I would think that all of the fancy effects COULD be emulated in software, but if that were fast enough we would already have those effects without need for a GeForce 3. Therefor, I think that a lot of things, like reflections, realistic lighting, real-time shadows and high polygon counts, will either be enabled/disabled through an options menu, like current games have for many effects, or will be scaled automatically like the polygon count in Sacrifice. Bottom line: with a GeForce 2 you will not be able to produce all the fancy per-pixle effects--maybe not at all--and at least not fast enough to be usable.
not much cos all of it will be done on hardware. but it is likely the games will have etremely complex physics like collision offset, and calculating trajectories upon collisions etc. This could increase the cpu requirement.
It all depends on the game.
<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
March 13, 2001 4:18:45 AM
Yeah, in theory you don't need as much CPU with a G3 because the G3 is doing a lot of the work that used to be required of the CPU. But the games may begin to use this freed up CPU power for other things, such as improved physics, more players in multiplayer mode, etc. If money was no object, then simply get the fastest CPU AND graphics card. But if you're like the rest of us and money DOES matter... you are better off cutting on the CPU and putting more cash into the graphics card. From Tom's latest articles on this subject, I would say an 800MHz Athlon is plenty of CPU to run a G3 at 95% of it's potential or better.