Sponsored Links

Will your pc play the latest games?

yes my point exactly 256 of RAM on original unreal was a bit jerky....applications use RAM more than games???? i mean cmon...thats not true

Do u really think MS office needs 1 GB of RAM to write a text document???

Or do u think a game doing a few billion calculations a second with gigabytes of terrain textures and advanced AI might make better use of it???
 
look i aint swallowed any pill, i know exactly what im doing when it comes to pcs....and i tell u FarCry dont run properly on 512 RAM on Win XP with SP1 as ive tried it. u try turning ur detail up to max on a geforce 4 mx...see what happens,try running 1024x768 as well.
 
rruwalton said:
What you talking about? :confused:

Leave them happilly spending mega bucks on unnccessary upgrades. You will not convince them otherwise. Its all in the mind they want to believe it and they have spent mega bucks on it so they are convinced their PC is faster

You get the same thing with Hifi's people will spend a fortune on gold plated wire and connectors for there loudspeakers and then convince themselves the sound is a lot better the reality is its no difference but's its amazing what carefull marketting can achieve

If a game nneded over 1G of RAM they would not sell many as very few PC's are fitted with that amount. I am sure all these companies get commision for boosting sales.
 
ok web buddy...have u actually TRIED it??? or r u just making educated guesses??? because ive tried it and its true. FarCry lagged to hell on my pc with 512 of RAM but works fine on 1GB.

And as for using gold plated wires in hi-fi's...yes i know a little about that too..A gold plated wire should be used on the pre-amp side of an audio system if u want to get best quality (ie in a studio or something). It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever on outboard to speakers. As what is a couple of milliwatts of noise in 100 watts eh?
 
Sponsored Links
Memory's quite cheap - its more effective in most case to get more memory to get a better performace. Anyone running windows xp well always benefit from having more than 256mb of ram than having a faster processor.

Also think about how large the textures are - and how many they get through. Have them in ram and it run smother - have to load + swap them out of mem and hd and you'll get a jerk every time it happens. Where not talkign about a new £200 graphics card here - but approx £50 worth of meomory (maybe less if you wern't coned into getting a faster cpu/graphics card and just 256mb of ram)
 
rruwalton said:
Yes Web Buddy - I concur 100% :D

I am not saying it makes zero diference but the difference will be slight and unless the graphics card is really old it will have its own on board memory to handle the rendering of the graphics. I cannot say I have seen any with 1G on board but I am sure they will. Personnally I have found graphics cards at sub £100 perform for all intents and purposes as well as the £250/£300 pounds one. The difference is so slight as to be almost unnoticable
 
Why do all the "Barbie" titles come up under "age 17+" ??
Am I missing something here ?????????
 
Hmmm.....

Jarman said:
yes i can smelll a n00b..any1 who goes to pc world is being conned.

www.overclockers.co.uk

www.aria.co.uk

they are the place for performace parts..and as for farcry not needing 1GB of RAM...here are the recommended specs from the FarCry website

Supported OS: Windows 98SE/ME/2000/XP (only)
Processor: AMD Athlon 2400-3000+ or Pentium 4 2-3 GHz
RAM: 512-1024 MB
Video Card: 128 MB GeForce 4 128 MB to GeForce FX 5950; ATI Radeon 9500-9800 XT
Sound Card: Sound Blaster® Audigy® series
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (included on disc)
DVD-ROM: 8x-16x DVD
Hard Drive Space: 4 GB
Multiplayer: Broadband with 64 Kbps upstream to play (512 Kbps upstream to host 8 players)

Interesting....

Anyone even tried Win 98 or ME with a gig of memory - I have :eek: taking a trip down memory lane - with the machine falling over as and when it felt like it...

