|
On December 08 2009 14:01 FragKrag wrote:
I wouldn't go for a 9800 or a 240
Get a 4850 if you are stretched for cash. In almost all benchmarks the 4850 performs better than the 9800 GTX and is a bit cheaper I think.
Bad advice.
A gt240, 512mb ddr5 is only 98.99 + Show Spoiler +http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162042&cm_re=gt240-_-14-162-042-_-Product
The 4850 is more like $110-120, and is targeted to kill the 9800gtx. Know the range of graphic capabilities the product is supposed to fill.
Basically the range for those mid-range graphics cards, by price and performance is
gt230 (=SLIGHTLY>9600gt)
gt240 (With GDDR5 slightly better than 9800GT)
gts250 < 4850
gtx260 >= 4870
|
thank you all for your advice! Will consider purchasing a new video card
|
I think the most essential upgrade is neither video card, nor rams, nor psu, but I would rather spend my money on a SSD, because the improvement you experience with a SSD is comparable from day to night.
|
Only for load times, because that is the only time the SSD is accessed. If you want better GAME performance rather than opening word faster, then you don't need a SSD, and a WD caviar black or Seagate Barracuda will do fine
|
screw your ssd my raid 7200.12 give the same read performance of a good ssd and i have a much better write speed with it.
|
also a higher chance of failure? :/
|
Cost me like 1/4th of a great ssd or like 1/2 of a decent one if not more. Anyways Raid failure is for unlucky ones lol i have 3 500gb in raid 5. Chance of failure with raid is dependent to the size of the drives and raid you are using. SSD have great read speeds not all of them but enough of them, and horrible shitty ass write speeds most of them, SSD are quiet which i love but they are costly mother fuckers at least most decient ones, also sense i do a lot of transcoding i need decent write speeds.
|
Do you guys think the asus ul30vt (sorry for the swedish link, but the specifications are in english) laptop can handle sc2? I dont care much about graphics, I am fine with very low settings as long as the gameplay is smooth. Thanks!
|
On December 08 2009 19:01 glassmazarin wrote:Do you guys think the asus ul30vt (sorry for the swedish link, but the specifications are in english) laptop can handle sc2? I dont care much about graphics, I am fine with very low settings as long as the gameplay is smooth. Thanks!
I would advise you to watch Sweclockers forum.
|
210m = 9400m. Which is a pretty powerful dedicated card as far as most laptops go. I could see it performing at a medium resolution, especially since the cpu is so "powerful". Don't expect any miracles though, because 1.30ghz *2 is still pretty pitiful as far as performance goes. I would recommend a CPU upgrade if you can get one.
|
Data from beta-opt:
Operating system: Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type: Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.40GHz
CPU Speed (GHz): 3.411
System memory (GB): 1.999
Graphics card model: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Graphics card driver: nv4_disp.dll
Desktop resolution: 1280x1024
Hard disk size (GB): 334.805
Hard disk free space (GB): 181.26
(hoping  )
|
Throw another gb or two of ram and you should be good to go imo
|
On December 09 2009 08:31 FragKrag wrote:
Throw another gb or two of ram and you should be good to go imo
Wtf is it with this obsession with ram
SC2 is a 32 bit application, therefore at MAXIMUM it could use up 3.5gb of ram, and it will never get there.
Games won't be passing max 3.5gb of ram usage for years, and max 2gb right now is only with borderlands and arkham asylum really.
No need for more ram.
|
On December 09 2009 09:39 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2009 08:31 FragKrag wrote:
Throw another gb or two of ram and you should be good to go imo Wtf is it with this obsession with ram SC2 is a 32 bit application, therefore at MAXIMUM it could use up 3.5gb of ram, and it will never get there. Games won't be passing max 3.5gb of ram usage for years, and max 2gb right now is only with borderlands and arkham asylum really. No need for more ram.
Maybe he wants to play SC2, borderlands and arkham asylum at the same time 
|
On December 09 2009 09:39 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2009 08:31 FragKrag wrote:
Throw another gb or two of ram and you should be good to go imo Wtf is it with this obsession with ram SC2 is a 32 bit application, therefore at MAXIMUM it could use up 3.5gb of ram, and it will never get there. Games won't be passing max 3.5gb of ram usage for years, and max 2gb right now is only with borderlands and arkham asylum really. No need for more ram.
