My pc is a little old, but I upgrade various parts once in a while. With the following specs I got 2300 on high and 2500 on low:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 8190MB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series (a 5850 card aprox 1 month old) - I also have an Nivida card a 285gtx which supposedly is very similar performance wise, but I didnt swap it in to test with.
This computer has served me well. It plays AoC on high settings, as well as Aion without stuttering or any issues that I have noticed.
Untill I took the benchmark test I thought it was a perfectly adequate pc for current mmo gaming. I was dissapointed with how poorly it performed on the test.
My pc is a little old, but I upgrade various parts once in a while. With the following specs I got 2300 on high and 2500 on low:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 8190MB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series (a 5850 card aprox 1 month old) - I also have an Nivida card a 285gtx which supposedly is very similar performance wise, but I didnt swap it in to test with.
This computer has served me well. It plays AoC on high settings, as well as Aion without stuttering or any issues that I have noticed.
Untill I took the benchmark test I thought it was a perfectly adequate pc for current mmo gaming. I was dissapointed with how poorly it performed on the test.
my brother gets 2800 almos ton low with a 4850 and a am3 phenom 2 3.1 ghz cpu
The low is extremely processor dependant. Not sure if the game will be as such but a crazy high end processor and ok graphics card will stomp a mid processor and top of the line graphics card on low, vice versa on high(assuming the processor isn't bottlenecking atleast).
The low is extremely processor dependant. Not sure if the game will be as such but a crazy high end processor and ok graphics card will stomp a mid processor and top of the line graphics card on low, vice versa on high(assuming the processor isn't bottlenecking atleast).
I do not believe this for a mili second. Why?
Easy CPUI OC liek champs baby (often w/o any draw backs . yes you Intel and amd a bit also). Video cards however not so much.
Edit - video cards do oc just not often as well nor without lifespan issues/heat. (or more of these).
I have a q6600 at 3.2 and thats my low OC, it hits 3.4 but i feel like this is a tad scary. (Your not suppost to gain a entire 1 Ghz on air, i know i got lucky) But reguardless of luck, any go stepped q6600 should hit 3.0ghz with little to no voltage / heat increase. (a bit of full load w/ testign software heat maybe noticed). Anyway, i can bump my 260 gtx 210 (already oced stock) up a bit, but no where close to a 35% speed increase w.o volting and getting some serious heat. Some cards may differ, but most that i have used are similar in this.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
The low is extremely processor dependant. Not sure if the game will be as such but a crazy high end processor and ok graphics card will stomp a mid processor and top of the line graphics card on low, vice versa on high(assuming the processor isn't bottlenecking atleast).
I do not believe this for a mili second. Why?
Easy CPUI OC liek champs baby (often w/o any draw backs . yes you Intel and amd a bit also). Video cards however not so much.
Edit - video cards do oc just not often as well nor without lifespan issues/heat. (or more of these).
I have a q6600 at 3.2 and thats my low OC, it hits 3.4 but i feel like this is a tad scary. (Your not suppost to gain a entire 1 Ghz on air, i know i got lucky) But reguardless of luck, any go stepped q6600 should hit 3.0ghz with little to no voltage / heat increase. (a bit of full load w/ testign software heat maybe noticed). Anyway, i can bump my 260 gtx 210 (already oced stock) up a bit, but no where close to a 35% speed increase w.o volting and getting some serious heat. Some cards may differ, but most that i have used are similar in this.
Wow, I heard of people getting it around the 3.10 mark but rare to hear of someone getting 3.4. I have the same CPU and I only bumped it to around the 2.6 mark for gaming, but i usually just keep it around the 2.4 range. Games look fine and run fine, and I have no issues on 3d programs with the stock setting.
As for the benchmark I will wait and see what happens come release time. I remember S.E's last benchmark and how it wasn't really accurate, and the game really didn't match exactly what it was pushing out. Another thing is I still question how this game will actually run. I remember I could run at maxed out settings onthe last one, but the way it was designed some situations in game required me to really dumb down the settings.
Really shocked to see on low setting my system actually worked harder then it did while it ewas running on high. The high setting had spikes in CPU usage here and there, but low seemed to have it working much harder almost the whole time.
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435)
Based on the minimum specs, I think I should be able to run the game
Hate to say it, but that computer is a little weak. The 9500GT is a mediocre card at best and it's getting old. The processor is decent, you're low on ram. You actually don't meet the minimum specs. You need a 9600 at minimum, so your computer is just under what's required.
I OCed my P 2 x4 940 from 3.0 ghz to 3.4 ghz and it did not make much of a difference at all. So I doubt that the processor is more important than the gpu.
I OCed my P 2 x4 940 from 3.0 ghz to 3.4 ghz and it did not make much of a difference at all. So I doubt that the processor is more important than the gpu.
Based on the LOW of the benchmark, not a real game, processor is very important. Considering how the benchmark is only a benchmark and seemingly not a great one at that, don't justify anything based solely on it but yes for it and it's low score a processor is very important. Your one anecdotal example really doesn't mean a whole lot.
I'm getting a score of 2999 on High Res, which is the only one I care about as I will not run a game not near its max settings.
I'm running:
I7-930 Oc'd to 3.98(running at 4 cores, not 8)
6gig ddr 1600 running standard
GTX 285 1gb ddr5
Really really low in my opinion. I'll turn my other cores on and test it although I only run it at 3.6 due to the heat I get. Regardless of what this is, I'll wait until the game is released to purchase a new video card if need be. (Probably looking at dual SLI 460's as they seem to be a nice upgrade and produce better than a single 480 at less cost to boot.)
I've found that it doesn't matter about the specs, but everything as well. I've ran games that do not even meet minimum specs on machines before that are built only for a game and run them flawlessly do to what is installed and how many processes the machine has running. So my advice for everyone is to wait until they get the game to see what kind of upgrade you need if your overall within 18months of being a new PC.
I have some insight on upgrades though. I recently upgraded to the Phenom II x6, new motherboard and ram. Here are my results with the old set up:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 (2.2Ghz)
Ram: 4GB DDR 800
Video NVidia 260GTX
OS: Windows 7 x64
Low Res: 2067
High Res: 1930
With the old Athlon processor, it seems the CPU was the main bottleneck, in fact, my low res score was barely higher than the high rez. With the CPU/Motherboard/RAM upgrade, but same GPU, my low res score more than doubled (+125%), were as my High Res score only increased by +44%.
So, it appears that now my bottleneck, at least at High Res, has become the video card, rather than the CPU.
Does the Benchmark use multicore CPU's? or just a single core??
It uses multi-cores. Based on a little testing, I'm guessing it only uses up to 4 cores. I have a hexa core processor and there is no difference between running it on 4 cores vs 6, but a definite difference if I only run it on 2 cores.
OCZSSD2- 100 GB vertex 2 S-Ata (I think it is needed for all MMo's), data swapping is more important than graphics. You get a 5X faster data read than an average HD. http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html
Samsung HD 1 TB
according to a few sources I gathered Nvidia still handles effects better than the raw power of ATI and the new 465 was relatively cheap - 250 dollars.
Anyone has an idea how much the benchmark could be ? (since I am only getting it in 10 days).
according to a few sources I gathered Nvidia still handles effects better than the raw power of ATI and the new 465 was relatively cheap - 250 dollars.
Lol I don't know what that means....anyway, I'd imagine your high will be 3500+.
according to a few sources I gathered Nvidia still handles effects better than the raw power of ATI and the new 465 was relatively cheap - 250 dollars.
Lol I don't know what that means....anyway, I'd imagine your high will be 3500+.
Thank you for the answer... odd that no one mentions the super fast SSD hard disks above.
MMO's will get boosted in the coming years with these. 5X fatser data transfers are more important than a 30 % gain in video output.
Comments
its a phenom 2 940 running at 3.4 ghz could go higher if mobo had the newer chipset on it
Phenom II 940 @3ghz ; and crossfire 3870 and got 2700 on low. Can't say I'm too surprized, my graphics cards are old.
My pc is a little old, but I upgrade various parts once in a while. With the following specs I got 2300 on high and 2500 on low:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 8190MB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series (a 5850 card aprox 1 month old) - I also have an Nivida card a 285gtx which supposedly is very similar performance wise, but I didnt swap it in to test with.
This computer has served me well. It plays AoC on high settings, as well as Aion without stuttering or any issues that I have noticed.
Untill I took the benchmark test I thought it was a perfectly adequate pc for current mmo gaming. I was dissapointed with how poorly it performed on the test.
my brother gets 2800 almos ton low with a 4850 and a am3 phenom 2 3.1 ghz cpu
gt full screen to work for the crossfire to work you should be getting 3000 on high at leat
The low is extremely processor dependant. Not sure if the game will be as such but a crazy high end processor and ok graphics card will stomp a mid processor and top of the line graphics card on low, vice versa on high(assuming the processor isn't bottlenecking atleast).
I'm sure if you just turn off "volumetric clouds" it will run great! /Vangaurd
I do not believe this for a mili second. Why?
Easy CPUI OC liek champs baby (often w/o any draw backs . yes you Intel and amd a bit also). Video cards however not so much.
Edit - video cards do oc just not often as well nor without lifespan issues/heat. (or more of these).
I have a q6600 at 3.2 and thats my low OC, it hits 3.4 but i feel like this is a tad scary. (Your not suppost to gain a entire 1 Ghz on air, i know i got lucky) But reguardless of luck, any go stepped q6600 should hit 3.0ghz with little to no voltage / heat increase. (a bit of full load w/ testign software heat maybe noticed). Anyway, i can bump my 260 gtx 210 (already oced stock) up a bit, but no where close to a 35% speed increase w.o volting and getting some serious heat. Some cards may differ, but most that i have used are similar in this.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
I don't think you know what I'm talking about
On the benchmark, this crappy benchmark and ONLY the benchmark, a high end processor and good gpu will beat a good processor and awesome gpu.
http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94743
The guy with the highest "low" score only has a 5850, but a i7 980x, and he is STOMPING the 5870's. That trend continues down the chart.
4450 on high, 4700 on low.
