[rescue] OT: Games and workstations (was OT: Linux and USB on Intel)

[Jeffrey Nonken]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:08:33 -0600, deanders at pcisys.net wrote:

> 16MB isn't much for a consumer video card (I haven't seen anything (new)
> with less than 32MB in years); most current PC games seem to require at
> least 32MB, sometimes 64MB (higher-resolution textures, etc.). Of course,
> I'm not sure how much of that is used for textures and how much is
> geometry, but I'd assume that it's mostly textures.
>
> Game systems usually have less video memory (4MB on the PS2 and something
> like 3MB total on the Gamecube (I think it's like 2MB for the framebuffer
> and 1MB for the texture cache?); the Xbox uses UMA, but it only has 64MB of
> RAM to start with, so it probably isn't using more than 16MB), but they
> also don't have to do much better than 640x480 (textures don't have to be
> nearly as high resolution).

This Voodoo has 16mb, which as you pointed out is considered lightweight by
today's standards. I run it at 1024x768 for gaming. While playing, I reduce
the graphic settings considerably (texture detail, 16 bit colour depth,
etc.) and eye-candy (blood, ejecting brass, rocket trails, stuff like that)
purely for performance reasons. In fact, my old system did so poorly, I
spent many hours testing and tweaking, and put up a web page to help others
(http://katana.oldepharts.net/Quake_3/tweaks.html).

Then when I play back demos I turn it ALL back on. :)

I use 1024x768 instead of a lower res because, not only do I find it easier
to see things, but I found once I got past a certain point that the system
was actually GAINING performance over lower resolutions. *boggle* Not very
much, and yes I know it could have been a fluke, but my tests got
consistent results.

Anyway, I lust for a better video card, but life has handed me other
priorities. This one is good enough.

---
Friends don't let friends use Windows.