Sorry, I don't want to call you out but 60+ FPS is one of my favorite arguments.
I love going to Newegg and such and listening to the bragging about getting 90 FPS on WoW or whatever other game.
Just as an FYI, getting 60+ FPS is completely pointless and a waste of your money since your eyes can only see an equivalent maximum of 60 FPS.
In other words if you're getting, say 80 FPS, on your output, you're not even seeing 1 in 4 of the frames your monitor is displaying.
Sorry, like I said, this wasn't directed at you Sublime, just the generic idea of shooting for "60+ FPS"
My point is I would like to be consistantly at or above 60fps (hate it when I dip below 60 and it is visably notable) but yes I do understand the perceivable threashold. My wording did not make that clear
Need help deciding on my next upgrade. I'd like to be at 60+ FPS. IYO new proc (looking at 3.0ghz C2D or 2.83 C2Q), or new video card (GTX 285 or HD 5780)? ATM I see my CPU as the bottleneck but I'd like to hear any input.
The HD 5780 is a better buy right now than the GTX 285 and out performs it. The GTX 295 is the only video card that outperforms the new ATI 5870. But that margin is thin. When ATI releases a 5870 X2 (dual GPU card), then that will be the performance king.
Of course you can always go SLI or Crossfire, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've been there with SLI for NVIDIA's 7 and 8 series cards. The framerate increases anywhere from 40 to 70 percent for very high resolutions, but very little for a regular or semi-high gaming resolution of 1920x1200 or less. And when you upgrade, it's twice as expensive, making a single top-end card much more appealing when it beats your existing performance with two older cards. On top of that, there's always a micro-stuttering involved. If you can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS video, then it might bug you. Most people can't, so it's not that big of a problem. But of course micro stuttering issues diminish over time with newer hardware generations and faster processing (latency, not bandwidth).
For CPU, forget Core 2 anything. Go with either an Intel Core i5, Core i7, or AMD Phenom II X4. Core i5 is easier on your wallet than i7, and has the same advancements of doing away with the front-side buss (not to mention faster, integrated memory controller on the CPU like AMD has).
Sorry, I don't want to call you out but 60+ FPS is one of my favorite arguments.
I love going to Newegg and such and listening to the bragging about getting 90 FPS on WoW or whatever other game.
Just as an FYI, getting 60+ FPS is completely pointless and a waste of your money since your eyes can only see an equivalent maximum of 60 FPS.
In other words if you're getting, say 80 FPS, on your output, you're not even seeing 1 in 4 of the frames your monitor is displaying.
Sorry, like I said, this wasn't directed at you Sublime, just the generic idea of shooting for "60+ FPS"
You want as high FPS as you can render. Even an insane 200 FPS in a game is good. Why? Because you can lock it into a v-sync at 60 FPS, then use the overhead for graphically demanding moments. Gameplay at any given FPS isn't going to remain static.
If you stick to those suggestions I made above, Sublime, you'll get your 60 FPS ride all the time. That's the key: all the time. Just because you can get 60 or so frames per second at one time doesn't mean you're getting it all the time when gaming. Graphics demands on a video card rise and fall when gaming, and so the maximum FPS does the same. The key is to keep your dips above a certain amount such as 40 or 50 FPS while maintaining enough FPS to at least match your monitor's refresh rate most of the time. A 60 Hz monitor means it can refresh 60 times a second (Hertz is a frequency that measures number of complete cycles per second). So you obviously want to make the most of that and have your game render frames that many times a second too. Anything above is wasted by your monitor, and anything below can be noticeable to some people. Anything around and below 30 FPS is noticeable to almost everyone.
Enable vertical sync in a game to reduce or eliminate "screen tearing" and keep your video card cooler since it won't need to process and render any more frames than you need when the load is light. If your framerate is higher than your monitor's refresh rate, you can notice "screen tearing" when the scene in a game is moving (ie: turning your character around). This happens because the monitor receives two or more frames for every time it can really only show one frame. When the scene in a game is moving, the two frames will most likely be different, so your monitor shows part of one frame, then part of another frame which is different. It's the monitor's way of compensating. Hence the screen tearing will be visible at a specific spot on your monitor depending upon how many frames you're rendering verses how many your monitor can show. This is much more visible on digital connections (DVI and Display Port), and less visible on analog connections (D-Sub, etc.). Also LCD monitors handle this worse than CRT monitors since tubes can typically refresh far faster in ranges from 90 Hz to 150 and up. Most LCDs are natively 60 Hz even if they "support" 75 Hz. Always keep your LCD at its native refresh rate, and to play it safe, 60 Hz is your best bet, so you want to game at 60 FPS for the smoothest gameplay.
im not sure if someone already posted it and if they did then this is a refresher lol.
