So you only have PCI slots and want to game?

I don't even know what hyper threading is, but i do want SSE2 extensions. And the other stuff i seen in p4's. But i am maybe thinking about going p4, because i want to go one step from a Pentium III. My p3 works so unbelievable, why not just go up a step and use a p4. Old hardware, no big deal, they get the job done. I am playing tomb Raider Legend, at almost max settings, with next generation effects, reflections, 1280x1024, full screen effects, no AA, and i get 19-40fps. And that is with my 2400HD, no telling how good TR games work with my 6200, which plays them about 40% better. So my p3 is working great with games no, that i am bottleneck free.

So using a p4 will be amazing. So i don't know what i am going to get, i will cross the bridge when i go shopping.

Current budget CPUs (Celeron dual-core/Pentium Dual-Core (NOT Pentium D)) have SSE2 AND SSE3. Just because a Pentium 4 is one step above a Pentium III is no reason to not get a processor 2 steps above. You're not living an RPG where you can only level up one at a time. You get the best you can buy for the money you want to spend, and then it will last longer and allow you to save your money longer for the next time you buy a computer. The energy savings alone is enough reason not to get a P4; they use more power than current CPUs, so you'll actually save money via your power bill in the long-run.

Look at this article to see why the P4 is a bad choice. Keep in mind it's a multi-part article and there's links to the next pages toward the middle of the page.
 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9032352&type=product&id=1218010536521

I decided to buy this, its perfect, a gateway comptuer with a intel MB, and a pentium. I seen this over at thier website, but didn't know bestbuy was selling it. So i am going to go with this. However, i am not spending 500 on it, only 350. Hint, i will not be buying at bestbuy, but somewhere else. So that is my final decision. I really wanted a petium dual core anyways.

But i am not going to buy it right now. I am just enjoying gaming with my main rig as of right now.

:)
 
Tha General I found a cool fact about the Pny 6200 nvidia 256Mb pci, it does not support HDR so next gen for Tomb Raider Legend was a side show, but turn it off with driver 81.98. Then I set my monitor to 1024 x 768 60 GHz, full screen effects off, anti aliasing off, shadows on, reflections on, water effects on.

I got to nearly 60 FPS some times it when to 100 FPS.:grinthumb

:haha:

I got windows 2000 compatiblity mode.
 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9032352&type=product&id=1218010536521

I decided to buy this, its perfect, a gateway comptuer with a intel MB, and a pentium. I seen this over at thier website, but didn't know bestbuy was selling it. So i am going to go with this. However, i am not spending 500 on it, only 350. Hint, i will not be buying at bestbuy, but somewhere else. So that is my final decision. I really wanted a petium dual core anyways.

But i am not going to buy it right now. I am just enjoying gaming with my main rig as of right now.

:)

That machine is actually not bad at all, but don't commit to a model until you're ready to buy it. You never know when something better will come out for the same money.
 
Tha General I found a cool fact about the Pny 6200 nvidia 256Mb pci, it does not support HDR so next gen for Tomb Raider Legend was a side show
Ooops sorry about that. I forgot that the 6200 does not fully support HDR. I didn't think that option was available tho with the 6200 Anyways, sorry about that.

But turn it off with driver 81.98. Then I set my monitor to 1024 x 768 60 GHz, full screen effects off, anti aliasing off, shadows on, reflections on, water effects on.
I got to nearly 60 FPS some times it when to 100 FPS.:grinthumb
I got windows 2000 compatiblity mode.

So it did work? LOL. Post your GPU-z when you get a chance. But yea the 81.98 drivers for the 6200 is amazing, way better then the newer ones. Sometimes using older drivers on older cards is always the best option. But you can turn off shadows, seems like a waste to me. Also, i tend to turn off water reflections, sometimes that option kills performance, " only if you look directly "
at the water.

Btw just note, even the 81.98 corrects the bandwidth and core and memory clock for smoother gameplay, the closest driver that can match it, which is newer is the 175.80. Those are the second best set of drivers. Anyways, have fun!

That machine is actually not bad at all, but don't commit to a model until you're ready to buy it. You never know when something better will come out for the same money.
I think the reason why i have been hestitaing since 2004 about buying my secondary computer, i think one reason is because my p3 works so good , i am kinda worry about buying a secondary one, and hope that it works just as good or last just as long.

But yea i understand what you are saying, who knows what i am going to buy really. However, i only deal with gateway / intel products, so i will buy one of them. A pentium dual core, dual core or dual core 2, either one of them i will buy. Thanks/peace.
 
Their power supplies have been junk for a few years now but otherwise they're not too bad.