Guess I'm CPU limiting the 5870
i get alil higher score on high : /
Wow, I heard of people getting it around the 3.10 mark but rare to hear of someone getting 3.4. I have the same CPU and I only bumped it to around the 2.6 mark for gaming, but i usually just keep it around the 2.4 range. Games look fine and run fine, and I have no issues on 3d programs with the stock setting.
As for the benchmark I will wait and see what happens come release time. I remember S.E's last benchmark and how it wasn't really accurate, and the game really didn't match exactly what it was pushing out. Another thing is I still question how this game will actually run. I remember I could run at maxed out settings onthe last one, but the way it was designed some situations in game required me to really dumb down the settings.
Really shocked to see on low setting my system actually worked harder then it did while it ewas running on high. The high setting had spikes in CPU usage here and there, but low seemed to have it working much harder almost the whole time.
Does the Benchmark use multicore CPU's? or just a single core??
I got a score of 925, even though my computer is pretty powerful.
Here are my computer specs:
Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 240 Processor, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Memory: 2046MB RAM
Hard Drive: 250 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
Sound Card: Realtek HD Audio output
Speakers/Headphones:
Keyboard: USB Root Hub
Mouse: USB Root Hub
Mouse Surface:
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435)
Based on the minimum specs, I think I should be able to run the game
gfx card is hurting you the most but so is the cpu but just upgrading the cpu wont be enough. i would say go for 5770 or higher
Hate to say it, but that computer is a little weak. The 9500GT is a mediocre card at best and it's getting old. The processor is decent, you're low on ram. You actually don't meet the minimum specs. You need a 9600 at minimum, so your computer is just under what's required.
I OCed my P 2 x4 940 from 3.0 ghz to 3.4 ghz and it did not make much of a difference at all. So I doubt that the processor is more important than the gpu.
Based on the LOW of the benchmark, not a real game, processor is very important. Considering how the benchmark is only a benchmark and seemingly not a great one at that, don't justify anything based solely on it but yes for it and it's low score a processor is very important. Your one anecdotal example really doesn't mean a whole lot.
5005 on Low
3533 on High
Intel i7 930 (2.8 ghz)
6 GB DDR3 RAM
XFX ATi Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Everyone needs to calm down. The game is going to run much better than your results are leading you on. Trust me.
"He who cannot draw on 3,000 years is living hand-to-mouth." -Goethe
I'm getting a score of 2999 on High Res, which is the only one I care about as I will not run a game not near its max settings.
I'm running:
I7-930 Oc'd to 3.98(running at 4 cores, not 8)
6gig ddr 1600 running standard
GTX 285 1gb ddr5
Really really low in my opinion. I'll turn my other cores on and test it although I only run it at 3.6 due to the heat I get. Regardless of what this is, I'll wait until the game is released to purchase a new video card if need be. (Probably looking at dual SLI 460's as they seem to be a nice upgrade and produce better than a single 480 at less cost to boot.)
I've found that it doesn't matter about the specs, but everything as well. I've ran games that do not even meet minimum specs on machines before that are built only for a game and run them flawlessly do to what is installed and how many processes the machine has running. So my advice for everyone is to wait until they get the game to see what kind of upgrade you need if your overall within 18months of being a new PC.
CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 @3.6 Ghz
Ram: 4GB DDR 1600
Video: NVidia 260GTX
OS: Windows 7 x64
Low Res: 4664
High Res: 2777
I have some insight on upgrades though. I recently upgraded to the Phenom II x6, new motherboard and ram. Here are my results with the old set up:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 (2.2Ghz)
Ram: 4GB DDR 800
Video NVidia 260GTX
OS: Windows 7 x64
Low Res: 2067
High Res: 1930
With the old Athlon processor, it seems the CPU was the main bottleneck, in fact, my low res score was barely higher than the high rez. With the CPU/Motherboard/RAM upgrade, but same GPU, my low res score more than doubled (+125%), were as my High Res score only increased by +44%.
So, it appears that now my bottleneck, at least at High Res, has become the video card, rather than the CPU.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
It uses multi-cores. Based on a little testing, I'm guessing it only uses up to 4 cores. I have a hexa core processor and there is no difference between running it on 4 cores vs 6, but a definite difference if I only run it on 2 cores.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Ordered yesterday a payable system:
MSI X58M DDR socket I7 Intel X58 motherboard.
Intel Core I7 930 45NMN (quad).
6GB Ram Patriot.
GTX-465 1GB DDR5
OCZSSD2- 100 GB vertex 2 S-Ata (I think it is needed for all MMo's), data swapping is more important than graphics. You get a 5X faster data read than an average HD. http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html
Samsung HD 1 TB
according to a few sources I gathered Nvidia still handles effects better than the raw power of ATI and the new 465 was relatively cheap - 250 dollars.
Anyone has an idea how much the benchmark could be ? (since I am only getting it in 10 days).
Lol I don't know what that means....anyway, I'd imagine your high will be 3500+.
Thank you for the answer... odd that no one mentions the super fast SSD hard disks above.
MMO's will get boosted in the coming years with these. 5X fatser data transfers are more important than a 30 % gain in video output.