Could she handle GTA III?

>>3816759
Only if designed from the ground up.

She definitely can't handle a direct PS2 port.

>>3816759
Fairly sure GTAIII runs alright on a TNT2 and the Dreamcast's GPU is comparable.

>>3816931
One could always just go all the way with that thought and fire it up with a Neon250!

>>3816759
Of course NOT
Even the GC can't handle GTA3

In before "b-but muh DOA2 Code Veronica and Ecco are better on DC!!"

>>3816931
I had a TNT2 back in the day. GTA3 ran like shit because the card lacked HT&L.

>>3816973
In some respects the Dreamcast's GPU is even better than the Neon 250! Not sure if the game actually supports that card though, it would be cool to see it though.

>>3816985
Gamecube's GPU is basically a slightly downclocked GeForce 2 GTS with half the texture units, but with a much better and efficient featureset (texture loopback, more advanced color combiners, etc) it would handle GTA3 just fine considered how well GeForce 2 runs the game on PC.

>>3817007
What was your CPU? Without hardware T&L the game would become utterly CPU dependent. Dreamcast's SH-4 includes a powerful vector unit co-processor, so that thing can accelerate T&L just like a HT&L card can.

The iPhone 4 could run it so a Dreamcast would most definitely be able to.

>>3817016
It was a P4 1.4ghz iirc. It wasn't the best system in the world but outside of GTA3 and anything that needed pixel shaders, it ran stuff pretty well.

>>3817063
It runs on less powerful 3gs too. Though the resolution is much smaller than DC's 480p.

>>3817070
Low clocked P4s don't exactly have the best reputation, though for T&L related calculations they're supposed to be alright. I'm guessing maybe GTA3's T&L requirements on PC were just optimized for GPUs not CPUs.

>>3816759
It's ironic you call DC a "she", like a ship. Except it was more like a raft and sank quite fast too.

>>3817081

>>3816759

It was being developed for it during the beta, so obviously yes.