19 replies to this topic

[mrarcade]

I think this topic might help people, myself included, see what older hardware is working for others.

I see many are building i5-i7 systems with 8gig ram and a $250+ video card for a 3 monitor machine.

Some of us want, or need to get started without a large investment in a high end PC.

Please post your budget system and display setup (pf only, 2 display, or 3 display) and how you feel it performs. Please be sure to note if you are using onboard video + pcie or USB etc.

I am picking up a dual core 3ghz dell with a pci-e 17x slot and either 2 or 4 gigs ram today. I am hoping it will get me going, and maybe with a video card (hopefully costing under $100) I will have enough to get playing most tables.

Do you think this will be enough to play 3-ball multiball tables? 5 ball?

It you have a suggestion for an affordable pcie video card that will support all 3 display please post it. From what I have read, the onboard video will not work once a video card is used.

[mr2buds]

I have built my table only using recycled (free) parts, so have always been on the lower end specifications for playing Visual Pinball.

My current CPU is an Intel Core2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz, and the graphics card is an ATI 6850 for the Playfield and DMD, and NVIDIA GeForce 210 for the backglass, both are PCi express.  Since using VP 9.90 virtually all of my tables play fine, I haven't played the tables with more than 3 ball multiball.  Using VP 9.21 I had a bit of stuttering on some tables, but still playable.

 

The playfield has to run at 1024 x 768, as that is the maximum resolution it will work at :-(, so this may need to be factored in.

 

I recently had a Nvideo GTX 460 (it died) for the Playfield and DMD, and an ATI Radeon X800 XT for the backglass.  The GTX 460 is similar spec to the ATI 6850.

I have also used Nvidea 9800GT and Nvidea 8800 GTS 512 video cards, but these are probably minimum specs for playability, and I did have some stuttering on VP 9.21, but still very playable.

I also started with an Nvidea 6800 Ultra (and Pentium D CPU), Visual Pinball works but is not very playable, but useful for testing and getting the project started.

 

The motherboard has 6GB ram, and is running Windows 7 x64. 

 

I also noticed a degradation in performance going from 2 to 3 screen setup (not much but just enough to cause some stuttering on some tables),  not sure why but my hunch was the extra load from having 2 video cards/drivers.  Maybe a single video card that can drive 3 screens (eg Nvideo GTX 660) would be better.

[freneticamnesic]

Please search I think I see this topic 3 times a week

[BigBoss]

I have gone as low as a core2 duo with 4gb ram. And a single nvidia 750ti driving all 3 monitors just fine.

[maestro300]

I run a $30 motherboard and a $49 CPU    Any Cheapo-motherboard as long as it has LGA 1150 and the features you need)   I used a Intel G3220 (I think there is a G3250 now)  and it was around $50.    Also use a Nvidia GTX 550 ti and was around $99.   4gb of RAM.   I highly recommend spending a bit more on a SSD rather than platter hard drive.   Makes a huge difference!

 

I also used a $29 550w PC power supply.  It also powers my computer, 8 solenoids + relay board and cabinet lights.  Never had a single issue.   Rule #1-- dont over build if you do not need to!   At least with using the cheapo CPU-- you can ALWAYS upgrade to an i5 or i7 later by just swapping CPU. 

Edited by maestro300, 03 September 2014 - 02:25 PM.

[njgsx96]

I am running my 7 year old gaming rig that I recently upgraded.  It is a Gigabyte P35-DS3L motherboard, Core2Duo E6550 2.33Ghz CPU OC to 2.8Ghz, 4GB RAM, Windows 7 64bit, NVidia 1GB 460GTX for the playfield and backglass, 128GB SSD, and USB2VGA Startech VGA adapter for the 17" LCD I am using as for the DMD.  Running Physmod5 or VP 990a, I have seen all of my tables run 2-8ms response times (usually see a 4ms average) and maintain 220fps or better with most of them closer to or over 300fps.

 

If anything happens to it (it has been overclocked for all 7 years) I will upgrade to something somewhat current but still don't plan to break the bank.  If this 7 year old PC (and 4 year old GPU) can handle it currently, there is no need to build a $1000-2000 gaming rig to replace it. 

Edited by njgsx96, 03 September 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[maestro300]

I am running my 7 year old gaming rig that I recently upgraded.  It is a Gigabyte P35-DS3L motherboard, Core2Duo E6550 2.33Ghz CPU OC to 2.8Ghz, 4GB RAM, Windows 7 64bit, NVidia 1GB 460GTX for the playfield and backglass, 128GB SSD, and USB2VGA Startech VGA adapter for the 17" LCD I am using as for the DMD.  Running Physmod5 or VP 990a, I have seen all of my tables run 2-8ms response times (usually see a 4ms average) and maintain 220fps or better with most of them closer to or over 300fps.

 

If anything happens to it (it has been overclocked for all 7 years) I will upgrade to something somewhat current but still don't plan to break the bank.  If this 7 year old PC (and 4 year old GPU) can handle it currently, there is no need to build a $1000-2000 gaming rig to replace it. 

 

Agreed-- I think mine was about $400 (This includes MB, G3220 CPU, Nvidia GTX 650ti, 8gb RAM, 120gb EVO SSD, 550w Power supply)

[StevOz]

One aspect that I think is being overlooked here is forcing the nvidia driver options for the best rendering experience, which really makes a difference, removes almost all jaggies and renders tables with much greater clarity.

 

 

With my haswell core i3 3.4 GHz and a GTX 660 OC 2Mb, I see framerates drop from 600+ to 200+ running just desktop versions here on a single screen, so given that I'd say a i3 or core 2 duo and a 750ti or similar would be the minimum for the best possible VP experience.

Edited by StevOz, 03 September 2014 - 11:41 PM.

[njgsx96]

What would you consider acceptable frame rates for pinball?

[mrarcade]

I picked up the pc, it is a dell GX620. It has a dual core 3ghz, 2 gig ram (2 slots open) and a 300w power supply. The onboard video won't even run visual pinball as it can only render 2 layers. I also got a nice 19" ws monitor for the dmd.
 
I ordered:
PNY GeForce GTX 650 1GB GDDR5 Video Card $89.99 with $30 mail in rebate which will make it $60
Coolmax 500W Power Supply w/ 120mm Fan $20 just to be sure I have enough juice
Freescale FRDM-KL25Z $13 for mjr's nudge board (and eventually plunger)
 
I can't do much until the video card arrives...

Edited by mrarcade, 06 September 2014 - 11:09 PM.

[StefB]

My config : pincab with 2 monitors 22"/17"

Playfield 1680X1050 , backglass 1280x1024  using only b2s backglass (with the "start as exe" option)

 

Visual pinball 9.90a with all graphics settings at max (except ball decals)

 

Cpu Core 2 duo e8500 with no oc (had a e6600 previously overclocked working fine too, i get the 8500 for low price and less heat )

4Gb ram ddr3 (was working fine too with 2gb)

asus Gtx 460 oc (oc is standard on this card)

Sound card is included on the motherboard (msi g41m)

Hard drive a 40go ssd intel (i don't use videos for pinballx , just images, so my 96 tables only use half the hard drive)

Windows 7 32 bits

[paymaster]

What would you consider acceptable frame rates for pinball?

 

Someone smarter can correct me... but if you have a 120hz display, I would imagine that any frame rate over 120 would look effectively the same.

[mrarcade]

Something I forgot to ask, I want to add BAM eventually. Does that bump up hardware requirements significantly?

Also, thanks for all the replies! I had searched and found a few threads, but most did not list specific older or lower end components that worked for others. I will be very happy when I get this cabinet to the point where I can play most tables. Then I can finish it out and get the nudge and force feedback installed and working. Then I can keep playing while I build up the cash to get anything else I might want/need...or get better mb/CPU.

[njgsx96]

One aspect that I think is being overlooked here is forcing the nvidia driver options for the best rendering experience, which really makes a difference, removes almost all jaggies and renders tables with much greater clarity.

 

 

With my haswell core i3 3.4 GHz and a GTX 660 OC 2Mb, I see framerates drop from 600+ to 200+ running just desktop versions here on a single screen, so given that I'd say a i3 or core 2 duo and a 750ti or similar would be the minimum for the best possible VP experience.

 

I tried this but I see no difference.  I thought it was that I was using a USB2VGA adapter for the DMD and it disabled the NVidia console, so I took it out to see if it made a difference and it did nothing.  I set everything like you have it and could not tell a difference.  This is on my GTX460.  I did just speak to my brother and he is upgrading his video card again and when he does I will throw his 660 GTX in to see if I see any difference.  It was kind of a letdown, honestly, that I did not see a difference.

[njgsx96]

 

What would you consider acceptable frame rates for pinball?

 

Someone smarter can correct me... but if you have a 120hz display, I would imagine that any frame rate over 120 would look effectively the same.

 

So If you set it to gaming mode and it drops to 60Hz, then 60 fps would be acceptable?  I have seen some intense tables as low as 160 fps and some as high as 400 fps, on average.  response time matters too but I guess that is dependent on the monitor/TV being used but that is never above 9 but averages 3.  I am really more curious than anything else.  Thanks!

[mjr]

 

 

What would you consider acceptable frame rates for pinball?

 

Someone smarter can correct me... but if you have a 120hz display, I would imagine that any frame rate over 120 would look effectively the same.

 

So If you set it to gaming mode and it drops to 60Hz, then 60 fps would be acceptable?  I have seen some intense tables as low as 160 fps and some as high as 400 fps, on average.  response time matters too but I guess that is dependent on the monitor/TV being used but that is never above 9 but averages 3.  I am really more curious than anything else.  Thanks!

 

The "frames per second" rate that VP reports is a bit confusing (maybe more than a bit).  

