Hardware Requirements for VP?

[Tiger-Heli]

Sorry if this has been asked before ...

Is VP/VPM mostly dependent on:

• Video RAM
• Video GPU
• CPU
• Main RAM?

For reference, I have a:

• AMD XP Barton 2800+ CPU (2.0 Ghz single-core)
• Nvidia Geforce FX5200 128M AGP video card.
• 1.5M Ram
• Windows XP.

Most tables (like PacDude's) run pretty well with only mild slowing/stuttering on Multi-ball. A couple of JP's newer VP9 ones, I have to turn off hardware graphics rendering, and Scapino's Cirqus Voltaire looks great but is unplayable from slowness - I also get the infamous occasional "ball goes through the flipper" error.

The reason I am asking is NewEgg has an HD3450 512M AGP card for $50, which should be a good boost in the video performance, but obviously, I don't want to spend this if I really need a C2D processor, which would then require and new mobo and PCI-e vid card.

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[Phoenixx]

VPM is a MAME based emulator, hence fully dependent on CPU cycles and system RAM.

VP needs CPU too, (of course), but more important for fluid gameplay is GFX power. High core-clock speeds and plenty of fast RAM on the card help a lot. Shader model is neglectable. Of course it also profits quite a bit from faster system RAM, as do all applications.

A MultiCore CPU is useless here since neither VP nor VPM can initiate more than one thread. Ergo both progs are running only on one core, and unfortunately on the same one. (Core0) Finally, since VPM is designed to run as a child-process of VP there is no way to change the core-affinity while a table is running either.


So what you need first and foremost is a good GFX card (VP) and a high-clocking CPU (VP&VPM). Core amount of the CPU (Single, Dual, Triple, Quad) is irrelevant unless you generally want more power. A DualCore GFX card on the other hand would bring an advantage, as would more and faster system RAM.


A good machine to play all VPM tables nicely (one that doesnt cost an arm and a leg) would be something like this:

• Mainboard with AMD 690 Chipset (G or V)
• 2GB DDR2-800 RAM with 4-4-4-12 timings in DualChannel Array
• 3GHz+ Athlon64 AM2
• nVidia 9800GT PCIe (preferably the 1024MB model)
• 350W PSU with 20Amps on 12V from a good manufacturer like Seasonic

 

[Tiger-Heli]

I am also familiar with Arcade MAME and run some mild simulators (MS Train Simulator).

I should have clarified that I really mentioned the C2D b/c it is great for arcade MAME for pretty easily o/c-ing into the 4Ghz range, not specifically for the dual-core properties.

My basic question is "Would the $50 upgrade from the FX5200 to the HD3850 vid card help a lot with VP, or would I barely notice the difference and really need the $350-$400 setup above to see a real benefit?"

Thanks in advance!!!

 

[Phoenixx]

Yes it would. But if the rest of your PC isnt up to par as well then it would still not be 100% satisfactory. Also, some of the more demanding VPM Tables might still not run totally fluid unless you take a better card.

But an 3850 is definitely an improvement over a FX5200. (The rightmost entry (black) is the recommended CPU to use with the card to avoid bottlenecking.)

<table bgcolor="#000000" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="955"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 21pt; width: 29pt;" x:num="" align="center" valign="middle">

1​

</td> <td style="width: 44pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

NVIDIA​

</td> <td style="width: 101pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

GeForce GTX295 ​

</td> <td style="width: 59pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

2x GT200b​

</td> <td style="width: 38pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

PCI-E​

</td> <td style="width: 30px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

10​

</td> <td style="width: 106px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

576 /1998​

</td> <td style="width: 78pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

2x 869 MB DDR3​

</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

2x28 / 240(1D) ​

</td> <td style="width: 76pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

2x 448 Bit​

</td> <td style="border-left: medium none; width: 68pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

2x1,4 /55nm ​

</td> <td style="border-top: medium none; width: 80pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

~X4 940/ i7 920 ​

</td></tr></tbody></table>.
.
.
<table bgcolor="#000000" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="955"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 29pt;" x:num="" align="center" valign="middle">

