video card question

[james.miller]

i have a GF2 mx400, i just realised i put 420...
oops


but, on that graph, look at the difference with high detail
for the first cpu, the Ti is way above the Mx
considering that, I will get quite a bit performance increase if I get a GF4 Ti 4200

look at the text i posted from the site. then look at the graph. that graph STARTS with an athlon 800 and goes up from there.

your cpu isnt even concidered because its TOO SLOW

lets put it another way. look at that graph.

if that graph went as low as you're cpu, the two would be damn near identical.

i've allready told you that my xp1800 (running at xp2000 speed) with 512mb ddr cant even keep up with my gf4 440mx when it comes to emulating.

do you really expect your pIII-600 with 128mb SDRAM to keep up with a ti4200?????? theres no way in hell.
im telling you now - that is not a wise investment.

 

[Rzeractor]

well, even though it is 800mhz for the lowest, the Ti 4200 kills the MX400 by a heap on high detail

 

[james.miller]

LISTEN TO ME!

your question was about videocards and emulation. i gave you an answer. that cpu is too damn slow!

for christ sake, of course the ti4200 is faster. but that isnt really a factor when in come to n64 emulation because like i said,
N64 EMULATION IS CPU DEPENDANT, NOT G/CARD DEPENDANT

you will not see a significant difference in emulation speed.

and, if you were actually refering to performnce in pc games, and not in emulating consoles, then you shouldnt have made this post in the first place

 

[james.miller]

do a test.

run the emulator in windowed mode, and run speedfan in the background (or anything that monitors cpu usage)
watch it continuously hit 100% when your roms come grinding to a hault and drop to 5-10 fps.

theres your problem right there - the cpu

 

[Rzeractor]

sorry, its just in another post someone said the video card is more for emulation than the cpu

 

[james.miller]

it isnt trust me. iits your slow pII-600 and your sevearly limiting sd-ram that is the bottleneck

 

[Rzeractor]

so, for emulation = cpu speed > video card
but for normal games = video card > cpu speed yeah?

 

[james.miller]

so, for emulation = cpu speed > video card
but for normal games = video card > cpu speed yeah?

emulation = yes thats correct
normal games = cpu speed + video speed

 

[supergamer]

You'll see no difference with a geforce 2 or 4.

 

[james.miller]

Thankyou!

 

[karth95]

he's right

I went from a amd K6III 400 to an xp1800, with a voodoo 3 3000. My framerates in emulation (any emulation) went up enormously. I wasn't able to play very many non-emulated games, because my video card sucked.
I could play any emulated game I wanted, at a consistant 55-60 fps. I did eventually purchase a gf2 with 64 meg of vram so I could have better openGL support, but that's a whole different story.

If you want to play normal games, you'll have to buy both a faster proc (not hugely faster, but since you gotta, go for something fast+cheap, athlonxp 2000 is like 150$ with a decent mobo) your current video card, though not the greatest in the world, is at least able to handle opengl and will work well with most games until you are able to hook up with a gf3ti500 or a gf4 4xxx. The MX cards are decent (due to a high level of hardware support for directx and opengl functions), but they are running about as fast as my gf2.

In the end, it's like James has been saying. Buy a proc for emulation. For normal games (modern gaming) buy both. You'll enjoy the experience much more.
Karth

 

[Doomulation]

It's simple put:
CPU - does the dirty work of "running" the emulator or game.
The gfx card - does the dirty work of "rendering" the gfx that's thrown at it.

A game that requires a 800 mhz cpu to run won't run if you'd have a 400 mhz cpu and a geforce4 ti4600. To RUN the game, you need the cpu power.

With more gfx details, you need a better card, since it is the card that calculates and draws the actual picture that are later shown on the screen.

If the gfx card has much to do and it takes long to render the gfx, the cpu has to wait for it to finish before sending new gfx, thus making it slow.

On the other hand, at a slow cpu, the cpu has to spend all its time to get the data and send it to the gfx card, which renders it rather fast and draws it on the screen. Then it has to wait because the cpu hasn't sent more data to it.

Simple.
In n64 emulation, it's more a matter of data to process, than gfx to render. Of course, antialiasing requires more gfx card speed, but that's it.

So...CPU is the #1 factor. Then gfx card as the #2.

 

[supergamer]

N64 games only, I've got a PII with 350 mhz, geforce2 and GTAIII and it does work perfect (640X480X32). I know somebody who has 667 mhz and a bit slower video (riva TNT2) and GTAIII is almost unplayable and the graphics are ugly too! The N64 games aren't playing faster if you have an 8 mb or a 128!

Maybe a good reason to (don't) buy another video card.

 

[Doomulation]

Yes, it does! Small amount of ram and ram on video cards DOES matter.

 

[rickianblaster]

Hey,

As someone who actually does research on these topics I can give you a more knowing standpoint on this.

If you pc is below, I'd say 500Mhz, it won't help. Your system will still have some slowness due to your cpu.

Video cards tend to be the bottleneck in current pcs, even with the latest ATI Radeon 9700 pro.

As for N64, there isn't a lot of graphical challenge. So in this rare kind of case the Cpu would be a better thing to upgrade.

 

[james.miller]

As for N64, there isn't a lot of graphical challenge. So in this rare kind of case the Cpu would be a better thing to upgrade.

that has allready been said, rickianblaster.

videocards - bottlenecks? id like to see where you got that from - becuase im looking at the graphs right now that tell me even the gf3s arnt a bottleneck in current pc's, not to mention a r9700 pro!

for n64 emulation - anything upwards of a geforce 2 gts is more than enough.
as for the rest of the system, an athlon xp and at least 256mb ddr is recommended if you want to play 90% of the n64 roms at full speed

 

[petronius79]

buying a faster processor doesnt alway give speed. Eg MArio Tennis (E) runs at 45 fps with Jabos 1.5 and at 60 fps with Jabos 1.4. Sometimes just the appropriate code needs to be added

 

[emuguy]

i have a GF2 mx400, i just realised i put 420...
oops


but, on that graph, look at the difference with high detail
for the first cpu, the Ti is way above the Mx
considering that, I will get quite a bit performance increase if I get a GF4 Ti 4200.
I will eventually overclock/buy a faster CPU though.

high detail? i wasnt aware u could change the detail. or are u referring to the resolution? if there is anything to make details higher, plz tell me

ps. get ure 4200, then go and get ureself an xp 1600+-2000+. my mate got an xp 2000+ last week and it only cost him 65 pounds (around 80-90 us dollars i would say, unless ure in some country that will charge massive prices.) new. i have an xp 1600 oc@xp2000 speeds and i get full performance from all games. i do have a gf4 ti 4600 coupled with that but i can safely say that u will definately get the same performance with a ti 4200

 

[james.miller]

buying a faster processor doesnt alway give speed. Eg MArio Tennis (E) runs at 45 fps with Jabos 1.5 and at 60 fps with Jabos 1.4. Sometimes just the appropriate code needs to be added

buying a faster processor will ALLWAYS give you more performace when emulating.

of course there are speed differences between plugins, and the emulators, but you cant tell me that you can enjoy full speed on a p3- 500 just by changing plugins, because its simply impossible.

emuguy - that graph he was refering to was a performance chart of PC games - which you can change the detail level in

 

[supergamer]

It's possible to play at full speed at a PIII 500 mhz! On a PII 400 mhz and 256 mb ram, any game will work at a really nice speed! Maybe you have to switch between the counter factor.