You can never have enough ram
maybe you want to run stuff in the background or something.
nevermind I didn't see the 1.999
I just saw 1.000 somehow
|
On December 08 2009 19:01 glassmazarin wrote:Do you guys think the asus ul30vt (sorry for the swedish link, but the specifications are in english) laptop can handle sc2? I dont care much about graphics, I am fine with very low settings as long as the gameplay is smooth. Thanks!
Seems overpriced, unless thats just because laptops are more expensive in sweden? or because its in a 13.3 inch package...but why would you play sc2 on 13.3 inch ><
|
On December 02 2009 11:36 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 11:00 glaex wrote:
x2 3800 @ 2.7ghz (socket 939)
4850 1gb
2gb ddr1 ram (3 random mismatched sticks so having to run them at ddr 386 cas2.5)
Got the video card for free from a friend, so I figured I'd try and breath some life into my old girl. I bought an aftermarket cooler for $5 after rebate, and tried my hand at overclocking. I'm hoping this will let me survive on this a few more years so I can hold off on upgrading for the 8 and 16 core monsters on the horizon.
I think I should be ok with the proc but I'm worried about the ram speeds, what do you guys think? i believe you've overclocked 800mhz right? I bet you could go higher, considering the 6000+ hit like around 3.5ghz at the highest (non-liquid nitrogen) overclocks. With some proper RAM (DDR400 is pretty cheap) + Show Spoiler +http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231047 you could probably push your overclock a ~100mhz higher and get better overall performance. The video card is great though, you're probably bottlenecking it anyway.
I actually ended up having to take it down to 2.64ghz. 2.7 was stable for windows and running benchmarks but to get prime stable i had to lower it a bit. I'm still pretty happy as 2.7 seems to be max for these old processors and it was my first overclock attempt.
I did a little more reading and it seems ram speeds don't have much impact in gaming, its almost all about cpu and gpu so thats one thing less to worry about. I decided to try out dragon age and I can run it at high settings with 8x aa at 1280x960 although it gets slightly choppy in towns where there are lots of characters running around. Lowering the graphics didn't seem to help and I can't bring myself to lower the resolution any futher so I am definitely processor limited. It's actually not very noticeable, but I'm really hoping SC2 and D3 won't be as cpu intensive as dragon age is 
|
On December 09 2009 14:08 glaex wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2009 11:36 ghermination wrote:On December 02 2009 11:00 glaex wrote:
x2 3800 @ 2.7ghz (socket 939)
4850 1gb
2gb ddr1 ram (3 random mismatched sticks so having to run them at ddr 386 cas2.5)
Got the video card for free from a friend, so I figured I'd try and breath some life into my old girl. I bought an aftermarket cooler for $5 after rebate, and tried my hand at overclocking. I'm hoping this will let me survive on this a few more years so I can hold off on upgrading for the 8 and 16 core monsters on the horizon.
I think I should be ok with the proc but I'm worried about the ram speeds, what do you guys think? i believe you've overclocked 800mhz right? I bet you could go higher, considering the 6000+ hit like around 3.5ghz at the highest (non-liquid nitrogen) overclocks. With some proper RAM (DDR400 is pretty cheap) + Show Spoiler +http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231047 you could probably push your overclock a ~100mhz higher and get better overall performance. The video card is great though, you're probably bottlenecking it anyway. I actually ended up having to take it down to 2.64ghz. 2.7 was stable for windows and running benchmarks but to get prime stable i had to lower it a bit. I'm still pretty happy as 2.7 seems to be max for these old processors and it was my first overclock attempt. I did a little more reading and it seems ram speeds don't have much impact in gaming, its almost all about cpu and gpu so thats one thing less to worry about. I decided to try out dragon age and I can run it at high settings with 8x aa at 1280x960 although it gets slightly choppy in towns where there are lots of characters running around. Lowering the graphics didn't seem to help and I can't bring myself to lower the resolution any futher so I am definitely processor limited. It's actually not very noticeable, but I'm really hoping SC2 and D3 won't be as cpu intensive as dragon age is
RTS games and dragon age will be used by the cpu in about the same way. They are all rather cpu intensive, although once again i don't think that you'll havy any trouble running sc2.
|
I just bought this system from a LAN Center that was closing in my city for $400 (with 19" flat panel monitor). Where do you think I need to improve it to maximize SC2? I'm thinking RAM.
Operating system:
Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):
2.352
System memory (GB):
1.999
Graphics card model:
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS SLI x2
Graphics card driver:
nv4_disp.dll
Desktop resolution:
1280x1024
Hard disk size (GB):
232.876
Hard disk free space (GB):
189.525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
