Minimun playable configuration for SMAC

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Support and Troubleshooting
  Minimun playable configuration for SMAC

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Minimun playable configuration for SMAC

Zozo posted 05-05-99 08:32 PM ET
GOOD NEWS: I've got a good refund from the IRS .
BAD NEWS: Can't enjoy SMAC due to system slowness/crashes . [a P166 Mhz + ATI graphics board with 2 or 4M I don't remember for sure]
So the 64K question is how much of the tax refund should I use to upgrade my system so that SMAC will really be playable and won't take me up to an hour per turn as early as 2280.
Can someone please give me the _minimum_ configuration that I need to have to have a smooth and enjoyable game, not just a crawling, patience-trying game ? I don't mind upgrading the graphics board or the processor or even both, but buying an entirely new system just to play SMAC is a little too much. Where should I spend my lucky $$ on ? Thanks mucho for any hints.

Lloyd posted 05-05-99 11:40 PM ET
SMAC and other games that don't use 3D-rendered graphics don't generally hog memory (RAM or video), they hog processor cycles. Assuming you have plenty of video memory for the resolution you choose, your SMAC performance should be similar to the performance of typical Windows apps. Three recommendations:
1. Get a faster processor. If you keep your mainboard, a P233 MMX (40% faster) costs less than $80 right now. If you can find an older AMD K6 266, those are inexpensive as well. If you're willing to throw $200-$300 at the problem, a new mainboard (with AGP, if that's important to you) and a lower-end PII are within your reach.
2. If you only have 2 MB of video memory, get a 4 or 8MB video card to run higher resolutions more easily. 4 MB video cards (no 3D) run about $35-$50 lately, so that's not much of a commitment. If you must have reasonable 3D performance, there's some good stuff at the $100 range too.
3. If you don't have 32 MB of RAM, get more.
I play SMAC on a P200 MMX (well, 225 actually) with 64 MB RAM and a 4 MB Riva 128 video card. It looks beautiful at 1024x768 with rare (if any) slowdowns for the game to "think". Since my configuration isn't that far past yours, I'd guess that I've got something like the minimum playable setup. I suspect that many of the people who complain about game performance are using older Pentium systems with less than 32 MB of RAM, which is ridiculously low for Win95 apps. On the other hand, adding RAM beyond 32 MB probably wouldn't help SMAC very much.
Are you going to do the upgrade yourself?
Lloyd
MatFis posted 05-06-99 06:23 AM ET
forgot the part with the grafik board!
I�m running SMAC on a PII 266 / 128 MB and a 2(!!) MB Matrox Millenium (1996) without any speed problems in 1024x768!
Lloyd posted 05-06-99 08:13 PM ET
Oh, yeah...of course. It escaped my attention that SMAC runs in 256-color (8-bit) instead of 65K (16-bit)--thus the video RAM necessary to double-buffer at 1024x768 would be less than 2 MB (instead of almost 4 MB). Wow, it's as if Firaxis knew that people with 2 MB video would still want to play at a high res.
Disregard above video recommendation accordingly (for SMAC, anyway).
Lloyd
Zozo posted 05-06-99 08:39 PM ET
Thanks for your help. It sounds like it's either CPU or DRAM problem then. I only have 48M on the system. I bought another 64M a few days ago but haven't installed it yet. If that doesn't help then I'll get another CPU or motherboard. Thanks again.
MatFis posted 05-07-99 05:31 AM ET
To the 2MB video RAM: Win98 run�s in 1192x864 16 bit Hi-Color (94 Hz) without any problems of speed..
Urban Ranger posted 05-07-99 06:35 AM ET
I have a really obsolete video card based on the ET6000 with 1M RAM and it runs fine on 1024x768.
There are several questions to consider:
1. How large is your planet? The larger the planet, the more stuff the computer has to move around.
2. What level do you play? I suppose it takes longer on the higher levels ("thinks harder") but I can't tell for sure.
There are other factors. For example, if you get the K6-2 you can run a 100MHz system bus, which gives you faster performance.
Another thing is cache. How much L1 and L2 cache do you have on your motherboard?
Also, don't forget the speed of peripherals, esp. your hard disk. A fast hard disk (Ultra Wide or Ultra 2 SCSI, say) speeds up your game.
DeVore posted 05-07-99 09:01 AM ET
Get a Fic VA503+ Motherboard (AT), an AMD K6-2 400 CPU and a 16Mb 3DFX Banshee based graphics card. This setup will set you back less than 300$ and will let you reuse your old RAM!
(Of course you can get 64Mb PC100 ram for it but that's more $$$)
You can run anything out there ATM including all the hot 3D games to your total satisfaction on this setup.
/Dev
Zozo posted 05-07-99 05:50 PM ET
Thanks for all the suggestion. I'll probably take Devore's suggestion and go with the AMD K6-2. I'll go shopping tomorrow.
Anyway, I played on Transcend, standard (i.e. medium) map. It was more tolerable at lower levels and I could continue until the year 2350 or so without feeling too frustrated with the slowness and the crashes. At transcend, I had to quit at around 2280 after the game becomes too slow and crash-prone and I found myself nodding off more often than feeling any excitement. I'm now rehearsing Starcraft until I can upgrade the system.
Cache ? I can't remember. It was decent at the time I bought the system compared to other systems at the same time. Something like 64K. How much L1 cache do we have on the Intel-inside P166Mhz processor ? Hmmm, I don't know. I'm getting old and the system is old too .
Hard disk ? I thought about that too. Come to think of it, I bought my whole system including 15" monitor, 24x CD, HD, for $550 a few years ago. I bet I can get a whole AMD K6-2 system, minus the monitor, from the same place for less than $400 these days so I might get as well get a new system rather than trying to buy the parts and fix the problem myself. I might burn something while fixing it and it will become much more expensive.
Lloyd posted 05-07-99 11:57 PM ET
I don't want to get contentious on a dreadfully dull topic like video RAM, but I will amplify a couple of my earlier remarks. When I mentioned above that 2 MB is necessary to double-buffer 1024x768x256-color, I meant double-buffering using only video memory. Of course you can DB using half that if you're willing to take a performance hit by putting the buffer in system RAM. I agree MatFis: a 2MB video board can (barely) display at 1192x864x16-bit color. If you want Eric Cartman to move his arm up and down, though, it's going to flicker like the inside of a disco if you don't use RAM to buffer the image. Here's the math:
1192x864=1029888 pixels * 2 bytes per pixel (16-bit color)=2059776 bytes
...thus the "barely" mentioned above. If you want to buffer at a particular res, you need twice as much RAM. If it's video RAM and not system RAM, you've got a better shot at good-looking 2D animation. From the above example, you can see why SMAC performs so well at high resolutions on low-memory video cards:
1024x768=786432 pixels * 1 byte per pixel (8-bit color)=786432 bytes
...which leaves plenty of buffer room on a 2 MB video card, and will still work on a 1 MB video card. If they'd used 16-bit color, 2 MB video owners would have been buffering SMAC's video output in system RAM and 1 MB owners couldn't play at 1024x768 res--yuck. Good show of restraint by Firaxis, since 256-color isn't considered very "sexy" these days. In my opinion, SMAC is still very pretty.
Lloyd
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Minimun playable configuration for SMAC
Zozo	posted 05-05-99 08:32 PM ET GOOD NEWS: I've got a good refund from the IRS . BAD NEWS: Can't enjoy SMAC due to system slowness/crashes . [a P166 Mhz + ATI graphics board with 2 or 4M I don't remember for sure] So the 64K question is how much of the tax refund should I use to upgrade my system so that SMAC will really be playable and won't take me up to an hour per turn as early as 2280. Can someone please give me the _minimum_ configuration that I need to have to have a smooth and enjoyable game, not just a crawling, patience-trying game ? I don't mind upgrading the graphics board or the processor or even both, but buying an entirely new system just to play SMAC is a little too much. Where should I spend my lucky $$ on ? Thanks mucho for any hints.
Lloyd	posted 05-05-99 11:40 PM ET SMAC and other games that don't use 3D-rendered graphics don't generally hog memory (RAM or video), they hog processor cycles. Assuming you have plenty of video memory for the resolution you choose, your SMAC performance should be similar to the performance of typical Windows apps. Three recommendations: 1. Get a faster processor. If you keep your mainboard, a P233 MMX (40% faster) costs less than $80 right now. If you can find an older AMD K6 266, those are inexpensive as well. If you're willing to throw $200-$300 at the problem, a new mainboard (with AGP, if that's important to you) and a lower-end PII are within your reach. 2. If you only have 2 MB of video memory, get a 4 or 8MB video card to run higher resolutions more easily. 4 MB video cards (no 3D) run about $35-$50 lately, so that's not much of a commitment. If you must have reasonable 3D performance, there's some good stuff at the $100 range too. 3. If you don't have 32 MB of RAM, get more. I play SMAC on a P200 MMX (well, 225 actually) with 64 MB RAM and a 4 MB Riva 128 video card. It looks beautiful at 1024x768 with rare (if any) slowdowns for the game to "think". Since my configuration isn't that far past yours, I'd guess that I've got something like the minimum playable setup. I suspect that many of the people who complain about game performance are using older Pentium systems with less than 32 MB of RAM, which is ridiculously low for Win95 apps. On the other hand, adding RAM beyond 32 MB probably wouldn't help SMAC very much. Are you going to do the upgrade yourself? Lloyd
MatFis	posted 05-06-99 06:23 AM ET forgot the part with the grafik board! I�m running SMAC on a PII 266 / 128 MB and a 2(!!) MB Matrox Millenium (1996) without any speed problems in 1024x768!
