23 replies to this topic

[Requital]

I am wondering if my system is enough to run Crysis 2 well, hopefully if it works well with that it will be at least tolerable on low settings for MWO.

Currently I have:

Windows XP SP3
EVGA 9800GT video card
EVGA 610i Motherboard
Intel E4500 Core 2 Duo CPU ( Intel's link to processor stats: http://ark.intel.com...t.aspx?id=30781 )
Geil low latency heat sink edition ram (pc6700 2x 2gig)
Antec Earthwatts EA-500D 500w continuous PSU

I can overclock the processor slightly (and I have in the past), and I will be buying a 500 series video card when they go on sale as the new Nvidea stuff arives(most likely a EVGA 550 TI superclocked) and a SSD. I built this system from new parts purchased on clearance because I just don't have the money for much else. I know the CPU/ram/mobo is the bottleneck, but while I can afford a little over $100 for a new video card and SSD, I don't have the budget for much else.

think I will be able to run it at 1152x864 and average graphics without lag? I am more concerned about stability than I am looks.

[Naduk]

omg i had this mega huge post covering everything regarding your specs and potential situations and i got logged out of the site and lost it
so i will try again and just briefly cover the same points

i am worried for you, those specs look like they will only just scrape in if at all
however if you go here and select crysis2 it will analyze your pc and check it against the game
(uses java) and then give you a result / score and indicate how well it will go

now this is only a guide and if it comes back saying wow you passed minimum specs
dont take that as indication the game will actually run well enough to play
it simply means the game will boot and load a level

i suggest doing every thing you can possible do to scrape together as much funds as possible for upgrades
now right after saying that upgrading is the worst possible idea for you
i was in exactly your same situation right before the launch of Battlefield3 (pretty much the same gear)
so i did A LOT of research as i had been out of the hardware market for well over 6+ years

there is lots of good news for you..... but really its bad news
you can upgrade your CPU all the way to a quad core
you can increase your ram by 100%
you can upgrade your graphics card, HDD and other parts

however should you choose the upgrade path you are hurting your self significantly over time
here is how

CPU
your cpu is currently your biggest let down after video but you have plans/desire to fix that anyway
if you upgraded to a quad core it would be more than enough cpu grunt to handle MWO
however you would be paying a insane amount of money because the socket that your using is no longer in production, so people who are willing to sell the older high end chips know they can charge MORE for the old junk than they can for CPU's that out perform it by large margins for the current gen sockets that are significantly cheaper

RAM
while doubling your current amount of ram might sound like lots, its really not, current games will use as much ram as they can get and 4gb is pretty much the minimum these days. so getting more sounds good on paper but in game its still going to be a huge bottleneck, especially as its only DDR2
now you can get some high end DDR2 that will run at speeds that are good even for DDR3 but this is the same issue as your CPU, the cost really makes it not worth it

Motherboard
now i have pretty much pointed out your going to be better off getting new CPU and RAM
but you cant do this without a new MOBO
the problem with getting a new Motherboard is you are now forced to get everything else bar a new HDD
there is a good chance your new MOBO wont fit in your current case and to run your new gear your going to need a much bigger power supply

now all this sounds like very grim news but what you need can be gotten fairly cheaply
and as long as you choose quality gear (even if its on the lower end of performance)
these are the most effective upgrades or purchases you can make
getting an SSD would be a big mistake for your system as your current HDD is unlikely to be your bottleneck
an SSD would provide a slight overall system boost but in the end its going to be stuck waiting for everything else to finish its orders before it can give out more data

having a faster overall system that waits for an older HDD will not be as bad because anything that needs fast access is handled from ram, so you would see longer load times but smooth gameplay and in the end thats what counts

this is likely a lot to take in all at once so ill leave it here for now

[Requital]

well, I know the system is bottlenecked, and I know what the minimum and recommended requirements for Crysis 2 are. The concern was simply how well it would play with what I do have.

If I had the $, the first things to be upgraded would be the CPU/Ram/Mobo/OS. The problem is I do not have the money. A new processor is out because the older 6 series mobos do not support the newer Wolfdale 45nm according to Nvidia. That means I would have to spend $150+ for a older core 2 or quad processor that is already outdated.

As far as more ram goes, I would need a new OS in order to make use of any more ram, so unless I upgrade to a newer mobo that supports DDR3 and just get 4 gigs worth, it is kind of pointless(still kind of pointless to spend the money to upgrade to DDR3 only to use 4 gigs and run a 32 bit OS).

There really isn't much to do other than a 500 series video card, a better CPU cooler for a slight overclock, and a SSD I have had my eye on...that is without spending way more money than I have.


So, what I am wondering is, in everyones experience, will this be enough to run the game on average quality or less, at 1152x864 or similar resolution...provided this game has similar requirements and performance compared to Crysis 2? I know it will play according to what I have read, but will it play without the dreaded "burst lag"? low but steady frame rates are fine(and so are lower graphics), its that "jolt" when something loads on the screen that I hate when playing shooters.

Edited by Requital, 29 March 2012 - 02:20 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

Requital, on 29 March 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

So, what I am wondering is, in everyones experience, will this be enough to run the game on average quality or less, at 1152x864 or similar resolution...provided this game has similar requirements and performance compared to Crysis 2? I know it will play according to what I have read, but will it play without the dreaded "burst lag"? low but steady frame rates are fine(and so are lower graphics), its that "jolt" when something loads on the screen that I hate when playing shooters.

I'd be willing to bet you'll be able to play at atleast 1024*768 on mostly medium with maybe a few settings on high. I have played crysis 1 on a single core XP3500, X800 video card and 2 gigs DDR 400 RAM on low settings.

[Vulpesveritas]

Barbaric Soul, on 29 March 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

I'd be willing to bet you'll be able to play at atleast 1024*768 on mostly medium with maybe a few settings on high. I have played crysis 1 on a single core XP3500, X800 video card and 2 gigs DDR 400 RAM on low settings.

I doubt it. Your CPU is rather.. ancient. CryENGINE 3 is heavily threaded, I recommend at least a dual core, however Quad-cores seem to be the best at the moment, though CryENGINE 3 can utilize up to eight threads.
Also, your GPU may have trouble, though you may be able to pull along at playable frames per second with that GPU. RAM is much in the same boat.

[Requital]

well, the good news is that my specs are a lot higher than the above poster, and my expectations aren't very high as far as eye candy. I can always OC if needed.

[Catamount]

It should be noted that Cryengine 3 is mostly CPU-heavy in DX9. DX10, which a 9800GT is capable of, suffers that issue far less.

OP, at stock settings that CPU will probably bottleneck you some, but how much is debatable (could be a lot, could be a little). I'd play the game with your 9800GT and see how it plays, THEN judge what upgrades you need.

[Requital]

well, honestly, I am planning on buying a 500 series card as they go on sale since the release of the 600 series. The 9800GT runs a little hot for my small case, and a little bit of added bang with lower power consumption sounds good. Beyond the few upgrades I listed, other than dropping my multiplier and increasing the FSB speed, there isn't much to be done about any other upgrades. Right now work is slow, and I can't devote the money to a new system, so the goal is to upgrade this one slightly with the money I can spend, and then drop the graphics till the game is playable

Thanks to everyone for the help, I feel a little bit better now knowing that the system should at least be stable on low graphics.

[Vulpesveritas]

Requital, on 29 March 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

well, honestly, I am planning on buying a 500 series card as they go on sale since the release of the 600 series. The 9800GT runs a little hot for my small case, and a little bit of added bang with lower power consumption sounds good. Beyond the few upgrades I listed, other than dropping my multiplier and increasing the FSB speed, there isn't much to be done about any other upgrades. Right now work is slow, and I can't devote the money to a new system, so the goal is to upgrade this one slightly with the money I can spend, and then drop the graphics till the game is playable

Thanks to everyone for the help, I feel a little bit better now knowing that the system should at least be stable on low graphics.

Well, depending on what price-point you're looking at, you may be better off getting an AMD GPU. If you're looking in the $100-200 range, a Radeon HD 7750, 6850, or 6870 is probably going to be your best bet if you get a new card, sub $100 you're best off with a AMD card more or less flat-out, and at $250 the Radeon HD 7850 is probably the best buy.
Just a thought. AMD cards right now beat every price point save for the $500+ price point for the most part, although depending on what you look for there is a debate ~$400 between the 7870 and the GTX 580..

[Catamount]

Yes, AMD GPUs are definitely a better deal at the sub-$200 range. The 6770, for instance, is a better deal than the 550ti

[VPrime]

If you are doing the 500 series Nvidia thing, I wouldn't buy the 550, it is low end for their spectrum. I would step up and pick up the 560. They look close on paper, but I've seen side by side comparisons and the 560 is far superior. However I agree that the ATI's are better, I got a 6870 a couple months ago for 200 tax in, and I am near Toronto Canada, so you should be able to get something near that price no matter where you are. The nice thing is that if you upgrade your card, you can take it with you to a new pc if you decide to replace. Whichever you get will be lightyears better then the stock vid card on most pcs. Biggest question is which OS are you using? Remember XP will only make use of 3 gigs of ram, so any upgrade there is wasted. Vista is a system hog, so switching it out to 7 should actually be your priority. I'm sure everyone has their own opinions on the OS matter, hopefully you are using 7 so you don't need to mess around changing it. If your funds are limited to 100$ my opinion would be to buy 7, you will notice the difference right away. Everyone always goes to overclocking but I have seen so many of my friends ruin decent machines for a few points that I would never recommend it. I really wouldn't get into an SSD until you have sorted out your running gear first.

Edited by VPrime, 29 March 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Requital]

as mentioned above, windows xp sp3. the ram usage is limited to 4 gigs, and the latest version recognizes 3.5 gigs of that, so no plans to upgrade the OS or Ram at this time, as I explained, not enough $$$ to upgrade everything.

As far as windows 7...thanks, but no thanks. Windows 7 takes much more memory to operate, and while it can run more efficiently and support more ram, I have seen what it does on older machines, and the frame rate differences on crysis 2. Someday I will spring for it, but not until I have a better system.

As far as overclocking goes...I am very careful with such things. The processor I have accepts overclocking quite well, even from someone who does not know what they are doing. A slight bump to the FSB while lowering the CPU multiplier has led to a nice stable overclock for me. It may not be necessary it sounds like, and I generally do not run a machine overclocked unless I need to. perhaps it sounds dangerous, but I know of several people with E4500s that have clocked them to 3.0+ gig and ran them a few years, so a clock under 2.5 with a low multiplier doesn't worry me too much....not when cpu temps are below 40 degrees Celsius with benchmarks running away.


as far as the video card, i am keeping my eyes open, and my budget is under $100.00, so that limits out many options, but i should be able to find a 550 or 560, or perhaps a ATI offering (most likely will stick with Nvidia for now though).

[Catamount]

Well it's not that Windows XP (or any 32-bit OS) recognizes 3.5GB of RAM; it's that it's limited to 4GB of address space for all memory, not just system RAM. That includes your GPU memory (so I assume you have a 512MB card), and one or two other insignificant things here or there.

[Requital]

Catamount, on 30 March 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Well it's not that Windows XP (or any 32-bit OS) recognizes 3.5GB of RAM; it's that it's limited to 4GB of address space for all memory, not just system RAM. That includes your GPU memory (so I assume you have a 512MB card), and one or two other insignificant things here or there.

Yeah....I know...that's why people go to a 64 bit OS. I just have not bothered to upgrade yet due to the amount of system resources required to run windows 7. I actually have a EVGA 9800gt 1 gig card at the moment, purchased just before they stopped making the 9800GT.

