If i get a better video card

[SWAYER_77]

specs

866mhz
TNT2 Nvidia 32mb
pentium III
win xp

mostly project 64 and 1964

OK, now that that is out of the way, i have a few questions

1. If i get a better graphics card...say a raiden 9700 will the games run at full speed, or not because of my lack of MHZ?

2. If i got a raiden 9700, would the graphics be better (for example, Conker's head is white in conker's bad fur day)

3. do u think i should get a raiden 9700?

[Dogman5]

The 9700 PRO? or the plain 9700?

Regardless, you DONT need a card that high end to run a game like Conkers BFD, or ANY emulation at the highest resolutions for that matter.

The MOST you should spend on a graphics card to best fit N64 games at very high resolutions, would probably be about a ATI Raiden 9500 PRO which is about 180$, which still is hardly needed.

And you dont even have to pay that. I would reccomend a 9000 PRO for under 80$ and it should be fine.

Upgrading you RAM will help alot too ;)

[SWAYER_77]

so if i get a 9500 pro, i should be able to run all N64 games (except the ones that have slow vidoe issues) at full speed at 1280x1024 32-bit, even though i have a lack of MHZ, and 256mb memory or ram (whatever it is called)

if i can, that'd be awesome...:)

[Flash]

Originally posted by Dogman5
The 9700 PRO? or the plain 9700?

Regardless, you DONT need a card that high end to run a game like Conkers BFD, or ANY emulation at the highest resolutions for that matter.

The MOST you should spend on a graphics card to best fit N64 games at very high resolutions, would probably be about a ATI Raiden 9500 PRO which is about 180$, which still is hardly needed.

And you dont even have to pay that. I would reccomend a 9000 PRO for under 80$ and it should be fine.

Upgrading you RAM will help alot too ;)

TNT2Ultra or Voodoo3 (Voodoo3 will be faster with Glide64 than GF2 w/ Jabo's D3D) is enough for all n64 games.

RAM... 384 Mb is more than enough for emulation (not only N64, even for memory-eater Neo-Geo)

But one little thing - framebuffer FX...
In this case ATI Raiden will definitely beat NVidia Shang Tsung .... errr.... GeForce FX ;) and all other cards.

[scotty]

A new card would prehaps enhance the quality of the graphics, a 32MB card could go to a Radeon 9500 Pro and get better. A new processor is recommended as well, 866MHz I think you said is ok for games, but for games with a high sys.req. like games by Rare for N64 you need to have a Pentium 4 1.2GHz at least for them to run at full speed with no glitches, I have a 1000MHz and it is still a bit slow on PJ64, 1964 runs perfect, but there are other games that are not as well known that need a good processor as well.

[Tagrineth]

Originally posted by SWAYER_77
so if i get a 9500 pro, i should be able to run all N64 games (except the ones that have slow vidoe issues) at full speed at 1280x1024 32-bit, even though i have a lack of MHZ, and 256mb memory or ram (whatever it is called)

if i can, that'd be awesome...:)

...from experience, I'd have to say not quite.

Most games should run great though.

The big CPU suckers (framebuffer effects) are offloaded by the card wonderfully. But you'll still be CPU-limited in some games (on my P3 800, Goldeneye doesn't quite stay full speed (1964), and Yoshi's Story runs about 50fps (1964)).

[milen]

Upgrade your CPU, if your card isn't TNT2 M64 you don't need upgrade for emulators. Anything equal or better than : TNT2 (not M64), Voodoo2, ATI RADEON 7000 is enough.

TNT2 m64 - too too slow
Voodoo Banshee - haven't multitexturing
ATI Rage - little slow, not quite compitable


On my machine all games run full speed (60 visual interrupts).
Duron 1200(3dnow,sse,mmx), Voodoo3/2000

The only plugin that don't run full speed is tr64 ogl 0.84, about 40vi average, but it's getting faster every release and quality is great

[james.miller]

on my machine goldeneye runs full-speed:). on my old athlonXP1800+ and gf4 440mx combo, useing the same emu settings, goldeneye DID NOT run at full speed. indicating that even a gf4 440mx isnt fast enough.

[Doomulation]

The gfx card is irrelevant, unless it's a voodoo, intregrated crap or ati (old cards such as rage), which has performance impact.

[milen]

james.miller
on my old athlonXP1800+ and gf4 440mx combo, useing the same emu settings, goldeneye DID NOT run at full speed.

Lol somehting is not right but not with your gf4mx, actualy geforce2 is more than enough for n64 emulation.