How accurate is "Can You Run It?" by the way? I built this system myself, but I just wanted to try CYRI for fun. According to the graph my rig is only a little bit over minimum requirements, when the only Recommended requirement I'm short of is my CPU, where I'm only .7 Ghz shy?
Not a big deal, to me, I don't require amazing graphics, just wondering what they're component weight criteria is.
According to the graph my rig is only a little bit over minimum requirements, when the only Recommended requirement I'm short of is my CPU, where I'm only .7 Ghz shy?
LOL. Say that to modders or hardware enthusiasts and you'll get the noob treatment. Yeah, for gaming 700 MHz is not going to make a huge impact for overpowered CPUs today, but if your PC is already struggling to maintain barely adequate gameplay, 0.7 GHz makes a huge difference. Heck, many of the original Netbooks only a couple of years old run at just 700 MHz.
Thanks Cipher, good info! You hit the nail on the head about getting 60+. Unfortunately my mobo is an x38 and wont take an i5 or i7. Although I can get a new mobo at this time I'm just looking to expand the life of my current rig until it becomes obsolete and un-upgradable.
So my current cpu-C2D 2.33
and my gfx card-8800 gt superclocked
Which upgrade do you think will give more of a performance boost in STO?
Thanks Cipher, good info! You hit the nail on the head about getting 60+. Unfortunately my mobo is an x38 and wont take an i5 or i7. Although I can get a new mobo at this time I'm just looking to expand the life of my current rig until it becomes obsolete and un-upgradable.
So my current cpu-C2D 2.33
and my gfx card-8800 gt superclocked
Which upgrade do you think will give more of a performance boost in STO?
I'd upgrade the video card (even though it's a decent one) and buy a really nice aftermarket CPU cooler (if you don't already have one) and keep your CPU. Most Core 2 Duo CPUs can be overclocked a lot! The cooler will help you achieve a simple and large overclock without touching voltage or anything risky.
I'd upgrade the video card (even though it's a decent one) and buy a really nice aftermarket CPU cooler (if you don't already have one) and keep your CPU. Most Core 2 Duo CPUs can be overclocked a lot! The cooler will help you achieve a simple and large overclock without touching voltage or anything risky.
For the CPU cooler on a Core 2 Duo with an LGA 775 socket, if you're interested in doing a little work of changing a CPU cooler (not an easy task for the average user... some get frustrated or damage something), here's my recommendations:
I've used many, many Arctic Cooling and Scythe CPU coolers and have been very happy with all of them for price to performance ratio. I've even used top-end models from of these two manufacturers... they're top performers. I've never used Tuniq coolers, but their Tower 120 held the best CPU cooler position for a long time, and every review of Tuniq's top-end coolers gushes about how well they perform. Their CR-T120 looks especially interesting due to its fin design. Tuniq makes cheap but adequate coolers for their low-end, yet for their top-end, they truly shine.
HOWEVER, according to: http://www.yougamers.com my laptop WILL NOT play STO! Argg! :eek:
It complains that my processor does not meet the performance requirements which I find very hard to believe and the graph shows my processor being above what is needed.
But for the graphics card it shows on the graph that mine is slightly below what is needed.
I played the free trial of Champions Online over the weekend. On recommended settings it crawled at about 10 fps, but I could tweak the settings to get almost the same appearance and get around 30 fps. On those same settings sometimes it would go into the 40s and 50s fps. This was all at 1920 x 1080. Any other resolution looked like something from the 80s.
Hi fatTribble, 2 maybe 3 points about your gaming rig.
If you check out this page it says your graphics card should be okay, maybe you can run STO on medium or low graphics. Correct me if I'm wrong but 30 fps is decent right?
I know because I was comparison shopping yesterday... the GT 230M is in the Toshiba I plan to buy at Office Depot in 2 days. Hate to break it to you but you might have overpaid. The laptop as is, will be more than enough to run pretty much any application you want esp. movie editing and FPS games. But the card is mid-range.
Do you know how to open up a computer? You should swap the graphics card for something better. According to Futuremark.com (you can run benchmark tests also if you like) the GTX 260M and its desktop version GTX 260 really haul TRIBBLE.
