Low budget, good graphics card, sh*tty processor

[Venoxile]

Would planetside run on a
-AMD Athlon 1.3 gig
-Radeon 9700 Pro 128 mb
-256 mb ram

with a constant of 60 fps with good details?
I saw the requirements but those are the bare minimum, and do i really need htat much ram? That's insane. I'm guessing my 1.3 gig athlon isn't good enough to run it though, and I'm really not lookin forward to spending 200-300$ on a new processor.

[afex]

you already have a pimp card, and new cpu's are fucking dirt cheap.

look them up on newegg. just as a reference, you could buy the processor you have now for 50 bucks.

for just a hundred bucks you could get an athlon XP 2100+ (1.736Ghz)

look things up before ruling them out. :)

[Dragoon412]

RAM's cheap. The only reason it's "insane" to have half a gig to most people is because craptacular resellers like Dell and Gateway have been dragging their feet for years, sticking the bare minimum of RAM necessary to run those glorified typewriters they sell. Believe me, it's worth upgrading your RAM; you can never have too much (well, unless your OS or MB won't support it ;) ). personally, I'm planning on stepping up to at least 1 gig of PC2700 DDR by the time PS is released.

As for the rest of the game, it's a tough call. The fact that we have 3 ghz processors on the market right now and PS is only calling 1ghz its requirement is a pretty good sign that the game is going to be more graphic-intensive than CPU-intensive, so you should be okay on that front.

As for the Radeon 9700 Pro, that'll be PLENTY of card for PS; especially in the large-scale engagements.

[Venoxile]

afex, I appreciate the answer, but I really don't want to spend any cash at the moment, my wife would kill me if she knew I was even thinking about upgrading my computer again.
Could I get 50-60 fps with a 1.3 gig amd athlon and 256k mb ram?

[WhiteSun]

Originally posted by Venoxile
Could I get 50-60 fps with a 1.3 gig amd athlon and 256k mb ram?

In all likelihood, the sticking point here will be your RAM.

Current specs call for 512 minimum with 'optimizations' being done. Your video card is definately beefy enough to handle whatever your CPU can throw at it, but as soon as the OS or PS itself has to hit your virtual memory, all the rest of it takes a smoke break until the hard drive finally gets around to responding.

I recommend you sell a power tool you never use and check out www.crucial.com Their memory is top-notch (I've several gigs of it here at the house) and prices are cheap. Grab a stick of 512 or two sticks of 256 and live life to the fullest.

[air_head1]

I have 1.4 Ghz and 240 MB ram is that going to be enough im buying a new vid card soon im saving so im not sure what its going to be though?

[Venoxile]

I'll think i'll buy another 256MB PC 2700 333 MHz DDR Memory stick. Could a dev tell me if 1.3 gig athlon's good enough to get 50-60 fps?

[afex]

you'll definitely need more ram to push the frames you're asking for.

i have a 1.4, gf3, 512 ram, and i plan to play with that. (unless it sucks, then i'll upgrade :D)

[Venoxile]

Whats your ti for your g3? I'd think 200 or 500 wouldn't be enough to run ps at the best possible graphics.

[Camping Carl]

Ram is certainly most important, a good video card helps a lot too. Trust me, if you upgraded you cpu now you would notice little difference. Your Cpu and video are fine for now, upgrade your ram tho to 512mb, or perhaps even to 768mb.

[afex]

my gf3 is vanilla, i got it when it was first released

[Venoxile]

a ti 200 can't possibly run it, can it?? That card sucks.

[Dragoon412]

Venoxile, you have a system that can run the game - by happy, and quit whining. If you want 60+ FPS on high-res with the best graphical settings, upgrade. It's really that simple. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of your system running at that level of performance right now, and as has been pointed out, your RAM is going to be the biggest problem.

[WhiteSun]

Originally posted by Venoxile
with a constant of 60 fps with good details?

One thing that I've totally forgotten is what kind of resolution are you planning on running? 60fps @ 8x6 is a lot different than 60fps @ 16x12.

[Dragoon412]

Originally posted by Wh|teSun
One thing that I've totally forgotten is what kind of resolution are you planning on running? 60fps @ 8x6 is a lot different than 60fps @ 16x12.

Not with his video card... his processor would choke long before the GPU did; I doubt he'd notice any difference in framerate between 16x12 and 8x6.

[air_head1]

How much would it cost for me to upgrade from 240 MB RAM to like 520 MB or evan 726MB? (preferably Canadian but thats alright).

[Camping Carl]

Depends on the type of ram, sd, ddrsd, or rd?

[Sandtaco]

How many slots do you have?

BTW: If you change your motherboard does that change how many memory card slots you have, and the max amount of memory?

[Camping Carl]

Of course the number of ram slots changes depending on the motherboard. Also most boards nowadays support as many gigs as they have slots, cause usually each slot can hold up to a 1028 card.

[Vimp]

I have a P3-700mhz with a Geforce2 GTS/Pro 64mb ddr and only 256 sdram and even though I'm sure the game won't run very good I bet anything it'll run it at lowest settings fairly ok. I mean as it is my computer runs the most graphic intensive games on the market at good speeds even with settings maxed out so I think the specs are more of a minnimum suggestion to have really good performance.

Average prices.

Canadian price for ram:
256sdram 133mhz = $39-$56 <--- price has gone up lately
256DDR 266mhz = $77-$87
256DDR 333mhz = $95
256RDram 800mhz = $125

Canadian price for CPU:
AMD Athelon:
1700+(1.47ghz) = $95
2000+(1.67ghz) = $136-$145
Intel P4:
P4-Celeron 2ghz = $132-$145
P4 1.8Aghz(512k) = $230

Don't let the numbers fool you. Playing games, the AMD 1700+(1.47ghz) can easily beat a 2ghz Celeron and pretty much match a 2ghz P4.
However they all have there strong points. For instance a Celeron 2ghz could easily be overclocked to 2.5ghz (unlike other processors) which would make it compare with others better.

[�io]

Yeah AMD is making some kick ass CPUs now. :)

[julio]

Hey all,

I've been lurking for a while, but I figure it's time to break into the scene.

Here are some helpful links when doing your upgrade shopping:
http://www.pricewatch.com
http://www.sharkeyextreme.com
http://www.tomshardware.com

[glsauron]

I doubt a G3 Ti 200 would have much trouble in 1024 - 1280 land. Provided its got a CPU that can feed it. Min is a vanilla GF2. That means Anything from teh ultra GF2 line, any G3, and any G4 Ti should have no trouble. Not sure about the GF4MX line. Still think they'd pass easily. For Radeon line, 9X and bove for sure, 85X, and not sure about the 75X line.

I think you'd run decent FR with your setup. More RAM would help more then anything else. Try to get up to 512, world of difference in not having to hit the swap file :)

[WhiteSun]

Originally posted by glsauron
Not sure about the GF4MX line.

I've got two of these buggers in some server boxen here and they seem on par with a GF2 GTS with regard to FR. Although I do believe that they have most of the GF4 instructions included, so they may reproduce high-end effects, albeit slower.

I'm too messed up to even be typing. Screw it.

[air_head1]

Im sry if i sound like a noob i don't know much about computers i just know how to play the games on the computers. So could someone pls explain this stuff with the ram all i basically know is that ram is random access memory but im wondering wtf is this other stuff like sdram DDR RDram and how could i check what kind of ram i got? do i need all 3 types of ram? Pls help a noob out!!!!!!!!!:confused:

[WhiteSun]

Originally posted by air_head1
do i need all 3 types of ram? Pls help a noob out!!!!!!!!!

No.

Go read www.arstechnica.com www.anandtech.com. and www.tomshardware.com

All three of these are excellent places to start learning about hardware. You actually have to read the articles and such, but you will learn of the strange jargon we speak.

For the time being, since you readily admit to being a hardware.n00b and just enjoying playing games, don't worry about what is in the box until you understand it. If it's fast enough, ok. If it's not fast enough, call alienware and get something faster. Once you learn about all the parts then you can optimize per-piece until you get the system you want.

edit: unfarked the auto url parsing

[Dragoon412]

RAM Basics:

You have several types of RAM that are popular right now:

SDRAM: Comes in PC100 and PC133 flavors, which operate at 100 and 133 mhz, respectively. It's rather obsolete technology, but many comptuers that are more than a year or so old are still using it.

DDR or DDRSD RAM: DDR stands for double data rate, and DDR essentially functions at twice the speed of SDRAM - it comes in PC2100, PC2700, and PC3200, which operate at 266, 300, and 333 mhz, respectively (there are other speeds, but they're comparitively uncommon). PC2100 is the defacto standard for high-performance machines right now, as it's very price-effective, even though it's slower than several other types of RAM.

