Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dose AMD 64 make up for GPU

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 21, 2004 8:32:57 PM

I am trying to decide how to configure a computer system, I can get an AMD 64 3400+ with a GeForce 64MB 4 440 with 1Gz RAM
or...
Pentium 4 3.2 Radeon 64MB 9600 with 512RAM
please let me know what you think, I know the AMD chip is better for gaming, but the GPU is not as good with the AMD so in the end I'm looking for the best performance

More about : dose amd make gpu

May 21, 2004 8:53:44 PM

For best performance, get the AMD with the Radeon 9600!!!

If thats not possible, go with the P4 3.2. The performance difference CPU wise isn't huge, and you'll be much happier with the graphics performance..

Spec:
Intel P4 2.4B
MSI 645E Max-U Mobo
1GB DDR333
R9600XT 128MB
SB Live 5.1
WD 60GB
Maxtor 120GB
LG DVD+-R/RW
WIN2K PRO SP4
May 21, 2004 8:57:04 PM

Why are your options so limited?

Get an Athlon64 2800+, with a 9800pro, and 1G of ram, you'll end up with 4x gaming performance than the Athlon64 3400+, and at least 2x gaming performance of ur P4 option.


If those are your only options, then i'd go with the Athlon64, and toss out the video card and buy a new one!! The performance difference between the 9600 and the Geforce4 MX440 isn't big, well unless you're lucky and get a 9600 with 128bit memory bus, because most of them are 64bit.

<A HREF="http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/myrig.php?do=view..." target="_new">My PC</A>
Related resources
May 21, 2004 9:06:22 PM

> The performance difference between the 9600 and the
>Geforce4 MX440 isn't big

No, its not big, its HUUGE ! Honestly, the GF4 MX is a *terrible* card, its barely faster than a Geforce2 MX. Not too mention its a DX7 part. Toss it away, its close to useless nowadays for (3D) gaming.

Agreed with the rest though..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 21, 2004 9:10:22 PM

I geuss I didn't give enough information I'm sorry for that, this is a notebook computer I'm getting that is why my options are so limited. If I get the AMD then I only have the GeForce as my choice and if I get the Pentium the Radeon is the only choice
May 21, 2004 9:26:08 PM

Ah.. that explains a lot already. Still, if gaming is your concern, I would look for alternatives with faster videocards. none of these systems is going to be very satisfying as a gaming platform, and you will be "wasting" quite a bit of money on some powerfull cpu's that get held back severly by slow videocards.

If those *really* are the only options somehow, I would also opt for the P4+radeon, but I can't say I would recommend either config for games. The same budget would let you buy a much better gaming rig elsewhere.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 21, 2004 9:29:16 PM

I wasnt aware some 9600's had a 64 bit bus (guess what, I'm not infallible :) . You may be right.. though I would still be somewhat surprised. Is a 64 bit 9600 slower than say a FX5200 ? I know a GF4 MX is ..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 21, 2004 9:43:10 PM

the 64 is the video cards memory, again I should have explained that.

When I say those are the only options I mean it, unless I was go get the GeForce 32MB 4 420 or the Redeon 64MB 9200
Both systems are compaqs, between 1,600-1,700$ if you have suggestions for better notebooks I'm open to listen! I've just spent a lot of time looking and those seem to be the best deals for me they are already a little about what I was willing to spend, so I can't pay more....I want an all around good PC that will last me about 3 years, I'd use it for school (programming) movies and some games, like Doom 3 I hope :-)
May 21, 2004 10:11:17 PM

My laptop ProStar 8794 ACCELERATOR P43.4ee has ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON™ 9700 8X AGP 3D with 256MB. Price range $2600 to $5,000 But I see a 4774 P4 3.2 that has ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON™ 9600 8X AGP 3D with 128MB Integrated DDR. 2,000 to 4,000

http://www.xtremenotebooks.com
Or
http://www.pro-star.com
May 21, 2004 10:35:27 PM

another great idea would be the Acer Ferrari 3200 , here is one shop that has it:

http://www.cakepc.com/product_info.php/products_id/22

this one is equipped with an ahtlon 64 2800+ and an ati mobility 9700 128. check it out, it would be a nice one although it will cost you about $2000.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by trooper11 on 05/21/04 06:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 21, 2004 11:27:59 PM

>I want an all around good PC that will last me about 3
>years, I'd use it for school (programming) movies

Either laptop should be more than adequate for that.. but..

>and some
>games, like Doom 3 I hope :-)

I wouldnt bet on it. In fact, I think you can pretty much forget about running Doom3 at all on such a videocard. The geforce4 MX problably would not run it all (doesnt support shaders !!), and afaik, minimum spec for doom3 is a GF3 class card (DX8). The Radeon should let you run it I think, but its probably going to be more of a slide show than a game.

Either check out some of the other posters' suggestions, or consider buying a used laptop for your "work" (school, etc). I think a 1 GHz class laptop costing ~$700 (?) ought to be more than good enough, and use the rest of the money to buy an upgradeable desktop (later?) that will run those games.

I fear you will be sorely dissapointed otherwise by spending >$1700 on a system that will just not let you do what you bought it for (Doom3, HL2, Stalker,...).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 22, 2004 12:10:32 AM

i agree, laptops arent quite there for high end gaming yet on any level. unless you want to spend 3000 on something from alienware, then you might be able to, but even then your talking about heavy and not great on battery life.
May 22, 2004 3:32:00 AM

Thanks for all the advice, Right now I have a notebook that is a 1.2 GHz AMD athon moblie with 512 ram and 32MB shared video, I'm just ready for a new system, I know notebooks aren't good for gaming and I understand the reasons why, I was just hoping that a decently powerful notebook might be able to play some of the games at some of the lower graphics settings. This computer ran some mods off the quake 3 area engine pretty well I think. there were much higher frame rate than the original game and had higher resolutions and detail.

When you say its bad for games do you mean that they won't work at all, or that the games won't be playble or the games will run but at lower settings and not as smoothly?
May 22, 2004 7:25:08 AM

Okay, I know you're all going to vomit on me when I say it but....
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/...

The Dell Inspiron 9100 has what you want at the right price:
P4 2.8ghz w/HT
15.4" display
2x256mb DDR400 (512mb total)
60 hard drive
64MB DDR ATI's MOBILITY™ RADEON™ 9700 AGP 8X Graphics

$1,799 before taxes... yes it will cost a little bit more, but I think that's about the best you can do.

For $129 you can also upgrade the video to:
128MB DDR ATI's MOBILITY™ RADEON™ 9700 AGP 8X Graphics

Still not going to give eye-popping frame rates in WarCry, but it'll definately beat the other solutions.

In fact, I just priced one out (not all the best, but actually slightly improved where it counts over the one above) for only $1,652.

Sorry have to bring it up, but it IS a pretty good price.
May 22, 2004 9:36:11 AM

>When you say its bad for games do you mean that they won't
>work at all

Quite possible yes, especially with Geforce4 MX cards. AFAIK, even Far Cry simply does not run on such videocards, and requires DX8 hardware. I would be surprised if Doom3 or HL2 would have lower system requirements. A radeon would probably run each game, but really, what good is that if you will not achieve 10FPS even on the lowest settings..

Anyway, you may want to check out the Dell posted above here, seems like a better bet, but if you're on a budget, I still think you'd better hang on to your current notebook for mobile use, and invest in a desktop for gaming -unless you really want to play in the classroom ;) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 22, 2004 3:40:56 PM

well see if you got the Acer Ferrari 3200 , youd be able to play games, just maybe not doom3 or hl2. its possible but i tend to think it wont work. you will however be able to play games like unreal 2k4 or even halo, so youll be able to play games, just nto at super quality, but playable.
May 22, 2004 7:41:18 PM

That's good to know, I do want to play games while I'm at school, sometimes I have 2-4 hours breaks were I'm there and have no work to do so I want a game. Unreal is great Halo would be too. Now that I'm leaning toward the Pentium (only for the radeon 9600) I'm worried about its battery performance, I'd like to use it sometimes without a plug and the battery will last a couple hours