 

First off, it's *not* the video frame rate.  If you're using a TV as your display, the video frame rate is 60 fps.  That's fixed by the ATSC standards that define the signal formats that HDTVs can receive.  Even if you have the TV set to a higher refresh rate mode in its own menu - typically 120 Hz for an LCD, sometimes 240 Hz - the TV is still actually receiving 60 fps of data from the computer.  120 Hz and 240 Hz rates on TVs are synthetic: the TV is doubling or quadrupling the true signal frame rate by creating fake frames, by interpolating between real frames sent from the signal source.  Everyone recommends that you turn off 120/240 Hz rates on your TV when playing VP or any other video game because those fake interpolated frames tend to introduce motion artifacts when playing games.  (I believe they can also increase display latency on some monitors: the interpolation algorithm on some TVs gathers a number of frames in a buffer so that it has several frames worth of material to work with, so the physical display is always several frames behind the input signal.)

 

The "FPS rate" that VP reports appears (from my read of the code) to be the average of the inverse of the elapsed time needed to calculate one of its "physics frames".  VP internally calculates the trajectories of the balls and other moving objects in discrete time steps that it calls physics frames.  These are defined as 10 ms intervals, so VP's *actual* physics frame rate can never go above 100 physics frames per second.  VP periodically synchronizes its simulated physics time with the real time clock and with the video refresh clock to keep this simulation time clock and the real time clock roughly in sync - it does this by either pausing the simulation at the video refresh interval to let real time catch up, or jumping ahead in the simulation to catch up with real time, as needed.  The reported FPS rate appears to be an imaginary rate based on how many physics frames *could* be squeezed into one second if you executed them one after another without this real-time synchronization taking place.  So it's effectively a metric for how much headroom you have in your CPU speed.  If you're anywhere above 100, your CPU is fast enough to keep up with real time; anything above 100 is identical in terms of how much computation VP is doing.  But numbers above 100 are still meaningful.  If you're right around 100, it means that VP is saturating your CPU; the higher the number, the less CPU time VP is consuming, leaving more CPU time for other threads, which should translate into smoother response for I/O.

Edited by mjr, 04 September 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[nromo]

 

 

What would you consider acceptable frame rates for pinball?

 

Someone smarter can correct me... but if you have a 120hz display, I would imagine that any frame rate over 120 would look effectively the same.

 

So If you set it to gaming mode and it drops to 60Hz, then 60 fps would be acceptable?  I have seen some intense tables as low as 160 fps and some as high as 400 fps, on average.  response time matters too but I guess that is dependent on the monitor/TV being used but that is never above 9 but averages 3.  I am really more curious than anything else.  Thanks!

 

The new 3d vision2 ready gaming displays are 144 Hz native in 2d mode. This is what I would use for play field. Only 27" max but superior image quality for sure.

Edited by nromo, 10 September 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[StevOz]

 

One aspect that I think is being overlooked here is forcing the nvidia driver options for the best rendering experience, which really makes a difference, removes almost all jaggies and renders tables with much greater clarity.

 

 

With my haswell core i3 3.4 GHz and a GTX 660 OC 2Mb, I see framerates drop from 600+ to 200+ running just desktop versions here on a single screen, so given that I'd say a i3 or core 2 duo and a 750ti or similar would be the minimum for the best possible VP experience.

 

I tried this but I see no difference.  I thought it was that I was using a USB2VGA adapter for the DMD and it disabled the NVidia console, so I took it out to see if it made a difference and it did nothing.  I set everything like you have it and could not tell a difference.  This is on my GTX460.  I did just speak to my brother and he is upgrading his video card again and when he does I will throw his 660 GTX in to see if I see any difference.  It was kind of a letdown, honestly, that I did not see a difference.

 

 

Well I have Nvidia Geforce Experience installed using windows 7 so the latest driver, though yes what I have set there, be sure to select the VP9.exe by name whatever it is named on your system and be sure to select the Enhance the application setting for W7 though with XP I believe you force that setting though that does not work with W7.

- - - Updated - - -

Also this is important turn off all the VP enhancements > Video options > aniostropic, vertex, both FXAA options, these will just lower frame rates and add blur, leave it to the nvidia driver to do the work.

[njgsx96]

Nice, good to know, thank you!  I know I have FXAA enabled in VP.  I will disable it and the rest of the video options.

[mrarcade]

One aspect that I think is being overlooked here is forcing the nvidia driver options for the best rendering experience, which really makes a difference, removes almost all jaggies and renders tables with much greater clarity.

 

 

With my haswell core i3 3.4 GHz and a GTX 660 OC 2Mb, I see framerates drop from 600+ to 200+ running just desktop versions here on a single screen, so given that I'd say a i3 or core 2 duo and a 750ti or similar would be the minimum for the best possible VP experience.

 

Thanks for posting this info. I bought a gtx650 and didnt know anything about these settings. It took a little poking around to find them, but I did. I set what your picture shows. I also changed a few more. It does make a big difference. Without these settings the ball looked good, now it looks pretty much real. Thanks again.