Is RON CPU limiting or Video Card Limiting? BHG please comment

DanDun · June 19, 2003, 11:47

Hello could someone from BHG or any guru out there comment on whether RON performance is limited by CPU speed or video card speed. As it stands currently, RON the trial version is sluggish on my system with average 15-21 FPS, this is with about 50 units active, I can imagine with 100+ the FPS is going to drop like stone and I will be watching the slug. My system is Duron 1Gz, 512MB RAM, Geforce 2 MX 32 MB. I am thinking of change the processor to 1.7Gz while keeping everything else same (with an Athlon XP 2100+), but I am not sure whether this is going to make a dent or it will just be a waste of money. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks

deadfuse · June 19, 2003, 11:52

I'd upgrade the graphics card first. It is the primary thing that will improve your framerate. If your ram is DDR, it should be sufficient; if its SDR, double it (hell, double it even if you have DDR). Then I'd worry about the processor.

Skanky Burns · June 19, 2003, 12:06

I use an Athlon 1Ghz, 512Mb RAM and GeForce 4 Ti 4600. I get ~40 FPS. Personally, I would upgrade the graphics card first as well. It will improve performance on many games including this one.

Cruddy · June 19, 2003, 12:10

Is it a PCI or an AGP graphics card? PCI cards suffer big speed drawbacks.

DanDun · June 19, 2003, 13:39

It's an AGP card. I believe that Athlon 1Gz is faster than Duron 1 Gz, also I have DDR RAM. More comments please, BHG? Also I wonder when Game publisher is going to be honest with their system spec., it should be called "minimum so that you can watch it craws" system requirement. I just don't get the logic. I really wonder what kind of game play and enjoyment someone is going to get if that person has the system meeting the minimum spec.? I means I looked at the box, it does not even have the recommended system spec.! Sorry for the rant!

Skanky Burns · June 19, 2003, 19:07

Athlon is faster, but I also have SDR rather than DDR.

Maskirovka · June 19, 2003, 23:02

yes, in the system you listed, the video card is significantly slower than everything else...it's a huge bottleneck. get a gf4 and you'll be fine...

don't upgrade to a faster athlon...just save your money and get a p4

deadfuse · June 19, 2003, 23:23

P4? Please... its like twice more expensive for maybe a tiny tiny bit more performance.

Keyser Soze · June 20, 2003, 02:00

If he gets the new chipset with the 800 MHz FSB, it will certainly not be just a "tiny tiny bit more performance".

However, even though I have a P4 3.0C w/ 1 GB DDR, I still average 60 fps in RON, and that is not considering the FPS tanking down to 1-2 sometimes (which seems to be a problem with a lot of people - there is a thread in RON-Bugs). I have seen people post that they are gettin 120 FPS - lucky them.

Grond · June 20, 2003, 04:05

I'd say the game is definitely video card limited. Also Radeons seem to do much better than GeForces on this game. BTW the Geforce 2 MX was a pos when it was new, I don't see how you can play this game at all with that. However considering how a 2400 is less than $75 might as well do that too. You didn't say what your budget was but it sounds like its not too high. I'd get a Radeon 9500 ($135) and the fastest Athlon that will run on your motherboard (don't forget to update your bios to see what the newest multipliers are). You do buy all your stuff online right? I recommend NewEgg, good luck.

Here's a chart that shows a GeForce2 MX and an Athlon 1000 ( Way at the bottom).

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-04.html

A Radeon 9700 and an Athlon 2700 is 1100% faster than what you have now.

DanDun · June 20, 2003, 08:59

Well,

Thanks guys for all the helpful suggestions. I am truly on a budget. I got a Geforce4 MX440SE w64 MB DDR yesterday (cheap: 65 cdn dollar ~ 45 us dollar) and noticed that the graphics is noticeably faster; however, the framerate is now constant at 21, instead of increase like I would have expected. Before, with Gf2 MX, I would get 15-17 FPS but dropping to 10-12 in some cases (lots of units etc.) but now I get 21-27 fairly constant no matter what the units. It looks like I am hitting the processor limit. My next item is to go to Athlon XP 2000+, the highest my motherboard can support. Radeon 9500 is not available here where I live, and even if it is available, it's likely going to be close to 300 $cdn, much more than gf4 MX440+Athlon XP+ combo (165 $cdn). If a twice as fast gf4 upgrade gave me 5 FPS addition, then I suspect upgrading the CPU is going to give me at most a stable 5 FPS more for a sustained framerate of 30-35 same as watching TV or a movie. The funny thing was that as I turned every graphics details low yesterday, I still get 21 FPS, so I don't get it. Anyway, I will have to decide. I wish someone from BHG could comment on this issue too bhg_paul? Thanks

P.S. I think that asking an average person to go out and buying a faster system for a game is way too much. The logical step was not to buy the game period. If this is the trend of PC games, RON is probably the last game that I would buy, since my system is fast enough already for my day to day home computing task. Let's just hope that RON's replayability is good.

