|
On December 09 2009 13:28 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +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 ><
Currently, im playing sc on a 10 inch eeepc so a 13.3 screen is a huge step up for me^^
But im going to buy a 22" monitor for home to go with that.. The reason for using a small light weight laptop is that I bring it with me to work (and friends) all the time, and since I bought my 10" eeepc over a year ago Ive barely touched my 15" laptop..
So the natural next step for me is to put some money into a small laptop which is both portable and that can run sc2. The ul30vt seems like the best choice at the moment
|
On December 09 2009 17:00 EximoSua wrote:
I just bought this system from a LAN Center that was closing in my city for $400 (with 19" flat panel monitor). Where do you think I need to improve it to maximize SC2? I'm thinking RAM.
Operating system:
Windows 2.5.1.2600 (SP 3)
CPU type:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz
CPU Speed (GHz):
2.352
System memory (GB):
1.999
Graphics card model:
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS SLI x2
Graphics card driver:
nv4_disp.dll
Desktop resolution:
1280x1024
Hard disk size (GB):
232.876
Hard disk free space (GB):
189.525
well you've got a pretty good deal for 400$.anyways you'll probably need at least 2gb more ram to
maximize and everything else should be fine.
|
On December 08 2009 14:14 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +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 this is a very specific card meant to fit where the 9800gt has been - below the 9800gtx, which is ~$120. 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
????
i don't get what you are trying to say. why would you buy a graphics card that is slightly worse for negligibly less? i would just go for a gts250 (or hd 4850 if you can find one) the price is about ~$10 more but you get so much more out of it unless you plan on playing under 1920x*
|
|
|
On December 09 2009 17:23 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2009 14:14 ghermination wrote: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 this is a very specific card meant to fit where the 9800gt has been - below the 9800gtx, which is ~$120. 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 ???? i don't get what you are trying to say. why would you buy a graphics card that is slightly worse for negligibly less? i would just go for a gts250 (or hd 4850 if you can find one) the price is about ~$10 more but you get so much more out of it unless you plan on playing under 1920x*
Those prices aren't negligible.
On average between the cards i posted the difference in average cost is ~$20-30, which at this price level is a quarter of the card..
|
On December 10 2009 01:01 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2009 17:23 mahnini wrote:On December 08 2009 14:14 ghermination wrote: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 this is a very specific card meant to fit where the 9800gt has been - below the 9800gtx, which is ~$120. 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 ???? i don't get what you are trying to say. why would you buy a graphics card that is slightly worse for negligibly less? i would just go for a gts250 (or hd 4850 if you can find one) the price is about ~$10 more but you get so much more out of it unless you plan on playing under 1920x* Those prices aren't negligible. On average between the cards i posted the difference in average cost is ~$20-30, which at this price level is a quarter of the card..
the amount of performance you're getting out of it certainly warrants the cost. in terms of value i'd say the gts250 (or hd 4770) is much better than a 9800gt or equivalent card. i suppose if you are on a tight budget and cant really give on the graphics card you have a point, but chances are your graphics card will hit a bottleneck long before your other components especially on a gaming computer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121334&cm_re=gts250-_-14-121-334-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150369&cm_re=hd_4770-_-14-150-369-_-Product
these are less than 20% (14% and 16% respectively) price increases that net a 30% increase in pixels at the same or higher settings than a gt 240. again if you are not playing at 1920x* this doesn't matter but i definitely wouldn't call it a bad suggestion based on price point alone.
|
If anyone's in the market, I have a system with 4gb ddr2 , athlon xp 5000+ black edition, geforce 8800gs, nice bioware board. The gfx card overclocks like none I've ever used - I had it overclocked 50% across the board and performing almost as well as the gtx260 I just bought. It's in an antec sonata 2 case. It was built 18 months ago for $875. I am trying to get $300 for it, and I'll throw in a 17" LCD and a 5.1 piece surround sound system with a HUGE sub.
Also have a 15.4" toshiba laptop for $250, <1 year old.
