Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Roggles View Post
    Your CPU seems a tad slow but other than that it looks like it should be able to run it from sheer speculation.[COLOR="red"]
    Never heard a core i7 was slow.

    I do need a mighty upgrade though :/ My VGA is a 7600gt with AMD Opteron 144 I know, I know. I badly need to upgrade.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Scripted Sigma View Post
    Never heard a core i7 was slow.

    I do need a mighty upgrade though :/ My VGA is a 7600gt with AMD Opteron 144 I know, I know. I badly need to upgrade.
    Its not thats its an i7 their multi threading is amazing and Quad cores even running at only 1.73GHz can handle a lot of information, but that depends on how well the engine makes use of multi core systems. Most games are still only designed to take advantage of Dual core CPUs, making 1.7GHz less than satisfactory for game nowadays.

  3. #23
    Yea, I mean having theorically 8 cores (i7) must be like super fast :P

  4. #24
    i have a g73 im sure your CPU has turbo mode setting it to 3.0ghz quad core. you should be fine.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Laylie View Post
    That's good news. I was concerned because I do lose frame rate in 25 mans but I guess everyone does in 25 mans unless they have super computers.
    Right. I hope the posts you've seen put you at ease. Omlech raises a good point. Unlike Bioware, Arenanet are very good at designing games in such a way that they look very, very pretty, and yet demand less from your system than (some) competitor games do. A lot of the time you can use simple tricks that, while visually nothing appears any different to the player, are saving the hardware a lot of stress.

    I do not wish to bash ToR or Bioware in particular, but I always find their games to be a LOT more system-intensive at achieving the same level of visual quality, as an example. Course, this could just be due to my particular configuration and I do not speak for others.

    Yeah, losing frames in 25 mans is pretty normal. A mid-high or high end PC released today should suffer very tiny FPS drop in 25 mans, so you don't even need a supercomputer to not notice the difference :P My old Radeon HD 6850 which is a pretty decent bang-for-buck mid range card would drop to roughly 30-40 FPS in 25 man WoW raids, maybe down to 20-30 or so if there is a silly amount of AoE happening.

    ---------- Post added 2012-01-12 at 02:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Scripted Sigma View Post
    Never heard a core i7 was slow.

    I do need a mighty upgrade though :/ My VGA is a 7600gt with AMD Opteron 144 I know, I know. I badly need to upgrade.
    Some say you should wait until the new AMD 7xxx series and the new Nvidia 7xx??? series stuff comes out. I think it is this year? It might make the current generation of top cards cheaper. I'm no expert on this - can anyone clarify? By the way the Asus and MSI stuff is awesome
    Last edited by Will; 2012-01-12 at 02:31 AM.

  6. #26
    I am Murloc! Mif's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tarnished Coast
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    Right. I hope the posts you've seen put you at ease. Omlech raises a good point. Unlike Bioware, Arenanet are very good at designing games in such a way that they look very, very pretty, and yet demand less from your system than (some) competitor games do. A lot of the time you can use simple tricks that, while visually nothing appears any different to the player, are saving the hardware a lot of stress.

    I do not wish to bash ToR or Bioware in particular, but I always find their games to be a LOT more system-intensive at achieving the same level of visual quality, as an example. Course, this could just be due to my particular configuration and I do not speak for others.
    I think it has more to do with company attitude.

    Bioware tend to focus more on storyline and not technical things, to the extent that they licensed an engine for SWTOR instead of writing their own.

    ArenaNet on the other hand was co-founded and has a current CEO who personally developed the original Battle.Net and the Warcraft 3 3D rendering engine, so it's natural that ArenaNet holds their code to very high standards.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post

    Some say you should wait until the new AMD 7xxx series and the new Nvidia 7xx??? series stuff comes out. I think it is this year? It might make the current generation of top cards cheaper. I'm no expert on this - can anyone clarify? By the way the Asus and MSI stuff is awesome
    I heard this too. I still need to wait 3-4 months until I have enough money to build a new computer, so thing might be cheaper by then :P

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Mif View Post
    Nah, it would be in ram.
    Problem here is sheer size though. 32-bit windows can at most give 3GB to any single application. If you actually shove that many objects and textures into the scene, and try to buffer it into system RAM, you will utterly rape it.

