Slashdot Mirror
New 3D Cards On Slower PCs
risotto writes "There's always that dilemma of whether to upgrade your CPU or your video card first. There's a useful piece that shows some of today's fastest 3D accelerators but on lower end systems like an Intel Celeron 700 and a AMD Duron 700. There's some pretty big performance jumps to be had by throwing a T&L capable Geforce 2 GTS into a low end system in Quake III and the like."
i usually find the bottleneck with porn to be server-side. flaky as they are, the "free disk space" services have really revolutionised that part of the internet. between that and divx, i'm as happy as i can be without the real thing...
Scarier though is that the people using the software I write would consider my system unacceptably low end, and will undoubtedly spend $$$ on the latest and greatest multiprocessor PC's and Mac's available.
For gamers, the bang is obviously in a big video card, rather than an expensive CPU. On the other hand, I wonder how much it would take to max out the frame rate on my TNT2 M64. Even for that old thing, my 266 was not enough when playing Descent3.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
Oops. Forgot I wanted to post more. Here is the second part of my post. This is an actual review of "fast" cards on "slow" systems.
.6)
;-) It's the same story as Quake3, it looks darn good on a VD3 3K, even at 1024x768. In fact, I would go so far as to say it shines.
System 1: K6-2/350, 128MB PC100, Voodoo3 2000 AGP
OS: Slackware 7.0, Linux 2.2.16
XFree: 3.3.5 (i think; maybe
Games: Solitaire under Wine, Doom2, Quake[123], Unreal Tournament
The non-3D accelerated games (Sol, Doom2, Quake1) were very fast, very playable. Nobody can have any complaints, except perhaps one: when you win the game in Solitaire, the cards-falling-down animation is *s*l*o*w* compared to the computer. Oh well.
The 3D accelerated games also worked pretty well. Quake2 looked just like it was supposed to -- nice and fast, smooth, no problems, very playable. Quake3, on the other hand, was taking a little long to load, but once you got in, it was pretty decent. It was NOT full-framerate by any means, but it was still enjoyable to play. Unreal Tournament I didn't get to try on there for very long, but what I saw looked good -- it was pretty smooth, and overall very nice. Keep in mind I used Glide on UT, not OGL.
Overall rating: 6 out of 10, mainly for playability.
System 2: K6-3/450, 128MB PC100, Voodoo3 3000 AGP (with TVout)
OS: Win98 (blech) && Slackware 7.1
XFree: 3.3.6
Games (Win98): Terminal Velocity, SW Pod Racer, Quake3, Parsec, Parsec LAN-test, Spear of Destiny
Games (Linux): Quake3, Unreal Tournament
All of the "older" games under Win98 were pretty kickass. Spear of Destiny looks good on a 486, so you can bet it looks good on a K6-3! Terminal Velocity maxes out around a P200, so same there. Parsec (and Parsec LAN-test) look very nice, especially at 1024x768, and there are no problems with speed, either. The two major Win98 games, then, are Quake3 and PodRacer.
Quake3 was noticeably improved from System 1. It loads much faster, and the gameplay is quite smooth -- even at 1024x768. (I usually play in 800x600.) If you're looking to make a gaming system from a K6-[23]/450 and play Q3, do it!
Pod Racer is the reason I had to have windblows on here in the first place. I cannot resist the temptation to run myself into walls at 800 Mph
Linux games: Q3 and UT. Q3 is basically the same story as Q3 under windblows above. I couldn't tell you which is faster, as this is all perceptual, and there's not a whole lot of difference between win98 and linux 2.2 on the same hardware.
UT is where this hardware gets a gold medal -- there are no problems with speed to hinder your gameplay, it basically kicks ass. You will love it, if you try out this combo.
Overall rating: 8 out of 10.
System 3: dual celeron 366, 192MB PC100, Matrox G400 AGP single-headed 16MB
OS: Slackware 7.1, Linux 2.4.0-test[78] (oh yeah!)
XFree: 4.0.1 with supported DRI and GLX and XVideo and everything
Games: Quake[123], UnrealTournament
Quake 1 rocks. It absolutely rocks. There is no point in me saying any more, as it rocks on a lesser system anyway.
Quake 2 rocks as well. This is where an intel chip, as opposed to amd, really does you well. (celeron vs. k6, much better fpu). The graphics are SUPER-SWEET too.
Quake 3, perceptually, is every bit as fast as on System 2 (they're side-by-side), and it loads faster, to boot! This is a very strong system for gaming. If you're looking to play Q3, and have "only" two lower-end celerons, don't worry! Just get a good video card.
UnrealTournament: well, ummm, it crashes during the opening sequence. This is due to a combination of lots of not-so-well-tested software -- linux 2.4.0-test7, whatever kernel DRI module is included with that, some unknown version of XFree4.0.1, and the OpenGL rendering subsystem of UnrealTournament. (On the other systems, I always used Glide for UT.) So, while the part of the opening sequence I can see looks really good, do yourself a favor and try it on a more stable system.
Overall rating: 7 out of 10, because I couldn't play all my games. I was forced to use OpenGL exclusively by the MGA400.
That's all for now, and if you want to know any more, just e-mail me, or reply to the post. I check my responses.
-----
Just enough?
There was a bit of sarcasm lost in the typing. If you've ever used win2k on a system with "only" 64MB you'd know what I mean. One bloated office app (read: WORD) takes care of 64MB quickly. Use Visio with 64MB?? Forget it. Go back to 98.
TFC dropped by 10fps from 98se to 2k. This is w/ a TNT2 card.... I really can't complain about win2k -- it's a marvel how well it runs.
-sid
Yeah, some of us actually have (gasp!) jobs and can afford shit like this. Hell, a 1.2 GHz Athlon only costs $500.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The best machine I have is a 200mmx!! Damnit. :-)
--------------------------
Here's a sure sign I need sleep: I read that as commuting experience. I've seen drivers do strange things, but no 3D glasses yet.
I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist
>I could use some extra crispyness when playing divx movies
:).
Hmm... was this intentional? Your computer might be a bit toasty with a 1.5GHz P4
That's the same question I asked! I'm on a PII350 w/a voodoo3 and I'm running most everything at very reasonable speeds!
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I can't see the difference between 16 and 32 bits, really.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Actually, if I remember correctly, C&C is just another Warcraft clone ;) However I am getting tired of the Quake clones...I can't wait til Serious Sam comes out =)
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
Umm, I still use a P-II 233 (OC'd to 333)
I have a killer video card and it destroys my brothers P-III 850 in unreal.
Buy the video card. oh and if you're a gamer be sure to get whatever processor has good FP co-processing. - The guys that have screaming processors will get pissed.