And before I leave this to the experts, I bought an HP about 3 years ago and it turned out to be a lemon. It's a six pound paperweight sitting in a closet and I will never buy another American computer again; d*** it I am out 1,799 bucks!! Grrr
Do you know how to open up a computer? You should swap the graphics card for something better. According to Futuremark.com (you can run benchmark tests also if you like) the GTX 260M and its desktop version GTX 260 really haul TRIBBLE.
His laptop will have a replaceable graphics card? Very nice. If so, that's a keeper. Upgrade to the GTX 260M as KC said and you'll be smokin' fast. Don't worry about the CPU... it's fine.
I got the new laptop Friday (HP dv8t). Specs are:
18" screen at 1920 x 1080
Intel Core i7 820 Q (that's a step up from the base i7)
Nvidia GeForce GT 230m
8 GB memory
1 TB hard drive
After finding the post and looking at the specs, you'll have a Core i7 (I was confusing with someone else who had a dual-core mobile CPU. The i7 is pretty much THE best CPU series you can get right now.
With a GTX 260M upgrade, 8GB of RAM, a Core i7, and 1920x1080 gaming resolution, it's a laptop to drool over. Do yourself a favor and upgrade that video card (if possible?) as KC suggested. Then you'll have a top performer gaming laptop. It rocks.
They're similar, but not at all the same because one is an Intel CPU and the other an AMD. They have very different architectures since they're from different manufacturers and from different generations. The Quad core Intel is much older, but it's at the top of its class for the model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Yorkfield-6M.22_.2845_nm.29, so a great performer. The AMD is brand-spanking new as a Phenom II X4, but it's near the middle of its own class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Phenom_microprocessors). Black Editions in the Phenom II X4 series are the gems that compete with Core i5 and i7, though the i7 pretty much trumps all.
I'd just choose the Phenom II X4 CPU because you'll have a system that can swap out with an even better Phenom II or later in the future.
EDIT: It looks like the Phenom II X4 you mention is the AM2+ socket, not the AM3 socket as so many other Phenom II X4 CPUs are. Hence I'd try to see if you can get any of the others listed in the link I gave you with the AM3 socket. If not, and in light of this, I'd still get the Phenom II X4 over the Core 2 Quad CPU.
okay.. cause if there were basically the same.. i would of just said TRIBBLE it and went for an alienware with an i7-920
I edited my post with a recent finding above. If Alienware sells Core i5 systems I'd basically go for that. Core i7 will be overkill, and Core i5 will still future-proof you a bit.
I edited my post with a recent finding above. If Alienware sells Core i5 systems I'd basically go for that. Core i7 will be overkill, and Core i5 will still future-proof you a bit.
Then it's a choice for you to think about. All of the CPUs you mentioned will run STO just fine. The rest is just how much you want to pay to make your PC more upgradable in the future.
So since my last post... I have upgraded from a Radeon HD 2400 Pro to a Radeon HD 4350. Its the best card I could get that my power supply can support, and it was fairly well priced.
ATI Radeon HD 4350
Chipset Compatibility ATI Technologies Inc.
Video Processor ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x954F)
Driver Version 8.01.01.899
The only thing im still confused about is my CPU. The game requirements call for (recommended) a
CPU: Intel E8400 Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon X2 5600+
My CPU is a
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz
While it appears to be above the minimum... Im not sure how it will fair if I want to turn up the juice in the game.
So... whats the diff between a duel core (what I have) and a core 2 duo? Newb question I know, but a little clarification never hurts anyone!:)
The Pentium dual-core E2200 isn't really a Core 2 Duo. So you just barely meet minimum requirements. But your system will probably run STO just fine.
Thanks for the quick reply Cipher. Im happy that STO should be fine on my system, but perhaps ill look into upgrading from "bargain bin" CPU land, to something that will fair much better later. I suppose upgrading my CPU depends on what my mother board can support?
Thanks for the quick reply Cipher. Im happy that STO should be fine on my system, but perhaps ill look into upgrading from "bargain bin" CPU land, to something that will fair much better later. I suppose upgrading my CPU depends on what my mother board can support?
Correct. If your motherboard is a standard LGA 775 socket with memory in the range of DDR2-800 to DDR2-1200 or so, you'll be fine and can probably upgrade to any Core 2 CPU (Core 2 includes Dual and Quad core CPUs). In the worst case scenario, you have a cheap motherboard that might need a BIOS update to support Core 2 CPUs.
His laptop will have a replaceable graphics card? Very nice. If so, that's a keeper. Upgrade to the GTX 260M as KC said and you'll be smokin' fast. Don't worry about the CPU... it's fine.
