Will your desktop/laptop run PS2? ***Ask here***

[Exodan]

I'm fairly certain my PC will run PS2, my only concern is will it run on ultra high graphics?:

Intel core i7 3.06Ghz
Nvidia Geforce GTX 470 1.2GB
6GB RAM
2 x 1TB HDD

[Bags]

Probably not on ultra; smedley recently tweeted that ultra is designed for graphics cards that don't currently exist.

[zhurkov]

OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
System RAM: 3071 MB
CPU Name: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU T3400 @ 2.16GHz
CPU Speeds: 2158
Physical CPUs: 1
Virtual CPUs: 2
Video Card Description: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Series
VRAM: 256 MB
Primary Display Resolution: 1280x800
Multi-Monitor Desktop Resolution: 1280x800
Microphone: True
Language: Portuguese (Portugal)
Free Hard Drive Space: 349096 MB
Total Hard Drive Space: 476837 MB
Windows Experience Index Rating: 3.6

Do you guys think it could run PS2?

[Vancha]

Nope.

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by zhurkov

Video Card Description: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Series

Do you guys think it could run PS2?

That GPU is what breaks the camel's back.

Unfortunately, this being a laptop means there are no upgrade paths for you.

[Meatballs]

What about this:

OS: Windows 7 Home 64bit
Ram: 4GB
Processor: Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.3GHz
GPU: VTX radeon HD 7750 (Best available low profile card)
Monitor: 1680x1050 @ 60Hz

Benchmarks:
Team fortress 2 stuck at around 60-125 frames per second
Tribes runs at 24-30 fps at 1680x1050 in High
League of legends runs at 60fps locked and at highest detail on everything.
Blacklight stays around 30 fps when on high.
Minecraft hits 180 fps.

Not tried a lot else with my new card. Will it be ok?
Meatballs

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Meatballs

What about this:

OS: Windows 7 Home 64bit
Ram: 4GB
Processor: Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.3GHz
GPU: VTX radeon HD 7750 (Best available low profile card)
Monitor: 1680x1050 @ 60Hz

Benchmarks:
Team fortress 2 stuck at around 60-125 frames per second
Tribes runs at 24-30 fps at 1680x1050 in High
League of legends runs at 60fps locked and at highest detail on everything.
Blacklight stays around 30 fps when on high.
Minecraft hits 180 fps.

Not tried a lot else with my new card. Will it be ok?
Meatballs

Should run as long as you don't get greedy with eye candy.

[fb III IX ca IV]

Originally Posted by Ailos

That depends on the game, and in some cases, even how you play it. Skyrim doesn't have a significant multiplayer component or stuff blowing up ALL the time (like we would expect of PS2), it's built much more for eye-candy and pretty scenery, so it tends to be more taxing on the GPU than just about any other game.

Skyrim was poorly optimized, and it uses an old engine that apparently can't take advantage of more than 2 threads. You should read the Toms Hardware article on Skyrim, they had it running on an i5 2500k and GTX 580 and the performance just kept on increasing the further they raised the CPU clock speed.

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by fb III IX ca IV

Skyrim was poorly optimized, and it uses an old engine that apparently can't take advantage of more than 2 threads. You should read the Toms Hardware article on Skyrim, they had it running on an i5 2500k and GTX 580 and the performance just kept on increasing the further they raised the CPU clock speed.

Not arguing about that. The intended emphasis here was:

That depends on the game, and in some cases, even how you play it. Skyrim doesn't have a significant multiplayer component or stuff blowing up ALL the time (like we would expect of PS2), it's built much more for eye-candy and pretty scenery, so it tends to be more taxing on the GPU than just about any other game.

That doesn't mean it's light on the CPU. Just means that you need more graphics muscle to run Skyrim on ultra than BF3 on ultra.

[Mutant]

Originally Posted by Bags

Probably not on ultra; smedley recently tweeted that ultra is designed for graphics cards that don't currently exist.

Yep the new previews have stuff from higby giving a tad more detail.

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/planetside-2/1225448p1.html
I was a little surprised to hear Higby boast that PlanetSide 2 had graphical settings built in that can bring any modern PC to its knees. "We have a shadow distance setting. If you go in and crank that up to ultra or max, which aren't even available in our UI right now, it does shadow rendering for your entire view distance. Being able to have shadow rendering going out two kilometers at stencil level is something that you just can't do," he said.

Ever since Crysis took a lot of hate for building in an "ultra" graphics setting that was unplayable on the gaming hardware of the time (and thus becoming the butt of the "But can it run Crysis?" gag), we haven't heard too many developers proudly talk about how our PCs can't possibly handle their game. But Higby's approach is smart: those options are only available via text commands, only to be enabled in the menu (along with uber-high-resolution, 8096x8096 textures) when GPUs catch up to SOE's future proofing in a few years. The first thing I think I'll crank up is the draw distance -- I did notice a bit of terrain pop-in as I flew over bases that I'd like to eliminate.

also

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...-shooter-today
"The engine right now has options that we can't even turn on," he says. Crikey. "Our goal has been to build a scaleable engine, something we can continue to add features to seamlessly, without having to do an engine revamp like we've done for several of our other games." He goes on to explain how the engine is prepared for much higher resolution textures, for far greater draw distances, for more detailed environmental effects. "It's impossible to be future-proof because who knows what the future's going to bring, but the ability to have graphical features that are going to be relevant in the future, that's something we've included very intentionally."

[Goku]

Yeah I'm getting a GK110 on release day.

[Rbstr]

In games that have the potential it is probably smarter to have the nicer assets from day one than to have to go and rewrite the engine like others have (...EVE is the only one I really know of...did EQ at some point?)

I'm certainly sticking to my gtx570 for now, I just can't justify upgrading a single generation for one game...but I may bump up my CPU/motherboard plans from haswell to IB. We'll see.

[Goku]

I don't see myself getting rid of my 2500K anytime soon unless Haswell is just that good. I may just wait for the enthusiast line of that.

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Goku

I don't see myself getting rid of my 2500K anytime soon unless Haswell is just that good. I may just wait for the enthusiast line of that.

Personally, I'm early anticipating to see how Haswell overclocks. I want my next build at 5 GHz+, but that can be tricky with IB, and it's not that much better anyway, so I reckon I shall save up the dough for a serious cooling system later on.

[Rbstr]

Well, I'm on an i5 750, the math is different.

Who cares what it overclocks too? If it's faster it's faster. It could run at 100hrz for all I care, as long as it's better