Ok great my uber 18 month ago desktop runs it great.
i7 720 2.8ghz, 6GB DDR3, GTX 260M laptop - 1024 Does not meet requirements
Lol really takes the piss if thats remoteley true it wont run on anything but the highest of systems and well um we all know how well that works out don't we AOC and Vanguard.
When I try and start the benchmark my computer reboots. I got these specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
Radeon HD 4850
3GB ram
win XP
Anyone got any ideas?
So many know it alls yet none can help?
Im not as much of a know-it-all as I used to be but my first guess would be to try updating your video driver. Also your vid card may be overheating if the fan is too dusty.
Windows doesn't always include all the necessary Direct X files that you may need for this benchmark, so you'd be better off downloading them from MS's website.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I'm sorry, but these graphics are not THAT good. I find it impossible to believe it takes more computer power to run FFXIV than Age of Conan.
It's amusing to have this "benchmark" give me a score of only 800 ( supposedly I can't even start up FFXIV according to their "scale" ) even though I had no stuttering or anything else while running it.
Manufacturer:
Self
Processor:
Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E6300 @ 2.80GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Memory:
2048MB RAM
Hard Drive:
1 TB Total
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT 1GB DDR2
Monitor:
SENS 22" HDTV
Sound Card:
Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Speakers/Headphones:
5.1 run through Technics SA-DX940 Stereo Receiver
Keyboard:
Logitech
Mouse:
Logitech
Mouse Surface:
Custom
Operating System:
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)
Motherboard:
G31-M7 TE
Computer Case:
Custom
They are better than conan. The detail is far superior and that is quite obvious in the small amount of actual gameplay videos and screens that are available. I am a hardcore AoC player btw so no bias really.
Edit: Not to mention the beginner armor and gear in FF looks better than some of the endgame stuff in conan so......
The benchmark will be tweaked gosh everyone is crying about it. Not you in particular. You will get your good scores soon enough.
PS3 doesn't cost a lot, which is why XIV can afford to have actually good graphics without alienating a lot of it's userbase.
As for what would enhance your performance, CPU and GPU are pretty much even when considering updating for this game. At lower settings, good CPU will greatly enhance your score, but the higher you tweak your settings, the more the GPU starts to matter while CPU not so much.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Whats holding me back?? if i can't play this game its going to alienate a lot of people and hold back subscriptions.
Something else is seriously bogging down your computer then, or maybe you should try running it again. Your specs look fine from what I can see from 3 pieces of info... The load time looks way to high considering you have 6 gigs of ram, I only have 4 gigs and mine was half that... its got to be something else on your system.
Whats holding me back?? if i can't play this game its going to alienate a lot of people and hold back subscriptions.
Your rig is like 4 years old. I got rid of my Athlon 5600+ with a 8600GTS which was 4 years old a month ago. I wasn't really expecting to play any newly released game on DX10 or DX11 with my old computer actually...
You should also consider running the "low" benchmark. Not many people sue a 1920x1080 monitor. I sacrificed resolution for refresh rate on my end and will play in 1650x1050.
Hyanman, I have an AMD Phenom II X3 710 (2.6 ghz), is that considered a "bad" processor?
Should be getting a quad core type processor?
My GPU is a 4890 1GB.... should I save some money in the next six months and get a 5870?
which of the two above upgrades will give me the most bang for my buck...
I have Windows 7 Vista (64) and 8 Gigs of ram
Let's see, your processor is fine.
If you want to raise your high res results, get a better GPU.
If you want to raise your low res results, get a better CPU.
But since the scaling for the benchmark seems to be bit off from the testing, it might be wise to wait until you get to see for yourself how you perform. This benchmark may be harsher than it would seem, and in-game results may be much better than the score you get here. Speculation, anyway.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Hyanman, I have an AMD Phenom II X3 710 (2.6 ghz), is that considered a "bad" processor?
Should be getting a quad core type processor?
My GPU is a 4890 1GB.... should I save some money in the next six months and get a 5870?
which of the two above upgrades will give me the most bang for my buck...
I have Windows 7 Vista (64) and 8 Gigs of ram
Let's see, your processor is fine.
If you want to raise your high res results, get a better GPU.
If you want to raise your low res results, get a better CPU.
But since the scaling for the benchmark seems to be bit off from the testing, it might be wise to wait until you get to see for yourself how you perform. This benchmark may be harsher than it would seem, and in-game results may be much better than the score you get here. Speculation, anyway.
I posted this in another forum.... I think you're right Hyanman.
Ok I ran the test a couple of times with Fraps on....
