Re: build a system around these?
Posted on 2015-10-29, 02:45
That's not a problem, CPUs down clock to 800 to 1600 MHz.
Re: build a system around these?
Posted on 2015-10-28, 17:32
OC the integrated HD 4600 GPU on the 4770/4790k by 15% and you have your answer, and now the current integrated GPUs have moved up to the 8800 ultra & GTX 285 level. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-gr … iew,3107-7.html
Re: build a system around these?
Posted on 2015-10-28, 16:45
As I already suggested, an Athlon 64 LE-1640 clocked to 2.8 is the same as an FX-57 but less than half the power usage, it's an AM2 chip. x2 6400+ is another way to go with the trade off of 125w tdp instead of 45w, faster than an fx-57 at 3.2 stock, also am2. Either of these is a better option than …
Re: build a system around these?
Posted on 2015-10-28, 16:36
4000+ am2 is slower than an FX-57.
Re: build a system around these?
Posted on 2015-10-28, 04:37
Came out in '05. CPU of the day was the Athlon FX-57. A 45w low power equivalent would be an athlon le 1640 2.6Ghz 1MB oc to 2.8, there are 512k l2 versions with the same name so you have to be to get the 1mb l2 for a match. Of course, the 7800 gtx 512 is nearly spec match of the '06 7900 gtx, '06 …
Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.
Posted on 2015-10-27, 11:02
because results varied more with pcem in benchmarks.
Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.
Posted on 2015-10-27, 09:04
Should have a range as real world results can vary, sometimes wildly, depending on video card, x system settings as seen by: Phil's Ultimate VGA Benchmark Database Project but roughly.. dosbox xt@4.77 ~= 253 cycles at@6 ~= 552 cycles 386@25 ~= 4700 486@66 ~= 23300 586@133 ~= 70600
Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.
Posted on 2015-10-26, 13:06
jk3one wrote: You mean, more or less rough proximate than dosbox with cycles set to something or other? 😀 Regardless of db cycles only relating to itself, DOSBox performance is actually more consistent than pcem last I checked.
Re: PCEm. Another PC emulator.
Posted on 2015-10-26, 05:06
jk3one wrote: somehow forgot to mention all the cool things... - it runs faithfully as an xt with cga composite graphics, playing booter games just like in the early eighties I guess you haven't run benchmarks on it, faithfully is not the adjective I would use, rough proximate.
Re: Mac emulator and speed control
Posted on 2015-10-24, 14:25
You can try mini vmac as well, which has speed selection.
Re: Most disappointing games?
Posted on 2015-10-14, 07:10
>Europa Universalis III >WTF? How are you supposed to take over the world if every nation declares war on you after taking over just several territories :( Well then you're going to love EU IV(sarcasm.) It doesn't make any sense either, you take over in the new world and countries back in the old …
Re: Really, how much RAM you need a 486 dx66 ???
Posted on 2015-10-09, 00:28
640k of course, just ask Bill.
Re: SetMul - Multiplier control for VIA C3 / AMD K6 Mobile / Cyrix 5x86
Posted on 2015-10-02, 01:17
Looks like 100 MHz would be possible, or at least 107.73.
Re: SetMul - Multiplier control for VIA C3 / AMD K6 Mobile / Cyrix 5x86
Posted on 2015-09-30, 04:57
Athlon XP-M can be set from 3x to 24x and FSB down to 50 MHz, so 150 MHz(which should be around a p200 in performance) to 2.6-2.8 GHz avg OC(almost a64 4000+ equivalent), by year that covers from 96' to 04' and software settable: http://fab51.com/cpu/barton/athlon-e24.html At 150 Mhz I wonder what …
Re: Gravis UltraSound Files Archive
Posted on 2015-09-17, 06:03
Maraakate wrote: 3.7 is a very late revision. That's the version when they started including the ICS mixer on the board for volume control. I think the earliest card I own is a 2.2. Maybe mine is 3.4 then, it doesn't have the ICS mixer.
Re: Gravis UltraSound Files Archive
Posted on 2015-09-17, 06:01
What version GUS did you own and how did you buy it? I heard that the really early revisions were mostly mail order only, but some stores carried them briefly. Was the game on it's own special disk or did it like generic like the rest of the gravis disks? 3.7, best buy, had its own disk, as for …
Re: Gravis UltraSound Files Archive
Posted on 2015-09-17, 04:31
I consider a rip in general to be a full install of the game directory. A true "archivable" piece would be some sort of image of the install media. What was this on, a CD? I have original 2.05 install diskettes, and even a few extra original manuals and they only mention shareware demos for some …
Re: Gravis UltraSound Files Archive
Posted on 2015-09-17, 03:23
If you produce me a diff to a stock install of the game and then provide me the diff and the patched version it may be possible for me to write a patch installer; but no guarantees on this. I'd rather have some kind of patch in place as opposed to hosting a full rip install. You have a different …
Re: Gravis UltraSound Files Archive
Posted on 2015-09-17, 03:19
So how did you make this release then? Is it based off a game engine that is used by another game that had GUS support files? I've never played this game; I know nothing about it or the origins of this GUS version. It was a bundled game with the initial GUS for awhile, that's the only way it was …
Re: Gravis UltraSound Files Archive
Posted on 2015-09-17, 02:52
Maraakate wrote: It was a complete rip of the game. I'd prefer an official patch if it can be sourced. So that's why things never moved forward, misunderstanding. FYI, there was never a GUS patch, I suggested a patch could possibly be made by diffing the files with the non GUS version.
Page 33 of 40