31​

</td> <td style="width: 44pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

ATi​

</td> <td style="width: 101pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

Radeon HD 3850 ​

</td> <td style="width: 59pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

RV670​

</td> <td style="width: 38pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

PCI-E​

</td> <td style="width: 30px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

10.1​

</td> <td style="width: 106px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

670 / 1660 ​

</td> <td style="width: 78pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

256 MB DDR3​

</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

16 /
64(5D) ​

</td> <td style="width: 76pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

256 Bit​

</td> <td style="border-left: medium none; width: 68pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

666 / 55nm​

</td> <td style="border-top: medium none; width: 80pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

~X² 6000 / E6700​

</td></tr></tbody></table>.
.
.
<table bgcolor="#000000" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="955"><tbody><tr style="height: 21.75pt;" bgcolor="#000000" height="29"><td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 29pt;" x:num="" align="center" valign="middle">

152​

</td> <td style="width: 44pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

NVIDIA​

</td> <td style="width: 101pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

GeForce FX 5200​

</td> <td style="width: 59pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

NV34​

</td> <td style="width: 38pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

AGP​

</td> <td style="width: 30px;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

9​

</td> <td style="width: 106px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

250 / 400​

</td> <td style="width: 78pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

128, 256 MB DDR​

</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

4​

</td> <td style="width: 76pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

128 Bit​

</td> <td style="border-left: medium none; width: 68pt;" x:num="" bgcolor="#045d6b">

45 / 150nm​

</td> <td style="border-top: medium none; width: 80pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

<1000​

</td></tr></tbody></table>.
.
.
<table bgcolor="#000000" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="955"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" bgcolor="#000000" height="17"><td style="width: 29pt; height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="center" height="17" valign="center">

216​

</td> <td style="width: 44pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

Matrox​

</td> <td style="width: 101pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

Mystique​

</td> <td style="width: 59pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

MGA1164SG​

</td> <td style="width: 38pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">
</td> <td style="width: 30px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">
</td> <td style="width: 106px;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

0 / 0​

</td> <td style="width: 78pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

4 MB SGRAM​

</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">
</td> <td style="width: 76pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

Bit​

</td> <td style="border-left: medium none; width: 68pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">
</td> <td style="border-top: medium none; width: 80pt;" bgcolor="#045d6b">

<1000​

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: >CLICK<


P.S.: Newer Arcade-MAME builds are multi-threading capable, (unlike the build VPM is based on), so if you play a lot of MAME in new builds (i still use mostly 0.106 because of its features) then a MultiCore CPU is highly advisable.

 

[Tiger-Heli]

It's actually an HD 3450 that I am considering.

That chart is nice, most of them don't go that far recent and older together.

Let me just ask straight-out:

These are the cards I would be considering.

I don't need to spend $50 if the $35 card would do fine and I wouldn't see the improvement, but I don't want to spend $35 and not see much improvement over what I have (FX5200 or 9200 128M).

(Any thing else in the approximate price range and AGP would be fine also).

The card would never be used in a newer machine, which is another reason I don't want to sink a lot of cash in it.

I can deal with some hit in performance if it's better than what I have, and I have an even older machine with a TNT2 32M vid card in it that would get the used 9200 128M, so it's not a total waste either.

I think I'm running MAME 0.113 or so, but I quit upgrading b/c it plays all the games I need it to now.

Thanks in advance!!!!

 

[Phoenixx]

I see. You typed 3850 in your last reply so i thought thats what you want to get.

Well of those in that comparison list; the x1650 hands down. Its has a lower core-clock and is 'only' DX9, but it comes with GDDR2 memory and a twice-as-wide memory interface which is quite the performance booster. Typical no brainer, no reason to think twice here.

But be aware that all the cards in that list are absolute low-budget past-generation entry-level cards. The x1650 will do you fine for MAME but i have my doubts that it will do much good for demanding VP tables. Especially if the rest of the system is rather low-spec as well it will probably not lead to the result you are hoping for. If on the other hand VP/VPM is not that important then you might as well take one of the cheaper models. In fact in that case you could even use an onboard solution.