Lemme see, my humble machine has a mere 512 Mb memory and a 3 gig processor and only a 9700 Pro and Far Cry tells me it's not a high performance machine so I only ran it on 1280*1024, got VERY bored with it and uninstalled it. UT2004 certainly RUNS on this heap of underpowered poo (according to Jarman's calculations) and so does just about everything else I have thrown at it! (do we dare mention the Web and MySQL servers that are running at the same time on the machine? :rolleyes: )

Let's face it, unless you really MUST run your games at 1600*1200 then most hardware from the last couple of years will give you playable games - even the 'high end' ones.

As for PC World - they are NOT in the business to cater for die-hard gamers but the general public and business sector who want a box they can take away and use for everyday tasks.

Overclockers, Aria, Ebuyer, Scan and the other cut-price component stockists provide an excellent service for those people who are happy getting their hands dirty and building a machine that meets their own specification (usually either dirt cheap because of budget limitations or high end 'can't but this in the shops' machines) and/or price.

Game on everyone! :)

Oh, according to the XP Gaming site most of my machine meets the 'best' spec, think the 56k modem lets it down - broadband next Summer here...
 
Last edited:
Web Buddy said:
I am not saying it makes zero diference but the difference will be slight and unless the graphics card is really old it will have its own on board memory to handle the rendering of the graphics. I cannot say I have seen any with 1G on board but I am sure they will. Personnally I have found graphics cards at sub £100 perform for all intents and purposes as well as the £250/£300 pounds one. The difference is so slight as to be almost unnoticable

U need to lookup what AGP arpeture is
 
Sponsored Links
I've recently changed an ATI 7000 32mb for a 9200 256mb and to be honest the improvements havent been awe inspireing even after upping from Win98se to XP only added a little to the fps on Ghost Recon.
 
Captain_Cretin said:
I've recently changed an ATI 7000 32mb for a 9200 256mb and to be honest the improvements havent been awe inspireing even after upping from Win98se to XP only added a little to the fps on Ghost Recon.

I think that to get any real improvement you should have gone for the 9600 or better - I used a 9200 in a machine I built recently and was surprised by it's performance - even the old 8500 ran faster...
 
Sponsored Links
Captain_Cretin said:
I've recently changed an ATI 7000 32mb for a 9200 256mb and to be honest the improvements havent been awe inspireing even after upping from Win98se to XP only added a little to the fps on Ghost Recon.

Its pretty much the same when you upgade a PC. I dont upgade mine that often about every 2 to 3 years. I usually stay one of two notches away from the leading Processor etc. That way you pay a sensible price & can be reasonably sure the bugs have been ironed out. In spite of the huge jump in processor speed etc the performance difference is not that great and most is down to the fact I start with a nice clean system with no disk fragmentation or clutter after a few months it starts to slow down again.

The sensible approach is to not upgrade too often & don't buy leading edge stuff you will pay through the nose for it. Leading edge stuff tends to come with more then its fair share of bugs as well
 
the only 9600 i could afford was a "SE" model which is supposedly slower than the full 9200 i got, i believe the 9200 is built along the same lines as the 8500 with some improvements but a slightly lower clock speed.
 
Robert Naylor said:
Can't run it on mine too (don't have the latest ie nor win xp)

I can't run it on my box either says I haven't got Windows :-) I run Suse Linux :p
 
I think there seems to be a misconception on this board about being able to simply play a game and being able to play the game at 1024 * 768 @ 32 bit with all settings on high and perhaps some anti-aliasing going on.

Generally speaking i find that so long as a graphics card that support Hardware Texture and Lighting, a processor that is PIII / Athlon or newer and 256 mb of RAM then yeah sure you can RUN the latest games if you dont mind running it at the lowest resolutions and having 15 Frames per second as ur top speed.

Generally if you want to run a game the way it was meant to be played with all those nice shadows and wavey pieces of grass (and no bloody jerking as the game swaps out stuff from the Hard drive) then i would recommend a 2 ghz processor (266fsb) 1gig of 266mhz RAM and at least a nvidia 5900xt or ATI 9600 Pro.

With better FSB speeds you could decrease your dependancy on large amounts of RAM.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6027)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2440)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules