9800 Pro 128 vs 256

[Ricky1810]

[minibubba]

same here, kinda similar system...but I've got a Ti4200 instead of a 9700 pro

[Mista K6]

It seems sooner or later PC parts maufacturers and Game manufacturers are going to burn out the market at the rate. I mean, my comp (see sig) isnt that fast, but its a lot faster than a good portion of potential buyers out there. It seems that the marketing strategy of producing high performace demanding games so that people will constantly upgrade their comps is gonna burn out. I mean, back only about a year ago, games like Ghost Recon had graphics that were resonably good, and could run on any PC. Now companies are just putting out high quality eye candy that kills most machines. I know alot of my friends are getting disgusted and moving to console games because there is no lock ups aor and problems at all, and the game will look like it does on the back of the box. It all just seems stupid to me. Maybe game producers should focus on game play instead of graphics, my friend just got Vice City for the PC, and he can barely play it, so all those extra polygons and the sea bed they added really means nothing. Ah well, its a little off topic, but its been on my mind. : peace2: , Mista K6

[ufuk21p]

I completely agree with you Mista K6. Just think of the X-box, a complete machine for the price of 200$ and smooth as silk gameplay even at more graphic dense scenes. Most of the eye-candy I can't even notice unless I pause the games and look closer. Anyway all I can play with my Radeon 340M IGP is CS and sports games so I'm kinda out of gamers market atm.

[The__tweaker]

I know alot of my friends are getting disgusted and moving to console games because there is no lock ups aor and problems at all

I never experience any lockups on my games running with detonator drivers, just keep your drivers up to date and it shouldn't be any probs. Latest game patches is also very important.

[PersianImmortal]

Consoles are certainly much cheaper and much more easy going. However I personally will never give up PCs because of their versatility and sheer power.

If you've ever played a recent game @ 1600x1200x32 4xAA 4xAF everything max (e.g. Mafia) then you'll know that console graphics look silly in comparison. And yes, I can very easily tell the difference. But obviously all of this comes at a cost, and I don't just mean $$$, I mean the time and effort you have to invest to learn how to get things running smoothly. If you don't have the cash and/or the patience, go with a console.

Now for HL2/Doom3, I have no real idea what will run this game perfectly for you, as each individual has different tastes as to the resolution and settings they want. I think the rigs shown above, typically with a GeForce4 or above should be able to run HL2/D3 with 1024x768 @ low or medium settings with some slowdowns. However don't quote me on that.

If you want some idea of what performance you'll get, look at Tom's benchmarking of a preview of Doom3 back in May. You can see at medium and high quality at various resolutions how the various recent cards perform.

[zeradul]

Consoles are certainly much cheaper and much more easy going.

And the biggest point here is that CONSOLEs display to TV's and TV's resolutions are 320 X 400. Even HDTV's are only 800 X 600. Consoles will always be there for kids, and people on the very fringe of gaming.

Think my system will be up to the task ? (HL2 / Doom3)

HL2, Yes, easily. Half Life 2 will have an engine on par with that of UT2K3, and similar to Q3's but with slightly larger texture files. So if you are confortable with your PC's performance with EITHER of those two games, you will be happy with HL2.

Now, D3 is another story. The minimum graphics card capable of playing D3 is a GF3 Ti200. The HL2, and UT2K3 minimum graphics card is a TNT2. So in direct comparrison, D3's engine will be roughly 3 Generations AHEAD of every game out today. (Generations = TNT2 --> GF 256 --> GF 2 --> GF 3) And that translates to roughly 2 years. So while your current computer will be able to rape the HL2 engine, you will need a computer 2 years newer than it to EQUALLY rape the D3 engine.

But will your computer be able to smoothly play D3? Probably. You will most likely see very smooth performance in 800 X 600.

And I site History as my source. This pattern has occured with EVERY game ID releases.

[Ricky1810]

wow, nice review of sys req. Zeradul:thumb:

[PersianImmortal]

HL2, Yes, easily. Half Life 2 will have an engine on par with that of UT2K3, and similar to Q3's but with slightly larger texture files. So if you are confortable with your PC's performance with EITHER of those two games, you will be happy with HL2.

Where does this come from? I doubt the HL2 engine is anything like the UT2K3 engine, and the Q3 is very old by now. It will be more advanced and based on the screenshots I've seen, it will require more grunt that either of these two engines to run at the same resolution/settings. Just because the minimum requirement is a TNT2, doesn't mean that at decent resolution and settings it will only require UT2K3-like system specs. Remember the new generation of games require strong DX9.0 hardware vertex and pixel shader support for example, which means GeForce4 cards for example are immediately behind the eight ball when these features are used. They'll take a massive performance hit, if they can use some of these features at all. Older cards (e.g. GF3) just won't be able to run some of these settings at all because of lack of hardware support. You will notice a massive difference between a card with proper DX9.0 support and one which doesn't have full support. Just like the difference in 3DMark03 scores between a GF4 and a 9700 Pro.

[b]

Now, D3 is another story. The minimum graphics card capable of playing D3 is a GF3 Ti200. The HL2, and UT2K3 minimum graphics card is a TNT2. So in direct comparrison, D3's engine will be roughly 3 Generations AHEAD of every game out today. (Generations = TNT2 --> GF 256 --> GF 2 --> GF 3) And that translates to roughly 2 years. So while your current computer will be able to rape the HL2 engine, you will need a computer 2 years newer than it to EQUALLY rape the D3 engine.

Look at the preview of Doom3 I linked to above. Far more accurate indication and I don't think you'll need 2 years to "rape the D3 engine" because technology doesn't continue at a linear pace. Since D3 will become a benchmark in itself, video card manufacturers will release hardware which will run it fast within a year of its release at most.

[zeradul]

I doubt the HL2 engine is anything like the UT2K3 engine, and the Q3 is very old by now.

Age is irrelevant. We are talking about relative computer hardware required to play a certain game, and while these three games are all in the same group, just like Q2, UT, CS are all in the same group as far as what systems can play them.

The Q3, HL2 and UT2K3 engines are almost identicle when you compare them to Doom2, or even Q1.

Remember the new generation of games require strong DX9.0 hardware vertex and pixel shader support for example, which means GeForce4 cards for example are immediately behind the eight ball when these features are used.

Thats right, but this is more a discussion of 'what will run it' as opposed to 'what will run it at extremely high res with all the eye candy turned on.

I don't think you'll need 2 years to "rape the D3 engine" because technology doesn't continue at a linear pace

But neither was my 'Generation' summary. The 2 years time is simply a generic measurement of how long it will take to see the next three generations of vid cards. 1600 X 1200 @ 32bit @ 250 FPS with all settings on = raping an engine. And I think it will take a good two years newer hardware to accomplish this with the Doom3 engine.

Since D3 will become a benchmark in itself, video card manufacturers will release hardware which will run it fast within a year of its release at most.

That is a very good point, and will probably have some effect.

[PersianImmortal]

When people talk about "will my rig run HL2 or Doom3" what they really mean is different for each person. Some people literally mean "running" as it the game will run and can be played at low resolution, low settings. Most however, I believe, mean running the game with a reasonable resolution (i.e. 1024x768x32) and medium settings. In which case, what I'm trying to impress on people here is that since HL2 and D3 incorporate new DX9.0 shader technology, graphics cards like the GeForce4 for example don't have the hardware support to run these shaders and hence just won't run these features.

It's like 3DMark2003. Run it on a GF4 and some of the tests just won't run because your card doesn't have full DX9.0 feature-set support. So all I'm trying to say is that although those of you with GF4 (and equivalent Radeon) cards can run current games reasonably well, D3 and HL2 will be a jump to the next generation, which means you need cards which fully support DX9.0 features or you just won't get most of the eye candy.

As long as you're aware of that, then there is no problem. HL2 is stated to "run" on a TNT2, P3-700 but I think people who buy these games want more out of them then just to "run" them.