EDIT:
After finding the post and looking at the specs, you'll have a Core i7 (I was confusing with someone else who had a dual-core mobile CPU. The i7 is pretty much THE best CPU series you can get right now.
With a GTX 260M upgrade, 8GB of RAM, a Core i7, and 1920x1080 gaming resolution, it's a laptop to drool over. Do yourself a favor and upgrade that video card (if possible?) as KC suggested. Then you'll have a top performer gaming laptop. It rocks.
Thanks for the feedback cipher_nmo and Captain_KC. Sorry to hear you haven't had good luck with HP. I've had HPs and Dells and have had good luck with both in the past.
I have not heard of a laptop graphics card being upgradeable. it certainly wasn't advertised as a feature. My understanding was that the graphics card is usual soldered directly to the motherboard. I'm reasonably technical but soldering my motherboard would be outside of my comfort zone.
The canyourun it site says this laptop will exceed the recommended specs. But yourgamers.com says it won't run at all. I'll go out on a limb here and say one of them is wrong. :cool:
I just wish I knew which site to believe. I'd get the alienware m17x if it had the new processor.
Thanks for the feedback cipher_nmo and Captain_KC. Sorry to hear you haven't had good luck with HP. I've had HPs and Dells and have had good luck with both in the past.
I have not heard of a laptop graphics card being upgradeable. it certainly wasn't advertised as a feature. My understanding was that the graphics card is usual soldered directly to the motherboard. I'm reasonably technical but soldering my motherboard would be outside of my comfort zone.
The canyourun it site says this laptop will exceed the recommended specs. But yourgamers.com says it won't run at all. I'll go out on a limb here and say one of them is wrong. :cool:
I just wish I knew which site to believe. I'd get the alienware m17x if it had the new processor.
Some high-end laptops do have replaceable graphics modules (loosely referred to as "cards", but that is misleading). I'm really not sure if yours does or not but KC mentioned it. But correct, most laptops have GPUs and corresponding chipsets and video memory soldering to their system board. It would be great to find out that yours is top-end with a replaceable graphics module. I have no clue which models and brands have these, though, so I'd research it if I were you.
Vista Home Premium 64-bit soon to be Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.
So as far as i can tell i more than meet the system requirements, in most areas, the only shady area being on the Graphics Card. Obviously the 8600m GT is a generation newer but still a notebook card. Comparing the two on gpureview.com the 7950GT AGP does outperform the 8600m GT on most of the hardware aspects, but does anybody have any idea of this in practice?
Comments
My point is I would like to be consistantly at or above 60fps (hate it when I dip below 60 and it is visably notable) but yes I do understand the perceivable threashold. My wording did not make that clear
The HD 5780 is a better buy right now than the GTX 285 and out performs it. The GTX 295 is the only video card that outperforms the new ATI 5870. But that margin is thin. When ATI releases a 5870 X2 (dual GPU card), then that will be the performance king.
Of course you can always go SLI or Crossfire, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've been there with SLI for NVIDIA's 7 and 8 series cards. The framerate increases anywhere from 40 to 70 percent for very high resolutions, but very little for a regular or semi-high gaming resolution of 1920x1200 or less. And when you upgrade, it's twice as expensive, making a single top-end card much more appealing when it beats your existing performance with two older cards. On top of that, there's always a micro-stuttering involved. If you can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS video, then it might bug you. Most people can't, so it's not that big of a problem. But of course micro stuttering issues diminish over time with newer hardware generations and faster processing (latency, not bandwidth).
For CPU, forget Core 2 anything. Go with either an Intel Core i5, Core i7, or AMD Phenom II X4. Core i5 is easier on your wallet than i7, and has the same advancements of doing away with the front-side buss (not to mention faster, integrated memory controller on the CPU like AMD has).
You want as high FPS as you can render. Even an insane 200 FPS in a game is good. Why? Because you can lock it into a v-sync at 60 FPS, then use the overhead for graphically demanding moments. Gameplay at any given FPS isn't going to remain static.
If you stick to those suggestions I made above, Sublime, you'll get your 60 FPS ride all the time. That's the key: all the time. Just because you can get 60 or so frames per second at one time doesn't mean you're getting it all the time when gaming. Graphics demands on a video card rise and fall when gaming, and so the maximum FPS does the same. The key is to keep your dips above a certain amount such as 40 or 50 FPS while maintaining enough FPS to at least match your monitor's refresh rate most of the time. A 60 Hz monitor means it can refresh 60 times a second (Hertz is a frequency that measures number of complete cycles per second). So you obviously want to make the most of that and have your game render frames that many times a second too. Anything above is wasted by your monitor, and anything below can be noticeable to some people. Anything around and below 30 FPS is noticeable to almost everyone.
Enable vertical sync in a game to reduce or eliminate "screen tearing" and keep your video card cooler since it won't need to process and render any more frames than you need when the load is light. If your framerate is higher than your monitor's refresh rate, you can notice "screen tearing" when the scene in a game is moving (ie: turning your character around). This happens because the monitor receives two or more frames for every time it can really only show one frame. When the scene in a game is moving, the two frames will most likely be different, so your monitor shows part of one frame, then part of another frame which is different. It's the monitor's way of compensating. Hence the screen tearing will be visible at a specific spot on your monitor depending upon how many frames you're rendering verses how many your monitor can show. This is much more visible on digital connections (DVI and Display Port), and less visible on analog connections (D-Sub, etc.). Also LCD monitors handle this worse than CRT monitors since tubes can typically refresh far faster in ranges from 90 Hz to 150 and up. Most LCDs are natively 60 Hz even if they "support" 75 Hz. Always keep your LCD at its native refresh rate, and to play it safe, 60 Hz is your best bet, so you want to game at 60 FPS for the smoothest gameplay.
How accurate is "Can You Run It?" by the way? I built this system myself, but I just wanted to try CYRI for fun. According to the graph my rig is only a little bit over minimum requirements, when the only Recommended requirement I'm short of is my CPU, where I'm only .7 Ghz shy?
Not a big deal, to me, I don't require amazing graphics, just wondering what they're component weight criteria is.
LOL. Say that to modders or hardware enthusiasts and you'll get the noob treatment.
For your CPU, which model is it?
Don't mean to rush on this, but really need to know
So my current cpu-C2D 2.33
and my gfx card-8800 gt superclocked
Which upgrade do you think will give more of a performance boost in STO?
It's a tough call. I'd go with the Phenom II X4 because it's simply newer technology.
I'd upgrade the video card (even though it's a decent one) and buy a really nice aftermarket CPU cooler (if you don't already have one) and keep your CPU. Most Core 2 Duo CPUs can be overclocked a lot! The cooler will help you achieve a simple and large overclock without touching voltage or anything risky.
Get a GTX 260 for a decent upgrade on that: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150398 for $190.
EDIT: Fixed Link.
Right on. Thanks Cipher
No problem.
For the CPU cooler on a Core 2 Duo with an LGA 775 socket, if you're interested in doing a little work of changing a CPU cooler (not an easy task for the average user... some get frustrated or damage something), here's my recommendations:
I've used many, many Arctic Cooling and Scythe CPU coolers and have been very happy with all of them for price to performance ratio. I've even used top-end models from of these two manufacturers... they're top performers. I've never used Tuniq coolers, but their Tower 120 held the best CPU cooler position for a long time, and every review of Tuniq's top-end coolers gushes about how well they perform. Their CR-T120 looks especially interesting due to its fin design. Tuniq makes cheap but adequate coolers for their low-end, yet for their top-end, they truly shine.
Hi fatTribble, 2 maybe 3 points about your gaming rig.
If you check out this page it says your graphics card should be okay, maybe you can run STO on medium or low graphics. Correct me if I'm wrong but 30 fps is decent right?
I know because I was comparison shopping yesterday... the GT 230M is in the Toshiba I plan to buy at Office Depot in 2 days. Hate to break it to you but you might have overpaid. The laptop as is, will be more than enough to run pretty much any application you want esp. movie editing and FPS games. But the card is mid-range.
Do you know how to open up a computer? You should swap the graphics card for something better. According to Futuremark.com (you can run benchmark tests also if you like) the GTX 260M and its desktop version GTX 260 really haul TRIBBLE.
And before I leave this to the experts, I bought an HP about 3 years ago and it turned out to be a lemon. It's a six pound paperweight sitting in a closet and I will never buy another American computer again; d*** it I am out 1,799 bucks!! Grrr
His laptop will have a replaceable graphics card? Very nice. If so, that's a keeper. Upgrade to the GTX 260M as KC said and you'll be smokin' fast. Don't worry about the CPU... it's fine.
EDIT:
After finding the post and looking at the specs, you'll have a Core i7 (I was confusing with someone else who had a dual-core mobile CPU. The i7 is pretty much THE best CPU series you can get right now.
With a GTX 260M upgrade, 8GB of RAM, a Core i7, and 1920x1080 gaming resolution, it's a laptop to drool over. Do yourself a favor and upgrade that video card (if possible?) as KC suggested. Then you'll have a top performer gaming laptop. It rocks.
they basically the same then?
They're similar, but not at all the same because one is an Intel CPU and the other an AMD. They have very different architectures since they're from different manufacturers and from different generations. The Quad core Intel is much older, but it's at the top of its class for the model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Yorkfield-6M.22_.2845_nm.29, so a great performer. The AMD is brand-spanking new as a Phenom II X4, but it's near the middle of its own class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Phenom_microprocessors). Black Editions in the Phenom II X4 series are the gems that compete with Core i5 and i7, though the i7 pretty much trumps all.
I'd just choose the Phenom II X4 CPU because you'll have a system that can swap out with an even better Phenom II or later in the future.
EDIT: It looks like the Phenom II X4 you mention is the AM2+ socket, not the AM3 socket as so many other Phenom II X4 CPUs are. Hence I'd try to see if you can get any of the others listed in the link I gave you with the AM3 socket. If not, and in light of this, I'd still get the Phenom II X4 over the Core 2 Quad CPU.
I edited my post with a recent finding above. If Alienware sells Core i5 systems I'd basically go for that. Core i7 will be overkill, and Core i5 will still future-proof you a bit.
Thanks for the help
they don't.. at least not what i can find
LOL
But what about the poor gamers in the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Down Under??
I hope someone will step up in the next 2 months
Then it's a choice for you to think about.
ATI Radeon HD 4350
Chipset Compatibility ATI Technologies Inc.
Video Processor ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x954F)
Driver Version 8.01.01.899
The only thing im still confused about is my CPU. The game requirements call for (recommended) a
CPU: Intel E8400 Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon X2 5600+
My CPU is a
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz
While it appears to be above the minimum... Im not sure how it will fair if I want to turn up the juice in the game.
So... whats the diff between a duel core (what I have) and a core 2 duo? Newb question I know, but a little clarification never hurts anyone!:)
You have a value line dual-core CPU.
The Pentium dual-core E2200 isn't really a Core 2 Duo. So you just barely meet minimum requirements. But your system will probably run STO just fine.
Thanks for the quick reply Cipher. Im happy that STO should be fine on my system, but perhaps ill look into upgrading from "bargain bin" CPU land, to something that will fair much better later. I suppose upgrading my CPU depends on what my mother board can support?
Correct. If your motherboard is a standard LGA 775 socket with memory in the range of DDR2-800 to DDR2-1200 or so, you'll be fine and can probably upgrade to any Core 2 CPU (Core 2 includes Dual and Quad core CPUs). In the worst case scenario, you have a cheap motherboard that might need a BIOS update to support Core 2 CPUs.
Awesome! Glad to help.
Thanks for the feedback cipher_nmo and Captain_KC. Sorry to hear you haven't had good luck with HP. I've had HPs and Dells and have had good luck with both in the past.
I have not heard of a laptop graphics card being upgradeable. it certainly wasn't advertised as a feature. My understanding was that the graphics card is usual soldered directly to the motherboard. I'm reasonably technical but soldering my motherboard would be outside of my comfort zone.
The canyourun it site says this laptop will exceed the recommended specs. But yourgamers.com says it won't run at all. I'll go out on a limb here and say one of them is wrong. :cool:
I just wish I knew which site to believe. I'd get the alienware m17x if it had the new processor.
Some high-end laptops do have replaceable graphics modules (loosely referred to as "cards", but that is misleading). I'm really not sure if yours does or not but KC mentioned it. But correct, most laptops have GPUs and corresponding chipsets and video memory soldering to their system board. It would be great to find out that yours is top-end with a replaceable graphics module. I have no clue which models and brands have these, though, so I'd research it if I were you.
I am have a Dell XPS M1530 specifications as follows:
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300 @ 2.40GHz / 3mb L2 Cache / 800MHz FSB
4096mb DDR2 667MHz RAM (Samsung)
Samsung 320GB 5400rpm / 16mb cache
Nvidia GeForce 8600m GT GDDR3
15.4" 1440x900 resolution screen
Vista Home Premium 64-bit soon to be Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.
So as far as i can tell i more than meet the system requirements, in most areas, the only shady area being on the Graphics Card. Obviously the 8600m GT is a generation newer but still a notebook card. Comparing the two on gpureview.com the 7950GT AGP does outperform the 8600m GT on most of the hardware aspects, but does anybody have any idea of this in practice?