DanDun · June 20, 2003, 09:07

Btw, Thanks Grond for the link, it was very helpful. After seeing the chart, I will have to seriously think about the CPU upgrade, since it does not make a different with the gf4 MX that I have. But then I will be upgrade from a Duron to an Athlon and not just the clock speed difference, any info or comments on that? Thanks

Grond · June 21, 2003, 05:44

It depends on your motherboard but your system is really starting to show its age now. The GeForce4 MX is really not enough of an improvement to be worth the money, the video card is still what is holding you back. If you want to get as much performanc out of your cpu as possible then a Radeon 8500 or Feforce 3 500 is what you need but I would really recommend saving up and doing both, the performance boost you could get out of an Athlon 2400 and a Radeon 9500 Pro is definitely worth the money.

http://www.allstarshop.com has the Radeon 9500 Pro for $137

http://www.newegg.com has the Athlon 2400 for $74

Q Classic · June 22, 2003, 10:20

the game, i think, is probably more gfx card limiting. that's what seems to be causing the most problems here, not so much the cpu or the ram.

the card should have at least 16mb video ram, and try to make sure it's capable of being used by directx9.

Sava · June 22, 2003, 11:43

DanDun: Return your MX card if you can. Get a Geforce4 TI series card. The MX are slower than then GeForce 3's. DOn't buy ATI, they suck.

MattH · June 22, 2003, 17:43

Uh-oh, the graphics card war continues on a new front! With my Raedon 900pro 128mb, I get a constant 27-37 fps, dropping to 10-15 with larger battles. It's approx. $80 from pricegrabber.com, less if you're willing to wait for a rebate check from a retail store like worstbuy.

Quote:

DOn't buy ATI, they suck.

Based on what data? And compared to a company that optimizes drivers for benchmark tests instead of real games?

Carch · June 22, 2003, 20:55

You haven't mentioned your sound card.

I updated my soundblaster drivers when I first got RoN and it made a huge difference in frame rate.

Grond · June 23, 2003, 06:48

The 9700 and 9800 blow away anything Nvidia has to offer at the moment. I'm using a GeForce 3 Ti 500 and theres nothing Nvidia has right now that could be considered much of an upgrade but I'm not willing to part with $500 for a 9800. I do hope Nvidia gets their act together soon, nothing like competition to drop those prices.

Q Classic · June 23, 2003, 11:56

Quote:

Based on what data? And compared to a company that optimizes drivers for benchmark tests instead of real games?

lest you forget, ati did the same thing for its 8500 series...

ati's cards don't suck. it's the drivers. until the catalyst series came out for the 8500 and above, ati's drivers were among the worst to install and deal with for a user. the catalyst drivers even now, however, give me a bitter taste in my mouth every time i update them.

give me nvidia's detonator suite any day over ati's catalyst.

Sava · June 23, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Based on what data? And compared to a company that optimizes drivers for benchmark tests instead of real games?

Based upon my owning ATI cards and they've sucked.

Quote:

The 9700 and 9800 blow away anything Nvidia has to offer at the moment. I'm using a GeForce 3 Ti 500 and theres nothing Nvidia has right now that could be considered much of an upgrade but I'm not willing to part with $500 for a 9800. I do hope Nvidia gets their act together soon, nothing like competition to drop those prices.

Why not get a GeForce 4 TI series? Sure the 9700 and 9800 are good, but like you said, too much money. Cost plays a role in how one judges how good a card is.

Grond · June 24, 2003, 06:41

Unless there is a GeForce 4 that is an incredible overlocker I would only get a 20% boost from a 4200 while a 9700 is 100% faster and the 9800 faster still.

Sava · June 24, 2003, 10:29

Well I get an average of 60fps in this game and I have a TI 4600 128meg that I paid $125 for. I'm playing at 1280x1024x32 with graphics on high. During really crowded battles and scrolling, it drops around 40 fps.

Again, if you are some rich kid, by all means, waste $500 bucks on some ATI card. But if you want the best performance for value, go for a GF4 TI card.

Q Classic · June 24, 2003, 12:16

ati has the performance crown. with the performance crown comes price.

ati's 9800 pro, while the best on the market right now, are also outside of the price range for a good deal of the market. furthermore, in a sagging economy, people are less likely to buy luxury items--and that includes shiny new graphics cards.

MattH · June 24, 2003, 17:25

Yeah, the 9700 and 9800 are EXPENSIVE. However, the 9000/9100 are about $100 and the 9500/9600 are about $200. Nvidia has comparable cards with the same price. IMHO, the manufacturer doesn't make a difference if you're looking for somethin in the middle/low areas.

Grond · June 24, 2003, 17:31

4600's cost twice that.

MattH · June 24, 2003, 19:03

I was shocked to see how similar the prices were:
GF4 4600- $348
GF4 4200- $117
GF4 4800- $150

R 9100- $113
R 9600 (pro)- $150
R 9800 (pro)- $340

These are all from pricegrabber.com