Misconceptions about PC gaming.
- Thread starter Danny Ocean
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the misconception about PCs actually having to have anything near high-end specs to do anything is complete bullcrap.
I can run pretty much all my games (the only exception is UT3, bought it cos I'm a loyal fan of the series) on at least medium on all settings (even Oblivion) with my main comp:
nVidia GeForce 6800 LE (about 4-5 years old, I believe, and it was a hand-me-down)
768Mb DDR RAM (was 512 until a couple months ago)
AMD Sempron 2800+ (it's 1.6Ghz, one core)
17" CRT monitor (another hand-me-down, since my old one burst into flames and got thrown out of a window).
I don't really need anything better. I have little reason to play Crysis, or any other newfangled games - I'm perfectly happy playing Oblivion (runs fine, better than my 360 version at least), AoE III and UT2004. They're fun games, and I can still run torrents, virus scans, IMs and such in the background with little effect to the games I play. I'm happy with what I have, and I don't need any better.
Though I guess my argument is stifled slightly by the fact I'm spending £60 on that new-ish GeForce 9500GT 1GB (yes, that's right! Gpus really can cost less than £150!). I might even treat myself to a gig more of RAM.
My point is that sure, my games could always look prettier with 16xAA and run faster with a quad-core CPU, but they don't /need/ to - not for me, at least.
My other, slightly contradictory point is that I'm 15, living in the UK with a £7-a-week income
I can run pretty much all my games (the only exception is UT3, bought it cos I'm a loyal fan of the series) on at least medium on all settings (even Oblivion) with my main comp:
nVidia GeForce 6800 LE (about 4-5 years old, I believe, and it was a hand-me-down)
768Mb DDR RAM (was 512 until a couple months ago)
AMD Sempron 2800+ (it's 1.6Ghz, one core)
17" CRT monitor (another hand-me-down, since my old one burst into flames and got thrown out of a window).
I don't really need anything better. I have little reason to play Crysis, or any other newfangled games - I'm perfectly happy playing Oblivion (runs fine, better than my 360 version at least), AoE III and UT2004. They're fun games, and I can still run torrents, virus scans, IMs and such in the background with little effect to the games I play. I'm happy with what I have, and I don't need any better.
Though I guess my argument is stifled slightly by the fact I'm spending £60 on that new-ish GeForce 9500GT 1GB (yes, that's right! Gpus really can cost less than £150!). I might even treat myself to a gig more of RAM.
My point is that sure, my games could always look prettier with 16xAA and run faster with a quad-core CPU, but they don't /need/ to - not for me, at least.
My other, slightly contradictory point is that I'm 15, living in the UK with a £7-a-week income
That's a good point actually:
It's not whether the machine can run crysis, or oblivion, or 3-D editing software. It's whether it can run what you want it to run.
It's not whether the machine can run crysis, or oblivion, or 3-D editing software. It's whether it can run what you want it to run.
Don't want to be the downer, friend, but you are displaying a few misconceptions as well.Yamikotai said:
A) # of GFX Cards SUCKS. They do not make sense to anyone that isn't versed. I'm VERY surprised the 6800LE runs Oblivion, but you are on a 17" monitor, so the lower resolution helps. For nVidia, from the 6 thru 9 series, this is how you break down a card
6 ---> Series
X ---> Model/Performance
0
0
LE < GS < GT < GTS < GTX < Ultra Least powerful on left, proceeding right.
Finally, the 8->9 Series of nVidia is also VERY confusing since the cards are nothing more than performance tweaks of the 8000 series.
B) Know thine series before you purchase! 6800LE can be gamed on because it still is an "8" performance level card, just low profile I do believe. Means it's smaller, not as much punch. The 9500GT will be a TERRIBLE gaming card. 3,4,5 series cards are complete CRAP for gaming. I do not recommend you purchase it.
C) RAM is not all it's meant to be. You play on a 17" monitor,... and will be using a 9500 card. Two things are wrong with getting the 1Gb model:
1) More RAM is needed only for higher resolutions. The higher the resolution, the bigger the textures are, the more RAM there needs to store them. On a 17" monitor... 1Gb would be useless. Even on my 21" monitor, 512Mb is all I need... why? Reason 2 follows...
2) It's all about the bit rate of the card, as well. The card is only 128-bit. It cannot EVER use 1Gb worth of RAM. Period. Never. It will be clogged/bogged down before it will even access the full amount. It's just a marketing scam, DO NOT BUY
My recommendations:
8600GT
9600GT
8800GT 256Mb Version
8800GS
One of those 4 cards would be a truly amazing upgrade for you and actually be worth your hard earned £!
Just make sure you A) have the power supply able to run a new card, B) it fits in your case, and C) you have the proper connections for it.
Jumping from 6--->9 series means you should really inspect your hardware before doing that because it's been several years in between. Hardware requirements change. Plus, in getting a better card, when you see that new sexy 19" Widescreen monitor or something you might want to upgrade to, having a card that can back it's arse will make sure you have no issues between the transition.
Just here to help
Ask questions if need be.
Im offering them because they are cheaper in terms of the 8800GT. If he isn't planning on flooring out Crysis or playing modern games on medium is fine, the money saved on these cards is well worth it. Not everyone needs the 8800GT 512Mb.
The 256 Version has been shown that as lower resolutions (IE 17" monitor), it performs almost identical to 512Mb. The only thing that kills it is higher resolutions and AA. My recommendations are solid, far more so than the 9500. Maybe the only on the list I would doubt is the 8600GT, but still, for Oblivion and the such, solid, solid performer.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3175&p=5 (Link for 8800GT 512 vs. 256)
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=6 Check that for the 8600GT. 30FPS at 720p essentially at Ultra High.
http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/inno3d_geforce_9600gt/page_3.shtml 9600GT Benchies. Def a star over the 8600GT.
Finally, Look into the 8800GS
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5354&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=1
In all honesty, maybe not the 8600GT, but determing how cheap you could fine one of the other 3, I would go for the cheapest one and you would be very pleased.
The 256 Version has been shown that as lower resolutions (IE 17" monitor), it performs almost identical to 512Mb. The only thing that kills it is higher resolutions and AA. My recommendations are solid, far more so than the 9500. Maybe the only on the list I would doubt is the 8600GT, but still, for Oblivion and the such, solid, solid performer.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3175&p=5 (Link for 8800GT 512 vs. 256)
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=6 Check that for the 8600GT. 30FPS at 720p essentially at Ultra High.
http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/inno3d_geforce_9600gt/page_3.shtml 9600GT Benchies. Def a star over the 8600GT.
Finally, Look into the 8800GS
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5354&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=1
In all honesty, maybe not the 8600GT, but determing how cheap you could fine one of the other 3, I would go for the cheapest one and you would be very pleased.
I'll second the avoiding 9500, and getting the 9600. The 9600 often has great deals (Rebates to take it to under $120 USD), and is within 5-10% of the 8800GT 512 performance. I'm using it, and can play every game I own besides Crysis at 25-30+ fps, full settings at 1920x1200. (The Witcher, Mass Effect are the latest 2)TheKbob said:
Edit: I used to have the 256MB 8600, and while it was perfectly fine for Bioshock at full settings 1280x1024, it chugged on any higher resolutions or newer games.
I'm making a new gaming computer one 8800GT will work for all games keeping them on medium right? And then if I get another I can make graphics my ***** correct?clarinetJWD said:
8800GT 512Mb is a great card. What I suggest is you familiarize yourself with some of the review websites such as Tomshardware, Firingsquad, anandtech, and more to see what you can expect, as I'm all about people helping themselves get better.Bulletinmybrain said:
To answer though, a big part is the resolution you play at. If you use a 15~19" standard or widescreen monitor, you will most certainly max every game on the market EXCEPT World in Conflict and Crysis. If you have a larger monitor, 20"+ you will play near maximum settings or all high. That's the position I was in, with a 21" monitor at 1680x1050 resolution, so I stepped up to SLI (dual 8800GT graphics cards) and now I can make any game bow to me (again... except Crysis, lol).
The 8800GT is high end performance at a low-end cost. If you can afford it, the 512Mb is def superior to the 256.
If you wanted to spend $170~ I would recommend the HD4850 from ATI, which is absolutely astounding and brings ATI back into the competition.
Like I said, best bet to know what you want is to go to google.com and type in something like "8800GT Review" and look at the reviews people give. If they are gaming above your resolution you play (which msot tests start at 21" monitor size unless they are testing budget cards) and they get great FPS at that setting, you know you are set for your.
Just remember: Resolution is important, the higher it is, the more space you have to fill, which means the more power you need to fill it.
Think of it like this. A 17" monitor is a bucket. Now if you wanted to fill a bucket with a house, you would be pretty good at it. A 21" would be a bathtub, a hose would get the job done pretty good, as well, but it will be slower. Anything bigger is like a pool, hose wont cut it, but if you had a fire hose (think high end GFX card) ... or 2! (think SLI or Crossfire) that baby will be full in no time!
Fire hose + Bucket , on the other hand, is just a waste.
I hope that analogy makes some sense.
PS: On SLI, 2 cards in parallel, you need to pay attention more so to having a strong CPU to back them up. If you have a really nice CPU (Quad from Intel) couple with SLI'd 8800GTs you could rival the power of the GTX 280 and surpass it at some points. But then that gets far more complex with motherboards, CPUs, Monitor size, game settings, etc. At that point I would recommend you start doing research
I just succumbed to my temptation. From newegg, for 284 dollars.