(remember when you had a 386 and a 387 on the mobo? I loved having 2 processors!)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
AC wrote:
Ok.
Now, let's read the requirements: No AGP.
Bzzzzt. You lose!
The comment I was responding to was:
I would say...a...GeForceMX is going to give you the most bang for your buck. More info can be found here and here.
I was adding another info link for the GeForce2 MX he mentioned. That's all. Sorry to offend you.
I was amazed of the obsolescence speed of my Diamond Viper v550 16 meg AGP card. Got it 2 years ago when many other video cards only had 4 or 8 megs. Now I just got a GeForce, and Halflife doesn't crash as much.
A card I recently bought is a Diamond Stealth III S540. It uses a S3 Savage4 chipset, for which there are currently Win95/98/ME/2000/Linux drivers available. More info on www.s3.com
I payed about 80 US Dollar for a 16MB AGP version. It'll cost something similar for a 16/32 MB PCI version. It isn't very fast, but it looks great.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
My old Pentium 90 serves as a "drive-server". That is to say, it contains my 5.25 inch floppy drive:-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
the prob is that moore's law just ain't giving out like it used to. if we were on schedule, these systems would be low end...
what the manufacturers need is a little cheerleading drill. come on intel... who's your daddy...
When I mentioned pr0n, I wasn't really referring to speed, but to disk space.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Gimme an A, gimme a M, gimme a D, CYRIX!!! Something like that? Everybody knows cheerleaders can't spell anyway.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I have a PIII 500, 768MB of Ram PC100, running an Abit Mobo with a BX chipset... and I thought I was special.
No a G400Max doesnt tear through Quake framerates, and apparently my system is low end now a days.....
Fortunately for us processor speed has finally outstripped processor need (for the majority of applications).
Now its a matter of data transfer and the processor wasting cycles waiting.
So.. I wont be upgrading until something truly excites me.. 1.2Ghz processors do not.
Jeremy
In a word...YES!!! This has been a public service announcement.
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
Preach it! I'm glad someone decided to mention the fact that Sharky's definition of low-end is way off. My 486DX2/66 works just fine! I'm just really surprised that no one seems to really realize what "low-end" means anymore.
/. to comment on this outrageous issue!
I would have expected the majority of the postings on
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
You are so wrong it's funny. I have a P-II 233 that will wax any production computer you can pick that doesn't have an upgraded video board. I'll wax it in Framerate and quality.
Q-III at 1024x768 35fps on that puppy..
a good video card makes the biggest difference after you get to 128 meg of ram (SCSI-III Ultra makes a big difference too )
I challenge you sonny... name your contestant and I'll bring in a contender that is at least 1/3 your processor speed and wax it harder than my surfboard.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I agree.... 700MHz == low end?
So the games one can only play on a 800MHz machine are that much better to make it worth upgrading?
I've been out of the "big penis" games for quite some time, although when I was in I really wasn't in it for bragging rights, it just cost me too much money.
I just don't see any value in buying more hardware when I can very comfortably do with what I have. I've somewhat changed my hobbies to Home Theater and movies, and I don't have to deal with crap hardware with either easy to use crap software or good software that takes me an evening to figure out.
All the extra horsepower means is that Microsoft can bloat their way into it with "worthless" features that, if programmed properly, could have been done on a P100, but require PIII to operate with acceptable speed.
Wow what would you call my P120?
Are YOU listed?
A celeron 700 is a 'low-end' system? Christ..
My celeron 450 still does me fine, even for new games. Starting to get a bit sluggish on the new ones...
amd k62-300, 64meg ram, 10+4 meg hd, works just fine for vb/c coding, music sequencers etc.
dont play games on it so no 3d card, dont see any need to upgrade any time soon - was going to get a k62-500 for about uk£45 but they dont seem to be available anymore so screw it i`ll stick with what i`ve got!
Add in a good socket A mobo. *smack*. 125-160$. That's what makes the difference for most people.
I had a k6-2 450 for my main machine, and suprisingly enough, a thunderbird 900 was my purchase this last weekend. I decided to not purchase a video card, and continue to use my v3-3000. While it does better in 3d things, it's just not able to push any polys at the higher resolutions.
Was the jump worth it? Maybe, maybe not. The system is "quicker"....
if I could just keep my roomate from loading software on it......
Karnal
Sure. Couple of my friends have the same problem as u have including me.(almost identical system config.) Only problem is that I noticed Q3 hanging my system which uses S3 Savage4.
I am glad to see that the computer terms have really gone to hell. Lower End used to mean that you owned a PC that could still run all the programs, just at a slower rate. My 400Mhz K6-2 could run anything...-well besides high rendering programs-...that I want.
I consider Lower End systems to be Celeron 333s..early generation PIIs. Stuff that is really getting on in the years. Not sh*t that was released a few months back.
Just cause we had (still have) a processor war for Mhz does not mean the older hardware is obselete. Programs can barely keep up, and I hope it stays that way.
It used to be that your PC is obselete after a few years...now its obselete as soon as you fork over the money.
You could say that this is all AMDs fault. If it wasn't for the K7, the processor wars would not have happened and Intel would probably have just been releasing new PIII-550s or something right about now. There would be more of a balance. But then again, AMD processors kick ass and have forced Intel to realize that their little monopoly is over.
All they really have going for them right now is mobile and dual processor systems.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
Dear oh dear... if a celeron 700 is considered a low end system, what hope does it leave for us out there still running with 400MHz machines, or slower? And what's worse is that each new processor coming out these days needs a new motherboard, and sometimes even a new PSU/case... Time to raid the bank again!
ManicHawk - Just because you're manic doesn't mean the walls aren't bouncy
/*
as for an additional FP processor... you are living in the wrong millenium bud.
*/
And if you'd bothered to read the post more carefully, you'd know the poster wasn't talking about a separate FP co-processor. I think the poster was referring to the built-in FPU--very much still an issue, bud.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I have encountered a lot of pc's with these requirements in mind. We always went with the Voodoo 3 3000 pci, it worked pretty well.
Creative also sells a nice TNT2 Ultra pci now. Which I would prefer over the voodoo 3.
But I guess its whatever camp you ollow, 3dfx vs nvidia......
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
"lower end systems like an Intel Celeron 700 and a AMD Duron 700"
Geez, I really need to upgrade. I really havn't had that much trouble getting by with a 300 pII, w/80 mb ram. Anyone else agree?
Show the wife, parents, S.O., boss this article!
See here! My computing power is hopelessly inadequate. I NEEEEED faster hardware!
They even agree on Slashdot!
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Huh. These are the high-end machines on my desk at work. Low-end are the P166 I run Linux on, the P133 that's my mail server / firewall at home, and the P133's that are my wife's and kids' machines. My home P233 is midrange...
