Have you checked this site : https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Prince_of_P … e_Sands_of_Time ?

Recommended
Operating system (OS) 2000, XP
Processor (CPU) Intel Pentium 4 1.2 GHz / AMD Athlon 1.2 GHz
System memory (RAM)
Hard disk drive (HDD)
Video card (GPU) Nvidia GeForce4 Ti4200 / ATI Radeon 9500
DirectX 9.0 compatible

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-22, 19:31:

Originally, I wanted to replay this game on my AthlonXP rig but seeing how it ships with DirectX 9.0 on the CD, I'm wondering if a GeForce4 Ti4200 might not be enough to fully max out the graphics.

Does anyone know if PoP: The Sands of Time used any DirectX 9 features for its graphics? Meaning, something that only worked on Ati 9xxx cards or Nvidia's FX series at the time of release (December 2003).

Dancsi40 wrote on 2021-03-22, 21:14:

Have you checked this site : https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Prince_of_P … e_Sands_of_Time ?

Yup, that's where I got the idea to replay the game on an older rig since it seems to have problems with fog rendering on newer GPUs and sound issues with modern operating systems.

For clarity, the GeForce4 Ti4200 that I have is a DX8.1 card. I'm just wondering if it can deliver the best visuals in this game or should I play it on a DX9 compatible GPU instead.

there is a thread about the GF TI 4200 card and DX9/DX8 here : Games for GeForce 4 Ti 4200?

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-22, 21:36:

Dancsi40 wrote on 2021-03-22, 21:14:

Have you checked this site : https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Prince_of_P … e_Sands_of_Time ?

Yup, that's where I got the idea to replay the game on an older rig since it seems to have problems with fog rendering on newer GPUs and sound issues with modern operating systems.

For clarity, the GeForce4 Ti4200 that I have is a DX8.1 card. I'm just wondering if it can deliver the best visuals in this game or should I play it on a DX9 compatible GPU instead.

Cheers, that was an interesting read.

It seems that some earlier games were made using the the DX9 API without actually utilizing Pixel Shader 2.0 and other DX9 exclusive graphical features. Given its release date, it is possible that PoP:SoT falls into that category, in which case a Ti4200 should be able to max it out.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 06:24:

Cheers, that was an interesting read.

It seems that some earlier games were made using the the DX9 API without actually utilizing Pixel Shader 2.0 and other DX9 exclusive graphical features. Given its release date, it is possible that PoP:SoT falls into that category, in which case a Ti4200 should be able to max it out.

As far as I remember Warrior Within used Pixel Shader 2 for the first time so SoT should be good. And it was 2003 so the game not being supported by only a year old card would have been an unpopular decision

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 06:24:

Cheers, that was an interesting read.

It seems that some earlier games were made using the the DX9 API without actually utilizing Pixel Shader 2.0 and other DX9 exclusive graphical features. Given its release date, it is possible that PoP:SoT falls into that category, in which case a Ti4200 should be able to max it out.

Hi Joseph, "max it out" is a little bit of a grey area 😀. For some people, "maxing a game out" means playing on the highest resolution, with anisotropic filtering / antialiasing and getting over 100 FPS while doing so 😀
Back in the day, I played this game on an Athlon XP 2200+ & GeForce 3 (the original non-Ti200/500). I remember that, although it was a good overall experience, I did have to make some compromises in resolution/visual quality (and at the time, 30 FPS was usually enough for me). Now, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 is faster than a GeForce 3 (by ~ 15-20% or so), but it's not a night and day difference, so if you're after the aforementioned "max out" scenario, it definitely won't be enough. 😁

I recently tested the game on the following WinXP retro rig: Core i5 3570K @ 4.5 GHz / 8 GB DDR3 / GeForce GTX 760 / Sound Blaster X-Fi.
It ran perfectly (obviously - as do all XP titles on such an overkill PC), and fog seems to also work properly (but.. to tell you the truth, I wasn't very picky in this regard). So if you are after the ultimate experience, a late era XP rig is probably what you want (although I would imagine that an Athlon 64 3800/4000+ paired with a GeForce 6800GT would also work fine).

Also, to answer your question: no, PoP SoT does not use Pixel Shader 2.0 and other DirectX 9 hardware specific features.

bloodem wrote on 2021-03-23, 07:13:

Hi Joseph, "max it out" is a little bit of a grey area 😀.

Heh yeah, I should have worded that better. I guess what I meant was: can a Ti4200 correctly display all the graphical effects that the game supports.