I just bought a 9800GX2.
It better hurry and get here soon, I've an urge to play Mass Effect at 1920x1080.
Anyone have this card? Any experiences I should know about? I've checked out all the benchmarks and reviews and it holds up pretty well. And for 284 it seems a steal.
I just bought a 9800GX2.
It better hurry and get here soon, I've an urge to play Mass Effect at 1920x1080.
Anyone have this card? Any experiences I should know about? I've checked out all the benchmarks and reviews and it holds up pretty well. And for 284 it seems a steal.
I went duo wolfdale something cores, 3.0 GHz, Also my moniters only caps its resolution out at 1024x768 but i'm updating this to a LCD soon anyway. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of 8800GT compared to the 4850? Cause if the 4850 swamps it then I don't want to waste money you know?TheKbob said:8800GT 512Mb is a great card. What I suggest is you familiarize yourself with some of the review websites such as Tomshardware, Firingsquad, anandtech, and more to see what you can expect, as I'm all about people helping themselves get better.Bulletinmybrain said:
To answer though, a big part is the resolution you play at. If you use a 15~19" standard or widescreen monitor, you will most certainly max every game on the market EXCEPT World in Conflict and Crysis. If you have a larger monitor, 20"+ you will play near maximum settings or all high. That's the position I was in, with a 21" monitor at 1680x1050 resolution, so I stepped up to SLI (dual 8800GT graphics cards) and now I can make any game bow to me (again... except Crysis, lol).
The 8800GT is high end performance at a low-end cost. If you can afford it, the 512Mb is def superior to the 256.
If you wanted to spend $170~ I would recommend the HD4850 from ATI, which is absolutely astounding and brings ATI back into the competition.
Like I said, best bet to know what you want is to go to google.com and type in something like "8800GT Review" and look at the reviews people give. If they are gaming above your resolution you play (which msot tests start at 21" monitor size unless they are testing budget cards) and they get great FPS at that setting, you know you are set for your.
Just remember: Resolution is important, the higher it is, the more space you have to fill, which means the more power you need to fill it.
Think of it like this. A 17" monitor is a bucket. Now if you wanted to fill a bucket with a house, you would be pretty good at it. A 21" would be a bathtub, a hose would get the job done pretty good, as well, but it will be slower. Anything bigger is like a pool, hose wont cut it, but if you had a fire hose (think high end GFX card) ... or 2! (think SLI or Crossfire) that baby will be full in no time!
Fire hose + Bucket , on the other hand, is just a waste.
I hope that analogy makes some sense.
PS: On SLI, 2 cards in parallel, you need to pay attention more so to having a strong CPU to back them up. If you have a really nice CPU (Quad from Intel) couple with SLI'd 8800GTs you could rival the power of the GTX 280 and surpass it at some points. But then that gets far more complex with motherboards, CPUs, Monitor size, game settings, etc. At that point I would recommend you start doing research
9800GX2 is a great rival to the GTX 280. I feel that once the drivers mature for the 280, the GX2 will fall to the wayside, but at 1080p? I think you will just fine. If you have an SLI board and monster enough PSU, Quad SLI... lol.
BTW, Quad SLI is only supported in Vista, in case you did not know.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=1
That's anand's review of the 200 series, but all of their benches include the GX2 and 8800GTs in SLI. Sad thing is my CPU, the AMD 64 X2 6000+ is choking my cards. I'm going to use it as an excuse to get a Phenom once they drop more in price.
EDIT:
Light reading *cough* on the 4850:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=1
Best bet is just skip to the game tests and decide if it's worth the extra $$$ or not. It does outperform the 8800GT, but it's up to you to decide at what cost. Is $20~40 more worth 8~15FPS more? At your current resolution, I would say no way, but if you got at least a 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 monitor, I would say the 4850 or 9800GTX+, whichever you find a better deal on, is the way to go.
BTW, Quad SLI is only supported in Vista, in case you did not know.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=1
That's anand's review of the 200 series, but all of their benches include the GX2 and 8800GTs in SLI. Sad thing is my CPU, the AMD 64 X2 6000+ is choking my cards. I'm going to use it as an excuse to get a Phenom once they drop more in price.
EDIT:
Light reading *cough* on the 4850:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=1
Best bet is just skip to the game tests and decide if it's worth the extra $$$ or not. It does outperform the 8800GT, but it's up to you to decide at what cost. Is $20~40 more worth 8~15FPS more? At your current resolution, I would say no way, but if you got at least a 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 monitor, I would say the 4850 or 9800GTX+, whichever you find a better deal on, is the way to go.
