Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

can this run ffxivFollow

#1 Dec 07 2010 at 6:45 AM Rating: Decent
2 posts
windows 7 ultimate

processor: Pentium(R) Dual-core CPU E5300 @ 2.60GHZ

memory (RAM) 2 GB

graphics: Intel(R) G33/G31 Express chipset family

and can i play with the same user when i get the ps3 version?
#2 Dec 07 2010 at 6:56 AM Rating: Decent
38 posts
no
you need a proper graphics card, ie nvidia or radeon based, the rest of your system spec should run it although is not ideal
my system, dualcore e8400@4ghz, 4gb ram (3gb usable due to 32 bit os) 1gb ram drive for swap, nvidia 9600gt running at a small l280x1024 resonable detail settings is perfectly playable
As for transferring characters, nothing been said regading that afaik
If oyu want to ultimately play on ps3, wait for ps3, your not missing much, especialyl after oyu spend £100 on a graphics card


#3 Dec 07 2010 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
49 posts
You'll enjoy the game much better when it hits PS3 in March 2011.
Some wierd graphics cards can run the game on PC but it's unstable and annoying to play with :p
#4 Dec 07 2010 at 9:02 AM Rating: Default
*
94 posts
lets put it this way. my other computer is a laptop and its windows 7 ultimate 2 gigs ram single core processor with as built in 256 mb graphics chip and it runs it on semi decent quality without issues. you may be able to run it. but do what they said. throw about 100$ into it and get a nice 1gig graphics card. in fact get this one its nice.

Geforce GTS 450 1 GB GDDR5 125$ free shipping and handling
http://cgi.ebay.com/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTS-450-01G-P3-1450-TR-GDDR5-S-/270675472597?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item3f0583f0d5
#5 Dec 07 2010 at 9:08 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
darkheavenx wrote:
lets put it this way. my other computer is a laptop and its windows 7 ultimate 2 gigs ram single core processor with as built in 256 mb graphics chip and it runs it on semi decent quality without issues. you may be able to run it. but do what they said. throw about 100$ into it and get a nice 1gig graphics card. in fact get this one its nice.

Geforce GTS 450 1 GB GDDR5 125$ free shipping and handling
http://cgi.ebay.com/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTS-450-01G-P3-1450-TR-GDDR5-S-/270675472597?pt=PCC_Video_TV_Cards&hash=item3f0583f0d5


Or throw a little more and get a -good- graphics card.

If you're upgrading to anything less than a GTX 460 or a Radeon HD 5770, you're throwing your money away on a subpar card. It's like replacing your 13" TV in your living room with a 19". Spend a little more and get something that you'll be happy with; trying to cut corners on the video card or the CPU will just result in only a minor improvement at best.

Of course the fact that you're running on only 2 GB of RAM and a Dual Core CPU means you're still going to have a bottleneck there no matter what you upgrade the card to.

Short version: If you get a better card and turn everything down to minimum, you might be able to make it work. If you want the game to run decently, I'd strongly advise gutting your computer and replacing the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM/PSU all at once.

EDIT: Or just wait for the PS3 version if you can't afford to upgrade your computer substantially.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 10:09am by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#6pec, Posted: Dec 07 2010 at 9:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This game SUCKS. Save yr $$$
#7 Dec 07 2010 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
812 posts
I've gotta disagree, I picked up a gts 450 recently, I run the game on standard settings and it looks great. 30 fps is perfectly acceptable to me.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 10:56am by Jefro420
____________________________
Abaddon Active Player Roster
- All your Fabul Sever are belong to us! -


#8 Dec 07 2010 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
*
94 posts
i swear you people have it up your *** that this game needs massive nice stuff to run properly. mine runs perfectly on midrange quality no slowdowns at all. heres my pc spec.

AMD athlon X2 dual core 2.1 gigahertz

2 GB ram

1GB nvidia geforce 9500GT DDr2

350GB hard drive

750 watt power supply



and when i say its perfect on normal quality its perfect. there is no point in him getting a "Nicer" graphics card when adding more wont make it better because yes his pc will bottleneck it but also because he doesent need it. i offered a semi-cheap solution to play it on normal quality with no lag no graphical glitches and be able to be pleased with how it looks. you DO NOT need jesus's PC to play this game despite everyone thinking so.

anyways mycar scoop that or any 1gb graphics card up (i recommend that one though for quality and price) and you should be fine to play it.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 10:22am by darkheavenx
#9 Dec 07 2010 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
darkheavenx wrote:
i swear you people have it up your *** that this game needs massive nice stuff to run properly. mine runs perfectly on midrange quality no slowdowns at all. heres my pc spec.

AMD athlon X2 dual core 2.1 gigahertz

2 GB ram

1GB nvidia geforce 9500GT DDr2

350GB hard drive

750 watt power supply



and when i say its perfect on normal quality its perfect. there is no point in him getting a "Nicer" graphics card when adding more wont make it better because yes his pc will bottleneck it but also because he doesent need it. i offered a semi-cheap solution to play it on normal quality with no lag no graphical glitches and be able to be pleased with how it looks. you DO NOT need jesus's PC to play this game despite everyone thinking so.

anyways mycar scoop that or any 1gb graphics card up (i recommend that one though for quality and price) and you should be fine to play it.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 10:22am by darkheavenx


Your definitions of "perfect" and "normal" are subjective at best and flawed at worst.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#10 Dec 07 2010 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
116 posts
Quote:
Of course the fact that you're running on only 2 GB of RAM and a Dual Core CPU means you're still going to have a bottleneck there no matter what you upgrade the card to.


As Mikhalia said i'm afraid.
#11 Dec 07 2010 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
38 posts
i disagree with some of these posts
and hte most important thing none of oyu are mentioning is what size monitor your playing on!
if your playing on a nice little 17" somewhere the spec of my machine i listed is more than enough
i play on a 19 and have to tweak some settings, its more than acceptable
my next planned upgrade is a gts450 ! why? becasue bang for buck it takes me i nthe right direction, its far enough away from my 9600gt to make an upgrade woorhtwhile, without being so costly that in 18 months time or less when i upgrade again, im not oging ot be gutted by my outlay
Graphics cards get replaced every month... you can pay £500 for a graphics card, upgrade it in 24-30 months, or spend £120 and upgrade it every 18 months....
#12 Dec 07 2010 at 10:55 AM Rating: Decent
*
94 posts
the settings the game defaulted with i tweaked possibly a small bit higher and thats what there on which i consider normal. and it does play perfect. havent seen one flaw imperfection or slowdown from lag. and as long as were on the moniter subject.. to my understanding you say the bigger the moniter the harder it works the graphics? well i dont have a standard 19" screen. im playing on a 42" flatscreen. so if anything that just proves my point further. the game can be played on acceptable quality and playability with what he has and a low cost graphics card.


Edit: and i dont have anything overclocked.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 11:56am by darkheavenx
#13 Dec 07 2010 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
38 posts
yer obviously dependent on resolution, resolution hits the card pretty hard
on a 42" your playing on a tv, i doubt its a monitor, so your max resolution is 1920/1080 ( i think thats right) which is hte same sort of resolution youll get running on a 25" monitor, and thats assuming your tv is a true 1080hd and not something lower
if you were playing ona 42" monitor presumably the resolution would ideally want to be several times larger and therefore exponentially larger pixels to render

if you were playing on something much higher def and closer youd be more prone ot point out imperfections, at 1280x1024 on my rig with tweaked settings (best compromise for me) i really dont pass 30 fps and sometimes drop much lower for split seconds, this i consider to be minimum spec for me

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 12:07pm by Alanthecelt
#14 Dec 07 2010 at 11:16 AM Rating: Default
*
94 posts
hmm. well it is a true 1080 HD. idk but i dont have any problems at all. merely just trying to stop someone from influencing him to buy a 300$+ graphics card or a new computer at that when with a low budget one **** be just fine.
#15 Dec 07 2010 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
It will not. I'd also be weary of tossing, say, a radeon 6850 into the computer. An older, prebuilt PC with integrated graphics very likely won't have the PSU to power a good graphics card, and may not even be a big enough case to hold the card itself. I don't see that PC ever running FFXIV, you're much, much better off building a new but lower-end gaming PC. Or wait until the ps3 release.



Edited, Dec 7th 2010 11:28am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#16 Dec 07 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
It's your call. If you have a PS3, and don't mind waiting, or don't have $100, then wait for the PS3 version. I'm 99% positive you can play with the same account whether it's PC or PS3. Just if you buy the PC version first, don't bother with thew registration code that comes with the PS3... when you hit the login screen enter the information from your PC account. That's what they did with FFXI so I am pretty sure that is what they will do with FFXIV.

