Can Geforce2 GTS handle BF:1942?

[galt]

I have a Geforce2 GTS and an athlon 2000+ w/ 512mb ram. Is it worth buying BF:1942 to run on this machine? I dont mind playing at 800x600 (I'm not one of those who wont play if its not at 1600x1200 32bpp 4xAA 8xAniso 9xCandy 2xbutter with whipped cream). I really dont have plans to upgrade my system, and I won't just to play this game.

Can anybody tell me if I'll get playable framerates at 800x600 16bpp ?

Uhh... should I have put this in the Video forum?
Mods, could you please move this post there? Thanks.

 

[Schadenfroh]

yes, it will handle it just fine. geforce2 will handle all of todays games. as long as the cpu is decent, which yours is.

 

[JZilla]

My Athlon1800, 768mb ram, and a GF4 MX420 handles it ok. I, actually my brother because I don't find this game entertaining, play at 1024x768x32 medium settings. This is from a system that gets 3900 in 3dmark01.

 

[XBoxLPU]

It will be ok

BF1942 likes ram also

 

[BFG10K]

It'll struggle at times. At 800 x 600 x 16 you should be able to squeek by.

geforce2 will handle all of todays games

Uh no, it won't.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It'll struggle at times. At 800 x 600 x 16 you should be able to squeek by.

geforce2 will handle all of todays games

Uh no, it won't.

yes, at minumum detail with all of the bells and whistles turned off. i played UT2003 and BF1942 on my voodoo5/celeron 550. it will run todays games as well. the bulk of the market has geforce2 level cards. game developers know this and many games can scail back the detail to run on lower end parts.

 

[WheelsCSM]

I play BF1942 and UT2K3 with my Geforce 2 GTS, and it only has 32 MB of RAM. I do play at 800X600 with ~medium details, but it is definately playable. I think I get like 40-50 fps in the UT2K3 benchmark with my settings. BF1942 does get slightly choppy at times, but never enough to effect the gameplay. I have a Pentium 4 @ 2.4 GHz with 512MB of RAM. I think you will be okay.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Yeah I played it with a geforce 2 mx 400, so a gts better be able to handle it.

 

[galt]

I play UT2k3 at 800x600 at full minimum details, and it runs beautifully. Going by what you guys are saying, BF1942 should be just as good. Thanks guys.

 

[squidman]

i only play at 1024x768. My GF2 handled BF1942 with all the addons beautifully.

 

[Mutilator]

BF1942 was the reason I upgraded my GF2 GTS 32MB --> 8500LE 128MB.
It's also the game that just made me upgrade that 8500LE 128MB --> 9700Pro 128MB. Damn Desert Combat!
In short... BF will run with whatever you give it... the more the better.

 

[sandorski]

BF1942 seems a lot more forgiving compared to UT2K3.

 

[BFG10K]

yes, at minumum detail with all of the bells and whistles turned off.

That's not the definition of "handling today's games". What you'll get is a butt ugly image at slideshow speeds.

i played UT2003 and BF1942 on my voodoo5/celeron 550.

When you're running a rig that's below even the minimum specs that the developers are dishing out you know you're simply running a slideshow.

it will run todays games as well.

That is utter rubbish as it will not run today's games well. The GTS has been obsolete and underpowered for around two years now.

 

[Mem]

That is utter rubbish as it will not run today's games well

Really depends on the game,I`ve a GF2 Ti and have been playing two new games, Mistmare and Gothic 2 which play just fine (yes I don`t use FSAA) and it does depends what res,AF,FSAA setting you want and how much speed you need in gameplay which`s is really down to the user,not everybody wants or needs 100 FPS.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

yes, at minumum detail with all of the bells and whistles turned off.

That's not the definition of "handling today's games". What you'll get is a butt ugly image at slideshow speeds.

i played UT2003 and BF1942 on my voodoo5/celeron 550.

When you're running a rig that's below even the minimum specs that the developers are dishing out you know you're simply running a slideshow.

it will run todays games as well.

That is utter rubbish as it will not run today's games well. The GTS has been obsolete and underpowered for around two years now.

Do you own this set up?
i have sat on it and played UT2003 and BF1942 on it for a good amount of time. if it had a better processor it would be even better. ran at 800X600 btw, i agree that it will not handle 1024X768

 

[gibbsman]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
i played UT2003 and BF1942 on my voodoo5/celeron 550.

Really? I didn't think that the VooDoo5 supported T&L, which BF1942 requires to play.....

 

[GTaudiophile]

My aging Radeon 7500 can handle it (1024x768x32).

 

[BFG10K]

Do you own this set up?

Not that exact one but I have a very good feel for a wide range of setups.

i have sat on it and played UT2003 and BF1942 on it for a good amount of time.

The minimum specs for UT2003 are a P3 733 MHz. The developers always use ridiculously low minimum specs so you'll understand where I'm coming from when you start saying that specs lower than what the devs say work just fine.

ran at 800X600 btw, i agree that it will not handle 1024X768

I didn't even class Quake 3 as playable on my old Celeron 500, much less a CPU monster like BF1942 or UT2003.

Really? I didn't think that the VooDoo5 supported T&L, which BF1942 requires to play.....

I didn't post that, Schadenfroh did.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: gibbsman

Originally posted by: BFG10K
i played UT2003 and BF1942 on my voodoo5/celeron 550.

Really? I didn't think that the VooDoo5 supported T&L, which BF1942 requires to play.....

You can use 3Danalyser to emulate Hardware TnL. When used the game runs as if your vidcard has that feature.

 

[Lyfer]

I played it on my bros good ole Visiontek Geforce GTS-V, it runs it "playable" at 640x480 at quality set to low.

 

[gramboh]

Really depends on your definition of playable. I pretty much need 60 fps minimum, preferably 100. I have an old GF2 GTS in my computer now (trying to wait until HL2 and then buy a top level card since I know I will be playing HL2, CS2, DOD2, TFC2 etc for years) and pretty much only Quake3 and Half-Life/CS run fast enough for me to play. I find it way too hard to aim properly/fast/smoothly below 50fps, the movement just feels so choppy to me. So it really depends what you are used to/expecting. Personally I wouldn't even bother with 1942 on my system until I get a new card, and UT2003 demo was unplayable on my Athlon 1200, 512meg PC133, GF2 GTS.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It'll struggle at times. At 800 x 600 x 16 you should be able to squeek by.

geforce2 will handle all of todays games

Uh no, it won't.

yes, at minumum detail with all of the bells and whistles turned off. i played UT2003 and BF1942 on my voodoo5/celeron 550. it will run todays games as well. the bulk of the market has geforce2 level cards. game developers know this and many games can scail back the detail to run on lower end parts.

It is barely acceptable for Morrowind. I have one, so I know.

 

[Sideswipe001]

Playable is a relative term.

I can "play" Warcraft 3 at my friend's house on a Duron 1.3 with a GeForce2 MX. It bugs the crap out of me, but it can play.

I could NEVER accept that out of my own system though...which is why I have a 9700 Pro on a 1700+ at just under 2.2 Ghz...and I still want it faster.

Games bother me if I get studdering, or if in "normal" play, it isn't smooth.

 

[dmw16]

Ahh...such fond memories of my GeForce2 GTS. Seems like so long ago when I got that one
-doug

 

[squidman]

Counter Strike 2??!