But yes, I know a 64 bit OS like Windows 7, a 8+ GB of new DDR3 ram, and much faster quad core processor, and a video card greater than a 560 would be ideal...but the reality is we can't always have what we want...so, I have to make do with what I have and can upgrade for around $100

EDIT: this is the card I currently use and will be replaced at some point when I find a good deal: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130534

Edited by Requital, 30 March 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Requital, on 30 March 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yeah....I know...that's why people go to a 64 bit OS. I just have not bothered to upgrade yet due to the amount of system resources required to run windows 7. I actually have a EVGA 9800gt 1 gig card at the moment, purchased just before they stopped making the 9800GT.

But yes, I know a 64 bit OS like Windows 7, a 8+ GB of new DDR3 ram, and much faster quad core processor, and a video card greater than a 560 would be ideal...but the reality is we can't always have what we want...so, I have to make do with what I have and can upgrade for around $100

At ~$100? Then you are going to want either;
$109- Radeon hd 7750: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814102969
$99- Radeon hd 6750: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814161379
Just what I'd recommend if you are getting a new card.

[Requital]

nah. cause I can get a 550 TI right now for $109.00...and from what I am seeing it is better than that 7750. if I wait till I find one even cheaper, I would rather go with the 550 or 560.

[Sarriss]

560 Ti would be an ideal way to go, a bigger bump then the 560 but the performance on them are solid, but the added benefit is if you do upgrade and get a board that can support SLI, 2 560 Tis out perform a 580 by a fair margin and it's something you can add down the road for an extra $150-$200, you may be a long way off from 2, but it might be a sound, somewhat more futureproof option down the road.

[Vulpesveritas]

Requital, on 30 March 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

nah. cause I can get a 550 TI right now for $109.00...and from what I am seeing it is better than that 7750. if I wait till I find one even cheaper, I would rather go with the 550 or 560.

We actually did a comparison and debate on that here already
The 550 is faster by an average of at most 2%, and is at times slower, which is well within a margin for error, plus the 7750 consumes quite a bit less power and theoretically has more oc headroom, although i have yet to see a max oc competition between the two.

Although in the end you may pick nvidia as a company choice, i do recommend the amd gpu both performance wiseunless you really want physx, and ethically wise(catamont has gone over it a number of times in other threads.) everything else aside, the end choice is yours. Though if you can pick up a radeon hd 68xx or gtx 560ti used around the same price that would also be a great deal if you are willing to buy used.

[DrHat]

unce unce unce unce unce unce! *boogies*

The meter for Crysis 2 when I tested on that website went all the way to the top :

CPU: You Have: Intel® Core™ i7 CPU X 990 @ 3.47GHz
Ram: You Have: 12 GB
OS: You Have: Microsoft Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (build 7601), 64-bit
GFX: You Have: GeForce GTX 590

Features: Minimum attributes of your Video Card
Required You Have
Hardware T&L Yes Yes
Pixel Shader version 3.0 5.0
Vertex Shader version 3.0 5.0
Dedicated Video RAM 512 MB 1.6 GB

Soundcard: You Have: NVIDIA High Definition Audio

[VPrime]

I gotta disagree about the 7 thing. I put it in my amd xp 5000 dual core with 4 gigs of ram and saw nothing but improvement. The main difference was that I had an Nvidia GTX 9800 superclocked edition vid card, not the GT. 7 is way more efficient at tasking dual and multi core processors the xp is, even after they added sp3. you gotta remember it was under dev. when exactly your computer was the norm, so that is what it was built for. Its your $ and choice, but I think a lot of the guys here would agree that it is worth the upgrade. Definately gonna need a new card that supports dx11 whichever way you go, ati or nvidia. i just switched, put my gtx9800 to bed for an ati 6870, but it was really because of the sale that was on at the time then any brand loyalty.