When looking at the blue graph, you'll notice that 60 FPS is around 80% from the bottom of the graph, whereas 20FPS is the bottom of the blue graph. It seems obvious that SE is using a constant 60 FPS as the "benchmark" for the scores.
During the test, without Fraps running, the lowest FPS was 25.... During the action sequences I averaged 30-37 FPS. During the still sequences, like the beginning of the video, I averaged 50-60 FPS.
If My current rig is able to run the game on 30 FPS, on average, that is fine by me.
I think to get a score of 5k+ you need to average 60 FPS throughout the whole benchmark..... that's overkill.
My score on low is 2928 pretty low imo since my pc is not that bad and can play on high all or almost all games I know.
Win 7 64 bit
Geforce GTS 250 512MB
Asus P5QD Turbo
Quad Core 2.66 GHZ
6 GB Ram
1 TB Hard disk
Use 1680 by 1050 dunno if I had to test it on high or low but it takes a bit of time and don't want to wait all that time again specially since my GPU temperature was at 95 degrees....
They need to low the system requirements if they want a decent/great sum of population don't make it sort of another AoC were it had a high system requirements for it's age and many people with lower end pcs couldn't try it.
Ok I ran the test a couple of times with Fraps on....
When looking at the blue graph, you'll notice that 60 FPS is around 80% from the bottom of the graph, whereas 20FPS is the bottom of the blue graph. It seems obvious that SE is using a constant 60 FPS as the "benchmark" for the scores.
During the test, without Fraps running, the lowest FPS was 25.... During the action sequences I averaged 30-37 FPS. During the still sequences, like the beginning of the video, I averaged 50-60 FPS.
If My current rig is able to run the game on 30 FPS, on average, that is fine by me.
I think to get a score of 5k+ you need to average 60 FPS throughout the whole benchmark..... that's overkill.
Hrm...didn't think to try running Fraps and see what FPS I was getting. For the most part my PC held a consistent 46-54fps during the bulk of the Benchmark, and then a few times during the initial scenes when the masses of monsters appeared on deck and came over the edge of the bost I saw my FPS drop to between 32-37, but went right back up to an avg of 50. There were even a few moments I saw my FPS jump as high as 74-83.
So yeah its definite that this Benchmark is tooled for a constant 60fps which is prolly why so many gamers PCs are hitting really low numbers on their scale. FFXI runs at a capped 30fps and I've been more than happy wth that for years and besides the human eye can only keep track of 60fps anyway, so as long as I'm getting at least 30fps and up to 54fps I'm more than happy with my score. Course once I upgrade to the GTX 480 later this year, I'm expecting at least another 1300-1700 points...
I am not overclocking anything either, since I leave my PC running 24/7. Course on a daily basis I'm prolly using it a good 14-to-18 of those 24hrs...hehe
Well this is mine, happy enough with it. Seems that 5870 beats the 480s
My system in sig.
My load times are a bit crappy, might be that I can't be bothered to extract it from the zip file - but that shouldn't make too much diff to the score itself.
Core i5 13600KF, BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard
Hyanman, I have an AMD Phenom II X3 710 (2.6 ghz), is that considered a "bad" processor?
Should be getting a quad core type processor?
My GPU is a 4890 1GB.... should I save some money in the next six months and get a 5870?
which of the two above upgrades will give me the most bang for my buck...
I have Windows 7 Vista (64) and 8 Gigs of ram
Let's see, your processor is fine.
If you want to raise your high res results, get a better GPU.
If you want to raise your low res results, get a better CPU.
But since the scaling for the benchmark seems to be bit off from the testing, it might be wise to wait until you get to see for yourself how you perform. This benchmark may be harsher than it would seem, and in-game results may be much better than the score you get here. Speculation, anyway.
I checked.... My CPU never got over 65% capacity at any point during the benchmark. I'll upgrade to a Ati 5870 six months down the road.... i think the prices will come down by then... at least by a hundred dollars....hopefully.
I'm building this rig to play crysis 2 and other crap, but will this cut it for FFXIV?
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz, 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
128GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
NVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480
Obviously the FFXIV is going in the SSD, may need to upgrade to a 160gb one to fit all my stuff tho
Why so much memory? Are you gonna be doing hd video or audio rendering? Honestly, you don't need that much ram it is overkill. Go with 6 gb or if you feel you need a lot cap off at like 12 gb. But not 24, unless of course you have different uses for it than gaming. Otherwise, you will not utilize it. Spend the extra money on another gpu, or just save the money. Yes, it will run Final Fantasy for sure though.
When I try and start the benchmark my computer reboots. I got these specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
Radeon HD 4850
3GB ram
win XP
Anyone got any ideas?
So many know it alls yet none can help?
Im not as much of a know-it-all as I used to be but my first guess would be to try updating your video driver. Also your vid card may be overheating if the fan is too dusty.
I'm building this rig to play crysis 2 and other crap, but will this cut it for FFXIV?
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz, 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
128GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
NVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480
Obviously the FFXIV is going in the SSD, may need to upgrade to a 160gb one to fit all my stuff tho
Why so much memory? Are you gonna be doing hd video or audio rendering? Honestly, you don't need that much ram it is overkill. Go with 6 gb or if you feel you need a lot cap off at like 12 gb. But not 24, unless of course you have different uses for it than gaming. Otherwise, you will not utilize it. Spend the extra money on another gpu, or just save the money. Yes, it will run Final Fantasy for sure though.
It's a ploy. It's one of those garbage "look at me and my amazing (soon to be) computer."
Obviously a PC like that can run the game. There's no other reason he would post that except to enlarge his e-peen.
I'm building this rig to play crysis 2 and other crap, but will this cut it for FFXIV?
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz, 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
128GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
NVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480
Obviously the FFXIV is going in the SSD, may need to upgrade to a 160gb one to fit all my stuff tho
Why so much memory? Are you gonna be doing hd video or audio rendering? Honestly, you don't need that much ram it is overkill. Go with 6 gb or if you feel you need a lot cap off at like 12 gb. But not 24, unless of course you have different uses for it than gaming. Otherwise, you will not utilize it. Spend the extra money on another gpu, or just save the money. Yes, it will run Final Fantasy for sure though.
It's a ploy. It's one of those garbage "look at me and my amazing (soon to be) computer."
Obviously a PC like that can run the game. There's no other reason he would post that except to enlarge his e-peen.
Actually it's a bluff to sound like a good builder. Any DECENT PC builder knows that more is not better, and faster = better. 24GB of 1333mhz is CRAP compared to 6GB of 1600mhz RAM, and quite literally would stomp the 24GB of 1333mhz's ram since FF14 will at MAX utilize 2GB of ram, with his OS using roughly 700mb of ram. Essentially it's a 3GB of 1333 ram vs 3GB of utilized 1600mhz (or 1800OC'ed RAM).
The guy is tool, and probably is just wasting $$$.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I'm building this rig to play crysis 2 and other crap, but will this cut it for FFXIV?
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz, 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
128GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
NVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480
Obviously the FFXIV is going in the SSD, may need to upgrade to a 160gb one to fit all my stuff tho
Why so much memory? Are you gonna be doing hd video or audio rendering? Honestly, you don't need that much ram it is overkill. Go with 6 gb or if you feel you need a lot cap off at like 12 gb. But not 24, unless of course you have different uses for it than gaming. Otherwise, you will not utilize it. Spend the extra money on another gpu, or just save the money. Yes, it will run Final Fantasy for sure though.
It's a ploy. It's one of those garbage "look at me and my amazing (soon to be) computer."
Obviously a PC like that can run the game. There's no other reason he would post that except to enlarge his e-peen.
Actually it's a bluff to sound like a good builder. Any DECENT PC builder knows that more is not better, and faster = better. 24GB of 1333mhz is CRAP compared to 6GB of 1600mhz RAM, and quite literally would stomp the 24GB of 1333mhz's ram since FF14 will at MAX utilize 2GB of ram, with his OS using roughly 700mb of ram. Essentially it's a 3GB of 1333 ram vs 3GB of utilized 1600mhz (or 1800OC'ed RAM).
The guy is tool, and probably is just wasting $$$.
Haha both good insights. I just looked at him as a helpless soul, but those are both more valid ways to look at it.
I'm building this rig to play crysis 2 and other crap, but will this cut it for FFXIV?
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz, 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
128GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
NVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480
Obviously the FFXIV is going in the SSD, may need to upgrade to a 160gb one to fit all my stuff tho
...
With that budget you're not even considering going SLI x2 or x3 ????
What is wrong with people just throwing big numbers to impress...
I should warn you. This is only my 2nd rig and I'm a total noob (think I got cheated by the f***heads at simlim square the first time round). What is SLI x2? Also, it has to be 3d capable as I'm playing in 3d.
This rig isn't super expensive or anything... about 3k US$ its probably cheaper where I live but meh I'm paying in singapore dollar.
If I was a pro builder do you think I'll be asking you?
Comments
Is this tool a joke ?
I hope it isnt a indicator of true values or FF is already set to fail.
