Page 1 of 1

Geforce 210 vs radeon 4350, which is the worst for gz?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:14 am
by invictius
The 210 in a 1ghz machine had trouble breaking 60fps on a vanilla map, the same I was getting on a 6150. Since amd is hopeless for drawcalls etc in opengl, will it perform worse?

Also timedemos are just an average fps, right? Can I compare it to a fps readout staying about the same just wandering around a level?

Re: Geforce 210 vs radeon 4350, which is the worst for gz?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:10 am
by Graf Zahl
With that CPU graphics hardware performance really does not matter. You'll have a hard time finding a graphics card weak enough that it doesn't get stalled by the slow CPU. So yes, the higher driver overhead of AMD will hit you hard on such a system.

This is also way below the system requirements of GZDoom. Even back in 2004 when serious development started, I was using a 3 GHz P4. The last time I ran on something this weak may have been around 2001 which was long before the first truly taxing maps appeared.

Re: Geforce 210 vs radeon 4350, which is the worst for gz?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:00 pm
by invictius
Graf Zahl wrote:With that CPU graphics hardware performance really does not matter. You'll have a hard time finding a graphics card weak enough that it doesn't get stalled by the slow CPU. So yes, the higher driver overhead of AMD will hit you hard on such a system.

This is also way below the system requirements of GZDoom. Even back in 2004 when serious development started, I was using a 3 GHz P4. The last time I ran on something this weak may have been around 2001 which was long before the first truly taxing maps appeared.


What video card were you using with your p4 back then?

Re: Geforce 210 vs radeon 4350, which is the worst for gz?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:46 am
by Graf Zahl
A Geforce 5900 and when that broke a Geforce 6800. But for both the CPU was fast enough so that overall the system was GPU limited.