The best advice that i can give you really is that if you want a machine that plays both VP/VPM and MAME games satisfactory, upgrade to something like i posted above. I know it costs a little more but at least you dont need to be concerned about performance (or lack thereof) anymore,...

 

[yogiholzer]

It's always the same with older hardware. You can replace or upgrade single components and hope for improvement. As it's a system existent of several different components, which have to work in interaction, it's difficult to forecast eventual improvement.

I had to replace system components from time to time because of damages.

I now have: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ on ASROCK K7VT4APro mainboard, 2 GB RAM, Terratec PCI audio device, NVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB.

I'm not exactly satisfied with the system performance to play all tables. Besides some other reasons that's one main reason I don't play much anymore.

However, I decided to spend available money for a SAECO espresso/coffee machine and a Samsung smartphone lately, so there's no consideration to build a new PC. Upgrades (what at all?) seem nearly useless. I will use this further as long as it's executable.

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Well of those in that comparison list; the x1650 hands down. Its has a lower core-clock and is 'only' DX9, but it comes with GDDR2 memory and a twice-as-wide memory interface which is quite the performance booster. Typical no brainer, no reason to think twice here.

Thanks - I wasn't seeing that from the raw numbers of the cards.

But be aware that all the cards in that list are absolute low-budget past-generation entry-level cards. The x1650 will do you fine for MAME but i have my doubts that it will do much good for demanding VP tables. Especially if the rest of the system is rather low-spec as well it will probably not lead to the result you are hoping for. If on the other hand VP/VPM is not that important then you might as well take one of the cheaper models. In fact in that case you could even use an onboard solution.

Okay, I'm not quite following what you mean here. When you say cheaper models, are you talking about the $35 Newegg card - would that do better than what I have. Basically here's where I am:

MAME - no real complaints. CPU bottlenecked on most CHD games, and a new graphics card won't help that.

VP/VPM - some stuttering on multi-ball on most tables - severe stuttering on some of Scapino's tables with lighting - I was playing VP when it came out on a Pentium 233 (I think) (when the flipper moved a half-second after you pressed shift). I don't hit multi-ball often, so it's not a key issue, but some improvement would be nice.

MS Train Simulator - I was considering this upgrade in 2004 - (tpilot is me over there), got out of the hobby and getting back into it, but in 2004, the only reasonable AGP card was a 6200, which didn't make sense - the X1650 is a lot better than either of those cards.

AAE - Hoping it would help with this - the 9200 doesn't support it, the FX5200 does but MAME is WAY faster than AAE with it - not something I'll play a whole lot anyway.

The best advice that i can give you really is that if you want a machine that plays both VP/VPM and MAME games satisfactory, upgrade to something like i posted above.

Agreed, but I hate having to re-install Windows and remember all the little registry tweaks I've done over this years - plus the games are still playable, just not really playable well ....

Thanks again!!!

 

[Phoenixx]

Thanks - I wasn't seeing that from the raw numbers of the cards.

Its all there, you just need to scroll down!

Okay, I'm not quite following what you mean here. When you say cheaper models, are you talking about the $35 Newegg card - would that do better than what I have.

What i mean is that none of these cards (including the one you have now) makes a difference with regards to MAME, and that even the x1650 (which is the best of those in that list) would be mostly a waste of money if your aim is a significantly better (or even flawless) VP/VPM experience. Sure it will be 'better' than with the 5200 with any of those cards, but this is a very relative 'better' since better in this case does not equal 'good enough to make a worthwhile difference'.

Let me put it this way; how much better is 'better' if 'better' means that the app you are running stutters along with 10FPS instead of 5?

 

[TheMcD]

It's actually an HD 3450 that I am considering.

That chart is nice, most of them don't go that far recent and older together.

Let me just ask straight-out:

These are the cards I would be considering.

I don't need to spend $50 if the $35 card would do fine and I wouldn't see the improvement, but I don't want to spend $35 and not see much improvement over what I have (FX5200 or 9200 128M).

(Any thing else in the approximate price range and AGP would be fine also).

The card would never be used in a newer machine, which is another reason I don't want to sink a lot of cash in it.

I can deal with some hit in performance if it's better than what I have, and I have an even older machine with a TNT2 32M vid card in it that would get the used 9200 128M, so it's not a total waste either.

I think I'm running MAME 0.113 or so, but I quit upgrading b/c it plays all the games I need it to now.

Thanks in advance!!!!

Mate, a word of advice: Don't get the HD 3450. Two reasons. A) It's a ATI, so it will have problems with VP9. B) It's generally a crummy laptop card. I should know, I have it.

Preformance in MAME is fairly decent, but heck, I don't go higher than Neo-Geo games when it comes to that.

The McD

EDIT: I'd advise you to find a NVIDIA card that fits your requirements rather than a ATI one.

 

[Tiger-Heli]

What are the issues with ATI and VP9?

I have swapped out an ATI 9200 card for the FX5200 so AAE was playable, and I could swap the 9200 back in and try VP9 for myself, but I am lazy.

Okay - did a search - it looks like VP9 doesn't play nice with the 9.xx ATI drivers. The 9200 wasn't supported beyond 6.5, and I'm not sure how recent the 1650 drivers go, but I suspect 8.12 would work fine for anything I play (maybe better).

Its all there, you just need to scroll down!

Quite true, but if you don't follow the hardware 3450 sounds like it would be better than 1650!!!

Let me put it this way; how much better is 'better' if 'better' means that the app you are running stutters along with 10FPS instead of 5?

Well ....

VP really doesn't play badly for most tables - some stutters, but a lot of fun!!!
MAME is fine except the CHD games that an XP Barton won't play with any graphics card.
AAE is really slow, but it's only about 10 games and not ones I'm drop-dead crazy about.
Train Simulator has some slowdowns, but (with all due respect), it's driving a train - it's not like you HAVE to have greatest graphics or it's unplayable (which is probably why I like it - not great hand-eye coordination).

That said, where would the X1050 fall? I somewhat like it b/c it is fanless (had a lot of vid card fans die over the years), and it's $13 less.

Is it somewhere in the middle between the 9200/FX5200 and the X1650, or is it closer to the X1650 end of the scale, or somewhere else?

Thanks again for bothering to help me!!!!

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Is it somewhere in the middle between the 9200/FX5200 and the X1650, or is it closer to the X1650 end of the scale, or somewhere else?

Nevermind - answered that from the review comments - the X1050 is an RV370 GPU - basically the same as the X300, X600, and X900 and one step up from a 9550/9600. Not the same RX520 as a X1300/X1500 would be - so probably NOT a good choice ...

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Where would this card fall in the mix? - I think the X800 GTO is fairly fast, the memory gate is 256-bit, but it's only 128M and not fanless?

Btw, I respect anyone who can keep all this straight (an X1800 is faster than a 9800 Pro, which is faster then a X1300, which is faster(?) than a 9600), (or by cores, an R4xx is faster than an R3xx which is faster than an R5XX).

Thanks!!!

 

[robert kundrat]

I was check your hardware in your post.(above)
My opinion, definitely nedd to change your motherboard.
AsRock is crap.
3 years ago, I was change My GF fx5200 card to gf 6600 gt, and I'm really surprised, the machine was not faster. Then I bought +1GB ddr memory,
and the machine was still crap.
Then I was bought a Abit Mainboard (with dual channel memory support)
and the computer works unbelievably fast.
( and then I change the whole machine)
If you have a good videocard, you need more powerful machine to use your videocard's "power".
My machine specs.(right now)
Asus P5B Motherboard (socket 775)
2GB ddr2 memory
Leadtek GF7900gt (256megs, 256bit)
Core2Duo E4600 (2.4 ghz)
Win XP
VP8 and VP9 tables works perfect,
Mame works perfect.

...And I think My hardware is cheap and "outdated" right now.

I MISS THE QUOTE YESTERDAY, BUT MY STORY IS EDIFYING,
AND MATCH TO THE TOPIC.

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Yogiholzer has the AsRock (although they are owned by Asus) - my board is a Shuttle, but point taken, it's still Socket A, single channel, AGP, non-SATA, etc.