Also if I can't play games like Far Cry anyway, is the Geforce 4 going to work for Halo, or Unreal? I only ask because I would perfer the AMD 64 the only bad thing is that its only coupled with the geforce 4, the AMD system also runs a little cheaper....
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dagreek on 05/22/04 03:45 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 22, 2004 8:17:51 PM

so are you saying the Acer Ferarri 3200 is out of your price range? since it boasts a better video card then your p4 notebook, an ati 9700 128. ill check around and see if there is anything cheaper. but the one you talked about for amd wouldnt be that great for gaming. if you can put the extra money into the Acer notebook, youd be happy with gaming on it.
May 23, 2004 7:10:29 AM

To be honest, I don't know if you will really find much of a better deal than the Dell I mentioned above...

I took the base Inspiron 9100, upgraded the hard drive to a 60gb/7200rpm, the video to the highest (radeon 9700/128mb) and the memory to 512mb. All of that for less than $1,700 - it's possible you could get it, with tax and all, for less than $1,800 at your door - depending on where you live.

At least give it a consideration, from what I've heard Dell has great warranties and warranty service too.

I'm surprised I've not been flamed yet for saying a word like 'Dell' on a site like this :-P
May 23, 2004 2:52:35 PM

I'm sorry I did check out your suggestion about the Dell 9100 it is a great computer but from my original price max of 1,500 I keep creeping up and I need to stop somewhere. I did like that computer very much and was very close to buying it off the Dell outlet site last night. I was up to putting in my credit card and stoped, I read some reviews and more info on it. It's about 2 pounds more but worst of all it has only a 2 hour battery life! The one I bought will go 4+ hours If it was just for games it would be no contest in favor of Dell but I also want it to be semi-portable.

I also checked out the Acer computer, I've heard of the company but didn't know them for their computers. I did read some reviews saying they get hot fast and I didn't here anyone talking quality. Sense I'm a student I can't afford to get burned on a computer, I need a sure thing that will last me 3+ years. Thank you for the idea's though! They all made sense and I did look them all up and check there reviews I just had to pick what was best for my needs and travel. I have to carry it everyday at school but also want some horse power, its a tough thing to find.
May 23, 2004 5:04:25 PM

ok well then there is another option, now i know what everyone will say, but bare with me.

<A HREF="http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?j=1&CategoryID=..." target="_new">http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?j=1&CategoryID=...;/A>

That is the Emachines M6805 with an ahtlon 64 3000+ and an ati 9600 64mb card. or for a bit more you can get the M6809 (1650 (comes with 100 mail in rebate to make it 1550) instead of 1500).

here you can look at the specs for both:

<A HREF="http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eM..." target="_new">http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eM...;/A>

anyway, either would make a great laptop that balances gaming. the only weak point is that the hd is slow (4200rpm) but the good thing is you can easily buy a faster drive and install it easily. look here for some cool tips for doing that and other things like ocing the video card:

<A HREF="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=51&th..." target="_new">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=51&th...;/A>

so thats another option for you. and it maybe emachines but this is definitely a good buy for once.
May 23, 2004 6:04:47 PM

>I'm surprised I've not been flamed yet for saying a word
>like 'Dell' on a site like this :-P

Why ? their notebook lineup is actually rather nice IMHO, and priced competitively. As long as building your own notebook is not an option, I have no problem recommending a dell notebook if its a well priced, and properly configured machine (ie not Celerons and the like). Now don't push your luck by beginning to recommend Dell desktops though :) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 23, 2004 6:28:24 PM

> sometimes I have 2-4 hours breaks were I'm there and have
>no work to do so I want a game

Tretris and Solitaire can be addicting and don't tax your batteries that much :D 

>the only bad thing is that its only coupled with the
>geforce 4

Just a note, a "Geforce 4" isnt that bad really, if its a "real" one (ie a Ti4x00), not an MX. Its a direct 8 part, succesor to the Geforce 3 and even for most games today, still reasonable. I have a GF4 Ti4200 in my desktop, and its adequate for just about eveything @1024x768 save Far Cry. I'm even crossing my fingers it will run HL2 and Stalker reasonably well at medium/low quality settings, if not I'll finally dump it.