If you're wondering why, I need to get a smaller laptop more suited to travel, and don't use either of these systems.
|
On December 10 2009 03:50 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2009 01:01 ghermination wrote:On December 09 2009 17:23 mahnini wrote:On December 08 2009 14:14 ghermination wrote: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 this is a very specific card meant to fit where the 9800gt has been - below the 9800gtx, which is ~$120. 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 ???? i don't get what you are trying to say. why would you buy a graphics card that is slightly worse for negligibly less? i would just go for a gts250 (or hd 4850 if you can find one) the price is about ~$10 more but you get so much more out of it unless you plan on playing under 1920x* Those prices aren't negligible. On average between the cards i posted the difference in average cost is ~$20-30, which at this price level is a quarter of the card.. the amount of performance you're getting out of it certainly warrants the cost. in terms of value i'd say the gts250 (or hd 4770) is much better than a 9800gt or equivalent card. i suppose if you are on a tight budget and cant really give on the graphics card you have a point, but chances are your graphics card will hit a bottleneck long before your other components especially on a gaming computer. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121334&cm_re=gts250-_-14-121-334-_-Producthttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150369&cm_re=hd_4770-_-14-150-369-_-Productthese are less than 20% (14% and 16% respectively) price increases that net a 30% increase in pixels at the same or higher settings than a gt 240. again if you are not playing at 1920x* this doesn't matter but i definitely wouldn't call it a bad suggestion based on price point alone.
That 4770 is much more expnesive then it should be the 4770 performs a bit lower then a GTS 250 as teh 4770 performed worse then the 4850 also 4770. With that price difference a 250 might acutlly be worth it considing the 4770 is now 20 bucks more then it used to be.
a GTS 250 = 9800GTX+ so ofc it's better then a 9800gt=8800gt
|
CPU: i7-860
GPU: 2 GTS 250 in SLI
Memory: 8 gb ddr3 1333mhz
PSU: 850 watt corsair
HDD: 300gb velociraptor
its awesome aint it? :-D
|
On December 12 2009 12:05 Drk_ItachiX wrote:
CPU: i7-860
GPU: 2 GTS 250 in SLI
Memory: 8 gb ddr3 1333mhz
PSU: 850 watt corsair
HDD: 300gb velociraptor
its awesome aint it? :-D
needs moar hard drives.
|
Can never have enough i use 6 sata drives :D
2 1.5tb in storage raid for my important
4 seagate 7200.12 in raid 10 for everything else, i got lazy assigning programs to certain hdds to not get a hdd having to read and write at itself on the same time so i raided it togheter :D
|
On December 12 2009 12:05 Drk_ItachiX wrote:
CPU: i7-860
GPU: 2 GTS 250 in SLI
Memory: 8 gb ddr3 1333mhz
PSU: 850 watt corsair
HDD: 300gb velociraptor
its awesome aint it? :-D
Why GTS 250 and 8 gb RAM lol?
|
On December 10 2009 03:50 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2009 01:01 ghermination wrote:On December 09 2009 17:23 mahnini wrote:On December 08 2009 14:14 ghermination wrote: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 this is a very specific card meant to fit where the 9800gt has been - below the 9800gtx, which is ~$120. 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 ???? i don't get what you are trying to say. why would you buy a graphics card that is slightly worse for negligibly less? i would just go for a gts250 (or hd 4850 if you can find one) the price is about ~$10 more but you get so much more out of it unless you plan on playing under 1920x* Those prices aren't negligible. On average between the cards i posted the difference in average cost is ~$20-30, which at this price level is a quarter of the card.. the amount of performance you're getting out of it certainly warrants the cost. in terms of value i'd say the gts250 (or hd 4770) is much better than a 9800gt or equivalent card. i suppose if you are on a tight budget and cant really give on the graphics card you have a point, but chances are your graphics card will hit a bottleneck long before your other components especially on a gaming computer. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121334&cm_re=gts250-_-14-121-334-_-Producthttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150369&cm_re=hd_4770-_-14-150-369-_-Productthese are less than 20% (14% and 16% respectively) price increases that net a 30% increase in pixels at the same or higher settings than a gt 240. again if you are not playing at 1920x* this doesn't matter but i definitely wouldn't call it a bad suggestion based on price point alone.
With an adequate dual or quad core, most people who don't pay $500 for their graphics cards will bottleneck them.
|
On December 12 2009 14:37 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2009 03:50 mahnini wrote:On December 10 2009 01:01 ghermination wrote:On December 09 2009 17:23 mahnini wrote:On December 08 2009 14:14 ghermination wrote: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 this is a very specific card meant to fit where the 9800gt has been - below the 9800gtx, which is ~$120. 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 ???? i don't get what you are trying to say. why would you buy a graphics card that is slightly worse for negligibly less? i would just go for a gts250 (or hd 4850 if you can find one) the price is about ~$10 more but you get so much more out of it unless you plan on playing under 1920x* Those prices aren't negligible. On average between the cards i posted the difference in average cost is ~$20-30, which at this price level is a quarter of the card.. the amount of performance you're getting out of it certainly warrants the cost. in terms of value i'd say the gts250 (or hd 4770) is much better than a 9800gt or equivalent card. i suppose if you are on a tight budget and cant really give on the graphics card you have a point, but chances are your graphics card will hit a bottleneck long before your other components especially on a gaming computer. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121334&cm_re=gts250-_-14-121-334-_-Producthttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150369&cm_re=hd_4770-_-14-150-369-_-Productthese are less than 20% (14% and 16% respectively) price increases that net a 30% increase in pixels at the same or higher settings than a gt 240. again if you are not playing at 1920x* this doesn't matter but i definitely wouldn't call it a bad suggestion based on price point alone. With an adequate dual or quad core, most people who don't pay $500 for their graphics cards will bottleneck them.
that's not really the case here is it?
|
needs moar hard drives.
I got some external hard drives too. I needed something portable. :-D
Why GTS 250 and 8 gb RAM lol?
I know 8 gb of ram is completely unnecessary but i got it on Black Friday from newegg real cheap..... so i figured what the hell :-D
I dont really have an excuse for the GTS 250s.......im thinking I should have just bought a gtx 285.....oh well
|
Well it's not useless if you ever pick up modeling, photo/movie editing you'll have the ram to back up higher resolutions. It be stupid as hell if you had 8gigs of ram running on 32 bit windows
Also ram is at a transition point where the older ram ddr2 is being produced less and costing more while the ddr3 transiting, right now ddr2 cost about the same as ddr3 ram which is a bummer for those who bought great ddr2 sticks are 40-60 bucks.
Just remember kids never buy shitty ram ie the ram that is like ddre 1600 but it's really 1066 ram oced to 1600, if you have to mess with the voltages on the ram to run it at that level you are really buying 1600 ram but 1333 or 1066 ram that is certified to run oc at that level. Might as well save your ass 20 bucks and buy the cheaper ram and oc it yourself.
|
Will any built in graphics card like intel media graphics accelerator work?
|
On December 13 2009 04:43 NFL2368 wrote:
Will any built in graphics card like intel media graphics accelerator work?
It is perfect for broodwar 
|
And IGP from intel if you're lucky can start wc3 and then fail at running it well.
An IGP from Nvidia is a great one, but AMD also makes some decent IGP but usually nvidia has ones that are comparable and a few that are flat out better, too bad they left making igp for amd board and for the most part is being locked out by intel for at least a year to push new products. But it's usually a much safer bet to get a dedicated card.
|
On December 13 2009 05:31 Virtue wrote:
And IGP from intel if you're lucky can start wc3 and then fail at running it well.
An IGP from Nvidia is a great one, but AMD also makes some decent IGP but usually nvidia has ones that are comparable and a few that are flat out better, too bad they left making igp for amd board and for the most part is being locked out by intel for at least a year to push new products. But it's usually a much safer bet to get a dedicated card.
Dedicated cards all outperform inegrated graphics. The new 790g chipset on am3 boards is pretty powerful, because it can be combined with a 4350 to create a few more frames in hybrid xfire. I would recommend buying a 4350 and a 790g board if the budget is tiny because it will easily outperform any single onboard graphics solution or single 4350.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
