14 replies to this topic

[MyCatTequila]

Ok i know my PC is a old hunk of crap but it's all i have. I don't have the luxury of spending loads on a new build all I have is a hypothetical £50 to make my gaming experience a little more bearable,

Current Spec:
CPU: Intel Celron E3200

RAM: 2Gig DDR2@399Mhz

GFX: AMD Radeon HD6670

Generic HP motherboard

All mounted in a real getto case and CPU I bought for £20!

At the moment current games are payable with the average FPS being about 16-19 however this drops and gets real jerky as more is going on (mainly if close up)

So do i go for more RAM or a better second hand CPU?

Help me obi wa...

you get the idea

Ben

[Catamount]

That GPU is underwhelming but not atrociously bad; it'll physically play games. I don't usually go for CPU upgrades in these threads, but in your case, that definitely seems to be the weak link. Get a new CPU (C2D E8400 if your socket supports it; that should be plenty) and put down the few bucks to upgrade your RAM.

Just get something like this for RAM: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231207

And here's where you get get a used E8400 cheap: http://www.amazon.co...&condition=used


Your machine will still be less than ideal, but a 6670 with an E8400 should definitely play games (including MWO) at least reasonably smoothly, if at reduced settings. For $100, I'd say that's an okay upgrade.

Edited by Catamount, 23 September 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[CG Chicken Kn]

Quad core cpu.
And whatever you need to do that in your system.
Make sure your cpu cooler is up to it.

[Sug]

MyCatTequila, on 23 September 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

.. all I have is a hypothetical £50 to make my gaming experience a little more bearable,

Take that £50, buy some lotto tickets and pray you win enough to buy a totally new computer.


Why are people recommending upgrades to CPU and Ram when they have no idea what his motherboard can handle? Or his power supply? Or what operating system he's running?

I just wouldn't waste my money on buying 3 year old tech just to meet the minimum requirements for a game that's not even out yet. Try to save like £50 a month for the few months until MWO is release and upgrade your system properly.

Edited by Sug, 23 September 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Catamount]

Sug, on 23 September 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Why are people recommending upgrades to CPU and Ram when they have no idea what his motherboard can handle? Or his power supply? Or what operating system he's running?

Because his motherboard and PSU can handle an E8400 if it can handle an E3200, those both being 65W Penryn dual cores, and there isn't a plausible reason to think the specific OS (whether it's Vista, 7, or even XP) will make a significant difference. At worst, he's on a 32-bit OS that can't handle 4GB of RAM, but having 3GB is still better than having 2GB, and as long as he's running Vista or 7 (which a computer of that generation presumably is), he can install the 64-bit version if he doesn't have it, because the license key entitles you to either the 32 and 64 bit version.

As for the type of RAM in regards to his motherboard, if, by chance, a motherboard that late in LGA775's lifecycle really can't handle DDR2-800 (wut?), then it can clock the RAM to 667mhz.

Quote

I just wouldn't waste my money on buying 3 year old tech just to meet the minimum requirements for a game that's not even out yet. Try to save like £50 a month for the few months until MWO is release and upgrade your system properly.

He's going to be upgrading old tech no matter what he does, which makes it pointless to spend more than a little bit on this upgrade. The "proper" upgrade for this system is to replace it outright, but obviously that's not in the cards. 50 pounds is too little, so more saving should be done, but this is hardly a case where he should be spending several hundred to try to scrape mid-high end performance out of something this old.

[TheFlayedman]

dont buy a core 2 duo to play this game you will be disappointed by the performace dropping to 5 fps at times. A quad core cpu is essential it seems fore this ge.

[Catamount]

It's more complicated than dual core vs quad core. Obviously a Q6600 wouldn't be faster than a Core i3 3240. A Q6600 is also slower than an E8400 (well, it's the same speed in quad threaded apps). Obviously something like a Core 2 Quad Q9450 would be a faster option than an E8400, but is it really worth spending 130 pounds on that? You can get a Sandy Bridge i5 for that much!

Besides, since there's more to a processor than whether it's a "dual core", there may be many dual core CPUs that are perfectly playable of playing this game (hint: I suggest the OP search the beta forums and see how people might be faring with the newest MWO version on dual core CPUs). I could be more specific, except that this wasn't posted in the beta forum where we could give more detail :/

[MyCatTequila]

thanks for the advice guys, will do a more specific search for others experience with better dual core processors but the E8400 is looking pretty good atm. Seeing as i can play with a system well below (many games) min specs I would guess any upgrade would be an improvement.

Sug I wish i could save up £50 a month, the £50 is going to be after several months saving (may even be after Christmas at the current rate), things are really that tight.

[Gabz]

Since they're gonna put down a lot of work to make the game easier on dual cores has i red in this post

http://mwomercs.com/...eveloper-update

Me i'd recommend you wait for the real release and see if you even need to upgrade... chances are you will but still it's probably gonna be way better.

