TR Forums

Krogoth · Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:52 am

just brew it! wrote:
Krogoth wrote:
There's no killer mainstream application that makes desktop system over a decade ago woefully inadequate.
Meadows wrote:
Nothing that's 10 years old is usable today unless all you do is browse the internet.

The hyperbole from both of you is killing me.

A 10 year old desktop (assuming the HDD and GPU are still original) will be pretty darned painful to use unless you've never known anything better.

But with a SSD and GPU upgrade (and with the RAM maxed out), it'll still be perfectly fine for a wide range of tasks, assuming it was a mid- to high-end system 10 years ago. Will the performance knock your socks off? Of course not. But it'll get the job done.

Yes, even with a 10-year old GPU/CPU combination (Bloomfield, Geforce 2xx/Radeon HD 4xxx era)can still get the job done for majority of users. It sure wouldn't make your current games super pretty or be ultra-fast but it can do it. Some enthusiast just don't realize how much stuff has stagnated on the desktop front in the past decade. Things only got somewhat exciting in recent years due to Zen launch.

Krogoth · Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:59 am

Waco wrote:
A 10 year old GPU is not usable today.

Yes, it is ironically enough. Sure it wouldn't get 100FPS+ and handle anything above medium in-game settings at 1080p. It can still do the job. That''ll change once PS5 and Xbox One's successor finally get here. They'll most certainly raise the bar to require at minimal a Maxwell-GCN 1.4 era GPUs and six-core CPUs to get a playable experience.

Waco · Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:13 am

Krogoth wrote:
Waco wrote:
A 10 year old GPU is not usable today.

Yes, it is ironically enough. Sure it wouldn't get 100FPS+ and handle anything above medium in-game settings at 1080p. It can still do the job. That''ll change once PS5 and Xbox One's successor finally get here. They'll most certainly raise the bar to require at minimal a Maxwell-GCN 1.4 era GPUs and six-core CPUs to get a playable experience.

Even the best GPUs from 10 years ago are barely usable at low settings in modern titles at 1080p even with a modern CPU. With a 2009-era CPU, even if it was one of the best HEDT chips you could buy, it would be an exceedingly **** experience. Even a crappy laptop MX150 (I have one as well) is dramatically faster than a GTX 285, and it's slow enough to be barely usable even in year or two old titles at reduced resolution and low details. That's accepting under 30 FPS as "usable" as well, with dips into the teens/single digits in intense scenes.

If you play games from 10 years ago, sure, but GPU performance is monstrously faster than it was then. Even today's midrange cards (5700) are 10-15 TIMES faster than a GTX 285 (and that's given that the 285 can even run the particular game in question given its limited VRAM).

Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:24 am

Krogoth is still trolling us.

3 to 6 frames per second in a modern game at lowest possible graphics settings on a GeForce 9600GT isn't a playable experience, in my opinion. Been there; done that; then spent the money on an upgrade.

Glorious · Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:29 am

Krogoth wrote:
Yes, it is ironically enough.

How so?

If the card is DX10, and the game is DX11 only...?

You *CAN'T* play the two newer Tomb raiders with a 285 (or a 4850 or whatever)

Am I missing something?

Glorious · Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:29 am

JAE wrote:
3 to 6 frames per second in a modern game at lowest possible graphics settings on a GeForce 9600GT isn't a playable experience, in my opinion. Been there; done that; then spent the money on an upgrade.

I mean, a lot of newer games just won't run on a 285. More than a few just don't have DX9/10 whatever modes anymore.

EDIT: Again, am I missing something?

Krogoth · Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:46 am

JustAnEngineer wrote:
Krogoth is still trolling us.

3 to 6 frames per second in a modern game at lowest possible graphics settings on a GeForce 9600GT isn't a playable experience, in my opinion. Been there; done that; then spent the money on an upgrade.

9600GT was pretty trashy back in its heyday though. No shock there.

meerkt · Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:01 am

You're ruining the thread with all this GPU/CPU/games talk. This is Something's different...!

Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:03 am

meerkt wrote:
You're ruining the thread with all this GPU/CPU/games talk. This is Something's different...!

https://youtu.be/Zk-kQSz-Qv0

Xolore · Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:12 am

Heh. I think the most demanding PC game I play is Path of Exile. The most recent was probably the Borderlands Presequel for the short bit I tried it (didn't really like it).

It doesn't really take that much to run Terraria and Stardew Valley without issue...I'm pretty sure I could still use a 10 year old PC for everything I do If I wanted to. What constitutes "most people" here? What is a modern game? Just a newer game, or does it have to meet some technical requirements?

Funny enough, most First Person titles newer than UT2k4 make me motion sick. I feel dizzy in less than 5 minutes of playing them. I've pretty much sworn off anything that involves a first person perspective, especially if there is a gun sticking up from the bottom of the screen as that's basically code for "I will not enjoy this game". I find there's actually a lot of newer games I can play that could run well enough on older hardware. I replaced an old dual core sandy bridge machine with a radeon 5700 a couple years ago more because I could than because I needed to and I have a niece who still uses that old machine which very nearly is 10 years old AND low-to-mid range from that era.

I'll side with saying it's very possible to use a 10 yeah old pc today and and I'm sure plenty of people do though I won't speak to "most people". Calling old computers "unusable" is true for some but that claim might be a little self-centered.

The Egg · Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:24 am

I generally try to keep the PCs I manage (mostly just family these days) on GPUs which can use current drivers. That's more for security and usability (video playback, multi-monitor) than anything to do with gaming. Current minimum for NVidia is Kepler; for AMD it's a bit more scattershot.

Speaking of which, it's aggravating to see even decent retailers such as Microcenter still selling ancient cards like the GF 210, 8400GS, and HD5450 which are essentially dead/unsupported in the box. Technically they still function (with an older driver), but I think they're doing customers a disservice by even offering them for sale.

Waco · Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:47 am

Xolore wrote:
Calling old computers "unusable" is true for some but that claim might be a little self-centered.

The context of that statement was "modern AAA gaming", though maybe not explicitly stated that way. Surely you can play indie games (most of them, at least) without a lot of CPU/GPU grunt, but even then, you're limited by protocol support. DX11/12 modes are sometimes the only ones offered even in indie games thanks to the modern engines being easy/cheap to license.

Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:32 pm

The Egg wrote:
Speaking of which, it's aggravating to see even decent retailers such as Microcenter still selling ancient cards like the GF 210, 8400GS, and HD5450 which are essentially dead/unsupported in the box. Technically they still function (with an older driver), but I think they're doing customers a disservice by even offering them for sale.

In a similar vein, many motherboard vendors were still putting Radeon 3000 integrated graphics on AMD motherboards at the tail end of the Socket AM3+ era. Seriously, WTF?

Vhalidictes · Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:33 pm

As a frequent PC-builder and upgrade adviser for many people, what seems to be working for most is building a HEDT system from scratch every 6 years.

I still perform little upgrades of individual components on a 2-year schedule, but that's only because I'm a hardware enthusiast and want to use a variety of things. (I even have a Piledriver system, that was a mistake, if somewhat interesting)

I personally find it odd to plunk down $2000+ dollars on a computer, but that works out to less than $350/year and I spend way more than that on my yearly component budget.

I thought my friend was insane to get a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at launch but he's using that card for 1-2 years while I wait for the price/performance options to catch up to it, so really he's the one doing it correctly.

The problem with all this, of course, is that waiting 5+ years and building the best possible system is less involved, less interesting, takes less research (just buy the best option for every part), and gives the industry less money over time. Which indirectly hurts sites like TR.

Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:44 pm

Vhalidictes wrote:
(I even have a Piledriver system, that was a mistake, if somewhat interesting)

An FX-8350 is still my "daily driver" at home. :lol:

Glorious · Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:46 pm

Krogoth wrote:
9600GT was pretty trashy back in its heyday though. No shock there.

The 9800GTX+/250GTS has the same problem: It's DX10 only.

Same problem with the next iteration, the 285 Waco mentioned. 10 years old, and it was the "the fastest single-GPU video card on the planet, and that counts for a fair bit." (TR's review) at launch.

It's still DX10.

You can't run games that only have DX11+ modes.