Lloyd	posted 05-06-99 08:13 PM ET Oh, yeah...of course. It escaped my attention that SMAC runs in 256-color (8-bit) instead of 65K (16-bit)--thus the video RAM necessary to double-buffer at 1024x768 would be less than 2 MB (instead of almost 4 MB). Wow, it's as if Firaxis knew that people with 2 MB video would still want to play at a high res. Disregard above video recommendation accordingly (for SMAC, anyway). Lloyd
Zozo	posted 05-06-99 08:39 PM ET Thanks for your help. It sounds like it's either CPU or DRAM problem then. I only have 48M on the system. I bought another 64M a few days ago but haven't installed it yet. If that doesn't help then I'll get another CPU or motherboard. Thanks again.
MatFis	posted 05-07-99 05:31 AM ET To the 2MB video RAM: Win98 run�s in 1192x864 16 bit Hi-Color (94 Hz) without any problems of speed..
Urban Ranger	posted 05-07-99 06:35 AM ET I have a really obsolete video card based on the ET6000 with 1M RAM and it runs fine on 1024x768. There are several questions to consider: 1. How large is your planet? The larger the planet, the more stuff the computer has to move around. 2. What level do you play? I suppose it takes longer on the higher levels ("thinks harder") but I can't tell for sure. There are other factors. For example, if you get the K6-2 you can run a 100MHz system bus, which gives you faster performance. Another thing is cache. How much L1 and L2 cache do you have on your motherboard? Also, don't forget the speed of peripherals, esp. your hard disk. A fast hard disk (Ultra Wide or Ultra 2 SCSI, say) speeds up your game.
DeVore	posted 05-07-99 09:01 AM ET Get a Fic VA503+ Motherboard (AT), an AMD K6-2 400 CPU and a 16Mb 3DFX Banshee based graphics card. This setup will set you back less than 300$ and will let you reuse your old RAM! (Of course you can get 64Mb PC100 ram for it but that's more $$$) You can run anything out there ATM including all the hot 3D games to your total satisfaction on this setup. /Dev
Zozo	posted 05-07-99 05:50 PM ET Thanks for all the suggestion. I'll probably take Devore's suggestion and go with the AMD K6-2. I'll go shopping tomorrow. Anyway, I played on Transcend, standard (i.e. medium) map. It was more tolerable at lower levels and I could continue until the year 2350 or so without feeling too frustrated with the slowness and the crashes. At transcend, I had to quit at around 2280 after the game becomes too slow and crash-prone and I found myself nodding off more often than feeling any excitement. I'm now rehearsing Starcraft until I can upgrade the system. Cache ? I can't remember. It was decent at the time I bought the system compared to other systems at the same time. Something like 64K. How much L1 cache do we have on the Intel-inside P166Mhz processor ? Hmmm, I don't know. I'm getting old and the system is old too . Hard disk ? I thought about that too. Come to think of it, I bought my whole system including 15" monitor, 24x CD, HD, for $550 a few years ago. I bet I can get a whole AMD K6-2 system, minus the monitor, from the same place for less than $400 these days so I might get as well get a new system rather than trying to buy the parts and fix the problem myself. I might burn something while fixing it and it will become much more expensive.
Lloyd	posted 05-07-99 11:57 PM ET I don't want to get contentious on a dreadfully dull topic like video RAM, but I will amplify a couple of my earlier remarks. When I mentioned above that 2 MB is necessary to double-buffer 1024x768x256-color, I meant double-buffering using only video memory. Of course you can DB using half that if you're willing to take a performance hit by putting the buffer in system RAM. I agree MatFis: a 2MB video board can (barely) display at 1192x864x16-bit color. If you want Eric Cartman to move his arm up and down, though, it's going to flicker like the inside of a disco if you don't use RAM to buffer the image. Here's the math: 1192x864=1029888 pixels * 2 bytes per pixel (16-bit color)=2059776 bytes ...thus the "barely" mentioned above. If you want to buffer at a particular res, you need twice as much RAM. If it's video RAM and not system RAM, you've got a better shot at good-looking 2D animation. From the above example, you can see why SMAC performs so well at high resolutions on low-memory video cards: 1024x768=786432 pixels * 1 byte per pixel (8-bit color)=786432 bytes ...which leaves plenty of buffer room on a 2 MB video card, and will still work on a 1 MB video card. If they'd used 16-bit color, 2 MB video owners would have been buffering SMAC's video output in system RAM and 1 MB owners couldn't play at 1024x768 res--yuck. Good show of restraint by Firaxis, since 256-color isn't considered very "sexy" these days. In my opinion, SMAC is still very pretty. Lloyd