RDRAM: The fastest thing on the market now; only certain Intel chipsets support it. RDRAM operates at 1066mhz, but uses different architecture than DDR RAM, so while a direct comparison of clock speed isn't really telling of actual performance, RDRAM is noticably faster than DDR RAM... and significantly more expensive.

Just for fun, I did a quick check on Pricewatch, and here's some costs for single 512 MB sticks of RAM right now:

PC133 SD: $35
PC2100 DDR: $92
PC2700 DDR: $106
PC3200 DDR: $128
RD 1066: $182

As for other odds and ends, your motherboard needs to support the specific type of RAM you're going to install, and the best way to tell what kind of RAM you have is to look in your owner's manual (I'm assuming anyone that built their own system already knows all this ;) ).

[Vimp]

Just to clarify.

Based on what I know DDR2700 is 333mhz and DDR3200 is 400mhz. There is no 300mhz inless its been either overclocked or under clocked.

The most common RDram is PC800 which is 800mhz.
What is starting to be more available is the rarer RDram that is PC1066 which is 1066mhz.

[Dragoon412]

D'oh, you're right, Vimp... I was thinking of PC2400... *boggle* I'm gonna go double check the speeds again and make myself memorize it.

[FraBaktos]

I have 256mb of RD ram, its fast, but I need more!!!

[glsauron]

Cant compare prices for RDRAM and DDR directly. Use the 256 stick of RD as you have to run 16 bit RD in pairs :)

512MB PC2100=2 256MB RDRAM PC800 pretty well.

If your building a new rig RIGHT NOW iD recommend DCDDR in the GB flavor, coupled with a P4 2.4B, and depending on budget GeForce 4 ATi 4200 or a Radeon 9700 Pro (or not Pro, budget). If you gots money set up a RAID 0 array with 2 Western Dig 800BBs. Sound go for a SB Audgy MP3+ or X-gamer (same hardware, dif software). Case get whatever you think looks good. Monitor grab a 19" from sony, samsung, or viewsonic depending on budget. Optical drives 48-52X CD-RW from Liteon, with a DVD-ROM from lite-on, plextor, etc.
If your going real high budegt configure the same with SCSI and buy your ferrari (sp) too :)

If building a little ways down the road, same dressings, with a Placer (springdale??) based board (800Mhz FSB) paired with DCDDR PC3200 and a 2.8-3.2Ghz P4C. Throw in the GeForce FX and you have one monster rig on your hands. Huge bandwidth, HT, 800Mhz FSB, and a sweet DX9 vid card :)

If you dont understand a word of what I just said above, you can safely ignore it :)

[air_head1]

Im sry but i have one mor question. I looked in my owners manual and this is what i came up with about my memory
Two DIMM slots for 168-pin SDRAM memory modules
Support for 100/133MHz memory bus
Maximum installed memory is 2 X 512MB=1GB

So im assuming my memory is 512MB but when i start my computer up it says i got 400MB once again im very
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: TY for all your help so far its been great

[Sputty]

I don't think anyone will get 50-60 FPS on the processor or RAM you have. Why'd you get such a good video card? A radeon 8500 and a 9700 would have almsot the same affect on a processor that speed.

[Camping Carl]

If you bought a name brand (compaq, gateway, dell) the amount of ram you have (400) isn't suprising. It's common for those computers to come with ram chips that have odd amounts of memory. Maybe it's cheaper for them, I dunno.

[Dragoon412]

Okay, people, please, please, PLEASE read this post: there's this giant misconception floating around that's perpetuated by grossly misinformed people that the GF4 and Radeon 9700 are similar in terms of power - they certainly aren't even remotely comparable - especially in terms of price vs. performance.

This is a repost from the "System Requirements?" thread:

And as I pointed out before, what that shows is that the processor is the limiting factor in the benchmarking setup. As you increase the resolution and add anti-aliasing and the like, the load on the video card increases, but the processor load does NOT.

So the GF4 scores about the same as the 9700 when the benchmark is processor-dependant, but as the benchmark moves to place higher demand on the GPU, the 9700 smokes the G4. The truth of the matter is that the 9700 Pro is so powerful that even now, pairing it with a high-end 3.0ghz P4/RDRAM test machine, it's *still* pulling away from the GF4 as you push the resolution and features - I don't honestly think we'll see that card's performance ceiling for a couple more months.

Really, the GF4 is a more powerful card than the Radeon 8500, but the 9700 is just WAY out of its league. The moment ATi released the RV300, every other card on the market was relegate to obsolecense. This wasn't a normal product cycle performance increase -- the RV300 is so powerful that it has more power by itself than most high end gaming systems.

