Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need help upgrading for Thief: DS

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 3:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

So it's finally time for me to get Thief: DS, but I think I need an
upgrade first (and even if I don't /need/ it, I want it).

What I've got currently is an Athlon 1800+, GeForce3 Ti200, 512 MB RAM
(DDR, I forget the speed), SB Audigy X-Gamer.

And my mainboard is a Via-based MSI board. The reason I mention this is
that I blame the Via chipset for the stability problems that I've had
ever since I first built this machine, and I want to get rid of it.
Probably replace it with a nForce2 board.

But I don't necessarily need to do that right now, and the advice I've
received elsewhere (if I want to bring the machine up to snuff for
gaming) is to simply replace the video card with a Radeon 9800 Pro and
leave the rest of it alone. My initial thought was to upgrade the
mainboard and CPU first, but maybe I should hold off on that until next
payday.

What do you guys think?

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

More about : upgrading thief

July 6, 2004 3:18:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Kevin Goodsell" <usenet3.spamfree.fusion@neverbox.com> wrote in message
news:YdlGc.3026$sD4.1859@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> So it's finally time for me to get Thief: DS, but I think I need an
> upgrade first (and even if I don't /need/ it, I want it).
>
> What I've got currently is an Athlon 1800+, GeForce3 Ti200, 512 MB RAM
> (DDR, I forget the speed), SB Audigy X-Gamer.
>My initial thought was to upgrade the
> mainboard and CPU first, but maybe I should hold off on that until next
> payday.
>
> What do you guys think?

Replace the video card first. This game taxes the video card more than any
other component. I ran it on a Barton 3200, 1 gig dual channel system with a
128Mb Radeon 8500 ( which is Geforce4 Ti4200 level). It was still jerky and
laggy at 800x600 with vsynch disabled, bloom disabled and low textures and
shadow details. So it's not CPU power that's the problem. Upgraded to a
128Mb 9800 Pro and it runs flawlessy, everything maxed at 1280x1024.
July 6, 2004 12:40:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

> Probably replace it with a nForce2 board.

As Augustus said, get a 9800pro or 6800GT or X800pro, depending on
whether you want to prepare for doom3 & the other games coming soon. For
$350-399 I'd get one of the new cards instead of a 9800pro, as you will more
than double performance for double the price.

If you are considering replacing the motherboard, just sell mobo+cpu and
get a Athlon64 bundle. You can get out the door for under $200 for a 2800+
athlon64+mobo, or $250 for an Nforce3 combo.

rms
Related resources
July 7, 2004 8:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:VklGc.60694$_5.4488@clgrps13...

> Replace the video card first. This game taxes the video card more than any
> other component. I ran it on a Barton 3200, 1 gig dual channel system with
a
> 128Mb Radeon 8500 ( which is Geforce4 Ti4200 level). It was still jerky
and
> laggy at 800x600 with vsynch disabled, bloom disabled and low textures and
> shadow details. So it's not CPU power that's the problem. Upgraded to a
> 128Mb 9800 Pro and it runs flawlessy, everything maxed at 1280x1024.
>

With a Barton 3200, the CPU is not the problem, but with an Athlon 1800+
(which is actually 1500 MHz) it will be, regardless of a faster graphics
card. His FSB is also slower than that of a Barton 3200.

I tried a T3 frame rate test using a Barton 2600+ mobile (whose multiplier
is unlocked) and the game's frame rate scaled right along with the CPU speed
My Radeon 9100 is certainly no speed demon, but at 640x480, low detail
settings, the CPU is still the bottleneck - e.g.) 2000 Mhz CPU = 20 fps,
2100 MHz CPU = 21 fps, 2200 MHz CPU = 22 fps, etc. So at the same point
where I tested the game.Kevin will be looking at less than 15 fps with his
Athlon 1800+. A faster card will do nothing for that, it will just allow
him to raise the resolution and detail settings without any further frame
rate hit. As you know, his GeForce 3, Ti200 is a poor performer, even worse
than my 9100, but in spite of that my vote is that he upgrades his CPU
first. Most likely though he'll probably have to upgrade both concurrently.
July 8, 2004 1:42:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

As you know, his GeForce 3, Ti200 is a poor performer, even worse
> than my 9100, but in spite of that my vote is that he upgrades his CPU
> first. Most likely though he'll probably have to upgrade both
concurrently.
>

Yes, they both need upgrading. Again, though, I can see no reason other than
really sloppy programming and code as to why this modified UT engine
requires such steep hardware resources to run a game such as this. In terms
of graphics complexity, it is no different than UT2004. The shadow and
lighting effects are different, but UT2004 also has many different but
demanding effects too. Compare how UT2004 runs on your 9100.....flawlessly,
likely. It did on my 8500 128Mb which is the same R200 GPU at 25Mhz more
core/memory. It also ran just fine on my wife's XP2000+ with a 9100 128Mb
in it. FarCry ran better on my 8500 at 1024x768 than TDS did at 800x600 with
low settings.
July 8, 2004 1:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:Q6_Gc.10008$eO.3815@edtnps89...
> I can see no reason other than
> really sloppy programming and code as to why this modified UT engine
> requires such steep hardware resources to run a game such as this.
>

I couldn't agree more. I presume Eidos found it cheaper to develop it as
quickly as possible though, thereby shortening the development time. Then
they passed the consequences on to the public in the form of required
upgrades.

I also think that a lot of the engine's inefficiency comes down to it being
co-developed for the XBox. It really feels like a port. Too bad Carmack
wasn't involved in the engine development.

>
>Compare how UT2004 runs on your 9100.....flawlessly,
> likely. It did on my 8500 128Mb which is the same R200 GPU at 25Mhz more
> core/memory. It also ran just fine on my wife's XP2000+ with a 9100 128Mb
> in it. FarCry ran better on my 8500 at 1024x768 than TDS did at 800x600
>with low settings.
>

I'm quite happy with my 9100. It runs every game I throw at it, especially
with my Barton 3200+ doing the coprocessing (actually it's a 2600+ mobile
clocked as a 3200+). T:D S is the first "troublemaker" for my system but I
really don't mind as it plays quite fluidly at 640x480. I know that sounds
low, but I find that playing the game on a CRT is more important than
playing it on an LCD, no matter how high the graphics settings are on the
LCD system. T:D S is a very dark game and LCDs tend to lump all of the
subtleties into one color. Besides, T:D S, even at low resolution, looks
light years better than the previous Thief games at any resolution.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 4:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Kevin Goodsell" <usenet3.spamfree.fusion@neverbox.com> wrote
> But I don't necessarily need to do that right now, and the advice I've
> received elsewhere (if I want to bring the machine up to snuff for
> gaming) is to simply replace the video card with a Radeon 9800 Pro and
> leave the rest of it alone. My initial thought was to upgrade the
> mainboard and CPU first, but maybe I should hold off on that until next
> payday. What do you guys think?

Well I have XP1700+ with 512mb, recently upgraded from
GF3 Ti200 to R9600Pro and am quite satisfied. Altough Thief3
runs a bit choppy at 1024x768 with all settings minimized but is
smooth in 800x600 with all settings maxed, even with AA+AF!
Now does this tell me that the 1024x768-resolution in T3 is
somehow unoptimized?

I know this card isn't any top of the line anymore, but still I can
play Max Payne 2 and other games with full details in 1024x768
and at least with 2x AA and AF without thinking "oh my god
what a slide show!"...

Also I'm wondering what's the insuperable problem with these
latest Catalysts what comes to Thief3 and flickering lights+shadows.
I'm stupid enough to think that this problem would be easy to solve
by comparing v4.4 and earlier Catalysts (which don't seem to have
any problems with T3) to the latest ones. But 3 driver releases after
4.4 this very same problem exists. I'm beginning to understand what
all have meant by saying that ATI doesn't exactly shine what comes
to their drivers...
Anonymous
July 13, 2004 1:22:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:10:48 GMT, Kevin Goodsell
<usenet3.spamfree.fusion@neverbox.com> wrote:

>What do you guys think?

If you want the game to run the best it can, you should upgrade both.
If you have a VIA chipset, you should buy another mainboard today and
incinerate the old one in Mount Doom. If you're willing to try
overclocking, you can get 9800PRO performance out of an 9200SE with
softmodding only, at a third of the price.

--
______________________________________________

What's up Chuck?

To reach me, swap spammers get bent with softhome
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 13, 2004 1:22:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Greger Hoel" <gregerh@spammersgetbent.net> wrote in message
news:p 837f05kpbcrrmqqgoqsjqfo3l188n368i@4ax.com...
>
> If you're willing to try
> overclocking, you can get 9800PRO performance out of an 9200SE with
> softmodding only, at a third of the price.
>

With a 9200SE?!
July 15, 2004 5:13:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Greger Hoel" <gregerh@spammersgetbent.net> wrote in message
news:p 837f05kpbcrrmqqgoqsjqfo3l188n368i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:10:48 GMT, Kevin Goodsell
> <usenet3.spamfree.fusion@neverbox.com> wrote:
>
> >What do you guys think?
>
> If you want the game to run the best it can, you should upgrade both.
> If you have a VIA chipset, you should buy another mainboard today and
> incinerate the old one in Mount Doom. If you're willing to try
> overclocking, you can get 9800PRO performance out of an 9200SE with
> softmodding only, at a third of the price.

Please explain to me how you can softmod an DX8.1 200Mhz RV280 core with
166Mhz 64bit memory into a DX9 380Mhz R350 core with 340Mhz 256 bit memory.
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 11:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:13:19 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>
>"Greger Hoel" <gregerh@spammersgetbent.net> wrote in message
>news:p 837f05kpbcrrmqqgoqsjqfo3l188n368i@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:10:48 GMT, Kevin Goodsell
>> <usenet3.spamfree.fusion@neverbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >What do you guys think?
>>
>> If you want the game to run the best it can, you should upgrade both.
>> If you have a VIA chipset, you should buy another mainboard today and
>> incinerate the old one in Mount Doom. If you're willing to try
>> overclocking, you can get 9800PRO performance out of an 9200SE with
>> softmodding only, at a third of the price.
>
>Please explain to me how you can softmod an DX8.1 200Mhz RV280 core with
>166Mhz 64bit memory into a DX9 380Mhz R350 core with 340Mhz 256 bit memory.

Typo. Of course it should read "9800SE" The card in question is
Powercolor's Radeon 9800SE, the R98SE-C3 version.
--
______________________________________________

What's up Chuck?

To reach me, swap spammers get bent with softhome
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2004 4:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:

> As Augustus said, get a 9800pro or 6800GT or X800pro, depending on
>whether you want to prepare for doom3 & the other games coming soon. For
>$350-399 I'd get one of the new cards instead of a 9800pro, as you will more
>than double performance for double the price.


You're the first person who's ever made this claim. The experts all
say you're shelling out all that money for only a tiny little bump;
like no more than 10%.

Mind, I haven't paid that close attention lately; the minor bump is
the typical difference between top and next tier over the last years.
Maybe this time ATI actually pushed the envelope, but I doubt it.
July 21, 2004 1:21:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.thief-dark-project (More info?)

"Todd" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i5tjf0dtl2a1elmlk2h578t0og14n373o1@4ax.com...
> "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:
>
> > As Augustus said, get a 9800pro or 6800GT or X800pro, depending on
> >whether you want to prepare for doom3 & the other games coming soon. For
> >$350-399 I'd get one of the new cards instead of a 9800pro, as you will
more
> >than double performance for double the price.
>
>
> You're the first person who's ever made this claim. The experts all
> say you're shelling out all that money for only a tiny little bump;
> like no more than 10%.

The difference between a 9800 Pro and an X800 Pro or 6800GT is not double.
But it's not just 10% either. On synthetic benchmarks, especially ones like
3DMark03 using programmable pixel shaders and DX9, a 9800 Pro on a 3 Ghz
system will get around 6000 or so. The X800 Pro and 6800GT get in the
8500-9000 range. To double the performance you need to be looking at the
X800 Platinum Edition or the 6800 Ultra Extreme. These bench in the 12,500
to 13,000 range on 3DMark03.
!