I'd just rather spend $40 for a minor improvement than $400 for a major one, but most likely you are correct.

What's disappointing also was some posts on another forum:

My personal experience finds that a pretty good system is in need to run this route. I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual core processor 4400+ 2.30GHz, with 2 gig of DDR2 memory, and an Nvidia GeForce 9500GT 1GB, and I average about 8fps.. I was rather disappointed in my machine, in hopes I would have a better running experience with this route. It is really an amazing route.

MSTS was built around the CPU and not graphics.The best way to get better frame rates is to get a faster CPU. I'm running a quad core AMD Phenom 2 at 3.4 ghz with SLI ( 2 GeForce 260 sp216 cards)and I still can get down in the teens on the route.

Granted, this is MS Train Simulator with custom freeware routes that likely weren't optimized for PC utilization, but it's disappointing that even the $400 upgrade might not do much for it (although MSTS at 8 FPS is still fairly playable, unlike VP/VPM or MAME would be).

Thanks!

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Deleted accidental double-post

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Alright - I know this is like trying to hit a moving target with me, but I’ve thought this through a bit more and refined what I am looking for and only have a few final questions:
<o></o>

• I want a fanless card. I’ve seen too many cards fail b/c of the fan dying. Also, I have a 300W PSU, which is pretty good, but probably not up to a modern (even AGP) card, and I don’t want to upgrade both. Also, the PC is for general use as well as gaming, and I really don’t like hearing fans running (although modern fans are much quieiter than previous). (There’s a WAF here too - if I buy a $30 card and the other computer gets a better one it’s one thing - if I buy a $50 card and it’s fan dies in three months it’s another …)
• I want something that will play AAE - which is basically anything else but what I have - the Radeon 9200 will not, probably the 9250 won’t either, but the 9500/9550 should and the FX5200 already does. (I forget exactly what AAE needs that 9200 lacks, but I remember the very next ATI card up would do it. ‑ Looked it up ‑ it needs OpenGL 2.0 Framebuffer Object Extension, which was supported on the R300/9500 Radeons, but not the R280 9200’s
• I would prefer to go with ATI - I’ve liked their cards better in the past. My 9200 card could only use up to the 6.5 Catalyst (Omega) drivers. I know VP9 has problems with newer than 8.12 drivers, but those should be fine for the cards I’m thinking of, and if not - I can turn off Hardware rendering (do it half the time with the FX5200 anyway) and I only play JP’s tables in VP9, and I only play those b/c he is using PacDude’s view settings in it. (I.e. the VP8 physics with the VP9 table views would be fine for me). FWIW, the ATI cards I’m considering are only supported up to Catalyst 9.3 and the Omega drivers that I really liked only went up to 7.12 ‑ not really a problem running old drivers with old cards, though.
• I’m looking at low end cards - I’d rather not spend much money on this, there was a thread where a 9550 did significantly better than my 9200 in MSTS, but with an XP 3000 as opposed to my XP 2800 CPU also. Bottom line is a much faster video card will not gain me much so I’d rather not put a lot of $$$ into this. And that owner said the 9550 still had headroom in MSTS ‑ the game was CPU throttled.
• Basically, I’m looking for slight improvement in MSTS and VP, and still being able to run AAE. I also want something that would support a widescreen flat panel (probably 1650x1024, which I’m not sure these cards will support, although it looks like that is likely determined by the driver and not the card itself). But that makes AAE likely MOOT, as I think the vector effects really only work on CRT’s.

<o></o>
Now I need help on the specific options:
<o></o>

• The X1050‑256M card on Newegg for $33 now looks pretty promising. Reviews vary between hot enough to fry an egg to cooler than my 9550 which never got very hot, but that’s typical for Newegg reviews.
• I think I can find 9550 256M fanless new cards on E-bay for about the same price. Not sure sure how they stack against the X1050, but likely not as good.
• I’m not sure what other fanless ATI AGP cards were produced.
• 6200A cards are cheap and plentiful in 512M and FX5700LE are also out there, but I’ve heard the 6200 is little better (and maybe worse) than the FX5200 I have now. I could be persuaded though if someone really likes this, but overall, I’ve tended to like ATI’s graphic quality better (and their drivers once you work around all the quirks - and there are plenty of those).

