and performance reviews
of the different video cards on their site and didn't see any.
April 20, 2004 7:30:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Short answer, it's probably time to look at upgrading; especially if your
mb only supports 4X AGP. That is if you really want to play FryCry and some
of the newer games at 1024 or higher with max details and AA/AF on.

As to DoomIII & Half Life 2... well it just depends if they are CPU or GPU
dependant as to how much you need to invest in your new rig. And we won't
know that until we see the benchmarks.

Check out this link:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/nv40.htm...

Notice the performance for FarCry with top of the line computer rig with
last years video cards vs the new Nvidia card. Certainly seems like this
game is GPU dependant. Now check out the IL2 and Locklock performance.
They appear to be CPU dependant (the frame rate isn't much greater from one
video card to the next). Maybe Intel's new 4ghz cpu (later this year)
might help?

Oh, by the way, this year is shaping up for some interesting new hardware.
The Nvidia 6800 video card is out. And ATI should be releasing their
latest card sometime in May. Then later this year the PCI Express video
cards are expected. Intel is suppose to release their next gen of CPUs.

Jonathan




"Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> I hope this crosspost is ok.
>
> Ok here's my problem with where PC gaming is going. I built an AMD 1.53
GHZ
> machine w/ 512 megs of ram and a Geforce 3 Ti200 in 2002. Obviously this
> system is not ready for Far Cry and Doom III generation of games.
>
> Ok fine ...
>
> So can I just buy a new video card and expect my system to provide enough
> power to the new card? Or am I faced with having to build a 3+ GHZ system
> with faster bus speed in order to see my new video card pushed to its
> potential?
>
> For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2004 9:40:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"PEACEMAKER" <do.not.email@yo.mamas.hairy.ass.com> wrote:

>then all the industry has to do is not write games that require extreme
>hardware?

Pretty much. Any analysis of game sales data makes it clear that the
games that sell consistently have low hardware requirements. Not
exactly rocket science ... when your market it 200 million PC owners,
you've got a lot better chances than you do with 5 million hardcore
gamers.

>obviously people wanting extreme games is what is pushing the game
>industry. people who can afford 600$ video cards are more likely the ones to
>buy the games

Your theory isn't backed by the data. These people are either buying
less games each year, or there are less of these people (or, more
likely, they've gone to console gaming).

Joe
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2004 9:41:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Minotaur <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The Gaming Industry, are the ones who create those new 'hardware
>requirements' by putting those new features 'in there new games'.
>They knows the statistics on hardware and what people are buying or are
>currently using from past sales. If they wish to create a game that only
>performs great on 1% of the hardware. They have no one to blame but
>themselves, if they are shrinking there market.
>
>The last PC to be pushed to it's hardware limits (besides the PSX that
>is a console) was the Commodore 64! Unfortunately, well written software
>that pushes the hardware to the limit. Has been replaced by,
>faster hardware to push along buggy, bloated software at an satisfactory
>speed.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Joe
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2004 12:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
news:Xns94D07D83BE395grinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
>
> I'm stuck on a dual P3-800 running Server 2003 right now! I want to
buy a
> new system right now SO BAD but I know it will be obsolete by the time
Doom
> 3 comes out. So I keep waiting for Doom 3. But the system I have now
just
> doesn't cut it for games anymore. Something faster for converting AVI
to
> DVD would be nice too, but I have to wait. Argh!


Heh, with a machine like that, you deserve something new! Just take
solace in the fact that the longer you can hold off, the nicer the
upgrade will be!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2004 1:08:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote in message news:<c5uji1$60o4a$1@ID-66441.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Frodoh" <joey@joey.com> wrote in message
> news:tNygc.52322$_g4.6149348@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> " For all of the reviews and benchmarking that's done, clearly nobody is
> addressing the CPU scaling issue enough. I don't care how the next gen of
> video cards is going to run on a 4 GHZ system! How will it run on 1, 1.4,
> 1.53, 1.8, 2.0 GHZ .. etc ... ??? "
>
>
> Many are familiar with the following article:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html . If they were to
> also span a number of CPUs, then it would be so much more work for them.
> Would you also suggest they span a number of memory combinations and
> motherboards? A review of 30 graphics card, 30 CPUs, 30 memory combinations
> and 30 motherboards would turn into 30x30x30x30=810,000 system combinations.
> Then times that by each test and you're looking at millions, which is
> decades of work for one review. In order to properly test graphics cards in
> a short space of time they have to limit the query of other hardware factors
> being a bottleneck, which is why they use fast systems.

If you need to test all combinations of 4 types of things with 30
choices each, that's right. But since most problems tend to be just
two components working together, it's easier. If you only need to
test all pairs (cards x CPUs, cards x motherboards, CPUs x
motherboards, etc), that can be done with 900 system combinations.
Each 4-item combination would test (4 choose 2)=6 pairs. Search for
"allpairs" or "Taguchi method". As you add more types of things, the
number of system combinations required eventually grows
logarithmically with the number of types of things. The cost is much
more sensitive to the maximum number of choices per type than to the
number of types.

Testing 900 system combinations is still quite a stretch, though.
!