System question...

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

n3Cro

n3Cro

New Member
Dec 15, 2001
1,120
0
Germany
Well my system is atm:
AMD Thunderbird 850
256 MB Ram
Geforce 2 MX (200)


My Question is how big will be the difference on frames in UT etc.
when I only upgrade the GrafikCard to a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 or a Redeon 9500 Pro !?

Or what would you do with low money budged?
 
Although the UT engine is more dependent from cpu power than graphics...I don't know a single game on the planet that won't benefit from a high end graphics card. (provided the drivers and rendering technlogy is compatiable) :)
 
Originally posted by Goose
Although the UT engine is more dependent from cpu power than graphics...I don't know a single game on the planet that won't benefit from a high end graphics card. (provided the drivers and rendering technlogy is compatiable) :)
Click to expand...

Solitaire & minesweeper :p:
 
Well you can't cover your back from every smartass out there but...

I just test it on a very old PC on mine with a 4 mb on-board graphics card. Your thoery is somewhat blown out of the water when I turned it down to 480x320 and 16 colours (NOT 16 bit).

Solitaire looked like shit and a custom game of Minesweeper didn't fit on the screen.

If you want to be padanetic about it, then I'll equally be. :)
 
Last edited:
have nearly the same system and bought a gf-4 Ti 4200 and difference is remarkable in games like morrowind for example
i would recommend to buy a cheap Ti 4200 and not the radeon which cost a lot more and only beats the gf with direct x 9 :)
 
well, technically, you *Should* get a big boost thas true.

but let me give you this example:
I had a Duron 700 /Gf1 (thats kinda similar to yours, a bit worse I know).
so I bought a GF4 ti4200 (leadtek, 64 MB).. the only diff in UT was that my minimum frames increased by 5 or 10 and my avg by 5.
what got the big boost was the upgrade to the XP 1800+ that Im on right now.
 
Originally posted by Goose
Well you can't cover your back from every smartass out there but...

I just test it on a very old PC on mine with a 4 mb on-board graphics card. Your thoery is somewhat blown out of the water when I turned it down to 480x320 and 16 colours (NOT 16 bit).

Solitaire looked like shit and a custom game of Minesweeper didn't fit on the screen.

If you want to be padanetic about it, then I'll equally be. :)
Click to expand...

My theory still holds, since you changed softwaresettings. We are talking about hardware. You can have a GF 4 Ti and still set the settings low and bitch about how ugly it is. So PFFT! :p:
 
Fair enough, if you want to play it like that were we need to talk literally to mean every word we say. So were talking about hardware... sorry didn't realise that.

Even then I somehow get the feeling that performance gain would occur, even in games such as Solitair and Minesweeper. It might not be noticable to the human eye, or even the human brain, but I dare say that even if it was a performance gain of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %. It's still a gain.

At the end of the day, however, you knew damm fine when I said " a single game" I was referreing to a 3d game/current game and whilst having seen the attempt at a disclaimer clause by me, you wanted to pick a whole in it. Well fair play to you. :lol:
 
i would go for the rad 9500 pro its a little expensive but u can use this card in ur next system or with newer upgrades like cpu and ram and motherboard in the future the rad 9500 pro has very good aa and af compared to the gf4 ti
 
ye i'd get the 9500 too, preferably the one with all the renderlines working (pro?) but narrower memory which of coors you can mod to 256 bit so it'll be the same card as rad9700 pro

can fuck up your card tho
 
well, from my experience, you have to have a higher res to really notice it. playing on a gf2 pro gives me about the same fps online (bc netspeed also limited it) at 1024x768.. but if i went up to 1280x1024, which is what i used to usually play at, my gf4 owned it (i borked one of my gf4's so i had to throw my gf2 back in for a while :D)
 
i upgraded from gf2 mx 400 (noname) to geforce2pro (asus), helped like 10 frames or summat. RAM helps even more, try running UT with 384 megs instead of 256

edit: some custom maps are still scary, but thats life. fuck off UT, dont you think ill upgrade my system for you!
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Konnan
went from a gf2mx(400) to a gf4ti4200 and had 0 higher fps :\
Click to expand...

This is because you didn´t disable vertical sync doofus :P

Anyway, i guess your fps is about 60-85 which is close enough to maximum what the human eye can catch.

vertical sync means that if you have it enabled, your fps will lock at your monitors refresh rate. So if you use for example 85Hz it will lock at 85 fps.

If you disable vertical sync the fps will raise depending on what card/system you´ve got.
I got my overclocked Geforce TI 4600 up to 250 fps on 1600x1200 (32 bit) but this is totally pointless. (Especially when my card broke down) :bawling:

60-70 fps is about enough

P.s.
I´ll get a new card soon :D
 
problem with vsync is which ALOT of people seem to get is severe mouse lag i have it turned off playing ut with it on is almost impossible
 
a gfx card will help in ut of course but not as much as say a cpu

ram ? doubt that helps performace at all over 256 i had 256 sdram and then bought 512 crucial cl 2.5 and it made fuck all difference at all maybe slightly faster loading times
 
err i had 500 fps in liandri, at other parts 150fps with a gf2mx, same shit with a gf4ti4200 d00fus...

it was EXACTLY the same, no matter v-sync on/off whatever
even the image quality was kinda the same

in other games the fps went up dramatically, but just for UT i wouldnt buy a new card if i were u
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back