[Sug]

Catamount, on 23 September 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Because his motherboard and PSU can handle an E8400 if it can handle an E3200

Meh.

Personally I wouldn't tell anyone any upgrade is a 100% sure thing until I checked out the motherboard. It's HP so they're probably just using some sort of intel board but if they (hp) only used that particular board in that particular system (and not for any systems with faster cpus) there's a chance they have a lame custom bios or firmware that might interfere with an upgrade. And of course there's probably some hacked ones you can download to replace it but that can be a hassle.

Sure it's going to fit in a 775 socket but I've been waylaid by proprietary motherboards enough times to be cautious.

MyCatTequila, on 23 September 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Sug I wish i could save up £50 a month, the £50 is going to be after several months saving (may even be after Christmas at the current rate), things are really that tight.

Well then good luck to you. I agree with Gabz that you should wait til the final release before you upgrade anything. I was in the same boat last year. Had to save a couple months just to get my $80 HD5670 : /

Edited by Sug, 23 September 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[Catamount]

Sug, on 23 September 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Meh.

Personally I wouldn't tell anyone any upgrade is a 100% sure thing until I checked out the motherboard. It's HP so they're probably just using some sort of intel board but if they (hp) only used that particular board in that particular system (and not for any systems with faster cpus) there's a chance they have a lame custom bios or firmware that might interfere with an upgrade. And of course there's probably some hacked ones you can download to replace it but that can be a hassle.

Sure it's going to fit in a 775 socket but I've been waylaid by proprietary motherboards enough times to be cautious.

Well remember, HP doesn't hand-program specific bioses for each exact model of CPU; that would cost them exorbitant amounts of money, and make life harder on them, because their systems are customizable. Sure, what you see is what you get at, say, Walmart, but that same model of computer can be bought on HP.com, and have the CPU switched; the E8400 was probably even an available upgrade for the OP's machine (remember, we're talking about what was arguably the most popular chip on the market at the time; that's why they're so cheap used now, because the market was inundated). So HP keeps their machines as flexible as a typical computer, and usually just use generic Pheonix Award bioses (at least on every HP I've seen/owned).

If we were going from a dual to quad core, or worse, a 65nm Conroe chip to a 45nm Penryn chip, then I'd be worried. Like I said, they're practically the same CPU, just with big clock and cache differences.


I do agree about waiting for launch though; unless the OP already wants to take part in beta and can't.


@OP, you could ask HP about the E8400. I've asked them a couple times about whether a machine can take a given upgrade, and they've always been happy to give me an answer. Even when I asked them highly specific questions, like whether a laptop could use DDR400 instead of 333. they've always given me good answers (they just take a few days).

Edited by Catamount, 23 September 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[MyCatTequila]

hehe turns out its a packard bell not an hp (hp pb same thing to me lol) but the motherboards is a: Packard Bell (Intel) MCP73PV, BIOS is locked.

[Barbaric Soul]

Catamount, on 23 September 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Because his motherboard and PSU can handle an E8400 if it can handle an E3200, those both being 65W Penryn dual cores.

Uh, Catamount, the E8400 is a 45nm 65watt 1333mhz FSB Wolfdale CPU, not a 65nm 65watt 1066mhz FSB Penryn CPU. The CPU's architecture has alot to do with whether or not a motherboards chipset supports it.

OP, if you go the route of getting a E8400, make sure your motherboard supports 45nm Wolfdale CPUs

http://ark.intel.com...Hz-1333-MHz-FSB)

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 24 September 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[Hythos]

C2 Quad Q9300, or a Q8400.

Quad CPU's are superior, regardless of speed.
My main computer is running an AMD Phenom II X4-955 @ 3.6+GHZ; If I disable cores #3, then #2 (one test at a time), my frame-rate reduces from 50FPS to 40 then to 15 (when running on 2 cores).

[Catamount]

Barbaric Soul, on 24 September 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

Uh, Catamount, the E8400 is a 45nm 65watt 1333mhz FSB Wolfdale CPU, not a 65nm 65watt 1066mhz FSB Penryn CPU. The CPU's architecture has alot to do with whether or not a motherboards chipset supports it.

OP, if you go the route of getting a E8400, make sure your motherboard supports 45nm Wolfdale CPUs

http://ark.intel.com...Hz-1333-MHz-FSB)

Penryn is not 65nm; it was the 45nm shrink of Conroe (Conroe is what you're thinking of with 65nm).

Penryn is the umbrella name for the entire 45nm Core 2 line, including Wolfdale. The OP's processor AND the E8400 are both Wolfdale chips (Dual core desktop Penryn). The only difference between the OP's CPU, and the E8400, is clock and cache.

http://en.wikipedia....architecture%29

Edited by Catamount, 27 September 2012 - 01:43 PM.