    Then there's an issue of throughput of system RAM vs speed needed for loading it in/out of video RAM of graphics card. Finally there will be nasty spikes when you have to render large areas.


    All in all, interesting technology, but I don't really see it impacting low end systems as much as high end systems, as it's the high end that will have the necessary amounts of both system and VRAM to handle larger scenes (as well as using 64-bit addressing). So it will allow for very heavy scenes on high end hardware, but on low end hardware you may run into problems visually similar to those that RAGE had, where loading textures was painfully slow without hardware transcoding causing texture "fade ins".


    On topic: In general, main problems that gaming laptops (those with proper GPU cards that have discrete memory) have with gaming is not so much performance as driver support. That said, if you can run games like rift, you will likely be able to run GW2.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky_ View Post
    Problem here is sheer size though. 32-bit windows can at most give 3GB to any single application. If you actually shove that many objects and textures into the scene, and try to buffer it into system RAM, you will utterly rape it.
    People still run 32 bit systems :S

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Balfire View Post
    People still run 32 bit systems :S
    we poor people who cant afford good comps with 4 GB+ ram for 64-bit yeah we exist still

  11. #31
    Well, 64-bit comps just aren't really a necessity at the moment other than extra ram.
    But I would say in the next 2 years pretty much everyone should be upgrading to a 64-bit.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Balfire View Post
    People still run 32 bit systems :S
    XP is essentially >95% 32-bit. There are at least as many XP systems in the world as there are W7 systems.
    Of W7 sold, quite a few are 32-bit as well. There is simply no need for 64-bit addressing unless you're planning to use more then 4GB of total RAM and there are some actual compatibility issues, especially with drivers even now.

    Additionally as of writing this, not a single game requires this, even on W7 (which has about 1GB more OS overhead then XP). I'm typing this on 64-bit system that has more then 4GB (4GB system RAM + 1GB VRAM), and this is a pretty mid high end system even now. It was even more of a high end when I assembled it about 6 months ago. I don't recall ever needing all of the system RAM on this machine in spite of multitasking across two monitors even while gaming - I could have probably made it with 32-bit XP, or even 32-bit W7 (meaning I would be able to address 3GB system RAM and 1GB VRAM).

    The most likely reason is that most game makers aim to make their games to work on 32-bit systems which cannot assign more then 2GB of system RAM to any single application without tweaks.


    As for Vista, the #1 rule of Vista is that you do not talk about Vista.
    Last edited by Lucky_; 2012-01-15 at 12:02 AM.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Mif View Post
    I think it has more to do with company attitude.

    Bioware tend to focus more on storyline and not technical things, to the extent that they licensed an engine for SWTOR instead of writing their own.

    ArenaNet on the other hand was co-founded and has a current CEO who personally developed the original Battle.Net and the Warcraft 3 3D rendering engine, so it's natural that ArenaNet holds their code to very high standards.
    Creating a whole new engine takes a lot of work and money, and if they are only using it for SWTOR it's kind of useless to create one just for that game. If you want to create an engine you will in most cases either license it or make sure it will get used a lot in future games, Bioware have created 5 engines now for standard RPGs and both licence them and use them instudio. Arenanet licenced their previous engine to NCsoft and I'm pretty confident they will do it with their current one also, it seems like arenanet wants to reinvent everything and apparently have all the time in the world so no wonder they created a new engine.

  14. #34
    if it hasn't been said: the game was being designed over the last 5 years? Pretty sure anything quad-core/gtx can handle it.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Zehkari View Post
    if it hasn't been said: the game was being designed over the last 5 years? Pretty sure anything quad-core/gtx can handle it.
    By that logic any computer built after 1997 should be able to run Duke Nukem Forever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •