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

[Greeniegriz]

Congratz on 100K+ points team.

One Million here we come!

Cheers,

GG

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Honestly, I don't think the CPU is going to matter that much for graphics scaling.

You can't turn gameplay physics off so, if your CPU can't handle it, it won't matter what your graphics settings are.


I find it super funny that AMD's best only stacks up with 4 gens ago's i5/i7s

True, PS2 will probably be much more of a CPU-bottlenecked game than a GPU one... perhaps even the most CPU-bottlenecked of all given how many players SOE is aiming for.

Also, not only is AMD pretty low on that list, but I think it's quite disappointing that even its own modern architecture isn't at the top of the list.

[The Kush]

Intel Core i7-720QM Processor (1.6GHz with Turbo Boost up to 2.8GHz, 6MB L2 Cache, 1066 FSB)
6 GB DDR3 System Memory (3 Dimm) (expandable to 16 GB)
500GB (7200RPM) Hard Drive (SATA)
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
15.6" Diagonal Full High Definition LED HP Ultra Brightview Widescreen Display (1920x1080)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4830 (M97) witth up to 3835MB total graphics memory with 1 GB dedicated

Processor, Memory, and Motherboard-
Hardware Platform: PC
Processor: 1.6 GHz Intel Core i7
Number of Processors: 4
RAM: 6 GB
RAM Type: SODIMM
Hard Drive
Size: 500 GB


Can anyone tell me if this will be good? That chart says my graphics card is the minimum but the AMD site says my graphics card is really good. This laptop was $2000+ so I hope it will be good. Thanks for the help!

[Goku]

Graphics card was higher end back in 2009 when it released. Now however not so much hence why its low on the chart. However on a lower res like 1280x720-1600x900 I would expect a mix of low and med setting. 1920x1080 I see it starting to choke.

[The Kush]

Originally Posted by Goku

Graphics card was higher end back in 2009 when it released. Now however not so much hence why its low on the chart. However on a lower res like 1280x720-1600x900 I would expect a mix of low and med setting. 1920x1080 I see it starting to choke.

Okay thank you Goku!

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by The Kush

Can anyone tell me if this will be good? That chart says my graphics card is the minimum but the AMD site says my graphics card is really good. This laptop was $2000+ so I hope it will be good. Thanks for the help!

You think they'd tell you it was a shit card?
It was ok even though it was mobile, now it's both old and mobile so it's fallen quite far.

[TheBladeRoden]

OS
Windows 7 64-bit

CPU
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 2.40 GHz

Motherboard
Intel DP35DP

Memory
4 GB PC2-5300 667 MHz

Graphics Card(s)
Asus ENGTX460

Sound Card
Creative Xtreme Fatality

Monitor(s) Displays
Acer V193w

Screen Resolution
1440x900

Hard Drives
Samsung HD502HJ
Seagate Barracuda 320GB

PSU
Startech ATX2PW550PRO

[Goku]

I will say high settings with yours.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Goku

I will say high settings with yours.

Yeah my 460 did BF3 on high/medium at 40-50 fps.

[Zaerath]

I'm thinking I might be able to get away with high settings on this rig (I built it back in 2010). I'll probably need a GPU upgrade to run it on ultra-high. Confirmation anyone?

CPU
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (Thuban 45nm Technology)

RAM
8.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 535MHz (8-8-8-20)

Motherboard
ASUSTeK Computer INC. M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 (AM3)

Graphics
1023MB GeForce GTX 460 (PNY)
1920x1080 (the same res I prefer to game at)

[Goku]

Your processor is still good as is the GTX 460. If you want to run max you may need a GPU upgrade to may it tolerable (50+ FPS average).

[Mutant]

Originally Posted by Ailos

True, PS2 will probably be much more of a CPU-bottlenecked game than a GPU one... perhaps even the most CPU-bottlenecked of all given how many players SOE is aiming for.

GPU vs CPU bottleneck is highly user case dependent, since resolution/setting can be changed to move the GPU demand, the CPU demand is generally fixed.

In essence once you have a CPU that meets the games demand having higher CPU performance wont yield much improvement.

for GPU there is almost no limit to how high you can keep pushing demand by increasing the settings and resolution.

Similarly you can remove demand by reducing the resolution / settings and in doing so you could prob push GPU requirement so low that for a lot of user cases the CPU becomes the bottle neck but most people like to play with settings set a high a possible.

so to complete my ramblings;
It is very important to have a good enough CPU but once you cross that threshold GPU is king.

