Graphics card to lame??

[legacy-Avernus]

Hi All,

I hope this isn't to much of a newbie question....

My mate gets GPFs when he tries to play using Direct3D. His graphics card (VIA Tech VT8361/VT8601 on-board, lame I know) has 64Mb RAM and the game works in software mode, also Quake3, Max Payne, etc all work and look acceptible (that is they *don't* run in software mode!). He has the latest gfx drivers.

So, is this problem fixable without buying a new graphics card or is his card simply too lame to take the strain?

He also has the SB Live! which I hear is the cause of a lot of crashes....?

Cheers,

Dave



UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]

OS: Windows 98 4.10 (Build: 67766446)
CPU: GenuineIntel PentiumPro-class processor @ 1084 MHz with 503MB RAM
Video: VIA Tech VT8361/VT8601 Graphics Controller (3136)

General protection fault!

History: FLightMap::GetTextureData <- FD3DTexture::Cache <- FD3DRenderInterface::CacheTexture <- FD3DRenderInterface::EnableLighting <- FBspDrawList::Render <- RenderLevel <- FLevelSceneNode::Render <- RenderLevel <- FLevelSceneNode::Render <- RenderLevel <- FLevelSceneNode::Render <- RenderLevel <- FLevelSceneNode::Render <- FPlayerSceneNode::Render <- UGameEngine::Draw <- UWindowsViewport::Repaint <- UWindowsClient::Tick <- ClientTick <- UGameEngine::Tick <- UpdateWorld <- MainLoop

[legacy-DeathPenguin]

Try running the game with OpenGL for 3D rendering instead of Direct3D.

[legacy-.:i:.]

oh man
i get a card
people with 9800 pros are having problems running this game
even if you do manage to get it to play,it wont play at a good enough fps to play
just find like a $80 geforce 4ti
:D

[legacy-Avernus]

I guessed as much, he'll get my castoff GeForec2MX when I upgrade :) That begs the question, what am I gonna buy?!? I reckon FX5900XT but then I ain't done enough research as yet....

I did try OpenGL (via the ini file) but the thing didn't start at all. Strangly enough it ran in software but was so blocky it gave me flashbacks to my time in 'nam *shudder*

David

[legacy-therealvader]

DO NOT get an FX card labeled XT. For some reason, nVidia decided to name their low-end budget line-up the same as ATI's performance model. Its basically the same as ATI's SE series. The XT 5900 uses crippled memory and is clocked 100Mhz slower that the regular 5900. Either get an nVidia ultra card, or an ATI pro or XT model.

[legacy-Pezonator]

I definately suggest a radeon 9600XT or 9800Pro.

These cards can be maxed out on 4x AA and 8x FSAA and still get very good performance, these 2 cards perform TWO times better than the FX cards with these settings.

eg:

FX 5700: 2003 demo, 50 FPS :down:

9600XT: 2003 demo, 95 FPS :up:

So choose wisely! ;)

[legacy-Avernus]

Damn, thats fast. Thanks for the advice mate! I certainly want to be able to enjoy DoomIII, Half-life 2 and UT2004 with the best possible settings. Can you imagine the difference between a Geforce2MX and a Radeon9600XT?!?!? Ohhhhhhhh!

David

[legacy-Pezonator]

well, I dont actually know how much the FPS would be, that was just an example, just showing how much the difference WOULD be.

it the FX got 30 FPS,
the radeon will deffinately get at least 55 FPS

But the radeon will be waaaaaay faster than a geforce 2!

[legacy-Dynamitega]

Originally posted by Pezonator
I definately suggest a radeon 9600XT or 9800Pro.

These cards can be maxed out on 4x AA and 8x FSAA and still get very good performance, these 2 cards perform TWO times better than the FX cards with these settings.

eg:

FX 5700: 2003 demo, 50 FPS :down:

9600XT: 2003 demo, 95 FPS :up:

So choose wisely! ;)


I run my 9800 Pro with 16x AF and 6x AA at 1280x1024 with everything at the highest setting in the game and it runs smooth as can be. :)

[legacy-peel3636]

Video cards will continue to get better and better. As for the "here and now" I'd put my money on a ATI 9800 Pro. You can't go wrong. Low $200.00's are rounding the corner and you simply can't go wrong. I'm running average 100 fps. I was a "Nvidia faithful until the 5800 bull****".