Game performance problem
-
evilnoodle wrote:
i'd suggest less RAM,
Less RAM, are you nuts? :) I would say 1GB is the minimum these days, especially if you want to play games. Go for 2GB if you can. But yeah, video card is the most important.
In a lot of systems fully populating all the memory slots causes the memory to run at a signifigantly slower speed but I believe his system is an amd64 variant that does not have this problem. John
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Anyone else think the last few years of 3D video cards have been a bit confusing?
I couldn't agree more. Even the numbering on the cards is all messed up since apparently a ATI Radeon X800 is better than a X1200? WTF? Can't they just put the numbers in order so you know that a lower number isn't as good as a higher number? And I have no idea what the equivalents are from nVidia. It's a total mess. And CPU aren't much better either! I just ordered an X800XL to upgrade my X300SE because I'm intending to buy Oblivion this weekend.
Wjousts wrote:
Can't they just put the numbers in order so you know that a lower number isn't as good as a higher number?
Numbers only help when you go "faster" when you have different operational capability, the result is much more difficult. But even ATI and nVidia can't really decide on a standard because they keep shifting the holes around while trying to find niches that cut into the other's profit. As I mentioned elswhere... simply use a comparison site like www.nvnews.net[^] This way you don't have to learn what the differences are, use the multiple benchmarks from various sources to find out what works for you. :) and if you want to learn, they often have articles on the changes. Think codeproject for graphics cards (with a slight lean to nVidia, as much as codeproject leans to Microsoft). ;) _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Nic Rowan wrote:
You just can't play first person shooters or strategy games without a mouse and keyboard
Not true. People play Halo all day everyday on the old GRANDE controller and never have an issue. I used to think this way too but it's just a matter of teaching your mind to let go of the keyboard, something I know is hard for us programmers to do:-D ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
Nicholas Wigant wrote:
it's just a matter of teaching your mind to let go of the keyboard
It's not the lack keyboard that's the biggest problem, it's the lack of a mouse. Let's face it - even the worst mice used on PCs are generally much more precise than the best analog stick controllers. Sure you can get used to it, but to me it sorta takes the fun out of exploring a big virtual world when the effort it takes to focus in on a tiny part of it reaches a certain threshold. Then again, once you stopped shooting and started looking around, Halo got really boring. So maybe it all works out...
---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums
-
I just bought and installed Oblivion from Bethesda softwoks, and that's too damn slow... even with minimum resolution I can't play.... On the other hand this year I want to avoid expense as much as I could... I would need an hint on what I should improve in my computer to get decent performance. I have: AMD Sempron 2800+ 1Gb RAM 1.61GHz GeForce FX5200 with 128MB Now I am thinking if I upgrade just my video card, should that bring considerable change?
upgrade your GeForce FX5200 to at minimum 5500. The 5200 does not support some of the new shading. My Programming Library /* You are not expected to understand this */
-
All hail Shog9 from outer space, Master Worker of Poor Sods. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Worker of Poor Sods
Why do you keep calling Shog9 a shovel? :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Paul Watson wrote:
Worker of Poor Sods
Why do you keep calling Shog9 a shovel? :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this;Because he isn't a spader ;) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
In a lot of systems fully populating all the memory slots causes the memory to run at a signifigantly slower speed but I believe his system is an amd64 variant that does not have this problem. John
John M. Drescher wrote:
In a lot of systems fully populating all the memory slots causes the memory to run at a signifigantly slower speed but I believe his system is an amd64 variant that does not have this problem.
I didn't think that was a problem since Windows 3.1 days...
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
In a lot of systems fully populating all the memory slots causes the memory to run at a signifigantly slower speed but I believe his system is an amd64 variant that does not have this problem.
I didn't think that was a problem since Windows 3.1 days...
-
David Kentley wrote:
I didn't think that was a problem since Windows 3.1 days...
My Abit A8N nforce4 board has that limitation. 400mhz DDR with 2 slots, only 333 with 4 filled. At a guess the ram's saturating the HT bus.
dan neely wrote:
At a guess the ram's saturating the HT bus.
They do this for reliability reasons. The more chips you load on a bus (with each adding some noise) the less reliable the memory to memory controller gets. John
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
In a lot of systems fully populating all the memory slots causes the memory to run at a signifigantly slower speed but I believe his system is an amd64 variant that does not have this problem.
I didn't think that was a problem since Windows 3.1 days...
A lot of P4 and athlon DDR systems with more than 2 slots per channel have this feature. It's a result of each memory chip adding some noise (and load) to the bus. This amount of noise can signifigant considering that double sided dimms have 16 to 38 chips on them... So to avoid stability problems manufacturers slow the bus speed down when more than 2 double sided ddr ram dimms are used in a single channel. This is also the reason why servers use registered ram where the register is a buffer between the individual ram chips and the bus so it looks like each dimm is only a few chips (<8) instead of the 16, 18, 32 or 36 chips that double sided ddr chips have. John -- modified at 10:15 Friday 31st March, 2006