GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:04:

Do you want to say that in 2004 was possible play in FarCry on maximum setting and details? I heard even P4 3,0 ghz and powerful graphic card release to 2004 can't run on full.

Maximum settings and details . .which version ? later Farcry patches added HDR support and other fancy DX9 features that generally made the game performance terrible on older hardware that it ran fine on when released. The release version did require some beefy hardware for the time but nothing that was unreasonable or unattainable. A P4 3.0 with the right GPU shouldn't have had any issue with the release version and being able to push its max settings.

Crysis was the one that everyone had issues running at full details and settings but it was made for future hardware.

Thank you. This forum is amazing. People told me that Far Cry was a game made for future PCs, not the ones that were available when Far Cry was released.

Good to know the real true.

As for the game Crisis. My friend did the tests. The game works best(counter from P4 to Quad6600) on e8600 because it has the best single core.
But another friend said that although the Quad 6600 has an average number of fps lower than the e8600, it has smaller frame drops because Quad has more cores. Is that theory it true?

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:29:

Thank you. This forum is amazing. People told me that Far Cry was a game made for future PCs, not the ones that were available w […]
Show full quote

Thank you. This forum is amazing. People told me that Far Cry was a game made for future PCs, not the ones that were available when Far Cry was released.

Good to know the real true.

As for the game Crisis. My friend did the tests. The game works best(counter from P4 to Quad6600) on e8600 because it has the best single core.
But another friend said that although the Quad 6600 has an average number of fps lower than the e8600, it has smaller frame drops because Quad has more cores. Is that theory it true?

Crysis was multi threaded so it could take advantage of multi core CPUs, it was also 64bit which helped it with memory and being able to use 4gb and above, on a single core CPU the game would have had performance issues when a lot of threads were active as each thread would have had to exist on a single core and each thread was taking resources and processing power away from the others. This is why you you see lower frame drops on the Q6600 as it has 3 extra cores to handle the load, if you overclock that Q6600 it'll happily give that E8600 a run for its money, the Q6600 was an excellent CPU for its time.

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:18:

A P4 3.0 with the right GPU shouldn't have had any issue with the release version and being able to push its max settings.

Depends what kind of fps are you okay with, I've tried Far Cry with P4 3.4GHz/6800 GT and the second you stepped out from the opening cave into outdoors frame rate dropped to around 40fps if I remember correctly. Resolution didn't change much, it was clearly CPU capped.

Pretty sure Far Cry was one of those games that made the strenghts of Athlon 64 rather apparent.

Sombrero wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:40:

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:18:

A P4 3.0 with the right GPU shouldn't have had any issue with the release version and being able to push its max settings.

Depends what kind of fps are you okay with, I've tried Far Cry with P4 3.4GHz/6800 GT and the second you stepped out from the opening cave into outdoors frame rate dropped to around 40fps if I remember correctly. Resolution didn't change much, it was clearly CPU capped.

Pretty sure Far Cry was one of those games that made the strenghts of Athlon 64 rather apparent.

Well no lower FPS was specified but even 40 FPS isn't terrible for that time and 1600x1200 .. personally I would have ran it at 1024x768 or 1280x720 and tweaked a few of the settings for better FPS but that isn't max settings ...no AA or AF naturally since that killed the game even on a 6800 Ultra.

I forget how many games I ran at 30 - 40 FPS back in the day, didn't really notice it much with the good old CRT and lack of anything better, I think people forget just how spoiled we are now with 120FPS+ games and displays. I remember playing some DOS games at 15 FPS and being happy with that simply because I got to actually play the game even if it wasn't the best experience. Perhaps CRTs helped with this a lot, them old tubes could hide a multitude of sins and smooth out even the worst graphics.

I have issues with CRTs now ... my eyes just cant handle the flicker and even high refresh rates dont help with it, DOS games dont seems to have the flicker problem but that might be due to the far lower resolutions they run in.

I heard GTA SA nobody turned on AA 3x because even best Pc could't good run.

GTA SA was surprisingly GPU bound. I actually played through and finished that game on the PIII machine I was bragging about a few pages ago.
Playing that game at 1600x1200 with everything except AA maxed or nearly maxed really pushed my 9800 Pro to the limit. Especially some of the weather effects. Putting a 6800GT in that box really helped games like San Andreas at those high resolutions. And Doom III, NFS MW, Quake 4, FEAR...