However, the Geforce 4 <b>MX</b> cards, and their notebook derivatives are really just slightly improved Geforce 2 MX chips. No DX8 (no shaders), just basic DX7 hardware T&L. Its better than a TNT2 or Voodoo2, but its really obsolete today. I would really, really not recommend buying anything new today that comes with such a videocard if gaming is your concern.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 23, 2004 11:55:55 PM

Yes Dell has a good Lineup on Computer and Laptops. But They suck On Tech support. IT like 20 If you want to go here Press one. Deals before you get to tech support. 20 mins Later. And my friends computer It look like the hard drive was going bad. But I did random things to fix it and taking out the battery of a desktop. Fix it.

So For normal computer Users. Dell is Hell. I would never suggest them. For people who tweak and rebuilds your system. Dell is fine.
May 24, 2004 3:59:55 AM

I went to the site for the GeForce 4 40 Go it says it fully DirectX 8,7,6, and 5 complient. Here is the rest of the spec's
GeForce4 440 Go Fill Rate: 880 million texels/sec.
GPU Core Clock: 220 MHz
Memory Clock: 220 MHz
Memory Bandwidth 6.4GB/sec.

I honestly don't know what the numbers mean in terms of what the GPU can do for games. But I just wanted to say it says its directX 8
May 24, 2004 4:19:28 AM

even if it does, it clearly would be out performed by the ati 9600 64 on the emachines notebook. plus it seems it overclocks nicely.
May 24, 2004 10:41:37 AM

> went to the site for the GeForce 4 40 Go it says it fully
>DirectX 8,7,6, and 5 complient.

That is quite misleading indeed. They are "compliant", the same way my GF4 is "DX9 compliant". That means I can run DX9, but none of the DX9 goodies are supported in hardware since a GF4 Ti is just a DX8 part.

The "Geforce4 4200 Go" is also a DX8 part (its basically a GF4 Ti4200), supporting shaders, and DX8 acceleration i hardware, but the other "Geforce4 Go" chips are all based on the Geforce MX engine, ie only DX7 hardware capable, obsolete crap.

Trust me on this one..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 24, 2004 11:47:27 AM

Quote:
AFAIK, even Far Cry simply does not run on such videocards, and requires DX8 hardware.

Actually, you're wrong. Far Cry <i>will</i> run on DX7 class Hardware - or at least the demo did. (I tried it on a duron 1.4 w/ a 32Mb Geforce DDR card, and it was actually playable! :cool: It would jerk around a bit, which I think was down to only 256Mb of RAM, but in between disk accesses it ran relatively smoothly (640x480, low details obviously) obviously it didn't look too great, but it did work.

You are right in that some games demand shader support though, and obviously these will soon become the norm, and I also suspect DoomIII will be one.

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
May 24, 2004 3:50:08 PM

>Actually, you're wrong. Far Cry will run on DX7 class
>Hardware

Okay, so maybe Far Cry does. I remember reading in the UBI forum a videocard with hardware shaders would be required before the demo was launched, but maybe they changed their minds (there is still an awefull lot of GF4 MX cards out there). Can't be long before support for it is dropped though, so buying a new one now is still a _bad_ idea if gaming is your thing.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 24, 2004 6:51:24 PM

I haven't recieved my new computer yet, I won't for like 3 weeks! but I downloaded the DEMO of Unreal 2004 yesterday just to give it a try. On lowered settings it runs a little choppy on this computer...1.2GHz Athon 32MB shared Video with 490RAM left over. I totally believe what everyone says, if the proformance I get out of my new computer isn't what I expect it's going right back and I'll just have to pay the shipping. But is it that most gamers have a higher standard? I see lots of bench marks for hardware with game frame rates like in the 50's and 60's so if its not that high do you consider it bad? I thought it was decent in the 30's and playable down to 20.... I know the games could be much better looking and smoother at higher rates, but sense this is a notebook I'm mostly happy if I can play. (without it being jerky) If I could play Unreal 04 on my new computer at the mid level graphics I'd be very happy! I'm just trying to understand what is ment when people say its not a good GPU or won't work.
May 24, 2004 7:32:14 PM

> I see lots of bench marks for hardware with game frame
>rates like in the 50's and 60's so if its not that high do
>you consider it bad? I thought it was decent in the 30's
>and playable down to 20....