Take a look at some benchmarks:

First, Jedi Knight 2 (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021104/r9700pro-cards-18.html) , which is probably the most CPU-intensive game out there.

Then, UT2k3 (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021104/r9700pro-cards-17.html).

And those aren't even with FSAA and AF enabled - look at the FSAA (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021104/r9700pro-cards-20.html), AF (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021104/r9700pro-cards-21.html), and FSAA & AF (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021104/r9700pro-cards-22.html) tests, where the 9700 Pro consistantly turns out nearly three times the numbers that the TI 4600 does.

The 9700 Pro is just WAY out of the league of anything else on the market right now.

Look at those benchmarks i linked to; those are old - those don't have very powerful test machines or games that have DX9 support. The Radeon 9700 (pro) is WAY out of the GF4's league.

The point I'm trying to convey is that there is absolutely no good reason to purchase a video card other than the 9700 Pro right now. It absolutely destroys everything on the market not only in terms of sheer performance, but perofrmance for price.

Let's put it this way:

Retail prices on the nVidia Geforce 4 TI 4600 is $300.
Retail on the ATi Radeon 9700 Pro is $400.

The Radeon has at least 3 times the power of the TI 4600 yet only costs 33% more. Yes, it's a bit more expensive NOW, but in 6 months when your GF4 can't run Doom 3 and it chokes everytime more than 20 people get on the screen at once in PS, you'll be kicking yourself for wasting the money on it.

[�io]

:stupid:

Or wait for the FX like i might do. (Depending on it's price at launch, if it launches in Feb-march. :))

[Venoxile]

Uh, you can buy the 4600 for 200$, half the cost of the Radeon 9700, bro.

[Sandtaco]

won't it go down by the time FX is released?

[Camping Carl]

But how does a regular 9700 stack up to a ti4600? Those benchmarks were with a 9700 pro.

[�io]

Why wouldn't you buy a pro? It's not that expensive.

[Camping Carl]

Yeah, 9700 pro's are much more expensive. I'll probably wait for the FX tho, so I only ask out of curiosity.

[�io]

Well according to price watch the 9700pro is more or less the same price as the TI4600, and on Tom's hardware it's only 100$ more. Seems to me for the increase in power it's not that much more expensive.

[Ahemuro]

I'm a computer newb, how do I find out my RAM?

EDIT* Nevermind, found out I only have 128, but this is my crap computer, so I'm not surprised

[Sandtaco]

I'll probably end up getting the 9000 pro. I'm updating the comp next year, then I'll prbly get a 9700 pro.

[Dragoon412]

Venoxile, don't compare the lowest price you can find for the TI4600 to the 9700 Pro - I was comparing retail prices - MSRP, actually. If you want to compare the lowest prices you can find, the Radeon 9700 Pro can be had for something in the $260 (that's for retail, not OEM... OEM will be a bit less) range, and you can get the TI4600 for something in the $220 range -- same argument still applies, though - TI4600 is an obsolete, overpriced piece of crap. Maybe if you could get it for $100 it'd be comparable to the 9700 Pro in terms of price vs. performance, but it's still vastly inferior, performance-wise.

Guys, this isn't my opinion - it's a FACT: the Radeon 9700 Pro outperforms the TI4600 nearly by a factor of 3 for only slightly more money. It is a superior card to the TI4600 in every conceivable way, from raw performance to short term value to long term value - it's just plain better.

Just to throw some numbers out, here's some prices:

nVidia Geforce TI 4600: $220
ATi Radeon 9700 Pro: $232

*boggle*

[Venoxile]

www.nanosys1.com, its my local retailer, very cheap hardware. Compare the prices.

[Dragoon412]

MSI GeForce4 Ti 4200 8X AGP 128MB DDR Video Card (Video-In, DVI & TV out)

VID-MS-GF4-42-8
$229.99

$230 for the TI4200; the fastest card they carry? Sounds like that place specializes in overpriced, lower-end hardware. Why don't ya try pricewatch.com? They have the best prices you can find.

[�io]

/me :hug: Dragoon

9700pro = only card out there for now. If you want a GeForce then at least wait for the FX. :)

[Sputty]

If you're getting a new card and want decent power in a good deal get the Radeon 900o or 9500. The 9500 will be more powerful than the TI4600 and be about the same price and all the new Radeons support DX9