But if you are eager to play a $100 graphics card will do the trick. If all you want it for is to play FFXIV, then don't bother spending more than $100. If something else comes out a couple of years down the road that needs better graphics, spend another $100 then. Unless you both have the money and have a strong desire to have all of your video settings maxxed out, don't bother spending more on a video card. The hard core guys want us regular joe's to think that anything less than the absolute best is a complete waste of time. But some of us either don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on a high end graphics card, or just can't justify the expense (especially around christmas) when the game looks absolutely spectacular as it is and runs just fine at up to 1900x1280 resolutions on a $100-$150 graphics card. There's more to life than just video games, and some of us would rather spend that extra $200 on our kids, or taking our wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends to dinner and a movie, or heck, even maybe throwing some money once in a while to a charitable organization. Not to mention maybe paying off some of the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars of debt almost all of us in North America has incurred by the time they've entered the work force.

In any case, you don't need to spend more than $100-$150 on a graphics card to play the game, but your current system will definitely need one to play this game. And besides it's Christmas, so tell that special someone that it's a graphics card you want this year :)


Edited, Dec 7th 2010 2:01pm by charityneverfaileth

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 2:02pm by charityneverfaileth
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#17 Dec 07 2010 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
darkheavenx wrote:
hmm. well it is a true 1080 HD. idk but i dont have any problems at all. merely just trying to stop someone from influencing him to buy a 300$+ graphics card or a new computer at that when with a low budget one **** be just fine.


Who said $300? A 5770 is $150 and a GTX 460 is just under $200.

And yes, resolution (not monitor size) plays a big factor. You might be able to manage on a lower resolution with a sh*tty card a lot better than a higher one. Turning your resolution way down will increase performance.

I still say that a 5770 for $150 is your best bang for your buck in terms of getting a substantial performance increase (above average settings on 1080p or higher). 56XX series or GTS series cards are barely worth the money you pay for them. Pay a little more now and get a lot more in a card that will last you substantially longer and perform substantially better.

I'm not saying go buy a 5970 or an Ares or a 480; the $150-200 range is the sweet spot for cards if you aren't aiming for a top end computer. $100 cards are low end gaming cards at best, and you'll be looking to replace them in 12-18 months instead of 24-36, with a much lower potential.

It's like asking yourself "Do I want to buy a $70 DVD player or a $100 Blu ray player?" Spend a little more and get a lot more.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 12:59pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#18 Dec 07 2010 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
*
139 posts
There is a difference between not having any problem and running perfectly. I have a desktop and a laptop to run FFXIV. I ran FFXIV on my desktop at max settings (24" LCD) while my laptop is tagging behind at around medium low setting on 15fps. I couldn't play on my laptop anymore after I played on my desktop.

If you are talking about specs my laptop was MSI GT 627: 2.26GHZ dual core, Nvidia 9800GT w 1GB vram, 4GB DDR2 (only 3GB effective on 32-bit vista though).

Bottom line: Intel Graphics do not like games. If you want to play games, buy something else with a real graphic card. Or wait for the PS3 release.
#19 Dec 07 2010 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Oddwaffle wrote:
There is a difference between not having any problem and running perfectly. I have a desktop and a laptop to run FFXIV. I ran FFXIV on my desktop at max settings (24" LCD) while my laptop is tagging behind at around medium low setting on 15fps. I couldn't play on my laptop anymore after I played on my desktop.

If you are talking about specs my laptop was MSI GT 627: 2.26GHZ dual core, Nvidia 9800GT w 1GB vram, 4GB DDR2 (only 3GB effective on 32-bit vista though).

Bottom line: Intel Graphics do not like games. If you want to play games, buy something else with a real graphic card. Or wait for the PS3 release.


Integrated graphics in general do not like games, regardless of if it's a Radeon, nvidia, or Intel.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#20 Dec 07 2010 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Oddwaffle wrote:
There is a difference between not having any problem and running perfectly. I have a desktop and a laptop to run FFXIV. I ran FFXIV on my desktop at max settings (24" LCD) while my laptop is tagging behind at around medium low setting on 15fps. I couldn't play on my laptop anymore after I played on my desktop.

If you are talking about specs my laptop was MSI GT 627: 2.26GHZ dual core, Nvidia 9800GT w 1GB vram, 4GB DDR2 (only 3GB effective on 32-bit vista though).

Bottom line: Intel Graphics do not like games. If you want to play games, buy something else with a real graphic card. Or wait for the PS3 release.
Integrated Graphics chips are designed for people who never intend to play games. It's suitable for running a windows environment and playing back a movie, but that's about the extent that it'll go.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#21 Dec 07 2010 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
darkheavenx wrote:
hmm. well it is a true 1080 HD. idk but i dont have any problems at all. merely just trying to stop someone from influencing him to buy a 300$+ graphics card or a new computer at that when with a low budget one **** be just fine.


Who said $300? A 5770 is $150 and a GTX 460 is just under $200.

And yes, resolution (not monitor size) plays a big factor. You might be able to manage on a lower resolution with a sh*tty card a lot better than a higher one. Turning your resolution way down will increase performance.

I still say that a 5770 for $150 is your best bang for your buck in terms of getting a substantial performance increase (above average settings on 1080p or higher). 56XX series or GTS series cards are barely worth the money you pay for them. Pay a little more now and get a lot more in a card that will last you substantially longer and perform substantially better.

I'm not saying go buy a 5970 or an Ares or a 480; the $150-200 range is the sweet spot for cards if you aren't aiming for a top end computer. $100 cards are low end gaming cards at best, and you'll be looking to replace them in 12-18 months instead of 24-36, with a much lower potential.

It's like asking yourself "Do I want to buy a $70 DVD player or a $100 Blu ray player?" Spend a little more and get a lot more.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 12:59pm by Mikhalia


Yeah I agree with that. If you're going to spend $100, surely you can scrounge up another $50 and get something a bit better, and that bit better will be noticible I believe. But when I see those $300 and $500 graphics, card, that is what I picture when people talk about high end graphics card, and that is not an expense many people can justify, especially if they're married to a non-gamer :)
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#22 Dec 07 2010 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
darkheavenx wrote:
hmm. well it is a true 1080 HD. idk but i dont have any problems at all. merely just trying to stop someone from influencing him to buy a 300$+ graphics card or a new computer at that when with a low budget one **** be just fine.


Who said $300? A 5770 is $150 and a GTX 460 is just under $200.

And yes, resolution (not monitor size) plays a big factor. You might be able to manage on a lower resolution with a sh*tty card a lot better than a higher one. Turning your resolution way down will increase performance.

I still say that a 5770 for $150 is your best bang for your buck in terms of getting a substantial performance increase (above average settings on 1080p or higher). 56XX series or GTS series cards are barely worth the money you pay for them. Pay a little more now and get a lot more in a card that will last you substantially longer and perform substantially better.

I'm not saying go buy a 5970 or an Ares or a 480; the $150-200 range is the sweet spot for cards if you aren't aiming for a top end computer. $100 cards are low end gaming cards at best, and you'll be looking to replace them in 12-18 months instead of 24-36, with a much lower potential.

It's like asking yourself "Do I want to buy a $70 DVD player or a $100 Blu ray player?" Spend a little more and get a lot more.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 12:59pm by Mikhalia


Yeah I agree with that. If you're going to spend $100, surely you can scrounge up another $50 and get something a bit better, and that bit better will be noticible I believe. But when I see those $300 and $500 graphics, card, that is what I picture when people talk about high end graphics card, and that is not an expense many people can justify, especially if they're married to a non-gamer :)
Generally speaking, the cheapest models and the most expensive models are not good deals. That applies to much more than just GPUs.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#23 Dec 07 2010 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
bsphil wrote:
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
darkheavenx wrote:
hmm. well it is a true 1080 HD. idk but i dont have any problems at all. merely just trying to stop someone from influencing him to buy a 300$+ graphics card or a new computer at that when with a low budget one **** be just fine.


Who said $300? A 5770 is $150 and a GTX 460 is just under $200.

And yes, resolution (not monitor size) plays a big factor. You might be able to manage on a lower resolution with a sh*tty card a lot better than a higher one. Turning your resolution way down will increase performance.

I still say that a 5770 for $150 is your best bang for your buck in terms of getting a substantial performance increase (above average settings on 1080p or higher). 56XX series or GTS series cards are barely worth the money you pay for them. Pay a little more now and get a lot more in a card that will last you substantially longer and perform substantially better.

I'm not saying go buy a 5970 or an Ares or a 480; the $150-200 range is the sweet spot for cards if you aren't aiming for a top end computer. $100 cards are low end gaming cards at best, and you'll be looking to replace them in 12-18 months instead of 24-36, with a much lower potential.