30 is playable allright, depending on the game, but thing is, these benchmarks show you average framerates, not *minimum*. So having on average 30 FPS, probably means you'll get 60+ on some places in the map, while framerate may drop below 10 during an intense fights with lots of action and explosions,.. so when you need the framerates most. 10 FPS is not good when you're engaging in close combat.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 24, 2004 7:42:23 PM

so what did you end up ordering?
May 24, 2004 8:39:57 PM

P4Man what you said makes sense, so I'll just have to see what happens when I play something.

I ended up getting the Compaq R3000z
AMD 64 3400+
512MB Ram
GeForce 4 440 GO 64MB dedicated
15.4inch WUXGA (1600 x 1200)
40GB Hard drive 4,200
wireless b/g
those are all the main specs for it...
I was close to going with the Pentium version of the computer to get the Radien 9600 mobile but I didn't like what I read about the P4 on battery life, I'd like to get 3-4 hours and I think from what I've read the AMD has better mobile power technology then a P4. If I'm wrong Compaq will let me return it for a full refund minus shipping. So when it comes I'll try out the Unreal 04 demo and if it runs good then I will keep it. If it can't run that game decently then I'll send it back and rethink this all over again. I don't expect to be able to play all the new games but Id like to play a few good FPS's
May 24, 2004 11:26:21 PM

Man its too bad you couldnt stretch your budget a bit further. There you have one kick ass cpu and a nice high res widescreen display, but with a slow harddisk and antique graphics :|

I hope you are not going to regret this. On the bright side, you can always replace the harddisk (I would *really* recommend you do this once you have some spare cash), and play 2D games I guess :) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 25, 2004 12:41:58 AM

I did some searches looking for my GPU and found some bench marks for it kinda, it was off the techtv site. But the GeForce4 440 go with 64MB memory was running Quake 3 very well, i think it said at the 1024x768
it was still getting 131 FPS and 1280x1024
91.1 FPS I believe those were averages too...and that was with a computer with a 1.7P3 and 256RAM
May 25, 2004 12:46:24 AM

well its unfortunate you didnt consider the emachines model since it had better graphics for a nto so bad price. its a very nice laptop in its segment.
May 25, 2004 4:16:31 AM

the emachine is definitly something to consider, it has great spec's! I mean it when I say if this computer dosen't do what I expect its going back, if it dose I'll look at the eMachines M6809 more, I tried to find reviews on it and came up empty. Also from past experence with gateway I don't really like that company very much and they are the parent company or something right? I could be wrong about that part....just a side note what I posted above about quake 3 running good frame rates on the geforce4 dose that mean anything positive?
May 25, 2004 12:20:12 PM

>.just a side note what I posted above about quake 3 running
>good frame rates on the geforce4 dose that mean anything
>positive?

Not really. Quake3 is an old game now, and really not taxing your hardware. Modern desktops get up to 500FPS on it, go figure. What's worse, is that I fear in spite of its name, the GF4 Go is based on the MX420, wich is even considerably slower than the MX440 (less than half the memory bandwith).

I can only advice you to do two things:

1) cancel the order if you still can (saves you the shipping cost), and get the eMachines or another laptop with a more powerfull videocard. I mean it. If you want to keep your budget low enough, get the cheapest A64 (or P4) you can find instead of the 3200+, it will not nearly make as much difference.

2) If you do decide to get it, download Far Cry and Splinter Cell demo, and run those at medium settings. Next year, you will not want to be playing Q3 games, but HL2, Doom3, Stalker, etc, all of which will most likely be even considerably more demanding than Far Cry or Splinter Cell. And there is just no way these are going to run acceptably on an MX IMHO.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 25, 2004 3:42:10 PM

well you can find plenty of reviews for the m6805 which is the same thing only slower cpu and smaller hard drive. also check out that anandtech link i posted, there are comments there about it.
May 26, 2004 4:17:46 AM