"Grandpa, what was it like back in the olden days before gigahertz processors and hundreds of megabytes of RAM? How did you get anything done!?" "Sonny, let me tell you, in my day we only had an Apple ][ with 48K of RAM and a cassette drive. And we liked it that way, by jingo!"
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Deus Ex still runs like putty though, but you can't have everything.
Whoever programmed Deus EX can give MS a lesson in creating bloatwar. This is the kind of programming that makes a Celeron 700 low-end. Anybody tried nocturne:-(
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Here's a mo re complete link for the card
Oh, and it pays to buy bulk instead of retail.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Gosh, people are calling 700Mhz machines slow already? I just built an 800Mhz Athlon over summer (I know, but still) and while I've been enjoying it - I haven't really gotten any good proc-intensive games for it - infact, I still have an "Old" Voodoo3 2000 PCI in it. Man. Passed out on the 3D superhighway already?!?!?!
Did anyone else out there get a Voodoo 4? I found one for $143, and it totally rocks in Quake III with everything turned on. It averages around 90 fps on 800x600 on my Duron 700 system with everything turned on.
I haven't been able to find any benchmarks on it at all, and I think it's because everyone's concentrating on the Voodoo 5. (They were released at the same time, I believe. That could have something to do with the cost.) It's really nearly the same card, but with just one processor - it even uses the same drivers.
Does anyone have any info on this card?
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
I was gonna comment on the same thing. I've been running on AMD K6-III 400Mhz for the last year, and Quake n' UT work just fine (even with my 50% defunct Voodoo3... got hit by lightening). The GeForce2 GTS I just got made everything all happy and such. Who the hell seriously thinks that a 700-800Mhz machine is low end? For Christ's sake. The market may improve rather quickly, but anything released less than a year ago is not "low end".
We had a debate where I worked many years ago (late '80s) about how PCs, generally, had crappy overall designs than some of the other systems we were using. The PC folks would crow about how their system was better than our VAXes because it had a faster CPU clock (stupid criterion most would agree). Meanwhile we'd ask the PC bigots why our software ran faster on our slower-clock-rate VAX than it did on their PC. We were careful to write code that could run on either the VAX, PC, or the behemoth IBMs at the central data center. (The IBM's were, by far, the fastest boxes but were so heavily loaded that they were everyone's last choice.) The result of our debate was the conclusion that the VAX (and the IBMs) had a more balanced design and better software. Our in-house benchmarks showed our ``lowly'' VAXen beating the latest Intel boxes; the balanced system was clearly superior for what we needed to do: software development, number crunching, and for most of us, documentation (using TeX). I'd rather have a slightly slower system with software built with a great compiler.
The PC vendors spend much of their efforts putting a very fast processor in a system with fairly pathetic I/O subsystem. For a single user system this seems reasonable. Systems that were designed with multiple users in mind had to take into account the possibility that multiple processes would be performing I/O and you saw features such as elevator seeking in device drivers that are only recently coming into vogue on the PC. I.e., some effort was going into addressing real performance problems instead of merely figuring out how to get the latest, fastest processor into the system.
Software bloat is part of a continuing problem. When your word processor needs more RAM in a single PC than we used to have on all the PCs in all the offices in our department, something's really wrong. Not a new problem, though, and it's not all about unneeded features (although that's a huge problem lately). I once obtained a piece of software from COSMIC which stated that it would need 512KB of memory in order to run. Using the MS FORTRAN compiler this was true. However, we stuck the source out on our old PDP-11 (remember, I'm talking about mid/late '80s) and the compiler was able to generate an executable that ran in under 128KB on a system using I/D space. Since no one was willing to tie up their (or any) PC for the week or so that it would take to run the simulation -- at least not after we ran it the first time -- guess where it wound up being deployed? No code changes were made so, apparently, DEC's F77 compiler could optimize rings around MS's (no surprise to me there). The balanced system running superior software wins again.
I see some strange tradeoffs being made in the PC/Windows area that don't make sense to me: write crappy, inefficient software and throw hardware at the resulting mess in order to get it to run. Now that PCs are being used for multiprocessing and multiple users, the need for quality software is beginning important again.
Hardware-wise, I'll always prefer to do my homework and choose a vendor that addresses all the aspects of the system and bypass the folks that think they're state-of-art by dropping the lastest hot motherboard into a box. Since so many PC vendors change components without notice I've been opting to build my own systems for a long time now. Last year's processor with 256MB of RAM would be preferable to this year's smoker with only 64MB. Before they became nothing but 200-page advertisement collections, the PC rags used to do decent benchmarks that could show the strengths and deficiencies of various vendors systems. You don't see those any more. Pity.
Sorry if I got into rant mode. This is just one of my continuing pet peeves.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I'm quite happy to see that I'm not the only one that thinks a two-year-old machine is far from obsolete. Shucks, it wasn't more than three years ago when one of the key "features" of Linux was getting the power of unix at a very usable speed from a low-end 486 or any other machine that was choking under Windows 95. Lately, though, it seems every other l33t d00d lives just to own nothing older 6 months and brag about his insanely-high framerates at wasteful resolutions.
Though most of my company relies on commercial unix systems, we do have a great deal of x86 servers and workstations, some for work, some for play, and some hosting various projects for the community. Business, family, and friends included, we have been hard pressed to need anything faster than a 400 MHz Pentium II for pretty much any task. Most of us don't run Enlightenment or nutty screensavers, which allows a Pentium 233 w/ Matrox Millennium gfx to be quite a speedy workstation (provided it's got a 7200 rpm HD). 3D games are a bit of an exception, but even then, a 400 MHz K6-2 or 300 MHz PII with a Rage128/Voodoo3/TNT2 is more than enough to drive high framerates at 640x480 & 800x600 and whoop up on the kiddies playing Quake on Dad's 1 GHz Dell. I have friends that fight tooth and nail to keep up with the Joneses, which has allowed me to experience the "finer gaming experience". Aside from being a bit more responsive in large open areas with lots of action, I really can't tell much of a difference between an Athlon 650 w/ geForce and a 400 MHz K6-2 w/ Voodoo3. 32-bit color, maybe, but I would need to have the two machines side-by-side or look up screenshots on the web to really notice something that small. When I play games, I do so for the action and fun, not for the visual quality. For that I'll take a scenic drive or visit an art gallery. I won't pay $1000+ for a computer that does nothing more than draw prettier frames for a game. When I spend big money on a system it's for reliability, redundancy, and torque, not for playing games. End Rant.
"..lower end systems like an Intel Celeron 700 and a AMD Duron 700."
