What kind of FPS do you get on what settings with your GTS 250?
And if you've played WOW before let me know how that runs also.
I never played WoW but from what I read on the graphic WoW does not have high requirement. On a GTS 250 it should run on max out settings with no problem. Cipher Nemo has played WoW but he has a GTX 285.
I was getting between 52 - 130 FPS. On ground around 70 FPS. The episode the "Trap" was the only area in the game to cause be any really video lag. Cipher Nemo convince my to set my Frame Rate Limited to 60 so I would not get tearing and damage my monitor.
Now Nvidia should be releasing the new DX11 cards sometime next month so the price of the GTX and GTS will come down even more. You may even see better pricing on ATI cards since they had their DX11 (5000 series) cards out for months.
ATI vs Nvidia. I am not going the get technical here. The simplest way to see it.
ATI uses less power, runs a little cooler and cost less.
Nvidia uses more power, runs hotter and cost more. They also have a better relationship with the game studio so the have better profiles for though games. But AMD has been working to close that gap. Nvidia also have Physx and Cuda.
NVIDIA® PhysX® technology adds an element of realism never before seen in gaming. With an NVIDIA® GeForce® GPU in your PC, experience dynamic PhysX® effects like blazing explosions, reactive debris, realistic water, and lifelike characters.
Now Physx is only available on a few games but more are coming. I do not consider it the killer app yet but it could be. The only game I have which support Physx is Batman AA. For MMO players Physx is a non issue. No MMO game supports it and none are expected in the near future if ever.
Cuda
It allows graphically demanding apps to run off the GPU instead of the CPU. This is good for Graphic designer, CAD, Video Editors. Nvidia GPU's are a lot faster and powerful then Intel's CPUs.
For the rest of us right now Adobe is developing their Flash 10.1 player to off CUDA and ATI Stream.
ATI has Stream but it has no where near as many apps that CUDA does. But it does have promise and I would never count AMD out.
I am both a AMD and Nvidia fan. In theory if you go all AMD/ATI you should get better over all performance but, in reality AMD CPU just run hotter the Intel's i7.
I havent been able to pick up a new PSU yet, I've been working 15 hour days. But I figure I'd stop at compusa and pick one up, they have some decent prices.
Wow you actually have a Compusa. I use to work for them years ago.
As far a PSU make sure to get one that is 80 Plus certify they are better made. Stay away from in house brand and make sure the "+12V" has enough AMP to run your GPU.
For example my GTS 250 needs a +12V with a minimum of 24A. The info is on the box.
And check out the noise level. Some PSU can be really noisy.
I dont have time to read the 205 pages of this thread, does anyone know if STO will run on a NVIDIA GeForce 8200? and if it does, how well?
They don't make an 8200 as a card for the desktop, so my guess is that you have a laptop with an 8200M built-in GPU. Sorry, that will be far too underpowered for STO. While you might be able to "run" STO at lowest settings with it, that GPU, your experience will be laggy to the point of stuttering at spots. On top of that, in a laptop with an underpowered GPU at full throttle all the time, the heat build-up will be troublesome.
They don't make an 8200 as a card for the desktop, so my guess is that you have a laptop with an 8200M built-in GPU. Sorry, that will be far too underpowered for STO. While you might be able to "run" STO at lowest settings with it, that GPU, your experience will be laggy to the point of stuttering at spots. On top of that, in a laptop with an underpowered GPU at full throttle all the time, the heat build-up will be troublesome.
Actually I can run the game at a fluid framerate on lowest at 960x600 without any stuttering issues at all given that my laptop is only a 6150M that does not even support the game's shader model.
System Manufacturer: Acer
System Model: Aspire 5536
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual-Core QL-65 (2 CPUs), ~2.1GHz
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
Card name: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4500 Series
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Display Memory: 2297 MB
Dedicated Memory: 506 MB
Shared Memory: 1791 MB
Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_rtm.090713-1255)
Actually I can run the game at a fluid framerate on lowest at 960x600 without any stuttering issues at all given that my laptop is only a 6150M that does not even support the game's shader model.
