Curse

Droppz · Apr 19, 2005, 04:16 AM // 04:16

I also know nothing about graphics cards. I have a P3 800 with 384 ram and a Nvidia TNT2 M64 4xAGP card. Can I play too?

Darkmane · Apr 19, 2005, 04:31 AM // 04:31

You Should (no guarantee here) be able to play just fine, however more memory would not hurt.

Try downloading and runing the client opening screen. It may or may not give you a message about your video card. If the pre-logon screen comes up ok for you- you should be able to play ok

SSE4 · Apr 19, 2005, 06:04 AM // 06:04

Technically you meet the current requirements. I wont say that the settings will be desirable, but you should be able to play.

metalkobra · Apr 19, 2005, 06:17 AM // 06:17

haha yeah you can play if you set everything to lower quality settings... graphics cost lost of comp memory and things like that, which is why im switching to an athlon fx64.

why, you ask? because 64bit compared to 32 bit = WOOT lol, you can multi-task like crazy with a 64 bit processor (perferably a 939 hehe)

[/end rant]

Brungo · Apr 19, 2005, 09:59 AM // 09:59

How sad is it when we think his system is "old school"?

Darkmane · Apr 19, 2005, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brungo

How sad is it when we think his system is "old school"?

LOL good point. This is the result of technology that moves too fast for the 'average person' to keep up. Not a bad system at all, for my grandma .. LOL

If you can possibly get more memory for your machine, I would do it for sure.

Virtuoso · Apr 19, 2005, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalkobra

haha yeah you can play if you set everything to lower quality settings... graphics cost lost of comp memory and things like that, which is why im switching to an athlon fx64.

why, you ask? because 64bit compared to 32 bit = WOOT lol, you can multi-task like crazy with a 64 bit processor (perferably a 939 hehe)

[/end rant]

I'm trying to think of why you could multitask better with a 64bit processor as opposed to a 32bit processor and I can't seem to think of why that would be true, especially specfically a socket 939 processor. Can you explain?

-Virt

Striker Shardale · Apr 19, 2005, 03:52 PM // 15:52

The problem here is that 64 processors while they are very good, does not mean they can multi-task better than anything else it only REALLY means that once companies begin to make 64 compatable hardware and software then you will be ready. If you look at www.AMD.com you can see what it is all about. I personally only have one because I needed a new processor and it was compatable with my current hardware specifications... that and Intel is evil.

ZennZero · Apr 19, 2005, 04:53 PM // 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Striker Shardale

The problem here is that 64 processors while they are very good, does not mean they can multi-task better than anything else it only REALLY means that once companies begin to make 64 compatable hardware and software then you will be ready. If you look at www.AMD.com you can see what it is all about. I personally only have one because I needed a new processor and it was compatable with my current hardware specifications... that and Intel is evil.

Right - now having said that, Windows XP 64 has gone gold and will be available very soon. You can also run a 64 bit distribution of linux or freebsd now (and have been able to for some time).

Edit: To answer the OP's question, I think your video card is going to give you trouble. That version of the TNT2 has a 64-bit bus connecting it to the video ram. That makes it slower than the vanilla TNT2 card I had in 1999! You *might* still be able to run the game at the lowest settings, but I am inclined to doubt it would really be playable.

Droppz · Apr 19, 2005, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Alright, thanks for the info. Probably will end up upgrading to a new system, but I thought I'd check anyways.See you all on the 28th.

SSE4 · Apr 20, 2005, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalkobra

haha yeah you can play if you set everything to lower quality settings... graphics cost lost of comp memory and things like that, which is why im switching to an athlon fx64.

why, you ask? because 64bit compared to 32 bit = WOOT lol, you can multi-task like crazy with a 64 bit processor (perferably a 939 hehe)

[/end rant]

It does not process data at 64 bits. This is a common misconception, but when they say the AMD 64 is "64-bit ready" they mean exactly that. 64-bit processors do not offer better multitasking either. They do not execute two threads for every clock cycle, but rather, when you have two heavy-load applications open at once, the processor will slow because each program will demand instructions. Hyper-Threading allows a processor to execute two instructions per clock cycle, 64-bit does not. It simply allows a higher bandwidth of code transfer.

Sin · Apr 20, 2005, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Doesn't the actual determination of whether a processor can multi-task without degredation of performance depend on the number of stacks and memory pointers inside the processor? In a one stack processor either the stack is swap in swap out or split, and in either case the speed degradation is very bad. Hyper-threading obviously will be the better way for 32 bit multi-tasking applications in that it is two separate processors on a die basically. That's obviously dual everything.

Also it's my understanding that alot of these processors do 3 and 4 or even more instructions per clock using a prefetch that loads the code in a nice quick index the processor just ingests without having to do any code verifications because the prefectch has already done this.

With what I have come to know about processors, if the AMD 64 has more than 1 stack that processor can easily "split" itself at no or virtually no performance loss unless one of the the applications required full 64 bit throughput to sustain normal performance.

I don't know enough about the internal architecture of the AMD 64 to know if it has dual stacks, memory pointers, or if it even has a prefetch to accelerate code executions through the pipe. The hyperthreading processors would obviously be superior for multitasking because they are split by hardware, however, to run 64 bit applications they will dog! I would say there would be a throughput drop to about 1/4 (25-30%) of the original throughput because of all that has to be done outside the processor to accomodate 64 bit addressing, and even then it would be with a single stack set up to lineal address the 2 separate stacks, if such code could be accomplished in a small enough space to be rom/bios/eprom available.

Any claims that hyperthreading will be fine in 64 bit environment would suggest intel included some 64 bit moding they knew would be implemented, yet this would only accomodate about 10% of the 64 bit processes, so best result achieved would be a throughput drop to 75% depending on how common those instructions are. Most likely the throughput will still drop to 40-50% as a hardware accomodation that is still fooling the 64 bit instruction remains a form of emulation.

Obviously, with the 64 bit revolution in the threshhold of the house and climbing the stairs to the processor master bedroom to claim it's rightful place in history, Intel needs to make a 64 bit processor and of course be saavy enough to engineer it for a hyperthreading 64 bit model.

Just some considerations that came to mind.

Droppz · Apr 20, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Can I ask another stupid question? If I upgraded to a 128mb PCI Express ATI Radeon X300 SE card on a P4 3 ghz, would that be able to run the game on higher settings? (how about highest?)

Loviatar · Apr 20, 2005, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Droppz

Can I ask another stupid question? If I upgraded to a 128mb PCI Express ATI Radeon X300 SE card on a P4 3 ghz, would that be able to run the game on higher settings? (how about highest?)

avoid SE cards like the plague

no way highest settings

EDIT

potential gamers should also steer clear of graphics cards that use a 64-Bit memory bus, such as the Radeon X300 SE or the 64 Bit GeForce 6200. Unfortunately, these cards are not always sufficiently labeled, making them hard to pick out. It's about time the card makers did something to remedy this situation.

Droppz · Apr 20, 2005, 07:50 PM // 19:50

What's wrong with the SEs?

Loviatar · Apr 20, 2005, 07:55 PM // 19:55

the above comment is from a review of the card

to repeat

potential gamers should also steer clear of graphics cards that use a 64-Bit memory bus, such as the Radeon X300 SE or the 64 Bit GeForce 6200. Unfortunately, these cards are not always sufficiently labeled, making them hard to pick out. It's about time the card makers did something to remedy this situation.

it is 64 bit memory bus instead of 128 which is a massive choke point in graphics

the video memory is slower as well which only makes it worse

Droppz · Apr 20, 2005, 09:52 PM // 21:52

How about this card, more than enough?

Interface: AGP Interface/2X/4X AGP supports
Chipset : ATI Radeon 9000 pro
Memory :64MB DDR, 128-bit memory /Maximium memory Interface :6.4GB/s with 4000MHZ D.

Could i play w/ the highest setiings?

SSE4 · Apr 20, 2005, 11:11 PM // 23:11

Hyper-Threading does indeed allow a processor to act as two theoretical (CPU0/CPU1 Physical/Logical) processors.

Intel already has the 6xx Series, which are 64 bit-enabled. What you need to take into consideration is that the AMD64 architecture was built (More or less) around 64 bit computing. NetBurst was modified to allow for it. Not to mention the NetBurst architecture doesn't stand against an AMD64 in IPC, and still, as anyone would expect, falls short in 64 bit performance due to its longer (With shorter stages) pipeline.

As far as I know, the AMD64 can do around 3IPC. But ILP is different from MTP, and they must not be confused. Although the AMD can perform ILP by re-arranging instructions and executing them out of the typical order, they can succesfully provide programs with (Typically) enough data to continue. It depends on how "heavy" the program is especially. Hyper-Threading executes two seperate threads in parallel. As you know for typical programs (Lets use Firefox and MSN as an example) are not going to cause problems for an AMD processor, because out of 2 billion clock cycles a second, you simply wont notice.

And Droppz, that card wont be able to play the game on the highest settings.

Lifire · Apr 21, 2005, 12:50 AM // 00:50

In general SE=slow edition. Avoid SE cards.

As well, my step dad betad this weekend and played on the lowest settings with a geforce 2 just fine (has a 1.0 gig processor though).

Lunarbunny · Apr 21, 2005, 02:41 AM // 02:41

About the S939 AMD64's, the reasons I bought it were:
64Bit ready (not that special now, but will be later)
FSB (memory controller) has been moved to the processor, removing the load from the northbridge
Dual channel memory (put identical sticks of RAM into each channel and you will theoretically get twice as fast memory speed, as it can address each seperately at the same time). I put 1GB (2x512MB, one in each channel) PC3200 in here, so (again theoretically) I'm getting 800MHz memory speed.