alright, I'll give the lower model a search for reviews.
May 31, 2004 1:41:47 AM

Ok so I got my new computer Thursday...I really like it a lot. I have played Unreal 04 on it first at the lowest settings and moved my way up. I plays perfictly smooth on the highest graphics settings. I did it on 1024 X 768 then 1280 X 1024, 1280 X 800 and finaly at 1680 X 1050 it got kinda jerky, everything else was very smooth. Also I didn[t have the shadows on but I'll try that tonight....Anyway, if this new high end game can run at full speed online with the highest settings, why then could far cry even on a slightly lower setting still work well? If you guys play games for the looks total then it makes a little sense but 1024 X 768 is still very playable and not bad looking, I just got the impression here none of theses games would work and now I must say I have to doubt some of what I heard
May 31, 2004 9:35:32 AM

Well, I'm not surprised UT2004 runs on it, its not that taxing on the videocard if you do not enable all the goodies, its more demanding of the CPU (and you have a very fast one).

However, I urge you try far cry (demo is a free download) and decide for yourselve. I also recommended splinter Cell, but I got the game last week, and it says in the readme:
Quote:
1.1. System Requirements

Minimum:
Processor: Intel or AMD, 1 GHz
Operating
System: Windows 98SE/ME/2000/XP
Memory: 128 MB RAM
Disk Space: 2.5 GB
<b>Graphics Card: DX8.1 compatible card,
GeForce 3 or higher ( GeForce 4 MX are GeForce4 Go are not supported)</b>
ATI Radeon 8500 or higher
Sound Card: DirectX 8.1 compatible
DirectX Version: 8.1b
Network: High-Speed Modem with 64 Kbits data transfer upload rate.


So there you have it. I'm willing to take bets your machine won't run Far Cry on anything but lowest settings either, and it most likely won't run either Doom3 or HL2 at all. Wether you can live with that is up to you, but about the same ammount of money should have bought you a machine that was capable of running them :|

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 31, 2004 9:09:19 PM

the thing thats bad about notebooks is taht you can only play games well at its native resolution. trying to size it down either chops off the sides or causes strange pixelization so if your system wont runa game at the laptops native res., then it can get tricky if it will look good at all. on most laptop its 1024x768 although ive seen some at 1600x1200 (widescreen models)
May 31, 2004 9:19:17 PM

I'm going to give Far Cry a try tonight
June 4, 2004 6:43:40 AM

Ok so I finally got around to downloading FarCry and playing it, I liked it the grpahics are good and I really like the guns in the game. But I want to point out I played it, it works it runs smoothly....the screen was at 1024 X 768 and the settings were all on medium I think, I will mess with it more later and turn it up to see how far this computer can take it though. I didn't see anywhere in the specs about how the GeForce4 go couldn't run the game either.
June 4, 2004 8:40:35 AM

amazing that setup would run far cry so well. My GF4 Ti will not run it acceptably fast on medium settings 1024x768, definately not once you get beyond the opening map/scene. But hey, so much the better I guess (though I'd rather believe the game automatically configured low detail). You may also want to compare online screenshots with what you see on your display to get an idea what hardware shaders can do to improve image quality, so what you're missing out on.

> I didn't see anywhere in the specs about how the GeForce4
>go couldn't run the game either.

I quoted that from the readme file included with splintercell. BTW, "not supported" doesnt necessarely mean it will not run at all, just they don't support it, it may give weird results, or plain not work.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
June 4, 2004 5:47:29 PM

Here is the game settings I used I wrote them down, I will turn it up later to see what happens, but this is how it was set to begin with....
Basic Options
Renderer Direct3D9
Resolution 1024 X 768 X 32
Anti Aliasing none
Rendering Mode Normal
Full Screen Enabled
Vertical Snyc Disabled
Advanced
Texture Quality Medium
Texture Filter Quality Medium
Partical Count Custom
Special Effects Quality Medium
Environment Quality Custom
Shadow Quality Medium
Water Quality Medium
Lighting Quality Medium

So I geuess thats all of them, I will mess with turning them up later. But at those settings it runs smoothly and I can enjoy playing it. It seems like fun, I wish it was an online demo, I really only get games to play online so I like to see how they are online first.
!