And what framerates do you get? And in ground, in exploration clusters, and in large fleet battles with a dozen plus ships and lots of enemies? Either you're used to slow/laggy gaming (or it doesn't bother you) or you haven't been to the most laggy areas yet (most graphically-intensive areas).
I ...
ATI uses less power, runs a little cooler and cost less.
Nvidia uses more power, runs hotter and cost more. They also have a better relationship with the game studio so the have better profiles for though games. But AMD has been working to close that gap. Nvidia also have Physx and Cuda.
Now Physx is only available on a few games but more are coming. I do not consider it the killer app yet but it could be. The only game I have which support Physx is Batman AA. For MMO players Physx is a non issue. No MMO game supports it and none are expected in the near future if ever.
Cuda
It allows graphically demanding apps to run off the GPU instead of the CPU. This is good for Graphic designer, CAD, Video Editors. Nvidia GPU's are a lot faster and powerful then Intel's CPUs.
For the rest of us right now Adobe is developing their Flash 10.1 player to off CUDA and ATI Stream.
ATI has Stream but it has no where near as many apps that CUDA does. But it does have promise and I would never count AMD out.
I am both a AMD and Nvidia fan. In theory if you go all AMD/ATI you should get better over all performance but, in reality AMD CPU just run hotter the Intel's i7.
It's rather off-topic, but I've got a few notes about this;
CUDA and Stream are essentially obsolete.
They may stick around for a while, but the functionality they represent has been included in DirectX 11, which means there's now a standard manufacturer independent way of doing GP-GPU work.
(that, is among the main things added to DX 11)
Physx has extensions to let it run on an Nvidia GPU, but it is otherwise simply a pysics API.
(The PhysX logo can be seen on Star Trek Online's startup screen, so to say no MMO uses it isn't quite accurate...)
It has competitors, like anything, a common, (but often not mentioned) one being the Bullet physics libarary.
It generally doesn't get any mention because unlike PhysX, it's free. (However, it's known that GTA 4 uses it.). It supports pretty much the same features, and it'll run on an Nvidia GPU as well, because it has a CUDA implementation.
All of which means that PhysX is just a well-known brand name for something that a lot of games implement anyway, to a greater or lesser extent.
That green area inside the wormhole is the only time my system has really bogged down. I have an old 8800 Ultra that handles everything else easily.
Heh... that mission bogged down my Core i7 920 + GTS 250 combo. I run at 1280x1024.
There's one ground high detail feature that can drop my ground FPS to under 20 - the "amber waves of grain", as I call them, because that's exactly what they are - waves of tall grass that sway back and forth, making even my new PC scream in pain, but I've only seen them on screen when there are several dozen, possible over 100.
What settings should I go with the following specs:
Windows XP SP3
CPU:AMD Phenom II x4 ~3.21
Memory: 4GB DD3 1333Mhz Ram
Video: EVGA GeForce 9500 GT 1GB PCIe (up to date drivers)
Hard drive: WD Caviar 500GB Serial ATA HD 7200/16MB/SATA-3G
I'm pretty sure I'm good in most areas, except maybe my video card, but I thought I'd check first before I buy the game. Sorry if this configuration has been posted already:
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-750 (8MB Cache, 2.66 GHz)
Memory: 6 GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066 MHz
Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 5450 1 GB DDR3
Hard Drive: 1 TB
Also, I'm running DSL internet using a wireless G network. It's served me well for other things, but does anyone see any problems running this game via that?
I may be moving from England to Finland on a temporary contract later this year and I need to purchase a Laptop as my second wife, Matilda (Desktop) can't come with me.
I've seen the following Laptop, but I need to know if it will run STO:
Processor Intel® Core i5-520M Processor - 2.4 GHz - 4.8 GT/s DMI - 3 MB L3 Cache
Operating System Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit
RAM 6GB DDR3 SDRAM
Graphics card NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU
Screen type Widescreen LCD
Screen resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD)
Screen size 16.4"
Hard drive 320GB SATA
Optical disk drive Blu-ray Disc Player: BD ROM/ DVD Rewriter
If anyone can PM me with help, I will be very thankful.
I may be moving from England to Finland on a temporary contract later this year and I need to purchase a Laptop as my second wife, Matilda (Desktop) can't come with me.