It's true though, that you don't have to limit yourself to them just because your current computer is a Gateway, because you're not assuring the new one will be as problem free. It was basically a completely different company then.

Your best bet is to build it yourself and pick and choose the longest lasting parts yourself.
 
Tha General I found a cool fact about the Pny 6200 nvidia 256Mb pci, it does not support HDR so next gen for Tomb Raider Legend was a side show, but turn it off with driver 81.98. Then I set my monitor to 1024 x 768 60 GHz, full screen effects off, anti aliasing off, shadows on, reflections on, water effects on.
I got to nearly 60 FPS some times it when to 100 FPS.:grinthumb
I got windows 2000 compatiblity mode.

I am using my 6200 again, interesting i did some benchmarks with fraps with TR Legend.

1280X1024, Fullscreen effects off, Next Generation Content, Shadows off, NO AA, reflections on, water reflections off.





I get 4-52fps in the game at those settings. Man, Next Generation and fullscreen effects really kills performance, i go up to 1-19fps. But taking off Fullscreen effects off, i got 4-53. Its playable , but when the game drops to 4fps when looking at everything in front of you, thats unplayable, but looking away or depending on where i am at, its ok. So overall, not really playable.

1280X1024, Fullscreen effects on, Next Generation Content off, Shadows off, NO AA, reflections on, water reflections on.





As you can see, i get around 20-50, sometimes it goes up to 75. Very playable.
Having fullscreen effects on, doesn't effect performance either.

Btw, the 2400HD can handle next generation effects and fullscreen effects on at 1280x1024. Just make sure you don't add AA.


Keep in mind that emachines is a Gateway brand, so that opens your possibilities.
Nah not really. I seen plenty of acers, and emachines. Emachines are super cheap in price, which is nice. But i am just going to go with a computer with the gateway brand on it.

:)
 
I am using my 6200 again, interesting i did some benchmarks with fraps with TR Legend.

1280X1024, Fullscreen effects off, Next Generation Content, Shadows off, NO AA, reflections on, water reflections off.





I get 4-52fps in the game at those settings. Man, Next Generation and fullscreen effects really kills performance, i go up to 1-19fps. But taking off Fullscreen effects off, i got 4-53. Its playable , but when the game drops to 4fps when looking at everything in front of you, thats unplayable, but looking away or depending on where i am at, its ok. So overall, not really playable.

1280X1024, Fullscreen effects on, Next Generation Content off, Shadows off, NO AA, reflections on, water reflections on.





As you can see, i get around 20-50, sometimes it goes up to 75. Very playable.
Having fullscreen effects on, doesn't effect performance either.

Btw, the 2400HD can handle next generation effects and fullscreen effects on at 1280x1024. Just make sure you don't add AA.



Nah not really. I seen plenty of acers, and emachines. Emachines are super cheap in price, which is nice. But i am just going to go with a computer with the gateway brand on it.

:)

There's a reason why the E machines are that cheap. Have you seen the Emachines thread?
 
As I said, Acer, eMachines and Gateway are the same company. Their build quality is rubbish and I've yet to see a new PC from them last for more than a year without problems.
 
As I said, Acer, eMachines and Gateway are the same company. Their build quality is rubbish and I've yet to see a new PC from them last for more than a year without problems.

you should like e-machines ,they made computers affordable

not everyone has the money to go out and buy a 500 dollar computer

and with computers being a necessity they should have something that everyone can afford.
 
Affordable in the short-run. The money spent on maintaining a current-gen eMachines PC and replacing the components that get destroyed when the rubbish PSU in them blows (the motherboard is almost always the first), is better spent buying a better PC or building your own.
 
See the thing is, like I said it's almost a completely different company than when you bought your PIII. They almost went bankrupt in the mid 2000's and the company was completely changed. Then Acer bought it in late 2007. So basically, you're buying an Acer.

You can't count on a company to make the product you want forever. If you could GM would be swimming in cash and you'd still be able to shop at Gimbles. It doesn't make sense to buy a brand for brand's sake.
 
Affordable in the short-run. The money spent on maintaining a current-gen eMachines PC and replacing the components that get destroyed when the rubbish PSU in them blows (the motherboard is almost always the first), is better spent buying a better PC or building your own.

not speaking of present e-machines

back in the day when it was crazy expensive to buy any computer
e-machines came out with a computer that everyone could afford and
in my opinion thats why a lot of computers are affordable today

yes they make crappy computers but if it wasn't for them it would have taken longer for computers to become affordable
 
COD4 Video on my rig
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=-GOMjdh3Hjg
Getting 7-9 fps here. It improves after the firefight to 20-25fps which is considered playable. Note: 800x600 resolution, all settings low, 11khz sound and texture settings on 'Auto'

I had to bring this back up, but i am back to using my BFG OC 6200 card, using the 81.98 drivers and you play COD4 at 800x600 at all low and you get 7-9 fps , and 20-25 when the action is more conformable ?