Goldeneye runs about 105FPS with 1964 0.84,Glide64 on Duron1200,Voodoo3/2000 :D and very high quality


Doomulation why you forgot old nvidia cards aren't they crap too ?????:)

[Flash]

Originally posted by Doomulation
The gfx card is irrelevant, unless it's a voodoo, intregrated crap or ati (old cards such as rage), which has performance impact.
Voodoo ? If it's Voodoo Rush - unplayable slow and glitches. Voodoo Gfx - a bit slow, only 640x480 but many games runs fast enough. Voodoo2 - most games at 80-100%. Banshee - slower than V2 and artifacts - this card sux as it lacks multitexturing. V3+ - all
games at full speed. Can outperform GF2 with Glide64 :)

[james.miller]

Originally posted by Doomulation
The gfx card is irrelevant, unless it's a voodoo, intregrated crap or ati (old cards such as rage), which has performance impact.

Originally posted by milen
james.miller
on my old athlonXP1800+ and gf4 440mx combo, useing the same emu settings, goldeneye DID NOT run at full speed.

Lol somehting is not right but not with your gf4mx, actualy geforce2 is more than enough for n64 emulation.

Goldeneye runs about 105FPS with 1964 0.84,Glide64 on Duron1200,Voodoo3/2000 :D and very high quality


Doomulation why you forgot old nvidia cards aren't they crap too ?????:)

Not that i like arguing with you both, but.......

I tested both systems on clean winXP installs, with all the latest drivers and patchs. using identical setting where applicable.

N64 emulation on my current pc (see sig), despite being cpu and ram-bandwidth limited, is still upto 40% faster than it was on my old xp1800 @ 1.79ghz,512mb ddr and gf4 440mx.

now when i said GEye wasn't running at full speed, i didnt mean it was running at 30-40fps. it was full speed 95% of the time, but it still experianced some slight, and the odd sevear drop in frame rates. On my celly-T system? 70fps+ constantly with the limiter off

In complete contrast, PSX emulation has take a drastic performance hit (GT2 is virtualy unplayable). Confirming that PSX emulation is more cpu-bound.

Now, if N64 emulation is THAT much faster on my current rig, theres only one thing it could be......but you both say it can't be my graphics card. what else does it leave, then?

[milen]

I don't think that 1.8ghz Athlon + Geforce4MX can't run golden eye full speed. Maybe the problem is in the emulator and plugin you're using or in your drivers.

What exactly mean is that:

1000Ghz + Geforce9 Titanium = 1.8ghz + Geforce4MX
in current N64 emulators with recompilers(PJ64,1964,Nemu)

Even some games run better on slower CPUs :) ???????
Only logical reason in your case is SSE2 but I don't think so.

[james.miller]

i didnt really understand your post, so im not going to make any sarcastic comments. but:
Tulutin celleron's dont support sse2 or 3dnow(+), athlonXP do support 3dnow+, but not sse2. so the athlons are still the winners in that respect.


Maybe the problem is in the emulator and plugin you're using or in your drivers.
As i said, i used the same emulators, with the same settings. It wasnt that either.

Even some games run better on slower CPUs ???????
Only logical reason in your case is SSE2 but I don't think so.
Actually, ALL of my games run faster on my celly-T and r9500 combo, PC and emulated.

[Stez02k]

Originally posted by james.miller
old xp1800 @ 1.79ghz

wow u must have a good fan, even my athlon Xp 2000+ is slower than that, mines @ 1.722Ghz any tips for overclocking? And whats a good silent fan for overclocking? My fan at the mo is a bit loud :getlost:

[james.miller]

i had on slk-800 and smartfanII on it - kept it at 27c idle so yeah, i did have good cooling lol

[Stez02k]

btw for speed, i'd seriously think about getting an athlon XP, they are really high quality processors, and are very cheap, you could get a 2000+ and a good motherboard for that price and more than likely have money left, its mostly your processor that effects the speed, just get a new1 and you'll be fine, my old TNT2 worked quite well with my Athlon XP 2000+, even in 1964.

A good choice is to get an Athlon XP 2000+ with a Nforce 2 with intergrated Geforce graphics, then theres no need for a new gfx card :)

[Clements]

I doubt that a six year old game has a graphical complexity that would fox a GeForce4 (even the MX versions). Better optimisations are required to speed it up.

Based on what you are saying, you might as well say that your GeForce4 MX440 can't handle Mortal Kombat Trilogy or Mystical Ninja :) as you can't get fullspeed on that can you with Jabo's! I should know!
/me casts my eyes down to my specs...

Anyway, 1964 is the emu to use for Goldeneye. Its faster, and slows down less often.
(I get 54-60fps with PJ64 and 58-60fps with 1964)

I got the GeForce4 MX440 because it was dirt cheap (£60). Its not great, but its good enough for the casual user. I had 8MB SiS 530 on-board before so I'm thankful that I can run it at playable speed.

[Stez02k]

Originally posted by james.miller
i had on slk-800 and smartfanII on it - kept it at 27c idle so yeah, i did have good cooling lol

gr8, how much do they retail at? Cuz i could do with a bit more speed, but havent got the money to splash out on a XP 2400 etc

Stez

[Stez02k]

Originally posted by Clements


Anyway, 1964 is the emu to use for Goldeneye. Its faster, and slows down less often.
(I get 54-60fps with PJ64 and 58-60fps with 1964)

I got the GeForce4 MX440 because it was dirt cheap (£60). Its not great, but its good enough for the casual user. I had 8MB SiS 530 on-board before so I'm thankful that I can run it at playable speed.

ultraHLE 2064 is good for goldeneye too, especially for low spec systems.