I mentioned one already: Rise of the Tomb Raider. It's 4 years old, and sold like 10 million copies.

You CANNOT play it on the fastest single-GPU from 10 years ago. It's not a question of FPS: it will not run.

As Waco said, there's no guarantee that "indie" titles will run either: "Outer Wilds" is an indie darling at the moment (and literally the first I thought of to spot-check), but the minimum requirements specify a DX11 card.

Lucky Jack Aubrey · Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:31 pm

just brew it! wrote:
A 10 year old desktop (assuming the HDD and GPU are still original) will be pretty darned painful to use unless you've never known anything better.

But with a SSD and GPU upgrade (and with the RAM maxed out), it'll still be perfectly fine for a wide range of tasks, assuming it was a mid- to high-end system 10 years ago. Will the performance knock your socks off? Of course not. But it'll get the job done.

My "#2" rig is a Yorkfield Q9650 (admittedly near top-end for its day), currently running Windows 7. I've upgraded the video card (edit: GTX 1650), max'd out the RAM, and added a SSD. I have Office 365 installed, I run dual 1080p monitors, and I still play Borderlands 2 on it @ 1080p and 60 fps, as well as some older games. I may try Borderlands 3 on it when it comes out on Steam.

It just so happens, in my particular case, that I use my "#2" rig more than my "#1" rig as a matter of personal convenience. This machine is turned on every day unless I am traveling.

I may begin to run into compatibility problems with this rig, but in terms of raw computing power, for the moment it does everything I need it to.

Vhalidictes · Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:54 pm

My wife's current PC is the same i7-950 (Bloomfield?) / ATI 5870 combo that we both made in... could have been early 2010, I don't remember. Definitely counts as 10 years old, and definitely supports DX 11.

We had paired systems, mine eventually died from electromigration but she never OC'd hers and it still runs great today - although to be fair there's a Mushkin SSD in it. I'm not sure if that 5870 is original, it might have been an upgrade, but it was out around that time.

So, yes, HEDT systems from 10 years ago can run most games at 1080P just fine, although I don't care to argue what exact settings you'd have to use for the newest games (I can't verify most FP{S games as that machine is running Mint right now)

Krogoth · Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:57 pm

Redocbew wrote:
But GPUs are doomed! Doomed I say!

The end is nigh!

Discrete gaming GPUs are going start becoming marginalized and gravitate towards the upper echelons of the market throughout the 2020s. That's unless ray-tracing rendering gets adopted en mass in gaming (Part of Nvidia's long-term gambit). iGPUs have been getting enough for the masses.

Redocbew · Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:34 pm

Fifteen years ago, or whenever it was you started banging that drum I bet it was pretty amusing.

Krogoth · Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:51 pm

Redocbew wrote:
Fifteen years ago, or whenever it was you started banging that drum I bet it was pretty amusing.

Basic, no-frills 2D/3D cards are pretty much dead though. You are forced to get mid-tier SKUs that are overkill for the role or overpriced professional-tier SKUs to the annoyance of some HTPC hobbyists and users who wanted more outputs on the relative cheap. They were killed by ubiquity of iGPUs on mainstream platforms. Value-minded and budget discrete GPUS SKUs are under attack by iGPUs. It is only a matter of time before they become a rarity. It is pretty safe bet that it'll happen within the 2020s.

Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:16 pm

Krogoth wrote:
Basic, no-frills 2D/3D cards are pretty much dead though.

Looks like there's a reasonable number of GT 1030 cards out there.

Krogoth wrote:
You are forced to get mid-tier SKUs that are overkill for the role or overpriced professional-tier SKUs to the annoyance of some HTPC hobbyists and users who wanted more outputs on the relative cheap.

There are still a number of choices for sub-$100 GT 7xx cards with triple head capability. Granted, the 3rd head is analog VGA; but depending on use case that may be acceptable.

Waco · Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:19 pm

Vhalidictes wrote:
So, yes, HEDT systems from 10 years ago can run most games at 1080P just fine, although I don't care to argue what exact settings you'd have to use for the newest games (I can't verify most FP{S games as that machine is running Mint right now)

A 5870 is roughly as fast as a laptop MX150. It's barely passable at sub-1080P modern games with low details.