Now, keep in mind, we both are using PCI cards here

Something is wrong , either with your MB not being powerful enough to handle COD4, or either your system is being bottleneck with something, or the 8400GS is weaker then my BFG OC 6200. But i really can't see it being your MB, its either a bottleneck on your rig or the BFG OC 6200 is more powerful then the 8400gs.

I played COD4 the demo the other day , wanted to see how it ran now that my system is not being bottleneck anymore, not to mention using my 6200 again. I have it set at 1024x768, shadows off, shadows map resolution low, everything else at high normal to high settings, and when the demo first starts, where you are walking in front of everything, i am getting 8-11fps, when i look down at the ground i get 26fps, when in scenes/parts where there isn't alot around you, or just walking around, i am getting 14-18fps. So i have to question here, is the 8400GS weaker then the BFG 6200?

I also have another theory, its the drivers. If you read my post about Tomb Raider to " electromagnetic " about if you use the 81.98 for the 6200, there is no more bottlenecking and you gain a boost in performance, well that was right and electromagnetic confirim it. However, with the 8400GS, from what i can remember, the oldest driver which you can use, is the 160 something. i will post some benchmarks using fraps later, or i might use Nvidia tray tools, so just in case you think i edit the numbers lol , that would be impossible because using nvida tray tools, the numbers which they use in the corner, that would be impossible to edit, they have slightly like crysis numbers. But again, your Mb really powerful, so i don't see it being that, i am guessing its the drivers or something is bottlenecking your computer. I know when something is bottlenecking someone's computer, there is a certain test which you need to do , to confirm this, so let me know if you want to try it out. its not a program, just something which you need to do.


compare it to this video which is a P4 2.6hGhz with a 7300GT PCI-E

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=qlmWqemzuVA

Well he using PCIE, so obviously the performance triples. But he has a Pentium 4, thats awesome :)
 
Hmmmmmm......

I have no idea how this thread came to be 61 ( and counting) pages long when Vnf4ultra's got it right in the first thread(and that was in 2006!

Vnf4ultra's Conclusion


So, my concluson? My conclusion would be that if you have no agp or pci-e slots, and can be satisfied running their games at a low resolution(800x600), and with low or medium settings on more demanding games, then getting a pci 6200 would be the a very good option for you.

Now, if you don't want to settle for lower resolution and lower quality, then you have basically two options, upgrade your current system's motherboard to one that supports add in graphics cards(and buy a video card), or buy/build a new computer.


I think I can simplify this however. when the authors of any modern title are writing the software, they have rigs set up to intermitently test thier progress, fully aware of the latest hardware capabilities they can exploit to make thier game visually stunning and playable....ie physics,textures,shadows, etc. and a pci card is not even on the radar. why? lack of bandwidth, lack of memory,lack of interface, lack of processing power, you name it. there is no bottleneck elswhere in the system. a pci system is by definition a bottleneck. and there appears to be some folks on here that are listening to certian advice, and wondering why they cant push a watermelon through a garden hose.If you want to try and game with a isa slot and a Hurcules or MDA, thats up to you, but please dont spend your hard earned dollars on a pci card, and expect anything other than 800x600 at low res/low Fps.
Vnf4ultra's conclusion was correct, thats why its a sticky....and that was in 2006.
 
No, Vnf4ultra is wrong, obviously he doesn't use PCI. With PCI cards you can run about almost any game on the market above 800x600 at medium to very high settings and still get good performance. I can play Doom 3 at Ultra Settings at 1280x1024 and 1024x768 and still get near 50fps. Well 18-45, near 50. Thats one example. I don't even play none of my games at 800x600, i stop doing that when i bought my second video card back in early 2006, which was the 9250. I mean seriously, just look at those TR legend photos, those are at 1280x1024 fullscreen effects on, i still get good performance. 50 in one of those shots.

PCI cards are not bottlenecks, people's computers are the problem. If you computer is not set up right, you will get bottleneck. PCI cards are the 3rd choice, however, they get the job done just fine. Well in my case, PCI is my first choice lol. I never had any problems with them with games,
and the problems which i had in the past was due to the stupid bottleneck from my HD, or bad drivers which causes games to be choppy or whatever. Nevertheless, PCI cards are great and i don't have a problem with them.
 
So you prefer telling people to get a PCI card even if they have a PCI-E or AGP slot available?! And you have some nerve telling vnf4ultra that, considering he started the thread in the first place!