Damn, low end kicks in fast. Is this what the techies are now considering low end. WOW!. A year ago when I bought my machine 700 mhz was practicly top of the line. I still consider 700 mhz to be right up there. Kinda middle-top. But I guess the 'gods' have spoken and I have been dubbed a low-end user. Guess I have to upgrade.
I guess this means my dads 475 mhz K6/2 laptop is like a old tin can. My P-II 400 mhz server is just as bad. As well as the desktop counterpart sitting right next to. And gosh, my sisters 150 mhz Pentium is almost a classic. Almost time to get vintage plates.
What happend to the good old days of 8088's and powerful 286's. I miss my dual 5.25 floppies on my old 640k compaq. Whah!!!
Let me chime in as well with being perplexed.
I have a PIII-6xx at work running NT 4.0, and at home I have a Celeron 366 o/c'ed to 460 with 192MB running Win2K. Frankly, qualitatively speaking there is no difference between the two systems. Ok, the PIII at work is a Dell OptiPlex GX1 with a crappy built-in ATI 3D Rage Pro 4MB, while at home I run a TNT2 16MB. Still, with the apps I'm using--Delphi 4, IE5, Visual Studio 6, Word etc--I simply can't tell a noticeable difference between the two machines. I'm sure running the latest 3D games would reveal a significant fps difference, but since I don't, that doesn't matter. I'd be an utter fool to go out and spend money on the current generation of high-end CPUs. Especially since qualitatively the difference between a PIII-6xx and a PIII-1G is probably even smaller.
I've given up the cpu war. I learned a while ago to buy system speed. I want my system speed to more closly match the proccessor speed. It doesn't do any good if your 1.13 mhz intel is sitting around picking its nose 90% of the time waiting for some data to get fed to it.
That's why I bought my athlon with 200mhz system bus. I can smoke most intel machine with their 133 mhz bus.
Spend the extra money on faster RAM, a quicker hard drive. You'll have a better performing machine in the long run.
It ain't gonna be long before the kiddies get tired of bragging about their PC's specs. Soon they'll be on to other things, like the tensile strength of their shoelaces. What ever happined to a good old arm wrasslin' match?
I mean 1.13 Ghz. Please don't rip me apart moderators!!!
xevil runs fine on my Sparc Classic. Even with the CG3 built in framebuffer, 50mhz chip, and 24 megs of ram. Guess those ultra sparcs won't make it any faster.
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
Well, the cpu would lose out and that GeForce 2 GTS card would be twidling its thumbs most of the time. The speed of the card outweights the CPU. Just upgrade already. you can get a new machine for not much more than this card anyways.
Is there no end to the madness...
ack I've got the Creative Banshee AGP on my Celeron 433 w/ 256 megs of ram and the thing is a pig. With Voodoo3 cards so cheap, might as well go with one of those. Might as well use 1 year old hardware instead of 3 year old hardware. I'm just too cheap to replace mine as I only play games that need the wiz-bang 3d when I boot into Windows for Half Life TFC. (Twice in the last month.)
Well, if you are having problems getting rid of those old 700Mhz systems, I can probably offer you a fair price. Let's say $100 a piece?
After all, they are nearly useless nowadays anyway.
... here's a mirror:
GeForce2 GTS Performance On A Value Platform
by Chris Angelini, Ben Hirsch, Alex Ross, : October 24, 2000
When NVIDIA originally announced the plans to include hardware transformation and lighting acceleration in the design for their GeForce 256, it was speculated that owners of value systems would see the most performance gain. Since the processor would be doing less work on the 3D pipeline, fewer applications would be CPU limited, and frame rates would increase. Of course this was theoretical, and real-world scenarios did not always turn out so optimistically, but low-end systems did see some semblance of a boost.
Six months later, the GeForce2 (or infamous NV15, as it was called) made its way onto the market. Boasting a "second generation T&L engine," the GeForce2 offered impressive performance gains over the first generation chip due mainly to a die shrink, providing for the same T&L engine to be clocked 80MHz faster and updated drivers that allow for texture compression by default. Despite the truckload of marketing babble that accompanied the launch, the GeForce2 has done its job, and is currently the fastest consumer desktop solution available.
Most high-end video cards accompany comparably powerful CPUs. However, we thought it would be interesting to see what kind of benefit a GeForce2 could bestow upon a "value-oriented" system. Is gaming just as viable on a Celeron or Duron as it is on one of the GHz beasts we use in our test machines? We are betting an ASUS V7700 Deluxe on it.
Test Setup
Intel Performance Test System
Processor: Intel Pentium III@1Ghz
Heatsink: CoolerMaster DP5-6H51
Memory: 128 MB Micron PC133 CAS2 SDRAM
Motherboard: Asus CUSL2 815
Hard-Drive: 30 gigabyte Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM ATA2 (ATA66)
Sound: Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live
CD/DVD: Toshiba CD-M1402
Power Supply: Sparkle 300 watt
Operating System: Windows 98 Second Edition/Windows 2000 Professional
AMD Performance Test System
Processor: AMD Athlon "Thunderbird"@1Ghz
Heatsink: CoolerMaster DP5-6H51
Memory: 128 MB Micron PC133 CAS2 SDRAM
Motherboard: Asus A7V
Hard-Drive: 30 gigabyte Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM ATA2 (ATA66)
Sound: Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live
CD/DVD: Toshiba CD-M1402
Power Supply: Sparkle 300 watt
Operating System: Windows 98 Second Edition/Windows 2000 Professional
Intel Value Test System
Processor: Intel Celeron@600Mhz
Heatsink: CoolerMaster DP5-6H51
Memory: 128 MB Micron PC133 CAS2 SDRAM
Motherboard: Asus CUSL2 815
Video Card: Leadtek GeForce2 GTS (64MB) with Nvidia Reference Drivers (Detonator 3, ver. 6.18)
Hard-Drive: 30 gigabyte Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM ATA2 (ATA66)
Sound: Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live
CD/DVD: Toshiba CD-M1402
Power Supply: Sparkle 300 watt
Operating System: Windows 98 Second Edition/Windows 2000 Professional
AMD Value Test System
Processor: AMD Duron@700Mhz
Heatsink: CoolerMaster DP5-6H51
Memory: 128 MB Corsair PC133 CAS2 SDRAM
Motherboard: Gigabyte 7ZX
Video Card: Leadtek GeForce2 GTS (64MB) with Nvidia Reference Drivers (Detonator 3, ver. 6.18)
Hard-Drive: 30 gigabyte Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM ATA2 (ATA66)
Sound: Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live
CD/DVD: Toshiba CD-M1402
Power Supply: Sparkle 300 watt
Operating System: Windows 98 Second Edition/Windows 2000 Professional
Software/Test settings
Common: Windows 98 Second Edition, Direct-X 7.0A, V-Sync was disabled
Common: Windows 2000 Professional, V-Sync was disabled
Video Cards Tested
Asus v7700 GeForce2 GTS Deluxe 32MB with NVIDIA's officially released reference drivers version 6.18
Leadtek WinFast GeForce2 GTS 32MB with NVIDIA's officially released reference drivers version 6.18
Quake III: Arena Normal Intel Platform Windows 98 SE
Quake III is very dependant on fillrate for smooth game play, so anyone with a GeForce2 should remain happy, despite the CPU. No matter how powerful your processor is, if you are still running a Rage Pro, this will definitely not be your favorite game.