It's like asking yourself "Do I want to buy a $70 DVD player or a $100 Blu ray player?" Spend a little more and get a lot more.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 12:59pm by Mikhalia


Yeah I agree with that. If you're going to spend $100, surely you can scrounge up another $50 and get something a bit better, and that bit better will be noticible I believe. But when I see those $300 and $500 graphics, card, that is what I picture when people talk about high end graphics card, and that is not an expense many people can justify, especially if they're married to a non-gamer :)
Generally speaking, the cheapest models and the most expensive models are not good deals. That applies to much more than just GPUs.


Indeed. As far as GPUs go, anything under $100 is pretty crap. $100-150 is good for low end games or older games. $150-200 is the "bargain card" that will still get you good to great performance on games. $200-300 is for higher end graphics on dedicated gaming rigs and $300+ is for enthusiast level computers where you're maxing out everything you can. Putting a $300 card in a system that isn't also running an i7 is like putting a hemi on your lawn mower.

EDIT: And I say this with experience. I used to be one of the "Oh, I'll never pay over $100 for a video card, it just isn't worth it!" people. Ever since I made the step up into the $150+ range, I'll never spend under $150 on a GPU again, and I can't in good conscience advise any gamer to do so either.

It's kinda like how someone says "Oh, my vision isn't that bad! I can see fine!" and then they buy a pair of glasses and "Holy ****! This is awesome!"

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 1:25pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#24 Dec 07 2010 at 12:35 PM Rating: Default
*
94 posts
i dont understand some of the logic here. im running with the same ram and a dual core processor thats .5gz less than his for each core with a 1gb card and it plays just fine for me. why wouldnt his do the same? unless im missing something.
#25 Dec 07 2010 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
darkheavenx wrote:
i dont understand some of the logic here. im running with the same ram and a dual core processor thats .5gz less than his for each core with a 1gb card and it plays just fine for me. why wouldnt his do the same? unless im missing something.


A -lot- more goes into it than just "a 1 GB card". You aren't factoring in Stream Processors, Pixel Pipelines, GDDR2 vs GDDR3 vs GDDR5, bus width, core clock speed, memory access speed, not to mention the motherboard and the CPU factoring in to access speed, and your RAM speed and type... There's so much that goes into it that is usually overwhelming for someone who isn't technically minded.

It's kinda like saying "My car has 4 speakers and a CD player and his car has 4 speakers and a CD player; why does his sound system sound better?" There a lot more that goes into it.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#26 Dec 07 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Default
*
94 posts
hmm.. well if need be i know theres some online site selling an intel i3 and motherboard for like 200 new. i guess if you take that route just tell me and ill try and get you a link to the deal.
#27 Dec 07 2010 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
EDIT: And I say this with experience. I used to be one of the "Oh, I'll never pay over $100 for a video card, it just isn't worth it!" people. Ever since I made the step up into the $150+ range, I'll never spend under $150 on a GPU again, and I can't in good conscience advise any gamer to do so either.
Agreed. The ~$200 range is fantastic in terms of balancing performance and price, though down to $150 and up to about $300 is a good place to be looking in too. If you care about gaming, don't buy something under $150, it'll be outdated too quickly. Spend $100 and get low performance for a year or spend $200 and get nice performance for several years (spend $300 and get great performance for years).

Keep in mind that your GPU is typically even more important than your CPU when it comes to gaming.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#28 Dec 07 2010 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
513 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

It's kinda like saying "My car has 4 speakers and a CD player and his car has 4 speakers and a CD player; why does his sound system sound better?" There a lot more that goes into it.

It seems like nowadays a lot of less tech-savvy people seem to fixate on the amount of memory on graphics cards as if that was somehow a deciding factor. Is this a new marketing trend? Often card models get more than one version with one simply having more memory than the other and the performance differences are usually quite small even with very large increases in memory.
____________________________
#29 Dec 07 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
I gotta say reading some of this stuff has definitely helped educate me a bit. I have always gone for the cheaper video cards, and the only reason I have a decent one now is because I got it at a large discount. But looking back you guys are right. I have always bought the $100-$150 ones, and I've never been able to run everything on higher than medium settings. The card I have now is actually a $200-$250 card, but I got it for $150, and it allows me to run the game with pretty high settings. And the graphics on FFXIV are good all of the time, and sometimes they take my breath away. I've tried it at lower settings, and it still looks alright, but when you juice it up a bit, not even all the way, but a little bit... it really does make a difference.

