Games and Win2k

[LABachlr]

I have heard that Win2k has some issues when it comes to games. Is this true? I love the stability of Win2k and try to put it on all of my clients' systems, but this client wants to be able to play games on it. Particularly NASCAR RACING 2003. Are there any issues with this game and Win2k?

Also, will the onboard video card on the Biostar M7VIG PRO and/or the Asus A7N266-VM be sufficient? If not, what vid card would be best?

[Giblet Plus!]

With SP2 or SP3, win2k is pretty good for games.

Onboard = not that great. Go for a ti4200 or R9500 at least. :)

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
With SP2 or SP3, win2k is pretty good for games.

Onboard = not that great. Go for a ti4200 or R9500 at least. :)

Thanx for the info. What if he were to just use the onboard vid card with that game? Would it still work, but not look as good, or would it actually freeze up?

[Giblet Plus!]

Those are both nforce 1 boards, right?

In that case, everything would run just fine on the onboard gf2mx, but it would be pretty slow. :p

[LABachlr]

Here are the specs:

Biostar M7VIG PRO Motherboard for AMD Socket A Processors
Specifications:
Supported CPU:AMD Athlon XP , Athlon and Duron
Chipset:VIA KM266 / VT8235
FSB:200 / 266MHz system interface speed
RAM:Both 2 x 184-pin DDR DIMM and 2 x 168-pin SDRAM DIMM Maximum 2.0 GB PC2100 (DDR266)
IDE:Ultra DMA33/66/100/133
Slots:3 x PCI 1 x AGP 1 x CNR
Ports:1xLPT, 1xCOM, 6xUSB2.0 , 2xPS/2, amd Audio Ports:
Onboard VGA:S3PRO Savage 8 Video Integrated
Onboard Audio AC 97 Audio 6 Channel
Onboard LAN:10/100mbs Model#: M7VIG PRO

Asus A7N266-VM AA (AMD Assured Version) NVIDIA nFORCE 220 Chipset 266/200MHz FSB Motherboard Micro ATX- Retail
nForce 220D: NVIDIA IGP-64 north bridge and NVIDIA MCP-D south bridge
FSB:266/200 MHz
2 DIMM sockets support max. 1GB unbuffered PC2100/1600 non-ECC RAM
Slots:3x PCI 1xAGP PRO 4x
Onboard LAN:10/100 Mbps
Integrated AC97and Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3) Encoder Audio
Integrated Nvidia Nforce GeFORCE2 Video.

I assume you are going to opt for the Asus seeing that is the NVIDIA board.

And when you say "run slow", will it look like it is in slow motion? Will it affect the game playing at all? Let me know what you mean.

The client whose system I am quoting right now said that he doesn't play many games, but that he wants to be able to play NASCAR RACING.

[BadBadNeil]

I can tell you that I have win2k sp3 and I have had no game ever fail. I havent tried really old games like Warcraft I but I have probably 20-30 newer games and they all run perfect.


I think that onboard video might be weak. Not sure how much ram you have but that is importatn too. I can tell ya my older GF 2 64MB PRO card with latest drivers ran games ok but at certain times ran choppy and at lower detail settings. my GF4 TI4200 blows it away, full rez every game. If your planning on using onboard graphics you might have to turn the settings pretty low so as to not get horrible framerate although im unsure how resource hungry nascar is. The last nascar game i bought was nascar racing 98'.

[Giblet Plus!]

The Biostar, with its S3 video, might not run Nascar. The Asus will run it. Running it slowly just means less fps, not in slow motion. :p

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by BadBadNeil
I can tell you that I have win2k sp3 and I have had no game ever fail. I havent tried really old games like Warcraft I but I have probably 20-30 newer games and they all run perfect.


I think that onboard video might be weak. Not sure how much ram you have but that is importatn too. I can tell ya my older GF 2 64MB PRO card with latest drivers ran games ok but at certain times ran choppy and at lower detail settings. my GF4 TI4200 blows it away, full rez every game. If your planning on using onboard graphics you might have to turn the settings pretty low so as to not get horrible framerate although im unsure how resource hungry nascar is. The last nascar game i bought was nascar racing 98'.

OK. Thanx for the info. Will probably have 256mb ddr. Is that enough? Also, my client plans on using his 17" monitor that he got with his 366mhz system. Will that restrict the video capacity of the system overall? The video can only do as much as the monitor will allow, right?

If this is the case, is it worth getting the better vid card?

Also, who makes your GF4 TI4200? What company do you suggest?

[Giblet Plus!]

I'm very happy with my MSI ti4200. I'm still on a 17", but the speed difference between the 4200 and my old gf2mx is very noticeable. :D

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
The Biostar, with its S3 video, might not run Nascar. The Asus will run it. Running it slowly just means less fps, not in slow motion. :p

OK. Thanx. http://www.xkalybr.com/images/thumb.gif

Even with an older monitor that came with a 366mhz system, it will be ok?

[Giblet Plus!]

Okay, but not blindingly fast. :p

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
Okay, but not blindingly fast. :p

But it should be OK for the casual user, right? The reason I don't want to go all out on the vid card is that this client is on a budget, so I am trying to keep costs down. However, if there is a chance at all that it will freeze up on him, then I will get a better vid card, as stability and reliability is very important to me with regards to the systems that I build.

[BadBadNeil]

Originally posted by LABachlr


OK. Thanx for the info. Will probably have 256mb ddr. Is that enough? Also, my client plans on using his 17" monitor that he got with his 366mhz system. Will that restrict the video capacity of the system overall? The video can only do as much as the monitor will allow, right?

If this is the case, is it worth getting the better vid card?

Also, who makes your GF4 TI4200? What company do you suggest?

Well the monitor really doesnt affect the video quality at all, its more for visual quality, clarity, brightness, crispness and correctness of color. The video card will work the same with a 17" normal monitor or a 22" high end monitor. The 22" high end will just look better because its a better monitor.

The GF4 TI4200 I got was the Leadtek Winfast VIVO version with video in and video out. Was only like $140 in december and it came with a ton of stuff. I did lots of researching on it too. Its quiet, works superfast, has great features, and included a DVI to VGA adapter.

I would say 256MB memory is bare minimum now to play games. In my old system I even had 384MB ram. Now I splurged and got 1GB.

To play modern games, at a decent resolution (1024x768+) and at high to maximum detail i'd recommend at least a GF4 TI card or equivalent ATI if you like them and 384MB+ DDR ram. 512MB is more practical because you can get a single 512MB chip and add another in the future or just use two 256MB chips.

You can always try the card and setup you have right now with a modern game, see how it plays. Then adjust what you buy accordingly. If the game runs slow then you know you need to upgrade. If it runs fine with the current hardware config then you might not need to upgrade. If you want to plan for future games though which just keep getting more resource hungry then you may want to plan your hardware to suit.

What is the speed of the processor being used?

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by BadBadNeil


Well the monitor really doesnt affect the video quality at all, its more for visual quality, clarity, brightness, crispness and correctness of color. The video card will work the same with a 17" normal monitor or a 22" high end monitor. The 22" high end will just look better because its a better monitor.

The GF4 TI4200 I got was the Leadtek Winfast VIVO version with video in and video out. Was only like $140 in december and it came with a ton of stuff. I did lots of researching on it too. Its quiet, works superfast, has great features, and included a DVI to VGA adapter.

I would say 256MB memory is bare minimum now to play games. In my old system I even had 384MB ram. Now I splurged and got 1GB.

To play modern games, at a decent resolution (1024x768+) and at high to maximum detail i'd recommend at least a GF4 TI card or equivalent ATI if you like them and 384MB+ DDR ram. 512MB is more practical because you can get a single 512MB chip and add another in the future or just use two 256MB chips.

You can always try the card and setup you have right now with a modern game, see how it plays. Then adjust what you buy accordingly. If the game runs slow then you know you need to upgrade. If it runs fine with the current hardware config then you might not need to upgrade. If you want to plan for future games though which just keep getting more resource hungry then you may want to plan your hardware to suit.