Btw for a few extra quid over the GF4Mx, the Geforce 3Ti 128MB is an excellent choice, better than the mx series, very good for performence, even works on doom 3 pretty well

[james.miller]

Originally posted by Clements
Based on what you are saying, you might as well say that your GeForce4 MX440 can't handle Mortal Kombat Trilogy or Mystical Ninja :)
I'm not saying that at all lol
as you can't get fullspeed on that can you with Jabo's! I should
Anyway, 1964 is the emu to use for Goldeneye. Its faster, and slows down less often.
(I get 54-60fps with PJ64 and 58-60fps with 1964)
Thts what iim saying. its very nearly there, but there is the od occasional slowdown (one example is the opening sequence of the first level in goldeneye.

with my r9500, i dont get that, even with my celly. when i get a new athlon, im certain it will be even faster.

Originally posted by Stez02k
gr8, how much do they retail at? Cuz i could do with a bit more speed, but havent got the money to splash out on a XP 2400 etc

Stez
I paid £44 for my slk-800, and £12 for the fan. its not cheap, but there isn't a better heatsink except the slk-900.

[Stez02k]

mabie not at the moment then, but thanx for the advice :)

[mightyrocket]

Okay, what I'd recommend:

Ati Radeon 7000LE, Voodoo2 or TNT for resolutions 640x480x32 and 800x600x16 (x32 for older games).

Ati Radeon 7500, Voodoo3 or TNT2 for 800x600x32 and 1024x786x16 (x32 for older games)

Ati Radeon 8500, Voodoo4 or Geforce256 for 1024x786x32 and 1280x1024x32 (16 bit isn't needed for this cards, they are fast enough)

Ati Radeon 9700pro, Voodoo5 6000, Matrox Parhelia or Geforce4 ti 4800se (or fx) for people who likes to build themselves in with monitors :) .

I think especially the Matrox Parhelia is very good with ultra-high resolutions or multiple monitors, because it got 256 mb.

But notice: If you'll place a high end card to play on ultra high resolutions (1600x1200 or higher) or with multiple monitors you'll need a faster cpu too (1,5 ghz or higher). I don't think your cpu can handle 1280x1024 or higher without slowdowns.

[james.miller]

multiple-monitors do not require a faster cpu

[Tagrineth]

Originally posted by mightyrocket
Okay, what I'd recommend:

Ati Radeon 7000LE, Voodoo2 or TNT for resolutions 640x480x32 and 800x600x16 (x32 for older games).

Ati Radeon 7500, Voodoo3 or TNT2 for 800x600x32 and 1024x786x16 (x32 for older games)

Ati Radeon 8500, Voodoo4 or Geforce256 for 1024x786x32 and 1280x1024x32 (16 bit isn't needed for this cards, they are fast enough)

Ati Radeon 9700pro, Voodoo5 6000, Matrox Parhelia or Geforce4 ti 4800se (or fx) for people who likes to build themselves in with monitors :) .

I think especially the Matrox Parhelia is very good with ultra-high resolutions or multiple monitors, because it got 256 mb.

But notice: If you'll place a high end card to play on ultra high resolutions (1600x1200 or higher) or with multiple monitors you'll need a faster cpu too (1,5 ghz or higher). I don't think your cpu can handle 1280x1024 or higher without slowdowns.

Looks about right for the resolution line-up. BUT...

CPU speed has nothing to do with your maximum usable resolution. On my P3 800, I can pull 6x FSAA + 16x Aniso at 1024x768x32 in effectively every game I've tried.

If my monitor supported it I could easily do 1600x1200x32 with 4x AA.

[mightyrocket]

Originally posted by james.miller
multiple-monitors do not require a faster cpu
For multiple monitors you'll need a higher resolution, otherwise the graphics are very stretched-up. For example: Use Perfect dark in multiplayer on LAN and use the resolution 1024x768. You'll see that it's very stretched up. You need to use 1024x1536 to get better graphics.

[Tagrineth]

Originally posted by mightyrocket
For multiple monitors you'll need a higher resolution, otherwise the graphics are very stretched-up. For example: Use Perfect dark in multiplayer on LAN and use the resolution 1024x768. You'll see that it's very stretched up. You need to use 1024x1536 to get better graphics.

Yes, and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CPU POWER, unless you're doing software rasterisation!

If you have hardware-accelerated raster (JUST RASTER! Don't even count T&L right now), resolution should be completely CPU-independant.

In fact, on a slower CPU with an overpowered graphics card (like mine), it's generally a BETTER idea to jack up the resolution until you hit the balance between CPU limits and accelerator limits.

But for multimonitor, you just have to have a powerful graphics card, NOT a faster CPU!