Now that being said, I will never spend 300 or 400 dollars on a video card, though maybe if I was in some of your guys' situations I might. My wife would beat me with a stick if I spent that much on a video card. However I will definitely be buying her some perfume or fancy cremes or something the next time I have to buy a video card so that I can get a good $200 card, after realizing the truth in much of what you guys have said. That way if she complains about the video card being expensive, I can tell her, 'well you got the perfume'. Haha it will be enough to change her attitude from angry to mild annoyance.
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#30 Dec 07 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Omena wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

It's kinda like saying "My car has 4 speakers and a CD player and his car has 4 speakers and a CD player; why does his sound system sound better?" There a lot more that goes into it.

It seems like nowadays a lot of less tech-savvy people seem to fixate on the amount of memory on graphics cards as if that was somehow a deciding factor. Is this a new marketing trend? Often card models get more than one version with one simply having more memory than the other and the performance differences are usually quite small even with very large increases in memory.


The marketing trend for the longest time has been to sell systems with huge hard drives. Look at all the places that advertise 500 GB up to 1.5 TB HDs (even though 90% of the people who buy them won't use more than 10-20% of it, ever) or companies who market Core Duo or i3 or Celeron or Duron systems with 3-4 GB of RAM (DDR2 RAM) as "faster" because of "all the memory to run all your programs".

I've seen people with 3 year old computers who went out and bought an inexpensive new computer and ended up with a system that wasn't much better than the one they had, if not the same.

So yes, to the gamer who isn't tech savvy and wants an omgwtfbbqhax rig but doesn't want to research it, a 1 GB GeForce GT 220 sounds "almost as good" as a 1 GB GTX 460 and a 1 GB Radeon 5450 sounds "almost as good" as a 1 GB Radeon 5770. Joe Consumer hears the 1 GB and sees the price and says "sign me up!" without realizing that he's buying crap.

I mean, by that logic, my 1996 Saturn has 4 doors and the odometer goes up to 120, therefore it's just as good as a 2006 car with 4 doors with an odometer that goes to 120, right? The only difference I see is the 1996/2006 thing, and that's only 10. 10 isn't a whole lot so it's just as good.

The same faulty logic is usually what retailers -count on- to sell computers. Build them with inexpensive parts, overemphasize the features that sound important, and ka-ching!

If you're only buying a computer for basic internet/email and word processing usage, then 95% of what's on the shelf will do what you need it to do. That won't stop the sales monkey from trying to upsell you to a $800 system with a 2 TB HD (it's bigger!) and 6 GB of RAM (it's faster!) and Norton Internet Security (it's safer!) if you don't know what you're buying. Might as well sell a warehouse to a single man looking to buy a home. Sure, it's huge and spacious, but what the **** are you going to do with it?

Conversely, if you're a gamer, they're going to emphasize things like how much video RAM it has, and skirt past the fact that the chipset on the card is terrible and the access speed is abysmal. If this thread is any proof, many "gamers" are not also computer enthusiasts. And that's fine if you're not; I don't need to be a gearhead to buy a car, but I would take a gearhead with me because he's going to know if I'm getting ripped off better than I would.

The interesting thing about non-techie gamers is that they generally tend to think they know more than they do and can be too proud to ask for help. My sister's husband is this way. I offered to help him pick out a new system and he was insistent that he knew what he was doing. Ended up spending $850 on a system with a friggin 300W PSU and a Radeon 5650. So now he goes and installs FFXIV and the game takes a **** on him; he needs to spend MORE money on a better card and PSU that I could have helped him get in the first place, and for LESS money.

So yeah, there's nothing wrong with not knowing EVERYTHING about everything; I don't magically expect EVERYONE to be a computer genius just to buy one. I certainly don't mind providing helpful advice based on my knowledge and experience and you'll usually find that most techie people like myself are much the same; we love to educate and help (even if we are a bit neurotic and snide).

The one thing I hate seeing though; I mean absolutely HATE, is seeing someone spend too much of their money on something that isn't worth what they're paying for it. I don't suggest more expensive things because I think people are made of money; I suggest things that cost a little more because I'm confident that the buyer will be happy with their purchase for a long time. I also don't suggest overpriced things that aren't worth what you're paying for the same reason: I make my suggestions knowing that if someone reads what I have to say and takes my advice, they should be confident that they are not paying more than what the product is worth, and that they are getting what they pay for.