What is the speed of the processor being used?

Good info. Thanx.

I assume you prefer GF over ATI. I have also heard that ATI does not work well with AMD's processors. Any truth to this?

The processor will most likely be an AMD Athlon XP 1.53GHz or 1.67GHz. Is that enough? I don't really think the 1.67MHz will make that much of a difference, will it?

[BadBadNeil]

Thats fine for a processor speed.

As for the ATI's....im an nvidia man. Always used them, they tend to last for a while and the drivers are the best and keep making the card faster. Not sure about the ATI problems with XP, never heard of that. I have heard of some people have problems with certain games though with ATI cards even the newer ones, much more than in comparison with a GF series card.

[LABachlr]

Ok. GF it is. What about the GF MX series? I've heard that many people don't like it, saying that it is a cheaper version of the real thing.

[PacNW CE]

For a list of compatible games/programs and fixes for them, reference this site

www.ntcompatible.com

They will tell you what games work with 2k, or what to do to make games work with 2k.

Nuttin wrong with ATI cards, however I do own a NVidia card currently and love it. G4 4200 by MSI is great. Make sure to get 128 mb of memory.

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by PacNW CE
For a list of compatible games/programs and fixes for them, reference this site

www.ntcompatible.com

They will tell you what games work with 2k, or what to do to make games work with 2k.

Nuttin wrong with ATI cards, however I do own a NVidia card currently and love it. G4 4200 by MSI is great. Make sure to get 128 mb of memory.

Thanks for the info. My client is on a budget, so he can't go all out on the vid card. What do you think about this one:

ATI 64MB AGP Video Card w/ RADEON 7500 3D Chip & DVI Output (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/3137860)

Will this do for most of today's pc games?

[AllGamer]

there's nothing wrong with the ATIs

just people that DOES NOT KNOW how to properly install drivers, and setup their systems are the ones complaining

as usual people always blame it on what they think is what does not work, not why it does not work, much less think what they did wronk :rolleyes:

the same deal is with Creative, people keeps saying that Crative are ****, etc, etc

yet Creative keeps earning all the goodies and market ;)

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by LABachlr

ATI 64MB AGP Video Card w/ RADEON 7500 3D Chip & DVI Output (http://shop3.outpost.com/product/3137860)

Will this do for most of today's pc games?

No that's most definitely NOT ENOUGH

at least an 8500 + 128 ram

or 9000 + 128 ram

:t

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by AllGamer
there's nothing wrong with the ATIs

just people that DOES NOT KNOW how to properly install drivers, and setup their systems are the ones complaining

as usual people always blame it on what they think is what does not work, not why it does not work, much less think what they did wronk :rolleyes:

the same deal is with Creative, people keeps saying that Crative are ****, etc, etc

yet Creative keeps earning all the goodies and market ;)

OK. Cool. I just heard from someone that ATI and AMD were not a good match.

So, will the above vid card be good enough for most pc games?

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by AllGamer


No that's most definitely NOT ENOUGH

at least an 8500 + 128 ram

or 9000 + 128 ram

:t

OK. But he said that he does not have a lot of games, but does want to be able to play NASCAR RACING 2003. And judging by the specs, it looks like it is good enough.

NASCAR RACING SEASON 2003 specs (http://www.sierra.com/sierra/product.do?gamePlatformId=271)

[LABachlr]

By the way, when you say 128MB, is that SDRAM or DDR?

The card that I mentioned has 64MB DDR.

[AllGamer]

i'm using ATI AIW 8500 + AMD XP 2000

geez if that was a bad marriage, they should have divorced by now :p

yet they have living happily ever after :D

and me the merrier cuz everything works better than on my GeForce 4 + P4 2000 combo, which feels like a pair of turttle vs the ATI + AMD :cool:

:t

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by LABachlr
By the way, when you say 128MB, is that SDRAM or DDR?

The card that I mentioned has 64MB DDR.

DDR RAM vs SD RAM has no big difference, just a tad bit faster

but the AMOUNT !! of RAM does make a big difference now

so definitely get a 128 Mb

:t

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by LABachlr

NASCAR RACING SEASON 2003 specs (http://www.sierra.com/sierra/product.do?gamePlatformId=271)

1 thing i learned the hard way, and many other too

is that the LISTED "MINIMUM" requirementes ARE NEVER Enough

not even their LISTED requirement

but is what they RECOMEND or as some README.TXT calls it

"Desired Requirement" those are the ones that works :p

so basically always the newest you can find, and the most expensive you can find :x

[LABachlr]

OK. Great info. Thanks. And seeing that the "minimum specs" require 16MB VIDEO RAM for NASCAR, I assume that 64MB DDR will be fine, right?

[LABachlr]

By the way, what is AGP PRO? The mobo that I am going to use, Asus A7N266-VM (http://direct.mwave.com/mwave/doc2/A16008.html), has an AGP PRO slot. I assume that is backwards compatible (accepts AGP).

[PacNW CE]

AGP Pro is backwards compatible with 4x and 2x. I don't remember what particular benifits AGP pro has over regular 4x, or if it even has any at all.

7500 is really poor in comparrison with other just as affordable solutions. I'd look at any of the cards on the following list:
Radeon 9000 pro
Radeon 8500 (128mb)
Radeon 9100 (128mb) <---- same gpu as 8500, just repackaged.
GeForce4 Ti 4200 (128mb)

DON'T get an OEM ati card if a Built by ATI (BBA) card is avalible. The additional cost of the BBA card is negligable in comparrison to the problems that may arrise from ATI OEM cards. Not all OEM's are bad, but all BBA's are going to have a strict QC process applied to them that the OEM's may not implement.

For Nvidia, I like MSI a lot. But that is just my opinion.

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by PacNW CE
AGP Pro is backwards compatible with 4x and 2x. I don't remember what particular benifits AGP pro has over regular 4x, or if it even has any at all.

7500 is really poor in comparrison with other just as affordable solutions. I'd look at any of the cards on the following list:
Radeon 9000 pro
Radeon 8500 (128mb)
Radeon 9100 (128mb) <---- same gpu as 8500, just repackaged.
GeForce4 Ti 4200 (128mb)

DON'T get an OEM ati card if a Built by ATI (BBA) card is avalible. The additional cost of the BBA card is negligable in comparrison to the problems that may arrise from ATI OEM cards. Not all OEM's are bad, but all BBA's are going to have a strict QC process applied to them that the OEM's may not implement.

For Nvidia, I like MSI a lot. But that is just my opinion.

OK. Thanks. The thing is, the 7500 is only 79 bucks, whereas the others that you mentioned are around $150.

You can check this list (http://direct.mwave.com/mwave/ProdVID-ATI.hmx?UID=&CID=&updepts=VID&DNAME=%3Cb%3EVideo+Cards%3C%2Fb%3E&back=ProdVID-ATI.hmx?).

I also remember reading a post here somewhere that said not to get an ATI 7000, 8000, or 9000, but to get the 7500, 8500, 9500, etc. Is this true? What about 9000 PRO? And what is the difference between 9000 and 9000 PRO?

Also, what is BBA? There are some in the above list that say ATI OEM powered by ATI. Are those OK?

[LABachlr]

And what about VisionTek's Xtasy Series?

Namely, this one:

Xtasy 9100 Video Card, AGP, 128MB DDR (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=300868&pfp=BROWSE)

I assume that this is the same exact card as the ATI Radeon 9100.

[LABachlr]

And why is this one so cheap?

Radeon™ 8500LE Video Card, AGP, 128MB DDR (http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=290729&pfp=BROWSE)

[PacNW CE]

I can only guess about the 8500 le but my assumtion is that Compusa was closing them out.

9100 is the same gpu as the 8500. It is good to go. Nothing wrong with the xtacy 9100.

Look up the specs for the 9000 and 9000 pro at ati.com. Better yet, do your own research at tomshardware.com or anandtech.com.