Want to play Doom 3?

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:32:16 -0400, Alex Johnson
wrote:


  >> Minimum spec from ID is a Geforce 4 MX. A Radeon 9600 may not be
  >> substantially better than the TI4400. Radeon 9700 might be a
  >> more reasonable minimum spec for 1024x768 or higher res.
 >
 >Well, yes. I said for "acceptable performance". The review I saw
 >showed GeForce4 based stuck at 640x480, Radeon 9600 doing 800x600, and
 >Radeon 9800 and GF-FX cards handling 1024x768. I think I'll be in the
 >640x480 group with my current video card (a 64MB GF4). If I get so fed
 >up with that, I'll probably move to a Radeon 9800 Pro 256 (currently
 >$235 at Xtreme Gear). Except for Doom 3, and Half-life 2 coming up, I'd
 >still be using my old Pentium III with integrated graphics without
 >complaint.

I threw a GF4 TI4200 128MB, into same system I'd tested with a
GF3... card was overclocked but it was a particularly poor
overclocker and harder to mod for voltage increase
(!@#$%Chaintech!@#$%). The GF4 running at 280 core & 570 memory
was fast enough to run at 800x600 with Display Properties/Driver
set to "fastest"... Somewhere around here I also have a different
GF4 with only 64MB mem but that overclocks better, will be
interesting to see which helps a GF4 more... though IIRC it was
mainly an issue of the quality level, that a 64MB card was
limited to low quality mode.

At least now that we have demanding games it should help lower
resale value of many older video cards... even those who can't or
won't spend hundreds of $$$ on gaming will have a better chance
of playing older games.

kony wrote:
 > On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:32:16 -0400, Alex Johnson

 >
 >
   >>> Minimum spec from ID is a Geforce 4 MX. A Radeon 9600 may not be
   >>> substantially better than the TI4400. Radeon 9700 might be a
   >>> more reasonable minimum spec for 1024x768 or higher res.
  >>
  >> Well, yes. I said for "acceptable performance". The review I saw
  >> showed GeForce4 based stuck at 640x480, Radeon 9600 doing 800x600,
  >> and Radeon 9800 and GF-FX cards handling 1024x768. I think I'll be
  >> in the 640x480 group with my current video card (a 64MB GF4). If I
  >> get so fed up with that, I'll probably move to a Radeon 9800 Pro 256
  >> (currently $235 at Xtreme Gear). Except for Doom 3, and Half-life 2
  >> coming up, I'd still be using my old Pentium III with integrated
  >> graphics without complaint.
 >
 > I threw a GF4 TI4200 128MB, into same system I'd tested with a
 > GF3... card was overclocked but it was a particularly poor
 > overclocker and harder to mod for voltage increase

 > was fast enough to run at 800x600 with Display Properties/Driver
 > set to "fastest"... Somewhere around here I also have a different
 > GF4 with only 64MB mem but that overclocks better, will be
 > interesting to see which helps a GF4 more... though IIRC it was
 > mainly an issue of the quality level, that a 64MB card was
 > limited to low quality mode.

Interesting.

 > At least now that we have demanding games it should help lower
 > resale value of many older video cards... even those who can't or
 > won't spend hundreds of $$$ on gaming will have a better chance
 > of playing older games.

Now that would be nice. I have a few machines on my LAN that have the CPU
power but not the graphics power to play some games. We get friends or
visitors come over, see one of us playing something and want to play
themselves. However we only have crap S3 Trio 2D/3D 8MB AGP cards in the
other machines. People want an arm and a leg even for second-hand GF2's
(Although the last two GF2MX400's I bought died, maybe they weren't a good
'keeper', I know of others who have had GF2's die on them, just out of
warranty).
--
~misfit~