But something like a cheap Athlon X2 with an 8800GT will just toss those games around like a 5lb dumbbell.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-07, 05:50:

Hello :) […]
Show full quote

Hello 😀

I've got a question about processor Pentium3.

When I was young I dreamed of a Pc with P3. I had P2. And now i wanna building retro Pc based on P3 processor.
I don't like Win98 because It reminds me of the nightmare of blue screens. Therefore I want to use WinXp. I know that better option for Xp gaming is Core2Duo or i5 secend generation but I care about a specific processor model : Pentium 3.

I dream of going into the properties of "my computer" and seeing the words "Pentium 3". I consider buying a P3 processor in the 500-866 (mhz) range. I noticed that the P3 500mhz has a built-in cooling system, which would be a big help. I don't know what motherboard to look for for the Pentium3 processor. Google won't tell you which ones are recommended. Is it true that Win98 is not compatible with USB 2.0? And to use USB 1.0 do you first need to install the appropriate drivers?

The main question is how bad or good Windows Xp will be work?

Pentium3 1GHz, 512MB PC133, i815 board and Geforce2MX was my first Windows XP machine from 2001. I think I only used '98 for Need For Speed Porsche.

Sombrero wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:40:

Pretty sure Far Cry was one of those games that made the strenghts of Athlon 64 rather apparent.

I replayed FarCry in 2022 under Windows 11
Can we say that this is a game from the Windows 11 era?
in 2010 I played on Phenom 2 6 cores, 8GB RAM and Windows XP 64 bit
Is Phenom 2 a processor for XP?

Question for all
Why mix processors, operating systems and applications?

Ps
I'm sorry, I couldn't contain my emotions

FarCry was SM 2.0 game (Radeon 9700Pro and later) and was released same year as Athlon64.

stef80 wrote on 2024-09-10, 09:11:

FarCry was SM 2.0 game (Radeon 9700Pro and later) and was released same year as Athlon64.

Perhaps they meant the new Ultimate Amazing Raytraced Crysis .. its not hard to get the two mixed up.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:29:

Thank you. This forum is amazing. People told me that Far Cry was a game made for future PCs, not the ones that were available when Far Cry was released.

Good to know the real true.

Both are true. Just because you could get acceptableish results with the brand new flagship video card... doesn't mean you could on the vast majority of PCs out there.

If you had gotten, say, an ATI 9800 Pro (the previous summer's hot card), based on those AnandTech numbers, you're in trouble trying to run Far Cry at the higher resolutions certainly at the highest settings.

At least until the 8800GT, maybe the ATI 5770, in the latter part of the decades, it was a constant game of cat and mouse trying to do 1600x1200/1920x1200 gaming at higher settings. New video card would do it on existing games, then that card can't handle new game at the highest settings, then you get new video card, etc. At some point the industry started to look towards 2560x1440 as the new 'superultimate resolution' and 1600x1200/1920x1200 stopped being as demanding as it once was...

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-10, 12:03:

Both are true. Just because you could get acceptableish results with the brand new flagship video card... doesn't mean you could […]
Show full quote

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-10, 06:29:

Thank you. This forum is amazing. People told me that Far Cry was a game made for future PCs, not the ones that were available when Far Cry was released.

Good to know the real true.

Both are true. Just because you could get acceptableish results with the brand new flagship video card... doesn't mean you could on the vast majority of PCs out there.

If you had gotten, say, an ATI 9800 Pro (the previous summer's hot card), based on those AnandTech numbers, you're in trouble trying to run Far Cry at the higher resolutions certainly at the highest settings.

At least until the 8800GT, maybe the ATI 5770, in the latter part of the decades, it was a constant game of cat and mouse trying to do 1600x1200/1920x1200 gaming at higher settings. New video card would do it on existing games, then that card can't handle new game at the highest settings, then you get new video card, etc. At some point the industry started to look towards 2560x1440 as the new 'superultimate resolution' and 1600x1200/1920x1200 stopped being as demanding as it once was...

Yes it was cat and mouse . .quite a frenetic chase but god was it fun, that period between 2000ish and 2010 was amazing to be part of.

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-10, 12:03:

If you had gotten, say, an ATI 9800 Pro (the previous summer's hot card), based on those AnandTech numbers, you're in trouble trying to run Far Cry at the higher resolutions certainly at the highest settings.

I ran Far Cry with a 9800 Pro / Athlon XP 3200+ system at the time, I've got no idea what the actual frame rate was but I do remember having to drop it to medium settings to get playable fps on 1024x768.

And I wasn't the "must have 60fps" snob I am now back then, so I'm guessing I was getting around 30-50fps. High settings were off the table and 1600x1200 was so wildly out of reach in general I was barely even aware of its existence.

I have also a dual slot 1 system with P3 2x 750MHz. The Problem i see is that games with XP 2001-2004 are running better with a P4.
You often had games that want min a P3 with 800MHz and better a P4 1,5Ghz+ in this timeline.
So i would go P3 more with Win98se and a voodoo. Or Win2000..

Sombrero wrote on 2024-09-10, 13:49:

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-10, 12:03:

If you had gotten, say, an ATI 9800 Pro (the previous summer's hot card), based on those AnandTech numbers, you're in trouble trying to run Far Cry at the higher resolutions certainly at the highest settings.

I ran Far Cry with a 9800 Pro / Athlon XP 3200+ system at the time, I've got no idea what the actual frame rate was but I do remember having to drop it to medium settings to get playable fps on 1024x768.

And I wasn't the "must have 60fps" snob I am now back then, so I'm guessing I was getting around 30-50fps. High settings were off the table and 1600x1200 was so wildly out of reach in general I was barely even aware of its existence.

And the crazy thing is, the 9800 Pro was a card that could do 1600x1200 gaming just fine... with games maybe two years older.

Sombrero wrote on 2024-09-10, 13:49:

I ran Far Cry with a 9800 Pro / Athlon XP 3200+ system at the time, I've got no idea what the actual frame rate was but I do remember having to drop it to medium settings to get playable fps on 1024x768.

2600pro agp has 11 000 at 3dmark03
and on this video card farcry doesn't work very well
9800 - 6000 at 3dm03 and this video card is definitely not enough
maybe x800/850 with 16 units- it scores is 11 000 points

Ps I tested on athlon 64 s754 3000+ (2ghz , 512k l2)

Pentium 3 and Windows XP work just fine as long as you keep your expectations in check regarding performance in games!
From personal experience: the OS will run just fine on a 1 GHz CPU, it does not require a lot of processing power; anything less such as a Pentium 3 450 and it will struggle! The system will require quite a lot of RAM, in fact XP required from its release in 2001 at least 256mb as a minimum not as recommended!!; today XP SP3 runs very well as long you have at least 512 MB of RAM in the system, however if you intend to run any games increase that to 1 GB.
About performance in games: don't expect anything extraordinary in 90's games with a Pentium 3! Case in point: Pentium 3 1400S; 3*512mb RAM, Abit VH6T, Geforce3 ti 500 - top of the line for 2001. And no, Pentium 4 is not better despite the higher frequency, it is actually slower! Only Athlon XP can beat that Tualatin. Performance in 3d games is nothing to write home about: Undying is running in the low 40's, IL2 Sturmovik the same and so on. If you think 2d games will run fine you are in for a rude awakening: AoE2 AoC will not run on this system, severe slow downs makes the game unplayable.
As a general rule you need a next year, sometimes more, top of the line system to run the game from year XXXX at max details without problems.

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-12, 08:14:

About performance in games: don't expect anything extraordinary in 90's games with a Pentium 3! Case in point: Pentium 3 1400S; 3*512mb RAM, Abit VH6T, Geforce3 ti 500 - top of the line for 2001. And no, Pentium 4 is not better despite the higher frequency, it is actually slower! Only Athlon XP can beat that Tualatin. Performance in 3d games is nothing to write home about: Undying is running in the low 40's, IL2 Sturmovik the same and so on. If you think 2d games will run fine you are in for a rude awakening: AoE2 AoC will not run on this system, severe slow downs makes the game unplayable.

That's really odd: Age of Empires II: The Conquerors had rather low minimum system requirements back in August 2000: 166MHz CPU, 32MB RAM, 2MB VRAM, 200MB free HDD space.

Sure, the game required beefier systems for smoother experience (unfortunately no "official" recommended system specs available), but if a P3-1400S + 512MB RAM + GF3Ti500 had problem running it I'd guess there might be some hardware and/or software conflict.

No hardware and no software conflicts.
The game requires a STRONG CPU. Ram or GPU don't matter in this game. Tested on many processors that I have:
The minimum AMD CPU to play this game at max settings is Athlon XP 2500 Barton and the minimum Intel CPU is Pentium 4 northwood 2400.
We had a topic about AoE2 on the forum about 3 years ago regarding performance and what do you need to play the game.