We benchmarked our Value systems against our Performance machines in order to get a good idea of how the individual platform affects frame rates. Desktop color is set to 16-bits in order to ensure all tests run at Normal Quality indeed defaulted to 16-bit. All timedemos are run with the sound system "on," because that's the way the game should be played.
The Celeron system doesn't provide enough power for the GeForce2 to become heavily weighed down. Conversely, the Performance machine feels a fillrate limitation closer to 1280x1024.
Quake III: Arena Normal AMD Platform Windows 98 SE
AMD's Duron is able to muster roughly 1/3 more low-resolution performance than the Celeron, thanks to the faster front side and memory busses. At 1600x1200 the frame rates of the Duron 700 and Thunderbird 1GHz are nearly indistinguishable.
Quake III: Arena MAX Intel Platform Windows 98 SE
Increased demands put on the GeForce2's video bandwidth limits performance on both machines closer to 1280x1024. The Intel Value platform manages to keep above 30fps, even with Quake III's quality settings completely maximized.
In Retrospect
Whoever said "build your system in a balanced manner" must have been stuck with a Pentium 200MHz machine. There is nothing wrong with coupling an inexpensive, value processor with one of the fastest video cards on the market (unless of course, you are running with 16 or 32MB of RAM - then you should be listening to the guy with the Pentium 200).
If playing first person shooters in high-resolutions and 32-bit color is your focal gaming goal, then more emphasis should be placed on your video card, rather than your processor. If passing up on a GHz machine means the difference between a GeForce2 and a Savage 2000, by all means, may the (Ge)Force be with you.
If simulators are more interesting than blowing people to shreds in Quake III, be sure and take that GHz machine - simulator game play is far more dependant on CPU processing power than the fill-rate of your video card (although that still isn't a good excuse to buy a Savage 2000).
Now that you've seen how nimble today's value processors can be in a gaming environment, grab the nearest Duron, overclock it to the max, and put our performance numbers to shame. Happy gaming everyone!
Chris Angelini
Editor
Benjamin Hirsch
Technical Analyst & Lab Manager
Alex "Sharky" Ross
Editor-in-Chief
Yes AGP. I really think that there needs to be some improvements in the available Linux drivers. That would probably solve a lot of people's problems.
Are YOU listed?
When Hemos stated lowend, he wasn't referring to the number of cycles per second the CPU was able to do. Rather, he was talking about the low cache Duron and Celeron CPUs. Good writing doesn't make you think like the author before you understand the prose, and this post was not good writing.
However, what the hell do you think you are all doing by correcting him?
Michael Labbe
Agreed, but if all of your pr0n is locqted on your hard disk, you can load the whole collection into a viewer program and have a slide show that last forever. Or the "my pictures" screensaver that comes with WinME. Just take care that it doesn't kick in when you've got your girlfriend over. Happened to me once :-( Garantueed to get you single in no-time...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I've tried every OS known to man or beast on my PII 233mhz box , and I've never than nor now felt the need to upgrade to anything faster thanks to my OS of choice. BeOS! I am so pleased with the speed of it I may not upgrade for sometime yet! Allthough a duel cpu box would be nice : )
"lower end systems like an Intel Celeron 700 and a AMD Duron 700."
Man, have CPUs gotten so fast that 700MHz is now considered "low-end"?! I'm still going along happily on my dual PII 333s(overdrives)! And that's the machine I play my games on!
Does it not strike anyone else that they are comparing "Lower End, Value (tm)" processors to current top of the line stuff? Of course the top of the line stuff is going to be twice as fast - they are running at 1.5 - 2.0 times the speed!
Why not instead benchmark these inexpensive processors with various video cards like the ATI Radeon, S3 Savage and a GeForce2? Then for reference on the graphs, throw in the Athlon and PIII score for comparison. This would produce a useful graph - something that would allow me to decide if a "Value" system is what I should purchase next. This would also show where the framerate bottleneck is - the CPU or the GPU.
The second complaint I have is their choice of motherboard for the PIII/Celeron. Why not choose something like the Gigabyte GA-6VXE+. This motherboard features (as all Apollo Pro motherboards do, I suspect) an independent FSB - The front side bus of the processor is independent of the memory bus. My Celeron 600E has a 66MHz FSB, the memory bus is 133MHz. Wouldn't this reduce bus contention between the AGP card and the processor, resulting in better performance?
Shame on sharkyextreme for posting such poor benchmarking.
The difference between reality and fantasy is a nice soundtrack.
I -completely- agree. I've been just fine and dandy with my K6-2 333 (overclocked to 350), with 128 MB RAM and a TNT2 Ultra. I, also, play counter-strike well on my system, fragging up there with the best of them (guess my cable modem helps too...).
.sigs??
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Any current processor that you buy for a pc is going to have a FPU that is good enough to do what a game needs. Intel has had good floating point support since the original Pentiums, and AMD has also with the the Athlon and anything newer. If you get a processor that doesn't have a good FPU, you didn't get a new processor, you bought an unused old one. bud.
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
Dude, I'm still getting along rather well with a pentium 200 I got almost 4 years ago. If a Celery 700 is a low end computer, then I really must be in the stone age...
Posted from the wireless couch.
celery 300a @450
p2 400~450
K6/2-450
Have you been peeking in my basement? I've got the C300A@450, and the K6/2-450, and a P2-3?? (got it used, not sure about the speed), but only the Celery is used for gaming.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I wish these game programmers knew how to get some sort of performance out of their code like the demoscene programmers do (did?)
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Since 1.2Ghz Athlons......
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
The Unreal Engine has historically been notoriously crappy on NVidia hardware (well, most anything except 3DFX/Glide, really). Its not so much that its bloatware as it is that some of the 3D subsystems (texture management, especially) are somewhat legacy and were originally written with Glide and software rendering in mind.
This has been fixed quite a bit over the past year...Hopefully some future patch to Deus Ex will roll the improvements into that game.
My PC at home is "low end" -- it's an old P75 with a 300MHz AMD K6-2 in it. Lets see what a decent 3D card does in that!
