Yes, you do meet the minimum...but you're not playing at minimum settings, are you? You can't expect to have all the detail turned up and run at high res, you have to compromise with image quality.

i am using the default settings; the game lks worse than ut2k3

my pc is way over the minimum requirements; more than double in everything

so ur saying anyone with less than a 9800 pro and 3ghz is going to have to play at low setings? thats rubbish as the majority of people still have machines with gf2mx400s; with such bad performance how can the developers hope that this game will be big on the pc?

I'd say its a problem with your PC somewhere, since many can play it more than well on lower end PC's. My 2100+ with 9700Pro plays it very well at full detail settings. 1024x768.

You have a 9700 Pro...graphics card is extremely important here.

http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.a...003-121837
Read this.

janus everyone here is saying thst the cpu is the bottleneck........ is there that much difference between a p4 2ghx and an athlon 2100+?

also, if i change the card for a ti4200 will the games run proportionally slower? will the 3dmark score then go down?

No, they are wrong. The CPU is far from the bottleneck. There is practically no difference between those 2 processors...if you change it for a ti4200, it is apples to oranges because you'd be using a different codepath (PS1.4 vs 2.0)

You might try using the cmdline parameters to change the pixel shader version; the graphics might not be as good, but it should be less demanding.

i tried that and theres no diff in the frames

in other games would the ti4200 be faster (unreal 2003, max payne 2)?

does that mean that theres sumthing wrong with the hardware/software, hence the low scores?

Of course not, the radeon 9600 is far faster than the ti 4200, hell its faster than the geforce 5600. It's just slow in dx9 games.

i have a amd xp (t-bred) 2000+ overclocked at 2100mhz with 2x256 corsair DDR 400mhz@ 366mhz(cpu max bus is 183) with a powercolor radeon 9600pro overclocked 471/351 i can play halo 800X600 without any problem at all (i could not play halo with the fx5600 thats i ad b4 thats i returned)

i don't see how you could not play halo..

just reinstall windows xp keep the folder my documents and setting to keep stuff like favorits and documents thats all no need to format

Of course you can, it's 800x600. On that note, what resolution were you trying to play at goliath? In any case, as you can see, you have to make compromises, such as playing at 8x6

running at 800x600; all the default settings

how am i then able to play gta vice city with 4xAA and 16x AF with good frames (no slowdowns)? is it because the requirements are less demanding?

OK, you obviously didn't read that link I told you to.
http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.a...003-121837


Budget cards are anemic in DX9; sure they run old titles well, but so does everything.

the r9600 pro isnt in the same league as the fx 5200; it cost me 2x as much. if i ha known that the dx9 was gna be so crap i would have got the ti4200 8X; the dx7 and dx8 performs way better on that.

the article has now got me back at square 1 :knife: ; i upgraded to get doom 3 and hl2 to play properly with 10x7 and all the cool effects enabled. i think that i have wasted the £120 i spent coz the card will be horrible in the games i am waiting for.

does this mean that im gna have 2 upgrade to get doom 3 and hl2 to work?

Holy shit you expected it to run doom 3 and HL2 at 1024-768 will all "cool effects" on?

The games are only out in like 6 months.

Not even my card will handle that

then y was the card released? the 9500/9600 were supposed 2 play the next gen games; if they cant do that then every1 in the middle ranged segment has been duped...

id hope that if i had a 9700 pro i could run at full settings up 2 16x12; wasnt the valve person saying ati was the way to go for hl2?