Vrock · Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:26 pm

Running Vega 11 integrated and it plays all my 20+ year old games just fine. You should see Q2XP, Quake HD, Unreal with hi res textures and models, and Tie Fighter 95 run at 1280x1024, tis a sight to behold. :lol:

I wonder if I can get NOLF running on Windows 10 with it; that game ran like a pig back in the day.

Waco · Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:42 pm

Vrock wrote:
Running Vega 11 integrated and it plays all my 20+ year old games just fine. You should see Q2XP, Quake HD, Unreal with hi res textures and models, and Tie Fighter 95 run at 1280x1024, tis a sight to behold.

I wonder if I can get NOLF running on Windows 10 with it; that game ran like a pig back in the day.

http://nolfrevival.tk/

Xolore · Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:55 pm

Waco wrote:
The context of that statement was "modern AAA gaming", though maybe not explicitly stated that way. Surely you can play indie games (most of them, at least) without a lot of CPU/GPU grunt, but even then, you're limited by protocol support. DX11/12 modes are sometimes the only ones offered even in indie games thanks to the modern engines being easy/cheap to license.

Fair enough. A 10-year-old pc would not be good for those games, but for what it's worth I bought my old 5700 gpu in 2009 during a Black Friday sale and that's a directX 11 gpu so indie titles requiring dx11 as a minimum is only a borderline issue for the 10 year mark.

Of course that's all pedantry. I wouldn't actually want to run on a 10-year old pc even if I can. I'm not a poor college kid anymore.

And I only know NOLF exists because of the attention placed around its licensing woes. Imagine if the game got that kind of publicity back before it became unobtainium.

Krogoth · Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:11 pm

Waco wrote:
Vhalidictes wrote:
So, yes, HEDT systems from 10 years ago can run most games at 1080P just fine, although I don't care to argue what exact settings you'd have to use for the newest games (I can't verify most FP{S games as that machine is running Mint right now)

A 5870 is roughly as fast as a laptop MX150. It's barely passable at sub-1080P modern games with low details.

Sorry, the HD 5870 has a considerable edge over the MX150 especially at 1080p. The MX150 is much more efficient but it simply cannot make-up the difference in memory bandwidth and texture prowess of a fully-enabled Cypress. MX150 is very impressive for what is but you are grossly overestimating it. It is much closer to a HD 5770 in terms of raw gaming performance. MX150 eats a lot less power and is a much smaller die.

Vrock · Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:18 am

Waco wrote:
Vrock wrote:
Running Vega 11 integrated and it plays all my 20+ year old games just fine. You should see Q2XP, Quake HD, Unreal with hi res textures and models, and Tie Fighter 95 run at 1280x1024, tis a sight to behold.

I wonder if I can get NOLF running on Windows 10 with it; that game ran like a pig back in the day.
http://nolfrevival.tk/

Uh, is that legal?

Waco · Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:49 am

Krogoth wrote:

Sorry, the HD 5870 has a considerable edge over the MX150 especially at 1080p. The MX150 is much more efficient but it simply cannot make-up the difference in memory bandwidth and texture prowess of a fully-enabled Cypress. MX150 is very impressive for what is but you are grossly overestimating it. It is much closer to a HD 5770 in terms of raw gaming performance. MX150 eats a lot less power and is a much smaller die.

I just went by the various benchmarks I could find for both. Regardless, a 5870 is not a good time with modern games.

ludi · Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:07 pm

Vrock wrote:
Waco wrote:
http://nolfrevival.tk/

Uh, is that legal?

As the story goes, what that site is hosting are the standalone conversions of NOLF, NOLF2, and Contract Jack that were supposed to end up on GOG.com. Once the attempt to secure licensing rights fell through due to none of the three nominal owners (Fox, WB, Activision) being willing to commit to which parts they owned, the game files escaped into the wild. And apparently none of the three possible owners cares enough to try and do a takedown of that site, because it's been up for a couple years at least.

In any case, I still have my original NOLF and NOLF2 CDs, but given the issues with trying to run them on a modern system, starting with "This system doesn't have an optical drive"...

TR Forums

Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Re: Something's different...

Who is online