Really? Deus Ex runs like crap?
I have it on my 400mhz with 128megs ram
and I can run it at 1024 with no dropped frames at all, BTW that game kicks butt!
Variex is a typical Frnech slang word to design the kind of W4rr10rZ that love to boost their pissies.
I personally use a K6-2/350 (half what you call a low-end PC) with an ATI-AIW (Rage128)/16Mo. I have never attempted to measur my framerate under Quake3 or UT but I just love it as it is.
Do you think I am a spoiler or I am just trying to open your eyes on the difference between specs and sufficient confortable playability ?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Anyone get the feeling that this particular game reporter is a bit isolated in his ivory tower of gaming excellence. Since when has a 700Mhz machine been low-end??
Perhaps if I had a company buying me a new system everytime a new processor came out I'd feel the same way, but I have to work for a living here. Geesh.
Speaking from a long experience of playing UT, Q3 and counterstrike on a 300Mhz celeron with only a voodoo1, and regularly coming out in the top 3 or 5 at the end of a match, I can testify that you don't need fast hardware to be good.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
I also bought a s540, PCI version, since that was the only PCI card available at the store which could drive a monitor at 1600x1200. And in 2D it works great. However, the 3D capabilities on the card were just a big waste of money, since there are no (free) 3D drivers for this card for Linux. At least, I have been totally unable to find any. I tried an evaluation version of X from (i think) Xi, but it crashed my machine. So, all-in-all, I just paid lots of money for a fancy 2D-card.
So, if you have any option, don't buy 3D-cards from S3/Diamond!
If a Celeron 700 or Duron 700 is low end, then these people are on crack.
And a G3/450 is completely archaic! And when I get that GeForce for my Amiga, what could we call that?
Crack! Really fucking nasty crack!
I love how Celeron and AMD 700 Mhz systems are considered the "slower" systems now. My gawd, I'd love to have either one at work or home. Hilarious. Do the people running these things even have a clue that the corporate standard is stil the p2-333 or so? Or that the personal standard is a whopping 100Mhz faster at around 800Mhz? Frums
My Pentium III 500 is doing just fine, and since I upped the RAM to 320MB and a GeForce 2 GTS. I sure wouldn't mind a faster chip so Fast Fourier Transforms would go faster (Cool Edit and SETI@Home), but it serves me well as it is. Also, I do have a 440BX board with AGP2x, but all the latest chipset offerings truly stink (from the failed Intel Rambus ventures to VIA's loads which never have stable drivers).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
By the way. You should be able to tell from this that I like a bit of power in my machines. However my 733 is the most power that I think you could need for just about anything except possibly AutoCad. I just got my wife her Duron system from a p-200 and she is just amazed at how much more stuff she can do. Mainly because now she can multi-task instead of having to close down Word to get on the web.
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
but it's slow
---
as for an additional FP processor... you are living in the wrong millenium bud.
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
I figure it like this, let them claim that a 700Mhz processor is slow..that only means the price will drop to reasonable amounts. And motherboards are getting cheaper as well... remembering when 486DX266's were the best thing since sliced bread. And cost over a grand....
Perhaps today is a good day to die! -Worf
You may as well do 8 bit monochrome.
Show me 32 bit, or don't bother doing it.
i'm sorry to have to tell you this, but LOTS of people set their desktops at 16 bit and play games with it too, and THEY'RE NOT CRAZY! 8bit monochrome is undebatably much worse than 16 bit color, but most people don't even notice the diff between 32 and 16 unless the banding effects are pointed out to them. i'll take the fps bump and stick with 16 bit color for now - quake II won't play at 32 bpp anyways.
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
somebody mod this up as funny damnit! it's a vic-20 reference allready!
A 700MHz Celeron/Duron box is pretty much the lowest spec you can buy these days. Intel/AMD no longer make chips at clock speeds less than that. My 300MHz Celeron isn't 'low end'. Its obsolete.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Well, UT uses an S3 Metal API as well, to make use of S3 Savage4/Savage2000 chipsets. I've got a Savage4 and I can run UT at 1024 with all the eyecandy turned on on a Celeron 400 while Deus Ex looks like someone flooded my box with syrup :-(
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Realistic mundane hardware given a new lease of life by XFree86 4.0 (part of SuSE 7.0). Quake II is smooth and playable for the first time.
XFree86 4.0 shows that simply plugging in more expensive status symbol hardware isn't always the best thing to do.
I'm still puttering along with my K6-2/266 with 48 megs of RAM...runs most everything good enough. :/
:P)
(Although as soon as the chance to upgrade shows, I'm jumping at it.
BytesTemplar.com
I don't know about a specific site, but I will tell you a good card - Voodoo3. I have PPro 200 with 64MB RAM and no AGP slot. I bought a PCI Voodoo3 2000, and I was able to run Quake3Arena with mid-quality graphics (i.e. not on 'fast' or 'fastest' settings) at between 20 and 40 fps. Not what some people consider acceptable, but I found this remarkable considering the min. hardware requirements (according to the box) involves a P266. Depending on whether or not you have an AGP slot, I would say either a Voodoo3 or GeForceMX is going to give you the most bang for your buck. More info can be found here and here.
Bah. I spent $0.75 and bought me a pair of 3D glasses. My computing experience has never been the same since.
The GeForce2 MX GPU is winning editor awards all over the place. Happenstancilly, I found a card with it for $104, shipped: come 'n get it.
f m? Task=Vi ewProduct&SearchText=geforce2%2520mx&IdCatalog=256 0321
Slashcode won't let me insert the URL correctly; it adds spaces. Please remove the spaces from the URL after clicking on the link in order to view. Should look like this:
http://www.onvia.com/CnetShopper/products/index.c
I wouldn't really call this a low end system. How about doing this test with some 350 - 500 mHZ systems at a maximum.
Neither would I. It's more of an insult to stick this kind of hardware into a Gigabyte motherboard.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I thought that my 450mhz Celeron was too slow to play Counterstrike until I changed from a TNT card to Geforce with DDR-RAM. From being a bit unhappy about the speed, I now have all the power I need with up to 70fps in 1280x1024x32, and I don't see the need for upgrading.
Oh, and Q3 is running just fine too.
--------
...but how many people change cpus every 2months? ...
Well, since new 700MHz CPUs cost ~$80, my guess would be people who can afford to spend $40 a month, or roughly $1.33 a day.
(Remove space between "duro" and "n%2" to view the link.)
you might want to try a banshee. I've got one in my p2-233, and love it. Things like Q3 and (more importantly) UT rune perfectly... I'm using AGP, but iirc there's also a pci version (the pci is a diamond card iirc).
A friend of mine once picked up three old 486s and made them into NFS-boot linux boxen and I told him to name them Stop, Drop, and Roll. Shelter/Shut/Listen and Duck/Cover are also ideas for small clusters of computers.
ToiletDuk (58% Slashdot Pure)
Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows.
Since when has Celeron or Duron been low-end? (Among the x86, among all computers all x86 are low-end). My 486 is a low-end x86 and I still consider my ppro a middle-end machine - it is adequate for most tasks if I don't use latest bloatzillas and all.
Ummm, this is very usefull at all. First of all the "value" system they tested had very good everything but processor. It had great RAM a great Harddrive amoung other things. Not to mention they then test it vs. a PIII 1000. My point is why bother? A usefull test would be to buy some crap emachines computer and test it with and without the Geforce2 and see just how big a difference it is. The machine they tested was no more of a value pc than any Dell computer. Sharky has some good reviews sometimes, but this was just a waste of my time and everyone elses I'm sure. No kidding its going to be slower with a CII600 in there rather than a PIII, wow I'm surprised. But if you want to test "value" pc's then at least test with a value pc against another value pc. Not some toned down pc vs a suped up one. Worthless...
It really doesn't make much sense to try and run a "high-end" video card on a slower system, even to run quake because, sure you might have beautiful graphics, but it's gonna be about 10 to 15 FPM. That's like fixing the body of your car before you even touch the engine or drivetrain that really needs the attention!
You'd look REAL good cruising down the street in a shiny car....with a trail of black smoke or loose parts behind you.
The article commented on PS2 developers struggling with programming the new hardware. This is what happened with the N64, and one reason for its lower sales compared to the PS1.
But regarding their upcoming system, Nintendo wrote, "Instead of going for the highest possible performance, which does not contribute to software development, our idea was to create a developer-friendly next generation TV game machine that maintained above-standard capabilities" (From http://www.nintendo.com/gamecube/ind ex. html)
In the end, it's all about gameplay. The graphics are just icing. This is why Starcraft still continues to sell well, despite being 2 yrs old and using 640x480 2D sprite graphics.
Rather than being the Betamax, the PS2 may be the N64 redux, while Nintendo captures the market with rapidly developed, fun games upon the 'cubes release.
The real 'X-factor', IMHO, is the X-Box (no pun intended). MS has shown savvy in which games it has produced and distributed, but many other consumer market attempts have shown less insight: no internet acceptance until late in the game, MSN, various attempts at entering the banking industry, etc.
It's going to be interesting.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Fortunately, the overclocking possibilities of the duron/asus combo means that I don't have to stick with 700. Running it at around 850 right now, and with the GeForce it screams through round after round of counter-strike.
Duron + Asus is nicely affordable too. Why pay more when you get more or less comparable FPS performance anyways?
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
This is a good time to let everyone know about what happened to a PC I was building for a friend.
The PC was ready to go, but we used her old monitor from her Pentium 66 PC (not sure if it was a VGA or SVGA, but I assume VGA) and got nothing but wavy static lines. For some odd reason we left the monitor on, I guess hoping that after my hard work over the summer building the PC, maybe the monitor would happily wink into a working state for us.
Right about midnight, I hear a horrible scream from the PC speaker and it turns itself off. It never turned back on. After swapping out the power supply I did some research on how ATX boards control power and did some tests to confirm that the motherboard was dead.
Hopefully now you can avoid the damage youself...it really sucked to wait a week and shell out another $100 for a new mboard. Be careful if you are going to toss new video cards in older PCs!
------
Let me give you the lowdown
you call 700 MHz processors lower end? i only just upgraded from PII 333 last week, to a thunderbird 900MHz. i still have my tnt2, and the frame rate wasn't increased by all that much. so no, i don't think my old processor was crippling it much at all. but these days there isn't all that much need for really powerful processors, cos you get the soundblaster lives with their own processor, the geforce2 gts has it's own processor, so really, not all that much is left.
---
---
Never send a man where you can send a bullet.
That's the driver I use, but it doesn't do OpenGL, which means no 3D. (Or, rather, software-rendered 3D, which isn't all that fast on my PPro)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Low end : Duron 800
High end : TBird 1000
I bet these big kids wax their CPU's every day, thinking it makes them faster. It brings back the uplifting gino conversations that sounded like "You suck because I drive a corvette and you drive a camaro.. camaros are for grannies".
Now I'll go mail some Ritalin to Sharky's boys.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"There's always that dilemma of whether to upgrade your CPU or your video card first. There's a useful piece that shows some of today's fastest 3D accelerators but on lower end systems like an Intel Celeron 700 and a AMD Duron 700"
/. lead-in rather missleading. Talking about low-end CPU and determining your upgrade path implies older CPUs (well, to me and obviously many others). When you read the article (as you suggest), you soon discover that the /. lead-in is wrong, with article more aligned with helping people choose a new system (high-end or value as determined by current state of the market.)
/.'s increasing sloppiness.
I think most people found the
It's just another example of
True, the banshee isn't the hottest thing out there for 3d (but I does fine for me). However, it has the added bonus over the voodoo2 that 2d accel is pretty impressive. (Don't know how it does against the voodoo 3 2d-wise...)
[read the subject]
1. As others have pointed out, 700 MHz is not low-end. My fastest computer, that I have ever had, is a K6-3/450. (Well, the dual Celeron 366 is kinda faster, but kinda not. It depends.)
2. Unlike what other posters have said, just because the chip makers no longer MAKE anything 700MHz doesn't mean you can't get a system with 700MHz. I bought both the K6-3 and the two Celerons this summer, new. It's called pricewatch.
So, neither is 700 MHz "low-end", nor is it even "low-end" in terms of systems you can make!
Geez. I've just been wishing and wishing for a T-Bird @ 800 Mhz... silly me, that's almost low end!
-----
Get a "balanced" computersystem that does the things that you want it to do, and stick with it. Then when you feel the need of a bigger computer, buy a newer "balanced" system and sell the old one or turn it into a workstation.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I am amazed at the number of "700 MHz isn't low end" posts. If you would have taken the time to read the article, you would know that it was on "Value" Systems, not "Low-End" Systems.
sup
I would still by a V3, I bought one around last christmas for my P2-400/w 128megs Ram and it Kicks ass.
I get about 40-60 fps in Quake 3, running at 1024x
My friend has a V5 though, and it really whoops it. And it only cost him the same as my V3 cost me(I do not know where He got it) but it was only 150$ OEM,
This program XL-R8R will benchmark your system as a gaming platform (calculate framerates for different types of games), and will then connect to a database, find results from people with similar hardware, and tell you what you should expect in terms of framerate, if you were to upgrade to this or that hardware.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I have a friend that have an old Pentium 133 and a Voodoo 2, and Q3 runs fine on that machine (at least if you disable all effects, and is satisfied with a resolution of 640x480).
The same friend also has an old PII 333 with a GeForce2, and can run Q3 at a resolution on 1024x768 with all effects enabled without any noticable slowdowns.
/ The Arrow
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Anyone know of a site for video cards of REAL low end pcs?
eBaY
-sid
Read the fsckink links before posting !
:)
Its's Sharky Extreme : PC : Hardware : GeForce2 GTS Performance On A Value Platform
"Value" is not "low end", is just cheaper than "high end".
You insulted my P166mmx !
--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree. My day to day machine is a K6-2 500 w/ 96 megs of ram and a 3dLabs Permedia 2 with 4 (yes 4) megs of video memory. Honestly, it sux. I would LOVE to read about something in the range of upper (I suppose it would be the white trash) level of video cards available for my machine.
Are YOU listed?
I do believe, though, that the graphics card can make a huge difference, if the game was written to take advantage of it, and with DirectX doing that for developers on Win32 now, that's pretty much a given. It reminds me of when I went over to see a friend playing jedi knight, on a 486 at 640x480 and it ran almost flawlessly. He had a nice 3d card though, and it showed. I had a P233 at the time and I tried to run it and it struggled in good old mode X (for those that don't remember mode X, that's 320x240x256). Now the jump from 486 to P-anything is huge, but it was the graphics card holding me back.
Please don't ask why he had a 486 and a 3d card though. ;-)
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
As it seems everyone else it pointing out,
a celery 600 and duron anything-mhz are NOT low end.
You want to do a real story, show the performance increases from TNT, TNT2, GF, GF2 on things like
celery 300a @450
p2 400~450
K6/2-450
(god in hell, who'd have thought THESE would be low end this quickly).
And who in their right, left, or anywhere IN their minds sets the desktop to, or plays games at 16 bit?
You may as well do 8 bit monochrome.
Show me 32 bit, or don't bother doing it.
... after clicking through 20 pages of graphs that only differ in colour?
I recenly upgraded from a TNT-based video card to a GeForce2 GTS on my Pentium II based system.
The result? Q3A/Linux took a leap from 640x480x16, mid-detail and probably 20 fps to 1280x1024x32 max-detail and probably 30-50 fps.
The difference was unbelieveable; I thought that I had bought a completely new machine. I was playing Q3A with max settings at higher framerates at 1280x1024 than I had seen on Quake2 (with its 16-bit color) at 800x600.
I have no doubt that I couldn't have acheived the same kind of performance bonus had I spent the same amount of money on a new CPU.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
These guys at Sharky need a reality check. They seem to have a serious inferiority complex in claiming that a Celeron 700 or AMD Duron is low-end. I used to run Quake3, and more importantly Unreal Tournament on a P2-400 with Voodoo2 just fine. Of course I absolutely love my Celeron @ 850 with Geforce2 DDR but that's just gravy. In my case, the top-end video card made a world of difference much more noticeable than any blind cpu upgrade. The core motherboard and cpu always suffer from bloated software, while the video card has its own tweaked embedded code that's always running at full blazing speed, as long as the rest of the PC can provide the scene data fast enough to keep up. Sure, maybe getting a P3-1050 might give me 5-10 extra fps in Quake, for a 400$ pricetag, but if you spend all your hard earned simoleans on bleeding-edge hardware, you won't have a penny left to buy games =)
-Billco, Fnarg.com
So, in six months, will we be hearing about how the latest 3D card will greatly improve the performance of those low end 1.1gHz machines?
I'm not sure where this definition of "lower end" comes from ..
Why not try a 16Mb PCI 3D card in a 486DX2.. that's what I'd call "lower end"
X in 1024x768x32bpp is kind of cool, compared to Windows boxen that can hardly manage 800x600.
Runs Quake well too :>
someone was smokin' some rock when they posted this. The article in question is about "value" systems, not lower end ones.
right now, i own a P-III 300 and a K6-2 400. The only reason i consider these low end is because i'm a geek and more Mhz means....well, a bigger penis i guess...
Anyway....AMD K6-2/400 with a Voodoo3 3500 and 128Meg of ram plays Counter-Strike just fine...and, in the end, isn't that really all that matters?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
... a 300MHz AMD K6-2 in it. Lets see what a decent 3D card does in that!
Exactly, this is what I would like to know myself. What would the performance boost be for drawing and rendering 3D-pictures and animations if I upgraded my 1MB S3-Trio card to an OpenGL 32MB card? My opinion is that most of the work would be shipped from the CPU to the graphics adapter, so there could be quite a big improvement.
However, looking at the benchmarks in the article, it seems that the GeForce 2 GTS on low resolutions is hindered by the CPU performance. So is it a realistic idea to spend a few quid on a new graphics adapter instead of spending a lot more money on a completely new machine. I mean, my current machine is a compaq 166-MMX and does everyting I need quite satisfactorly.
Thought of the day:
BSOD's are Microsofts way to fight RSI.
---
---
"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a sick mind." (Terry Pratchett)
Hold on. First, you might want to consider flashing it. The Bios that ships with it isn't all that great. You can find the Bios here. I don't know which driver you're using, but you might want to try this one. I'd appreciate it if you could reply or e-mail how it turns out. I actually care about this stuff. Ya know, techsupport and all.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I have a 400Mhz system at home and a 350Mhz system at work. These a starting to approach what I would call lower-end systems, but 700Mhz? In the next 6-8 Months I shall probably start looking around for something better, by this articles estimate the new system I'll be thinking (that will last me 2+ years) is pretty much already lower-end.
Perhaps hardware reviews should take more note of the power of computing as well as just raw computer power.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
The voodoo 3 is indeed a good choice for a real low end machine. I have a P-133 with 64 MB RAM. I'm able to run UT unsing medium quality. Quake III doesn't have a high fps, but it works.
About your sig.
I read the VXA Sweepstake Official Rules, and the following line made me smile:
Canadian residents must correctly answer a mathematical skill testing question without either human or mechanical aid, if selected as a winner, in order to receive a prize.
I wonder if these things get read, ever.
---
---
"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a sick mind." (Terry Pratchett)
I've had my P2-350 (clocked to 434) for quite a while now, so it's starting to show its age. Mind you, when I swapped my TNT2-M64 for a spangly Geforce MX, it gave it a new lease of life!
Q3, Half Life and UT now run nice and smooth, 3D Mark 2000 scores have doubled and I'm a happy man.
Deus Ex still runs like putty though, but you can't have everything.
I wouldn't really call this a low end system. How about doing this test with some 350 - 500 mHZ systems at a maximum.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.