<o></o>
Thanks in advance!!!

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Where would this card fall in the mix as well?

Including shipping, I have:

• X800GTO which is pretty fast, but not fanless and only 128M, for $39.
• X1050 which is not very fast, 256M and fanless for about $42.
• X1650 which is pretty fast, 512M but not fanless for $53.

Thanks!

 

[yogiholzer]

I'm sorry I can't help much here.

I have this http://www.manli.com/eng_products_detail.php?pCatId=47&productId=78# ,just because I needed a new one, needed an AGP card (not popular anymore at that time and therefore unusual), wanted a fanless and didn't want to spend much money. It was available for about 25 € a year or two ago. I didn't exspect wonders from it, so I guess it was the right decision.

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Thanks, Yogi, I keep kicking around non-fanless cards, but I don't upgrade hardware often, I've had video fans fail, and an AGP card will be even harder to find in a few more years.

So I'm basically down between the X1050 and the 6200. I can get the 6200 for in 512M for about the same price as the X1050, but I've read mixed reviews on the 6200 - some say it is better than the 9600 (ATI), some say not as good as the FX5200.

I didn't see much performance decrease, but I though image quality was better with the 9200 (FX5200 was more fluid, 9200 was more crisp), but overall, I liked ATI better, so I'm leaning toward the X1050.

Thanks again.

 

[yogiholzer]

As I told I can't help. I just don't know which card could be the right or better one. I always used more or less outdated hardware and I was mostly half way satisfied with the performance. If this or that doesn't work as wanted, I know it's because of that and it's ok. I don't go to spend very much money for the newest hardware, which is always also outdated more or less soon after buying.

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Truth is I tend to over-analyze any type of purchase.

I suspect the bottom line is I might go from say 10 FPS in MSTS to 18 FPS with the X1050 or 17 FPS with the 6200A, or vice versa, but neither one will hit 30 FPS, and I don't expect that either ...

 

[mctown09]

whoa i thought this is just a light game, i think i have to upgrade my system..

 

[Tiger-Heli]

mctown09 - Keep in mind this thread got a bit blurred - I'm also running MSTS and a lot of the low frame rates applied to that.

As said, I now have an XP 2800 Barton, (2.06 Ghz), 1.5G RAM, ATI 9200 AGP video card - most tables play pretty well, but a 1/10 second stutter in VP is enough to kill the feel of it being a real pinball simulation.

For me, the X800 GTO card would probably fix it up, but I wanted a fanless card, and it ended up being time to replace the whole system anyway - AGP and Socket A mobo, ATA133 with no SATA support, etc.

Hope This Helps!!!

 

[Tiger-Heli]

Okay, I do have some final questions ...

From what I've read, VP9 doesn't like Catalyst's newer then 8.12, but I prefer ATI cards overall.

I am now looking at upgrading the whole PC, AMD 240 AM3 Processor, Motherboard, RAM, etc., but I would like advice on the following choices:

• Gigabyte AM3 Motherboard, with DDR3 and built in ATI 4200 graphics - From what I can tell only Catalyst 9.8 and newer versions support this chipset. I might be able to install an earlier version, but perhaps not. (I'm playing VP9 tables now with the 9200 with HGR disabled, and I would think this would work better than that) (but I'm also using older Catalysts 6.5 - I think?).
• Gigabyte AM2+ Motherboard, with DDR2 and built-in ATI3200 graphics. I think this will work with 8.12 - it's about $20 less with the less-expensive board and memory, but I think the AM3 board is a bit more future-proof, but this might do better for VP9.

• Gigabyte AM3 motherboard without graphics or with Nvidia graphics and PCIe ATI video card roughly the same price.

I'm wanting to go with the first board, but I would hate to spend $300 and find out it won't be decent in VP9 or at least better than what I have. Although I suspect if it works with the 9200 it would work better with any of the above.

Thanks in advance!!!