Upgrades/'Things you've done in anticipation for Live 2004

my machine cannot satisfy me even in 2003:
athlon 2200+(a model which is hard to overclock)
512mb ddr 333 ram
geforce4ti4200

radeon series work great in 2003
if it still happens in 2004... i may buy myself a 9700(not pro,its tooooooo expensive )

my machine cannot satisfy me even in 2003:

There's been many posts about this in Live 2003... nobody's machine can satisfy them in Live 2003, even without max settings on. The programmers didn't optimize it enough. Chances are you'll be OK for 2004, especially if they get optimizing it for better frame rates.

Yep, lack of optimization is what kills it for us PC users. IMHO, if it were done properly last year, a P4 2.53ghz or an athlon xp2500+ coupled with a Geforce4 Ti4200 or Radeon 9500pro/9600pro should have been sufficient for 2003 running at max details 1024x768.

I've heard that they treat the pc version as an afterthought all the time and it really showed in 2003. They just don't spend much time playtesting and optimizing it.

I also know that a few weeks ago, they pulled most people working on the pc version to playtest/finish the console version of live 2004. So don't get your hopes up this year. I wouldn't count on most of us getting high framerates with computers that are more than capable of handling it. I think the only way you can play max details is to use brute force (ie. P4 3.0Ghz, Radeon 9700pro and up).

my machine cannot satisfy me even in 2003:
athlon 2200+(a model which is hard to overclock)
512mb ddr 333 ram
geforce4ti4200

radeon series work great in 2003
if it still happens in 2004... i may buy myself a 9700(not pro,its tooooooo expensive )

You won't find any 9700 (pro or non-pros) anymore other than ebay. They've all been discontinued. In fact the 9800np or pro will soon be discontinued too in favor of the 9800XT. That's how ati works. Instead of dropping prices as new chips come out, they normally discontinue the old ones and they become VERY rare.

duron 935mhz
256mb sdram
gf4mx440

i play 2003 at 1024x768x16 (coz am cused with the inability to see the diff bet 16 and 32 bit graphics... is there really a diff?) at high settings... tried experimenting with the lowest setting before to get 60+fps just to compare the feel of better performance... i just cant se the diff bet 60+fps and <30fps..(how my live 2003 settings play.. LIKE I SAID AM CURSED)

problem is.. how much will be the performance drop of my pc from 03 to 04 considering my lame ass sytem.. and how lame ass is my system do you think it is? am planning to stick with this till next year. maybe the athlon fx would be more affordable then

BTW.. havent surfd for 3 mos. now coas am reviewing for the architecture board exam come jan2004.. any updates on live 2004? are they promising much better gameplay insead of eyecandy-only feature?

tnx guys

I bought Madden 2004 and t didn't work on my computer. Now fear that Live 2004 will not work either. Hopefully, the EA Sports guys will have mercy on those of us with 3 year old computers.

duron 935mhz
256mb sdram
gf4mx440

i play 2003 at 1024x768x16 (coz am cused with the inability to see the diff bet 16 and 32 bit graphics... is there really a diff?) at high settings... tried experimenting with the lowest setting before to get 60+fps just to compare the feel of better performance... i just cant se the diff bet 60+fps and <30fps..(how my live 2003 settings play.. LIKE I SAID AM CURSED)

wow you really can't tell the diff between lowest setting and highest setting in terms of framerate?..that's really strange..
i'm guessing it's maybe cuz yours at low settings is already quite slow on your system (?)
I can't tell the diff between 16 and 32 bit color in this game either..very subtle.

problem is.. how much will be the performance drop of my pc from 03 to 04 considering my lame ass sytem.. and how lame ass is my system do you think it is? am planning to stick with this till next year. maybe the athlon fx would be more affordable then

doubt it'll be affordable..brand new = open up your wallet and cringe.

BTW.. havent surfd for 3 mos. now coas am reviewing for the architecture board exam come jan2004.. any updates on live 2004? are they promising much better gameplay insead of eyecandy-only feature?

yep.

my spec.
duron 1.3 ghz
geforce 3 ti200 64mb
256mb sdr
I probably play nba live 2004 in my ps2, w/ my rig not powerful enough to play live 2004.

my spec.
duron 1.3 ghz
geforce 3 ti200 64mb
256mb sdr
I probably play nba live 2004 in my ps2, w/ my rig not powerful enough to play live 2004.

chong nakakatakot ka naman. my rig is slower than yours.. dont tell me i cnat run live 2004 on my pc?u think so??

quote]
wow you really can't tell the diff between lowest setting and highest setting in terms of framerate?..that's really strange..
i'm guessing it's maybe cuz yours at low settings is already quite slow on your system (?)
I can't tell the diff between 16 and 32 bit color in this game either..very subtle.

Not really.. i guess.. i used the "`" then r_showfps 1 to see the framerate.. you see.. i tried playing the lowest settings.. got >60fps.. bet 80-90 fps that is.. and compared it to my current settings which is set at high and is about 30-35 fps though it sometimes drops to 23fps.. i cant tell the diff..in the smoothness of perfomance if there is.... its barely noticeable... WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS PC AM USING IN THIS GODDAMNED NETCAFE??? Too slow een for a dyslexick.. If they werent stupid to pair an intel celeron 1.7ghz with only 92mb of ram... damn.. i cant eead what am typoing.. its got a 1 minute delay per 10 words i guess..... waaaaaah +(

wow that's really weird.
The difference between 60fps and 23fps is night and day. Try running a fast break when the framerate is really low. It's so hard to control your player.
I think you really need a new comp..

I might rent Live 04 like i did with Live 03 and get the PC....but....this year....I'm gonna get my firs NBA Video Game On Console since N64

I'll buy Live 04 on PS2 and maybe Live 04 for PC in June

I think I gotta upgrade, because my computer ran Live 2001, but it was kinda slow. I got a 600 mHz with 64 MB RAM, and a pretty bad graphics card. It's made by Intel and it came with the computer. If I add 64 MB of more RAM, I think I will be able to play Live 2004, as long as I put the graphics settings to low.[/quote]

Athlon 1700+ (1.47ghz) Overclocked to 2.5ghz Faster than a 3ghz P4
Abit NF7
1GB
Geforce 4 Ti4200 64mb (Time to upgrade:( )

my spec.
duron 1.3 ghz
geforce 3 ti200 64mb
256mb sdr
I probably play nba live 2004 in my ps2, w/ my rig not powerful enough to play live 2004.

chong nakakatakot ka naman. my rig is slower than yours.. dont tell me i cnat run live 2004 on my pc?u think so??

kasi in this age of computer gaming, ung spec ng pc ko pang average setting lang, nba live sreies is optimize sa ps2 compare sa pc ko w/ my spec. Although my pc is quite good playing gta vice city than playing it in ps2.

Athlon 1700+ (1.47ghz) Overclocked to 2.5ghz Faster than a 3ghz P4
Abit NF7
1GB
Geforce 4 Ti4200 64mb (Time to upgrade:( )

A 1.47 athlon overclocked to 2.5 ghz is faster than a 3 ghz p4?. How did you come up with that?

Also, your main board wont last long when you're overclocking to more than 1000 mhz than it was shipped at. What kinda cooling you using to do that? north pole in a box?

I have a AMD Athlon 2000XP+
256 Ram
64mb DDr G4 MX
I can run live 2003 full graphis ...y'all think i can run 04 full?

Geforce 4 Ti4200 64mb (Time to upgrade:( )

B'ah, you don't need to upgrade, I have an NVIDIA TNT RIVA and I'm running Madden allright.

Anyone play madden 04 and nhl 04 ??? Because, if madden 04 and nhl 04 run very good (smooth fps, high graphics details, 1024x780) in a 2.2 ghz,
512mb, gf ti 4200, then nba live 2004 run too. Or no ????
If anyone play the games, then talk.


I sorry my english, I'm brazilian.

Athlon 1700+ (1.47ghz) Overclocked to 2.5ghz Faster than a 3ghz P4
Abit NF7
1GB
Geforce 4 Ti4200 64mb (Time to upgrade:( )

Ahh smartass! j/k
Too bad i never picked up one of the new thoroughbreds. Mine is a crappy Palomino xp1800+ that won't go very far o/c'ing.
How's the soundstorm on the NF7??

get the new Radeon 9800XT!

wow that's really weird.
The difference between 60fps and 23fps is night and day. Try running a fast break when the framerate is really low. It's so hard to control your player.
I think you really need a new comp..

well, it gets weird whn it drops at 23... but u see.. m playing it at an avg of about 33fps.... sumtimes it goes up to bout 40 or drops to 23-25.... i'll probably wait n see. u c i only play nba live.. so buying a new rig when my okd one isstill working would be very impractical. right? hopefully, i'll be able to buy a new one after y board exam this january...

I get your point hough. 60and 23 is far off.. but like i said.. at 33fps, i cant notice the diff.I just bought the gerforce4 mx440 last january so i guess giving it7 more months wouldnt be that bad

Geforce 4 Ti4200 64mb (Time to upgrade:( )

B'ah, you don't need to upgrade, I have an NVIDIA TNT RIVA and I'm running Madden allright.

You're playing madden what? 2004? ( sorry.. am not familiar with the series hence fogive me if madden 2004 hasnt been rleased yet ) that a 32 mb TNT@ M64 right? well i used to have that card before i bought my GF4mx440 early this year. my TNT2 worked with my live 2003 though so if youre saying your card can run madden 2004 and if live and madden 2004 are almost the same.. mayvbe mine would wourk too..yay! you think so too?

The human eye cannot tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps... or even 60fps and 100000 fps.... because 30fps looks smooth to the eye. In fact I believe televisions only run at 30fps, because that's all thats needed.

The human eye cannot tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps... or even 60fps and 100000 fps.... because 30fps looks smooth to the eye. In fact I believe televisions only run at 30fps, because that's all thats needed.

oh no not this argument.
The human eye can and does distinguish between 30 and 60fps. Beyond 75 most people cannot.
TV's are a different case.
Here's a good read for people that always state "30 is all i need".

http://www.viperlair.com/articles/editorials/misc/fps/

If you had two computers side-by-side running the same game but one running at 30fps, the other running at 60fps, you will definitely see what the difference is. And for people too lazy to click and read all that i'll put the main part here:

Let's talk TV. PAL runs at about 25 frames per second, whereas NTSC runs at about 30 frames per second. Now regardless of which format we choose here, neither of these is actually at a high enough frame rate to give us the perception of smooth moving imagery. What's that you say? Your TV looks fine? Of course it does, because the moving imagery you are looking at is also displayed at a higher refresh rate. Unlike the big screen, TV's don't display one image after another, but draw the image line by line horizontally, which relates to 60 drawing's or refreshes every second. For NTSC, you have 30 fps but 60 refreshes of the screen per second. This amounts to each frame being drawn twice and therefore we have a higher frame rate.

Again, like the big screen, Motion Blur makes its presence known. Want to see this? Go get an action DVD, anything with fast moving objects. Now pause it whilst that object is moving. Looks blurred doesn't it, yet the DVD has frozen that point of the film on one singular frame.
Using a succession of moving images, the two refreshes per frame fool us into believing there is two frames for every one frame. With the motion blur the eye believes we are watching a smoothly flowing picture.

and with computers:

Like the TV, your Computer Monitor (if it's a Cathode Ray Tube) refreshes by drawing the screen line by line horizontally, but unlike the TV, a Monitor and Video Card doesn't add extra frames. If your screen draws at 30 fps, you will GET 30 fps. Since these are 30 perfectly rendered frames i.e. no motion blur, your eyes are not fooled in the slightest.

What we need to do here is compensate for the lack of motion blur, which is done by increasing the frame rate beyond that discernable to the human eye. But just how high do we need to go? This varies from person to person and there's a nice easy way to determine your own threshold. Your computer monitor refreshes the screen at so many frames per second. If you set the screen to say 60Hz and then look at the screen out of the corner of your eye (i.e. don't look directly at it but to one side of it peripherally) you should be able to see the scan lines and refreshes as a flickering of the screen. Imagine looking at that constantly, the word headache springs to mind.

Now increase the refresh rate until you can no longer see those scan lines. Chances are that for Joe average it will be 72Hz or higher. Now remember, this means that the screen is refreshing 72 times every second, or if you like at 72 fps. So it's safe to say that Joe Average needs to get a MINIMUM of 72 fps of perfect pictures streamed to the eye to maintain the illusion of smooth moving imagery. This is the minimum, not the average or the highest, but the minimum. This is why your games have all sorts of options to tweak the graphic details to suit. This is why everyone is out there furiously tweaking and buying new components to increase there frame rates in games. This is why people jump onto the latest drivers for there components, all in an attempt to squeeze out those extra few frames.

I'm sure some of you out there are thinking, well I'm happy playing games at 30 fps, who are you to turn around and say different? Frankly I'm not. What I am saying is there are people out there who are not happy with 30 fps, and now hopefully you can understand why. CRT Monitors are considered 'Flicker Free' at about 72Hz for a reason, and simply put it's to compensate for the lack of motion blur, afterimages and other trickery we live with every day in TV and Films. The Human Eye is a marvellous, complex and very clever thing indeed, but even that needs a little help now and then. At the end of the day, it's all down to end user preference, but for me personally I prefer a flicker free display and flicker free gaming.

To answer an eariler question I'm running Madden 2004 with most details at medium (cheerleaders and sideline stuff at low, field and ref on high) and it looks really good. Oh yea, it's a bad resolution 640x800, but it's fine considering i might get a new gfx card soon.

Thanks for the heads up bishibashiboy! I was just quoting something I've heard, i wasn't trying to be matter of fact...

personally I could care less whether I'm getting 30 or 60 (maybe that's because i just can't see that well )

and when im working on my game i have it set at 34, it seems to run pretty smooth, so that's what lead me to my statement.

anyway, that was a good read, cool stuff to know