Q9450 @ 4ghz 6gb DDR2, 2 x 285 GTX Matrix' - 5724 score
Ok great my uber 18 month ago desktop runs it great.
i7 720 2.8ghz, 6GB DDR3, GTX 260M laptop - 1024 Does not meet requirements
Lol really takes the piss if thats remoteley true it wont run on anything but the highest of systems and well um we all know how well that works out don't we AOC and Vanguard.
So many know it alls yet none can help?
A peep at BlueGartr with a 980X and 5850 is nearly at 9000 at High.
Please, no DBZ over 9000 joke. Or you will die a horrible death.
I'm building this rig to play crysis 2 and other crap, but will this cut it for FFXIV?
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz, 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
128GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
NVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480
Obviously the FFXIV is going in the SSD, may need to upgrade to a 160gb one to fit all my stuff tho
Im not as much of a know-it-all as I used to be but my first guess would be to try updating your video driver. Also your vid card may be overheating if the fan is too dusty.
Windows doesn't always include all the necessary Direct X files that you may need for this benchmark, so you'd be better off downloading them from MS's website.
They are better than conan. The detail is far superior and that is quite obvious in the small amount of actual gameplay videos and screens that are available. I am a hardcore AoC player btw so no bias really.
Edit: Not to mention the beginner armor and gear in FF looks better than some of the endgame stuff in conan so......
The benchmark will be tweaked gosh everyone is crying about it. Not you in particular. You will get your good scores soon enough.
...
With that budget you're not even considering going SLI x2 or x3 ????
What is wrong with people just throwing big numbers to impress...
Wow guys I got
Score: 692 LOL
Load Time : 21032
I guess im not playing this game, and that's kinda bad considering I thought I had an alright rig.
I have a Nvidia 8600GTS
Intel core duo E650 @233Ghz
6 Gigs of Ram.
Whats holding me back?? if i can't play this game its going to alienate a lot of people and hold back subscriptions.
PS3 doesn't cost a lot, which is why XIV can afford to have actually good graphics without alienating a lot of it's userbase.
As for what would enhance your performance, CPU and GPU are pretty much even when considering updating for this game. At lower settings, good CPU will greatly enhance your score, but the higher you tweak your settings, the more the GPU starts to matter while CPU not so much.
Something else is seriously bogging down your computer then, or maybe you should try running it again. Your specs look fine from what I can see from 3 pieces of info... The load time looks way to high considering you have 6 gigs of ram, I only have 4 gigs and mine was half that... its got to be something else on your system.
Hyanman, I have an AMD Phenom II X3 710 (2.6 ghz), is that considered a "bad" processor?
Should be getting a quad core type processor?
My GPU is a 4890 1GB.... should I save some money in the next six months and get a 5870?
which of the two above upgrades will give me the most bang for my buck...
I have Windows 7 Vista (64) and 8 Gigs of ram
Your rig is like 4 years old. I got rid of my Athlon 5600+ with a 8600GTS which was 4 years old a month ago. I wasn't really expecting to play any newly released game on DX10 or DX11 with my old computer actually...
You should also consider running the "low" benchmark. Not many people sue a 1920x1080 monitor. I sacrificed resolution for refresh rate on my end and will play in 1650x1050.
Like Hyan said, PS3 is always an option.
Let's see, your processor is fine.
If you want to raise your high res results, get a better GPU.
If you want to raise your low res results, get a better CPU.
But since the scaling for the benchmark seems to be bit off from the testing, it might be wise to wait until you get to see for yourself how you perform. This benchmark may be harsher than it would seem, and in-game results may be much better than the score you get here. Speculation, anyway.
I posted this in another forum.... I think you're right Hyanman.
Ok I ran the test a couple of times with Fraps on....
When looking at the blue graph, you'll notice that 60 FPS is around 80% from the bottom of the graph, whereas 20FPS is the bottom of the blue graph. It seems obvious that SE is using a constant 60 FPS as the "benchmark" for the scores.
My computer specs are as follows:
AMD Phenom II X3 710 (2.6 GHZ)
Ati Radeon 4890 1GB
8 Gigs of Kingston HyperX @1066
Windows 7 Vista (64)
I've been averaging 2300-2400 score on Hi Res.
During the test, without Fraps running, the lowest FPS was 25.... During the action sequences I averaged 30-37 FPS. During the still sequences, like the beginning of the video, I averaged 50-60 FPS.
If My current rig is able to run the game on 30 FPS, on average, that is fine by me.
I think to get a score of 5k+ you need to average 60 FPS throughout the whole benchmark..... that's overkill.
My score on low is 2928 pretty low imo since my pc is not that bad and can play on high all or almost all games I know.
Win 7 64 bit
Geforce GTS 250 512MB
Asus P5QD Turbo
Quad Core 2.66 GHZ
6 GB Ram
1 TB Hard disk
Use 1680 by 1050 dunno if I had to test it on high or low but it takes a bit of time and don't want to wait all that time again specially since my GPU temperature was at 95 degrees....
They need to low the system requirements if they want a decent/great sum of population don't make it sort of another AoC were it had a high system requirements for it's age and many people with lower end pcs couldn't try it.
Hrm...didn't think to try running Fraps and see what FPS I was getting. For the most part my PC held a consistent 46-54fps during the bulk of the Benchmark, and then a few times during the initial scenes when the masses of monsters appeared on deck and came over the edge of the bost I saw my FPS drop to between 32-37, but went right back up to an avg of 50. There were even a few moments I saw my FPS jump as high as 74-83.
So yeah its definite that this Benchmark is tooled for a constant 60fps which is prolly why so many gamers PCs are hitting really low numbers on their scale. FFXI runs at a capped 30fps and I've been more than happy wth that for years and besides the human eye can only keep track of 60fps anyway, so as long as I'm getting at least 30fps and up to 54fps I'm more than happy with my score. Course once I upgrade to the GTX 480 later this year, I'm expecting at least another 1300-1700 points...
My PC:
AMD AM3 Phenom II x4 3.2
ASUS 790X MB
nVidia GTX 275 896mb ---upgrading later this yr to---> nVidia GTX 480 1536mb
40" Proscan HDTV running in 1600*1200
8GB AData DDR3 1600 RAM
Antec 750w PS
Hitachi 1TB 7200rpm HDD ~ Am now considering getting an SSD just for FFXIV!
SpinQ VT fan/heatsink
I am not overclocking anything either, since I leave my PC running 24/7. Course on a daily basis I'm prolly using it a good 14-to-18 of those 24hrs...hehe
Well this is mine, happy enough with it. Seems that 5870 beats the 480s
My system in sig.
My load times are a bit crappy, might be that I can't be bothered to extract it from the zip file - but that shouldn't make too much diff to the score itself.
Core i5 13600KF, BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard
I checked.... My CPU never got over 65% capacity at any point during the benchmark. I'll upgrade to a Ati 5870 six months down the road.... i think the prices will come down by then... at least by a hundred dollars....hopefully.
Why so much memory? Are you gonna be doing hd video or audio rendering? Honestly, you don't need that much ram it is overkill. Go with 6 gb or if you feel you need a lot cap off at like 12 gb. But not 24, unless of course you have different uses for it than gaming. Otherwise, you will not utilize it. Spend the extra money on another gpu, or just save the money. Yes, it will run Final Fantasy for sure though.
Thanks I will check those 2 out.
It's a ploy. It's one of those garbage "look at me and my amazing (soon to be) computer."
Obviously a PC like that can run the game. There's no other reason he would post that except to enlarge his e-peen.
Actually it's a bluff to sound like a good builder. Any DECENT PC builder knows that more is not better, and faster = better. 24GB of 1333mhz is CRAP compared to 6GB of 1600mhz RAM, and quite literally would stomp the 24GB of 1333mhz's ram since FF14 will at MAX utilize 2GB of ram, with his OS using roughly 700mb of ram. Essentially it's a 3GB of 1333 ram vs 3GB of utilized 1600mhz (or 1800OC'ed RAM).
The guy is tool, and probably is just wasting $$$.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Haha both good insights. I just looked at him as a helpless soul, but those are both more valid ways to look at it.
I should warn you. This is only my 2nd rig and I'm a total noob (think I got cheated by the f***heads at simlim square the first time round). What is SLI x2? Also, it has to be 3d capable as I'm playing in 3d.
This rig isn't super expensive or anything... about 3k US$ its probably cheaper where I live but meh I'm paying in singapore dollar.
If I was a pro builder do you think I'll be asking you?
EDIT: New plan
Intel® Core™ i7 980X (3.33GHz (4.2 overclocked), 12MB)
24GB (6X4GB) DDR3 SDRAM 1600MHz Memory
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with Native Command Queuing
160GB High Performance SATA Additional Solid State Drive
2xNVIDIA 1.5GB GeForce GTX480 (3d capable)
Will it work and how can I improve it? And what the hell is SSL?
Pl0x help thx
EDIT EDIT:
BTW I NEED that much ram. I'm multiclienting.