Will upgrading my video card boost the performance of this emulator?

[milen]

It's very funny.

I have Duron Applebread 1400@1950 (real Mhz not pentuim rating )
Two video cards:
Voodoo3 16mb 143@174 - Perfect gameplay (Glide64)
Radeon9000pro 275@310 - Very good but little worst than my voodoo.

All supported games run fullspeed, Goldeneye too.

For PC games there is need for Radeon9800 , otherwise only for antialiasing.
Celeron2700 lol so much money for such rubish.

The diffference between Duron Applebread and Atholns is very very minimal only in the amount of cash which is not so important in athlon's architecture.On the other side smaller cash more overclocking .

Everybody has right to give his money if he don't need them but why

 

[AVFC2004]

Seeing as an AthlonXP 1600+ and a Geforce2 can run any 1964 game at full speed, a 2.7ghz celeron (which jdsony informs us should only be a little below a P4 1.8ghz) and a Radeon 9800 pro 128MB should able to run the emu silky.

Well my celeron 2.7ghz and radeon 9800 pro 128mb do not run the goldeneye rom at full speed. In actual fact it is very sluggish and I am very disappointed with the performance. I really am starting to hate the processor as that is the only thing that could be creating the slow down. This is because the graphics card is decent, the 2 modules of 512mb ddr333 pc2700 RAM (1GB Samsung RAM) is also great and finally the sound card I have is great as its a USB Sound Blaster Audigy 2 NX.

In conclusion the intel celeron is the one to blame for poor performance.

 

[riles9262]

Then sell it and grab a p4 2.4C, if your mobo is compatible. They're not too pricey and can be oc'd quite a bit even with a stock cooler.

 

[Satanic_Pimp]

i got the same question, i got a chance to trade a my copy of windows xp for a geforce3 ti200 it's a 64mb, my current card is a radeon 7000 32mb, i only got a 900 mhz duron, runs most games i've played fine, just a tiny bit of slow down when you have all 4 people in the ring on no mercy, will i notice any difference in graphics, and stuff? the card is agp and the guy also has a 128mb pci geforce4, but he said the 64mb is better because it's agp, is that true?

 

[jdsony]

i got the same question, i got a chance to trade a my copy of windows xp for a geforce3 ti200 it's a 64mb, my current card is a radeon 7000 32mb, i only got a 900 mhz duron, runs most games i've played fine, just a tiny bit of slow down when you have all 4 people in the ring on no mercy, will i notice any difference in graphics, and stuff? the card is agp and the guy also has a 128mb pci geforce4, but he said the 64mb is better because it's agp, is that true?

It depends on what Geforce 4 it is. If it's a MX 420 - 460 then it will be worse than the Geforce 3 if it's a TI4200 or up it will be faster. AGP is faster but it also depends on the card. The RAM isn't a huge factor, there are budget cards with 256mb of ram that are slower than the fastest 64mb cards. Those cards will become obsolete before 256mb of ram is neccesary and they won't be able to run games that are that demanding anyway.

I recommend looking at the VGA Charts II Benchmarks which has all those cards and how they compare. There is a VGA Charts III but it doesn't have the older cards in it anymore.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/index.html

 

[riles9262]

^ That's a good guide to see where most of the cards nowadays stands. You really have to be careful with the naming schemes for some cards. Anything radeon that has le, se, lite at the end be careful. nVid cards naming can be quite confusing, especially in the fx series.

Basically, in radeon land, I'd say stay with the 9700/9800's or 9600pro/xt, unless you can afford the big budget x800's. For older stuff, the 8500/9100s/9000pro are decent, while the 9200 series are hit and miss - mostly a miss. For nvid, the fx 5900's and 5700ultra were nice and the gforece 4ti series are good bang for buck cards, though starting to become outdated. All other fx cards are either too expensive, or their performance/ip is simply not very good compared to competing cards (read 5200, 5500, 5600, 5800).

 

[jdsony]

^ Agreed. Even within a specific model sometimes there can be different variations. I had a Radeon 8500 le which is supposed to be clocked at 250/250 and mine was 250/183 which made it vastly slower. I switched it with a Radeon 8500 le that was made by ATI and had the 250/250 speed and then I flashed the bios with the non "le" bios and got 275/275 and then overclocked it to about 300/310. The Radeon 8500 is around Geforce 3 speed but usually a little faster and more advanced features. It still makes a pretty decent budget card but it is a bit outdated now if your running modern PC games. Games like Halo or Deus Ex 2 are really slow except in low resolutions but if you have a decent processor UT2004, Painkiller, and a variety of others work great. The Radeon 8500 was renamed to 9100 after the 9000 came out because people were confused as it was better than the 9000.

If your just playing emulators almost any video card will be good. As long as it's Nvidia or ATI you shouldn't have any many issues and the video card isn't a big factor in emulation. When I got my 9800 Pro some games were a little faster such as Conker and antialiasing was a little faster too but not big enough to really benefit. Some emulators and plugins are moving into DirectX 9 so a DirectX 9 compatible card might be the best option if possible.

 

[cooliscool]

/me hugs his P4 :blush:

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

*-RJARRRPCGP hugs his Athlon XP.

 

[BountyJedi]

/me hugs his P4 3.06 ghz

 

[AVFC2004]

Where is the best place to buy a intel pentium 4 3.2ghz on the net. Please note that I live in the UK.