I saw Tomshardware compare the 280 and the GX2. The GX2 rivaled them, and is almost half the cost. So you can see why I went with it. I'm not sure if I'm going to do Quad SLI. The drivers aren't very mature yet.TheKbob said:9800GX2 is a great rival to the GTX 280. I feel that once the drivers mature for the 280, the GX2 will fall to the wayside, but at 1080p? I think you will just fine. If you have an SLI board and monster enough PSU, Quad SLI... lol.
BTW, Quad SLI is only supported in Vista, in case you did not know.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=1
That's anand's review of the 200 series, but all of their benches include the GX2 and 8800GTs in SLI. Sad thing is my CPU, the AMD 64 X2 6000+ is choking my cards. I'm going to use it as an excuse to get a Phenom once they drop more in price.
EDIT:
Light reading *cough* on the 4850:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=1
Best bet is just skip to the game tests and decide if it's worth the extra $$$ or not. It does outperform the 8800GT, but it's up to you to decide at what cost. Is $20~40 more worth 8~15FPS more? At your current resolution, I would say no way, but if you got at least a 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 monitor, I would say the 4850 or 9800GTX+, whichever you find a better deal on, is the way to go.
Also, I am IN Vista
But so you know, I haven't heard very good things about the Phenom for gaming. I would stick with Intel mate. I don't go near AMD or ATI.
Nice, I love my SLI and the performance boost I got... except Crysis *sigh* Here's hoping the Warhead promises pay off. I love the gameplay, just wish I could run it on all "pretties". I'm sure you will be VERY happy with the GX2. I love watching the beginning of Bioshock and seeing the vsync set 60FPS never miss a beat.
I LOVE the Witcher, but it is more deadly than Crysis at times. I'm waiting for my "enchancing" download to re-start it and finish it this time. I stopped playing when they said they are making the Enhanced edition and the new stuff is free to download for us that own the game.
The Witcher is a FANTASTIC RPG and I wish it would go the Xbox 360. Even if the GFX were dumbed down or w/e, it's great.
I LOVE the Witcher, but it is more deadly than Crysis at times. I'm waiting for my "enchancing" download to re-start it and finish it this time. I stopped playing when they said they are making the Enhanced edition and the new stuff is free to download for us that own the game.
The Witcher is a FANTASTIC RPG and I wish it would go the Xbox 360. Even if the GFX were dumbed down or w/e, it's great.
Yea, Sometimes I wish a PC exclusive game would get more coverage. STALKER for instance is a rare gem, yet very few have played it.TheKbob said:
I own it, but I have only tested it out. Sad thing is, I'm gonna sound like a wimp, but it's really hard to me. I have to swallow my pride and play it on an easier mode to enjoy or find a mod to help game balance. I get schooled, REALLY bad. The first mission house .. I just died and died. I'm betting it's because you cant play it like a real FPS and you have to use more tactics.Aries_Split said:
Don't beat yourself up about it. Stalker is very unforgiving and needs to be played in a very cautious and methodical manner, especially early in the game when all you have is the double-barrel shotgun and a Makarov PM.TheKbob said:
I've been playing FPS games on PC since Doom and that first battle repeatedly kicked my ass. I got through it and finished the game on normal but some of those fights were like pulling teeth. Just remember your Art of War. Never fight the enemy on their terms, fight them on yours. Try to take them by surprise and if you find yourself outmatched retreat and hit them from another angle.
Stalker is my favorite game to come out of 2007 partially because of it's unforgiving nature. Its very difficult if you approach a problem from the wrong angle but if you understand the way the game works it becomes much more fun. Lots of people quit outright on that first skirmish.
I did quit on the first skirmish. I'm gonna keep trying as that is one game that I feel bad about because I know I would love it. It's not like I don't understand it like Fallout n such or it's too old... no this is rather I just get my ass kicked and I suck, lol.
I just hate you start with a crappy pistol, unless you can get a better gun before you get into that fight. I really want to see the open wasteland, a kind of Pre-Fallout 3 funfest
I just hate you start with a crappy pistol, unless you can get a better gun before you get into that fight. I really want to see the open wasteland, a kind of Pre-Fallout 3 funfest
Bastards I bought stalker on steam and found out my graphics card doesn't support 1.1 pixel shader.TheKbob said:I did quit on the first skirmish. I'm gonna keep trying as that is one game that I feel bad about because I know I would love it. It's not like I don't understand it like Fallout n such or it's too old... no this is rather I just get my ass kicked and I suck, lol.
I just hate you start with a crappy pistol, unless you can get a better gun before you get into that fight. I really want to see the open wasteland, a kind of Pre-Fallout 3 funfest