I suspect and decent quad core from ~Q6600+ and almost certainly a Q9400+ would not be a bottleneck

Originally Posted by Ailos

Also, not only is AMD pretty low on that list, but I think it's quite disappointing that even its own modern architecture isn't at the top of the list.

Bulldozer looks more favorable (though in general still behind intel) when you look at modern game engines designed to use all the cores. BF3 and DE:HR for example. I would hope PS2 can use more than 4 cores well.

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Mutant

It is very important to have a good enough CPU but once you cross that threshold GPU is king.

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.

WoW on the other hand, has pretty rudimentary graphics, not the least because it was originally released back in 2004. But it IS an MMO, which means the CPU has a lot more work to do tracking all the players' actions (which aren't scripted, so have to be done real-time), and is a lot more taxing on the CPU. You could have a GTX 690, but if you've got a Celeron, you're still going to be stuck at med-high settings and 40 FPS in a raid.

BF3 has both of those put together, which is why it requires such a high-end system to run it well.

We're expecting PS2 to be taking both of those issues out of proportion. The textures that they've showed us so far look GORGEOUS. And because it's a game that is truly massively multiplayer, you're going to have at least hundreds of people fighting within drawing distance. The high-level physics, ballistics, and logistical tracking HAVE to be done by the CPU, outright. AND the textures are incredibly high-detail, as is the geometry. So to play on ultra settings, you're going to need cutting edge of both GPU and CPU here. "Good enough" will not apply to PS2 like it does to WoW.

Bulldozer looks more favorable (though in general still behind intel) when you look at modern game engines designed to use all the cores. BF3 and DE:HR for example. I would hope PS2 can use more than 4 cores well.

Bulldozer isn't slow because it has too many cores, it's slow because its architecture is simply inefficient at getting data from point A to point B. If cores were everything, BD would have been better than SB-E. And is it?

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Ailos

WoW on the other hand, has pretty rudimentary graphics, not the least because it was originally released back in 2004. But it IS an MMO, which means the CPU has a lot more work to do tracking all the players' actions (which aren't scripted, so have to be done real-time), and is a lot more taxing on the CPU.

I disagree with this. Path finding for an AI is WAY more taxing than someone, or a dozen, running around.

Player input, that is movement, looking ect. is easy because it's on human time scales and a CPU is just way beyond that.

The issue is what calculations the inputs spawn. BF3's sound system is pretty involved for instance, latency-compensation for player movement, physics for the dozen objects an explosion spawned.

If these things are game-play important and not optional, every system has to do them. That's why you need "good enough" and after that it doesn't matter much at all.
The northwood-Celeron with a 690 would be able to run at high nearly as well as it would run on low - it would run like crap in all settings.
Something in the last 3 gens of i5 or better probably will probably be above the bar and the graphics card will be the main differentiation in performance.

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Path finding for an AI is WAY more taxing than someone, or a dozen, running around.

Exactly. This is why SC2 is usually a CPU-bottlenecked game.

Player input, that is movement, looking ect. is easy because it's on human time scales and a CPU is just way beyond that.

The northwood-Celeron with a 690 would be able to run at high nearly as well as it would run on low - it would run like crap in all settings.

That's true, except the issue here with a true MMO is that your and the hundreds of others' input has to be processed pretty pretty quickly for everyone to see the same stuff on the screen. And this has to go through the communication protocol that is usually managed by your OS (i.e. your CPU) since it needs to go out the ethernet cable and to the server. Server-side processing can help here, but it can't do 100% of the load and you need some client-side calculations to cope with the packet nature of the internet. Perhaps WoW wasn't the best choice for an example on my part here, but it's a pretty universal truth that the slowest experiences you have in WoW is in the capitals, where everyone likes to hang out (and not out in the dungeons or raids).

The problem with MMOs (esp. true MMOs like PS1/2) here isn't that stuff has to be processed quickly, it's that a LOT of stuff has to be processed simultaneously. That's why PS1 was always gasping for extra resources back in 2003, and that's why PS2 is going to be such a demanding title.

Perhaps that's where properly threading a game like PS2 will enable it to run well, but as McHurtz is quick to point out, not everything can be threaded.

Something in the last 3 gens of i5 or better probably will probably be above the bar and the graphics card will be the main differentiation in performance.

Agreed. My point here is that sadly, AMD's current flagship is only really competetive compared to the 1st gen i5. And that's a shame, 'cos I can't help but feel somewhat ripped off as a consumer.