I make it my business to avoid suggesting someone buy a part, a piece of software, or a computer that I would not buy myself.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#31 Dec 07 2010 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
I think the other fallicy comes with guys like me, who are programmers, but don't know diddly squat about hardware. We're a different kind of techie, but the same kind of thinking can apply to us too... the assumption that, 'well I can write software, so obviously my opinion on all things computer related has more value'. I'm glad I caught myself before I went too far down that road in this case. Then again a good number of programmers actually do delve into the hardware side of things, but I have never been all that interested in it myself. I don't even program for a living anymore, though I do program and run my own text-based MMO (MUD). But I ramble...
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#32 Dec 07 2010 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
charityneverfaileth wrote:
I think the other fallicy comes with guys like me, who are programmers, but don't know diddly squat about hardware. We're a different kind of techie, but the same kind of thinking can apply to us too... the assumption that, 'well I can write software, so obviously my opinion on all things computer related has more value'. I'm glad I caught myself before I went too far down that road in this case. Then again a good number of programmers actually do delve into the hardware side of things, but I have never been all that interested in it myself. I don't even program for a living anymore, though I do program and run my own text-based MMO (MUD). But I ramble...


You know what programmers, network admins (myself), and database admins have in common?

They all have family members (and friends of said family members) who ask them "Hey, you know computers, right? My computer is running slow, could you tell me how to fix it?"
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#33 Dec 08 2010 at 5:27 AM Rating: Decent
2 posts
thank u for replays

can u tell me if i can play pc user in ps3 plz
#34 Dec 08 2010 at 7:07 AM Rating: Default
*
94 posts
yes u can play with ps3 users when its released.
#35 Dec 08 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Omena wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

It's kinda like saying "My car has 4 speakers and a CD player and his car has 4 speakers and a CD player; why does his sound system sound better?" There a lot more that goes into it.

It seems like nowadays a lot of less tech-savvy people seem to fixate on the amount of memory on graphics cards as if that was somehow a deciding factor. Is this a new marketing trend? Often card models get more than one version with one simply having more memory than the other and the performance differences are usually quite small even with very large increases in memory.


The marketing trend for the longest time has been to sell systems with huge hard drives. Look at all the places that advertise 500 GB up to 1.5 TB HDs (even though 90% of the people who buy them won't use more than 10-20% of it, ever) or companies who market Core Duo or i3 or Celeron or Duron systems with 3-4 GB of RAM (DDR2 RAM) as "faster" because of "all the memory to run all your programs".

I've seen people with 3 year old computers who went out and bought an inexpensive new computer and ended up with a system that wasn't much better than the one they had, if not the same.

So yes, to the gamer who isn't tech savvy and wants an omgwtfbbqhax rig but doesn't want to research it, a 1 GB GeForce GT 220 sounds "almost as good" as a 1 GB GTX 460 and a 1 GB Radeon 5450 sounds "almost as good" as a 1 GB Radeon 5770. Joe Consumer hears the 1 GB and sees the price and says "sign me up!" without realizing that he's buying crap.

I mean, by that logic, my 1996 Saturn has 4 doors and the odometer goes up to 120, therefore it's just as good as a 2006 car with 4 doors with an odometer that goes to 120, right? The only difference I see is the 1996/2006 thing, and that's only 10. 10 isn't a whole lot so it's just as good.

The same faulty logic is usually what retailers -count on- to sell computers. Build them with inexpensive parts, overemphasize the features that sound important, and ka-ching!

If you're only buying a computer for basic internet/email and word processing usage, then 95% of what's on the shelf will do what you need it to do. That won't stop the sales monkey from trying to upsell you to a $800 system with a 2 TB HD (it's bigger!) and 6 GB of RAM (it's faster!) and Norton Internet Security (it's safer!) if you don't know what you're buying. Might as well sell a warehouse to a single man looking to buy a home. Sure, it's huge and spacious, but what the **** are you going to do with it?

Conversely, if you're a gamer, they're going to emphasize things like how much video RAM it has, and skirt past the fact that the chipset on the card is terrible and the access speed is abysmal. If this thread is any proof, many "gamers" are not also computer enthusiasts. And that's fine if you're not; I don't need to be a gearhead to buy a car, but I would take a gearhead with me because he's going to know if I'm getting ripped off better than I would.