And please stop spouting nonsense about bottlenecks. What applies to you does not apply to everyone else.
 
So you prefer telling people to get a PCI card even if they have a PCI-E or AGP slot available?!
I never said that. I said " I " prefer PCI over PCIE. I am not saying that PCI is more powerful then AGP or PCIE, i said i fav it over it them.

And you have some nerve telling vnf4ultra that, considering he started the thread in the first place!
Doesn't matter who started the thread, people can be wrong about things, or should is say in accurate about information.

Also, the only thing he said that was inaccurate was this:

So, my concluson? My conclusion would be that if you have no agp or pci-e slots, and can be satisfied running their games at a low resolution(800x600), and with low or medium settings on more demanding games, then getting a pci 6200 would be the a very good option for you.

Thats not true. I play none of my games at 800x600 , neither at low resolutions. Hell, with Crysis warhead i get 10-25fps, at 1280x1024. For some weird reason, playing the game below 1024x768, i lose performance. Someone on another forum did explain to me why this happens, so anyways, PCI cards can max out games or near it, and still get good performance.

Unless you are someone who don't take joy in getting 20-30 or even 40fps in games. I know of some folks who complain about getting 40fps in game. In Jericho on my P3, i get 15-26fps, stays at a solid 15fps, and the game moves very fast, with no stutter or pausing.

What applies to you does not apply to everyone else.
Well yes you correct, it seems that way.

peace
 
That card looks a bit big, maybe get a low profile one if there out, seems to me that I can max out resolution to 1024 x 768 60MHz only. So if I set my monitor to that it gives you more frames per second ?

Wow looks like a good performance with PCI, one thing I don't understand is how do you know and find what's bottlenecking your PCI grpahics card, in IRQ in system info says that it shares an IRQ with Intel(R) 82801FB/FBM PCI Express Root Port 2662
 
That card looks a bit big, maybe get a low profile one if there out,
Yea i think you are right, it looks to be the same size as the PNY 8400GS version, which does not fit good in my tower. I may have to skip the Sparkle 8500GT( both versions ) and skip the BFG 8400GS and buy the Albatron 8400gs, seen here:

http://akiba.kakaku.com/pc/0808/31/190000.php

That is a low profile 8400GS, so i will look into buying that version if the BFG 8400GS does not fit.

seems to me that I can max out resolution to 1024 x 768 60MHz only. So if I set my monitor to that it gives you more frames per second ?
Wait, what is your monitor, CRT?
Because i use a 15inch CRT Monitor and my resolution is 1280x1024 32bit. If you are talking about games, with the 6200 Card, i have notice i play games at 1024x768 about 90% of the time, and that last 10% i play at 1280x1024. Every game does not work good at 1280x1024 resolution with the 6200.

With the 2400HD i can play games at 1280x1024 about 95% of the time, and the last 5% at 1024x768. If you set your game resolution above 1280x1024 there is a performance increase from 1024x768, however it only seems to work on certain cards. The 6200 doesn't do it, but with the 2400HD it does.

Wow looks like a good performance with PCI, one thing I don't understand is how do you know and find what's bottlenecking your PCI grpahics card, in IRQ in system info says that it shares an IRQ with Intel(R) 82801FB/FBM PCI Express Root Port 2662

Take a look this:

When i have the Visiontek 2400HD



When i have my BFG 6200 card install

DMA 02 Undetermined Standard floppy disk controller
DMA 03 Undetermined ECP Printer Port (LPT1)
DMA 04 Undetermined Direct memory access controller
IRQ 00 Exclusive System timer
IRQ 01 Undetermined PC/AT Enhanced PS/2 Keyboard (101/102-Key)
IRQ 04 Shared Communications Port (COM1)
IRQ 06 Undetermined Standard floppy disk controller
IRQ 08 Exclusive System CMOS/real time clock
IRQ 09 Shared Sound Blaster Audigy
IRQ 09 Shared Intel® 82801AA USB Universal Host Controller
IRQ 10 Shared Intel® 82801AA SMBus Controller
IRQ 11 Shared NVIDIA GeForce 6200
IRQ 12 Undetermined Microsoft PS/2 Mouse
IRQ 13 Exclusive Numeric data processor
IRQ 14 Exclusive Primary IDE Channel
IRQ 15 Exclusive Secondary IDE Channel

...................................................

See the big difference. If you are using a 6200, you should be fine. But with the 2400HD, depending on your computer and stuff, it really all depends. When i use my 2400HD, it seems to share alot with other stuff. But with the 6200, it doesn't really share anything.

Both cards are very good tho, but the 2400HD is more powerful, but the 6200 can play older games better, only because the 6200 has more opengl extensions then the 2400HD.
 
Back