For some people, "maxing a game out" means playing on the highest resolution, with anisotropic filtering / antialiasing and getting over 100 FPS while doing so 😀

Yup, I realize that a lot of people like to play games at the highest supported resolution with AA and AF completely cranked up. That's fair, but I prefer to use (loosely) period-correct hardware as long as it can give me 60+ FPS. Also, I never cared much for AA even back in the day, but I do find AF very nice.

Resolution wise, I kinda stick to what was common around the game's release date. Mainly because older games used to design their UI around a certain resolution, and increasing it further tends to make the icons too tiny. That said, lower resolutions look fairly nice on a 17" CRT monitor, which is rapidly becoming the preferred display choice for all of my retro rigs.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 07:56:

Heh yeah, I should have worded that better. I guess what I meant was: can a Ti4200 correctly display all the graphical effects that the game supports.

Yes, I think the game was designed around Pixel Shader 1.1 (which is a minimum requirement, but having a newer version doesn't add anything else to the game experience).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 07:56:

Yup, I realize that a lot of people like to play games at the highest supported resolution with AA and AF completely cranked up. That's fair, but I prefer to use (loosely) period-correct hardware as long as it can give me 60+ FPS.

For me it depends. There are games that I like to play in software mode on pre-period-correct slow hardware (for nostalgia purposes), and there are other games that I just want to max out and experience them like I wasn't able to 15-20 years ago (*cough* Crysis *cough*) 😀

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 07:56:

Also, I never cared much for AA even back in the day, but I do find AF very nice.

Yeah, me neither. Certain methods of AA looked nice (but were often performance killers), while other types introduced so much blur that image quality was just better without them.

bloodem wrote on 2021-03-23, 08:30:

Yes, I think the game was designed around Pixel Shader 1.1 (which is a minimum requirement, but having a newer version doesn't add anything else to the game experience).

Awesome. And in hindsight, that does make the most sense, given the hardware situation at the time.

For me it depends. There are games that I like to play in software mode on pre-period-correct slow hardware (for nostalgia purposes), and there are other games that I just want to max out and experience them like I wasn't able to 15-20 years ago (*cough* Crysis *cough*) 😀

Yeah, it does depend. It's logical to play any games that have no graphical/sound issues on a more modern system. But edge cases like Splinter Cell (which doesn't display correctly on anything newer than a GeForce4 Ti without third-party patches) keep me from using that approach more broadly, despite the performance benefits.

On that note, did you notice any audio issues with Sands of Time on your Core i5 rig? It's been reported that character dialog is too quiet on modern systems, but I imagine they meant the OS, rather than audio hardware.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 09:11:

But edge cases like Splinter Cell (which doesn't display correctly on anything newer than a GeForce4 Ti without third-party patches) keep me from using that approach more broadly, despite the performance benefits.

I tested Splinter Cell on Windows 10 using dgVoodoo (which has an option to emulate GeForce 4 Ti cards), and for the most part it looks good, including the soft shadows, but I did encounter a few minor graphical glitches in certain levels, so... this game is a bit of a weird one.
On the one hand, it looks best on GeForce 4 Ti cards, but on the other hand... you can't max it out and expect high framerates on such a card (even GeForce FX cards struggle with it at higher resolutions).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-03-23, 09:11:

On that note, did you notice any audio issues with Sands of Time on your Core i5 rig? It's been reported that character dialog is too quiet on modern systems, but I imagine they meant the OS, rather than audio hardware.

No sound issues at all with a Sound Blaster X-Fi on Windows XP! I'm guessing that, indeed, those sound issues appear on modern operating systems, like Windows 10 (although I also tested PoP SoT on Windows 10 about a year ago, and don't remember having any sound problems.
I did have a lot of problems with Prince of Persia (2008) on Windows 10 - to the point that I had to play it on my XP rig. The game was simply broken - missing sounds, missing triggers for certain cutscenes, missing walls (through which you could fall outside the game map). I tried every possible solution, all kinds of drivers and was unable to solve it. 😀

You can always check the game requirement (minimum and recommended) on this site : https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri

It will also tell you the pixel shadel and vertex shader version, however Pop: SoT is not in the list, only Pop: WW and it requires Pixel Shader 1.3

That's a very useful website, thanks for the link!

Given that Warrior Within tops out at Pixel Shader 1.3, it's very unlikely that Sands of Time uses anything higher than that.