Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (
More info?)
"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:dm6p215pb2fe66eie3hvfohqm6t600v15e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:06:44 -0700, "Buffalo"
> <eric(nospam)@nada.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >"goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote in message
> >news:IdOWd.12446$FP7.9846@fe04.lga...
> >>
> >> "Buffalo" <eric(nospam)@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:GI6dnYmcA_0qMbbfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote in message
> >> > news
😛an.2005.03.06.23.25.00.918557@invalid.lan...
> >> >> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:19:13 -0700, Buffalo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I have UT2003 and I am running Win98SE,
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry to hear that...
> >> >>
> >> >> > an ATI XP2100+,384MB ram and a Radeon8500 128MB vid card.
> >> >>
> >> >> ATI doesn't make CPU's, so I'll assume you meant "AMD". The amount of
> >> >> RAM
> >> >> and the video card are a little weak for UT2004.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Is it worthwhile to buy UT2004?
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, only you can decide that, it's your money. Like I said, your
> >> >> hardware is a little weak for it, but the gameplay of 04 is better than
> >> >> 03. Give it a try!
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
> >> >> Linux Registered User #327951
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the input.
> >> > Yeah, I did mean AMD
> >> > Which one would make the most difference to get UT2004 to play
adaquately;
> >> > OS,cpu speed, vid card, or more memory?
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Getting a faster processor will be in your best interest. There was an
> >> absolute world of difference when I upgraded from a 1.5P4 to a 3300+ AMD64.
> >> The unreal engine is very much tied to processor power. That's not to say a
> >> good vid card makes the game much better, but a weak processor won't be
> >> helped much even by the best card.
> >> Oh, and get more RAM. It's like a garage. You can always use a bigger one.
> >
> >Thanks, I just bought a 512MB stick on E-bay. (SDram PC-133 that will give me
a
> >total of 768MB)
> >I am also bidding on another 512 stick.
> >That should also help Half-Life 2 some also.
>
> Be careful. Windows 98 pukes somewhere around 768. Do some Googling
> on the subject... there is a workaround.
I'm aware of adding the MaxFileCache=512000 line under the [vcache] header in
System.ini, thanks.
>
> And older motherboards that weren't designed for such large amounts of
> memory sometimes struggle when you populate all the slots.
I have an ECS K7S5a ver 3.1 and it has two slots for SDram and two slots for DDR
ram.
You can use either DDR or SDRam, but not both, with a max of 512MB per slot for
a total max of 1GB.
If I use a 512MB stick, it must be a 32x8 configuration (low-density) and not a
64x4 configuration (high-density), otherwise the MB will only recognize 1/2 of
it, or 256MB, if it recognizes it at all, as I understand it.
However, I have heard that it will accept and recognize high-density sticks that
are 256MBs or less.
>
> Putting in the fastest processor your mobo allows will give you more
> bang for the buck than any other upgrade.
Again, thanks for your input.
Buffalo
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram