EQ2 uses PS/VS 1.1 only

Any reasons why its limited to PS1.1? Did they feel that there just was not enough PS2.0 market pentration yet?

 

if i had to make a guess i'd say they are just lazy .


The figure using ps 1.1 they could just have all cards run the same path ad not have ot make another one down the line .


I'm hopping they try to optimize it for shader model 2.0 .

This will bring up the performance of the r3x0 , r420 and nv40 lines which would be nice.


But mostly i just want the mem leak fixed

 

You have to wonder if, as a TWIMTBP title, the FX chips didn't scare Sony away from PS/VS 2.0, and by the time the 6800s were available the engine wasn't considered as "feature-locked".

 

Name a game that's minimum requirements are an Athlon XP3200 or equivalent PR rating. Hell, name a game whose recommended requirements are highter than an XP3200. Even EQ2s recommended spec is only 2Ghz or higher.

 

That doesn't change it from being low end . Games were released this year that will run on a pentium 3 . Does that mean that a pentium 3 is not low end cpu for gaming ?


The 3200+ and the athlon 64 3000+ are at the bottom , they are the top of the low end cpus .

You could go further down the line to the 2700+s at 50$ but the fact is they are low end cpus now .


Its not an ideal test to say its cpu limited and test on one slow cpu .


If he tested it on cpus while scaling the clock speeds then it would be a valid test .


This is akin to taking a geforce fx 5200 or a 9600pro and claiming the game is gpu limited.

It may well be on those cards , but if u used a newer gpu it might not be the case anymore .

 

Yes for the 3200+ the chip is that expensive.

But as i said there are faster chips for 100=130 or are u saying the athlon 64 3000+ is slower than the athlon xp 3200 ? I don't think so .

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=10

looks to me that there are cpus much much faster than the athlon xp 3200+

Btw newegg.com has the athlon 64 3000+ for 150$ right now .

 

Sorry, but low end is the AXP Sempron and P4 Celeron. Certainly not any Athlon 64.

 

Please read the thread


Chrisray said

I said

he said

which i took exception too .

saying something is cpu limited on a slow cpu that is basicly low end now is hardly proof that the game is cpu limited

 

That's irrelevant to what I was saying and you didn't answer my actual question. I asked what games' minimum specs are an AthlonXP 3200? Surely there must be some if it's "low end"? I bet you can't even name a game whose recommended specs are higher than an XP 3200. The fact is that there isn't a game released today that should struggle on an XP3200 (coupled with a decent graphic card). If EQ2 indeed does then that's more attributable to poor programming than the processor's capability.

 

??

In games, there certainly are.

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000/index.x?pg=5

Just some quick googling - bear in mind that's only comparing an FX-51, not FX-55 or A64 4000. There certainly are processors available which are more than 25% faster than an XP3200 now. Remember that with the later XP models, AMD's numbering scheme got a bit out of whack with the newer P4's - as you can see from Tech Reports numbers, a 2.8ghz P4C is pretty much neck-and-neck with the Xp3200 in games, and just pummels it in the high-end application benchmarks.

 

I did. Remember posting this?

But hey, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics with someone as stubborn as yourself.

Night.

 

The minimum specs call for a 2ghz cpu and 512 megs of ram with a dx 8 video card with sm 1

This however is for playing on extreme performance settings which he did not test .

He is using a slow cpu to prove that the game is cpu limited .

This isn't how you go about seeing that . You need to scale the cpu speed up until / if performance does not go up anymore .


At the settings he used the 9800pro will quickly become a bottleneck again with a athlon 64 3500+ cpu .


If he puts the settings to very high the game will once again becom gpu limited nad u will see the 9800pro fall off .

If you put it on extreme quality the 6800ultra will start to fall off as you need 512 megs of ram really for that setting to run well .

If he went to sli 6800ultras then i'm sure the cpu might once again become cpu limited.

 

WHo said there wasn't ?


I think you need to give it a rest .

I am merely pointing out that it is not cpu limited in all cases .

Whats unacceptable is the way you people responed to posts with out knowing what your talking about or your seemingly inept reading skills .

I never said this game doesn't have problems , as a matter of fact i've posted many times about the memory leak . I am just stating that he is wrong when he says it is cpu limited as there are settings in the game that will quickly make it gpu limited even on his athlon 3200 which is now considered slow .


As for it being unacceptable for using p.s 1.1 ... what is the engine wow came out with considered then ?

 

9700 Pro was available in August of '02, EQ2 shipped Nov. of '04. Just a nitpick.

 

No , i responed to information posted in this thread .

That is not derailing the subject.

If i posted about the weather then you have a point

I could . It could also gain by using 3dc for its normal maps .

There are alot of things it could do to speed up . Apparently sm 2.0 and sm 3.0 were not high on its lists .

The originaly wanted this game out last year(edit i mean 2003 nor 2004) . Which means the game would have been played on radeon 9800pros and the geforce fx line up .

Seeing as how sm 2.0 would be more of a problem on half of the top of the line cards out at that point perhaps they felt it was better to work on the sm 1.0 code more .

Remember this is twimtp title. So i'm sure nvidia had input on design choices or at the very least soe saw the performance problems of sm 2.0 on the geforce fx line and the heavy tweaking they would have to do .