The interesting thing about non-techie gamers is that they generally tend to think they know more than they do and can be too proud to ask for help. My sister's husband is this way. I offered to help him pick out a new system and he was insistent that he knew what he was doing. Ended up spending $850 on a system with a friggin 300W PSU and a Radeon 5650. So now he goes and installs FFXIV and the game takes a sh*t on him; he needs to spend MORE money on a better card and PSU that I could have helped him get in the first place, and for LESS money.

So yeah, there's nothing wrong with not knowing EVERYTHING about everything; I don't magically expect EVERYONE to be a computer genius just to buy one. I certainly don't mind providing helpful advice based on my knowledge and experience and you'll usually find that most techie people like myself are much the same; we love to educate and help (even if we are a bit neurotic and snide).

The one thing I hate seeing though; I mean absolutely HATE, is seeing someone spend too much of their money on something that isn't worth what they're paying for it. I don't suggest more expensive things because I think people are made of money; I suggest things that cost a little more because I'm confident that the buyer will be happy with their purchase for a long time. I also don't suggest overpriced things that aren't worth what you're paying for the same reason: I make my suggestions knowing that if someone reads what I have to say and takes my advice, they should be confident that they are not paying more than what the product is worth, and that they are getting what they pay for.

I make it my business to avoid suggesting someone buy a part, a piece of software, or a computer that I would not buy myself.
Everything about this post is awesome and true. Last time my parents bought a desktop for themselves they went to Dell and ended up with a sub-par machine that still cost a lot of money. So when my mom just recently bought a laptop, I made sure to go shopping with her, and we actually found an excellent deal on a very nice Toshiba.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#36 Dec 08 2010 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,151 posts
After the whole capacitor issue with Dell I have never been able to figure out why anyone buys from them.
#37 Dec 08 2010 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
812 posts
nyopo wrote:
After the whole capacitor issue with Dell I have never been able to figure out why anyone buys from them.

Never mind that their tech-support is the worst I've ever had the misfortune to experience.

I had to work with them for 9 months (no ********* 9 months) to get them to replace a motherboard in a laptop that I told them was bad during the very first phone call.

Edited, Dec 8th 2010 3:54pm by Jefro420
____________________________
Abaddon Active Player Roster
- All your Fabul Sever are belong to us! -


#38 Dec 08 2010 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
charityneverfaileth wrote:
I think the other fallicy comes with guys like me, who are programmers, but don't know diddly squat about hardware. We're a different kind of techie, but the same kind of thinking can apply to us too... the assumption that, 'well I can write software, so obviously my opinion on all things computer related has more value'. I'm glad I caught myself before I went too far down that road in this case. Then again a good number of programmers actually do delve into the hardware side of things, but I have never been all that interested in it myself. I don't even program for a living anymore, though I do program and run my own text-based MMO (MUD). But I ramble...


You know what programmers, network admins (myself), and database admins have in common?

They all have family members (and friends of said family members) who ask them "Hey, you know computers, right? My computer is running slow, could you tell me how to fix it?"


Haha, you are too right :) It's not limited to computers either, I find myself fiddling with people's entertainment systems a lot too.
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#39 Dec 08 2010 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
charityneverfaileth wrote:
I think the other fallicy comes with guys like me, who are programmers, but don't know diddly squat about hardware. We're a different kind of techie, but the same kind of thinking can apply to us too... the assumption that, 'well I can write software, so obviously my opinion on all things computer related has more value'. I'm glad I caught myself before I went too far down that road in this case. Then again a good number of programmers actually do delve into the hardware side of things, but I have never been all that interested in it myself. I don't even program for a living anymore, though I do program and run my own text-based MMO (MUD). But I ramble...


You know what programmers, network admins (myself), and database admins have in common?

They all have family members (and friends of said family members) who ask them "Hey, you know computers, right? My computer is running slow, could you tell me how to fix it?"


Haha, you are too right :) It's not limited to computers either, I find myself fiddling with people's entertainment systems a lot too.


It has color coded wiring that I don't understand, clearly "a computer guy" knows how it works.

But yeah, I've found myself asked to hook up entertainment systems as well so I feel your pain. It's not my fault that I understand "White cord goes to white hole and red cord goes to red hole and yellow cord goes to yellow hole" better than other people.

It's a gift and a curse, eh?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (12)