I've seen the following Laptop, but I need to know if it will run STO:
Processor Intel® Core i5-520M Processor - 2.4 GHz - 4.8 GT/s DMI - 3 MB L3 Cache
Operating System Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit
RAM 6GB DDR3 SDRAM
Graphics card NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU
Screen type Widescreen LCD
Screen resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD)
Screen size 16.4"
Hard drive 320GB SATA
Optical disk drive Blu-ray Disc Player: BD ROM/ DVD Rewriter
If anyone can PM me with help, I will be very thankful.
I've got a similar laptop (though my processor is an i7) and you will have no issues. I routinely clock 50 to 60 fps in space combat.
Okay, to temporarily head off the sillier questions, if you have a CPU with the name "Core i3", "Core i5", or "Core i7", don't ask if your computer can play the game. If you have any of the above, even if it comes with integrated video, it's more then enough to play this game.
Okay, to temporarily head off the sillier questions, if you have a CPU with the name "Core i3", "Core i5", or "Core i7", don't ask if your computer can play the game. If you have any of the above, even if it comes with integrated video, it's more then enough to play this game.
This is true, but with a caveat. Early Phenom I integrated graphics chipsets were very underpowered in comparison to more recent integrated graphics for Phenom II based machines. This can lead to having to set all lowest graphics settings and still not getting a comfortable frame rate, even though the CPU itself is more then up to the task. Hence my leaving AMD out of the equation of my statement since I cannot say the same without that caveat. Also notice the exclusion of Core 2 based machines in my statement even though the CPU itself is more then enough as well, but the potential encountered integrated graphics that CAN come with that CPU platform may be far too weak to play anything remotely 3D accelerated.
I was simply making a unarguable rule for those who have that particular platform to know they are already covered and totally safe without question. Even the integrated graphics of a Core i3 is more then enough to play STO on, even though the Core i3 CPU itself may even be considered inferior to a first generation Phenom X4. Core i5 only comes with integrated graphics on the mobile side, and it too is more then sufficient for this game. Desktop Core i5 almost always has discreet graphics. Core i7 has no form of integrated graphics anywhere for it and is ONLY available with discreet graphics.
Okay WN, (or anyone else that wishes to help) you've been kind enough to help me in another thread and I'm here to bother you again
I've been looking at 2 laptops (yep, laptops. Portability is key for me) and I think I like the following:
The Asus G51Vx-X3A and the ASUS N61JQ-X1. The G series is only running a Core 2 Duo P8700 while the N61 sports the shiny i7 720QM. On the other hand, the G51 is equipped with the Nvidia GTX 260M while the N61 uses the slightly inferior ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730. Both have similar HDD (I believe) and both have 4 gigs RAM, but the N61 has DDR3 (I've read the game output is negligable but still worth mentioning).
Thanks a lot !
I have the ASUS g51vx-x3a and it runs STO just dandy. It also runs battlefield2: bad company and Mass Effect 2 without problems.
This is true, but with a caveat. Early Phenom I integrated graphics chipsets were very underpowered in comparison to more recent integrated graphics for Phenom II based machines.
Same is true for integrated graphics on Intel CPUs too. I've seen older 8100 and such built-in GPUs on Core i5/i3 systems too.
We're talking CPUs here, not GPUs. Two very different things, so I wouldn't lump them together at all.
Same is true for integrated graphics on Intel CPUs too. I've seen older 8100 and such built-in GPUs on Core i5/i3 systems too.
We're talking CPUs here, not GPUs. Two very different things, so I wouldn't lump them together at all.
No, you haven't seen any such thing. Please link to any such chipset with 1156 socket and 8100 integrated graphics, you won't be able to as it does not exist nor has it ever nor will it ever. And the rule was based on what GPU will be found with what CPU. You would be ignorant of Core i3 and i5 to say they come with ANY integrated video other then the video built into the CPU itself. Or did you not know that? THAT is why Core i3 and i5 were part of that rule, a technical detail you haven't apparently researched at all.
Core i3 and i5 Clarksdale (not i5 Lynnfield) uses ONLY the PM55 or H55/57 chipsets and has the GPU built into the CPU package (MCP based design of 2 chips, one substrate) now. And a memory controller. And a PCI Express controller. In fact, everything that WAS on the northbridge before, is now on the CPU with i3/i5 and performs WAY better then previous generation Intel integrated video. You could even go so far as to say PM55 and H55/57 are little more then glorified southbridges acting as the whole chipset now that the northbridge completely lives in the CPU itself. Core i5 Lynnfield, on the other hand, has no access to ANY form of integrated video at all since P55 is the only chipset you can run Lynnfield on. Since P55 is completely devoid of any graphics built in at all, a P55 system must have an actual graphics card installed.
Edit: Clarksdale i3 and i5 can also come with discreet graphics that work alongside the integrated graphics and take over 3D duties thanks to Nvidia's Optimus tech. But even without it, the i3 and i5's CPU based video chip is far superior to any integrated video on Phenom I platform or Core 2 platform. There were some "fake" i3's for a little while that were rebadged Core 2's and ran on socket 775, but those are long since dried up and gone, and were never real i3's to begin with.
Edit #2: In order to really put this in perspective, the ONLY other GPU you find, right now, beside a current i3 or i5 notebook is the Geforce GT330, WAY more powerful then a piddly 8100. I honestly think your either completely mistaken or making it up about seeing an i5 or i3 with 8100 integrated graphics since 8100 integrated graphics is ONLY found in socket 775, socket AM2, AM2+, and AM3, none of which is compatible with Core i3/i5/i7. The Core i3 and i5 series are socket 1156 and Core i7 can be socket 1156 or socket 1366, depending on model number (800's are 1156, 900's are 1366, except mobile 900's which are 1156).
Edit #3: And where exactly is Nvidia's bus license to even MAKE a Core i3/i5/i7 chipset with integrated graphics to begin with? Oh, right here:
There is not, nor will there EVER be a Core i3 or Core i5 with Geforce 8100 integrated graphics. It cannot happen because Intel said "no-no" to Nvidia, so Nvidia makes no Nehalem based chipsets as DMI is locked out for them. Core i3, i5, and i7 are all Nehalem variants, either Bloomfield, Lynnfield, or Clarksdale CPUs. And Clarksdale specifically comes with integrated video of it's own.
Edit #4: All that above boils down to, my rule still stands on it's own technical merit. If you have a Core i3, i5, or i7, you have nothing to worry about being able to play this game. The same can NOT be said of any other CPU series, Intel or AMD. When AMD's Fusion hits, AMD will have a brand to say the same as i3/i5 for integrated video (though I think almost any Phenom II system bought in the last year should qualify as well since AMD does sweet integrated graphics on 790GX and above).
:rolleyes: arguing for the sake of arguing? Do you get a kick out of that? TLDR.
I stand corrected, I see none out there with a non-Intel built-in GPU that uses an Intel Core i3/i5/i7 compatible northbridge chipset. I was probably thinking of AMD boards.
However, you can have a 1156/1366 socket board without built-in graphics. So they could easily have a low-end video card plugged in there. Your argument is still flawed that any 1156/1366 (Core i3/i5/i7 board) is fine with STO if you want to lump graphics in there too.
:rolleyes: arguing for the sake of arguing? Do you get a kick out of that? TLDR.
I stand corrected, I see none out there with a non-Intel built-in GPU that uses an Intel Core i3/i5/i7 compatible northbridge chipset. I was probably thinking of AMD boards.
However, you can have a 1156/1366 socket board without built-in graphics. So they could easily have a low-end video card plugged in there. Your argument is still flawed that any 1156/1366 (Core i3/i5/i7 board) is fine with STO if you want to lump graphics in there too.
Actually, it seems the only one arguing for the sake of it is you since you keep trying and failing to shoot down a pretty common sense rule of thumb because it offends your brand sensitivity. Get over it. If you can actually FIND a Core i3, i5, or i7 system for sale online with insufficient video power for this game, link it or give up already. Anybody building said rig themselves already knows well enough how to answer these questions for themselves and won't be asking here
The only flawed logic is your attempt to save AMD face when none needs saving. Let me repeat my challenge for you. Find the Core i3, i5 or i7 built system online (not parts only, as I said, if you can build it yourself, you're NOT in here asking if it will run this game, you're in here telling others if they can or not) or surrender your argument position as untenable.
Edit: Last point to shoot down any further attempts to argue since it will eliminate any further debate on this point. Anybody buying a socket 1156 or socket 1366 motherboard to put a video card on will NOT be buying anything low end to stick on such a high end setup. It's a ridiculous point for you to have even made. Who buys a Ferrari and puts Yugo tires on it? Nobody, that's who.
Actually, it seems the only one arguing for the sake of it is you since you keep trying and failing to shoot down a pretty common sense rule of thumb because it offends your brand sensitivity. Get over it. If you can actually FIND a Core i3, i5, or i7 system for sale online with insufficient video power for this game, link it or give up already. Anybody building said rig themselves already knows well enough how to answer these questions for themselves and won't be asking here
You started the argument by lumping video in with CPUs. :rolleyes:
The only flawed logic is your attempt to save AMD face when none needs saving.
Huh? You stated Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs would be adequate, and I add Phenom. Then you went into a flaming fit by trying to lump GPUs in with CPUs. Again: :rolleyes:
Anybody buying a socket 1156 or socket 1366 motherboard to put a video card on will NOT be buying anything low end to stick on such a high end setup.
I've seen it happen before. You're dealing in absolutes, which is always going to come back and bite you in the TRIBBLE. I deal with the real world. I've seen it happen before even if (I agree) it isn't logical. Stop making sweeping generalizations.
You started the argument by lumping video in with CPUs. :rolleyes:
No, you did by ignorantly thinking Core i3 doesn't come with it's own GPU built in. It's your ignorance of hardware that is the problem, not my "lumping" of anything. You don't know what your talking about.
Huh? You stated Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs would be adequate, and I add Phenom. Then you went into a flaming fit by trying to lump GPUs in with CPUs. Again: :rolleyes:
No. Once again you show ignorance. Core i3 and i5 ARE CPU AND GPU. Your ignorance of this is amazing.
I've seen it happen before. You're dealing in absolutes, which is always going to come back and bite you in the TRIBBLE. I deal with the real world. I've seen it happen before even if (I agree) it isn't logical. Stop making sweeping generalizations.
Wrong. As pointed out above, your ignorance of Core i3 and i5 shows you have no room to say a word on this subject, you've shown ZERO knowledge of this hardware therefore have done nothing but troll and argue. You're proven wrong, LONG since so. You didn't even KNOW that Core i3 and i5 has a GPU built into the CPU. LAME! Quit arguing subjects you know nothing about already!
Edit: Everytime you respond to argue this point, you make yourself look more ignorant of the subject at hand, please stop trying to derail this thread with MISINFORMATION. You really don't know anything about which you speak.
And lastly, find me a Core i3 without the integrated video built into the CPU? No? Because the CPU and GPU come together in same package!!! Quit acting like you don't understand that or go away because if you CANNOT understand that, then you have no business arguing anything.
Comments
I never played WoW but from what I read on the graphic WoW does not have high requirement. On a GTS 250 it should run on max out settings with no problem. Cipher Nemo has played WoW but he has a GTX 285.
I was getting between 52 - 130 FPS. On ground around 70 FPS. The episode the "Trap" was the only area in the game to cause be any really video lag. Cipher Nemo convince my to set my Frame Rate Limited to 60 so I would not get tearing and damage my monitor.
Now Nvidia should be releasing the new DX11 cards sometime next month so the price of the GTX and GTS will come down even more. You may even see better pricing on ATI cards since they had their DX11 (5000 series) cards out for months.
ATI vs Nvidia. I am not going the get technical here. The simplest way to see it.
ATI uses less power, runs a little cooler and cost less.
Nvidia uses more power, runs hotter and cost more. They also have a better relationship with the game studio so the have better profiles for though games. But AMD has been working to close that gap. Nvidia also have Physx and Cuda.
Physx Now Physx is only available on a few games but more are coming. I do not consider it the killer app yet but it could be. The only game I have which support Physx is Batman AA. For MMO players Physx is a non issue. No MMO game supports it and none are expected in the near future if ever.
Cuda
It allows graphically demanding apps to run off the GPU instead of the CPU. This is good for Graphic designer, CAD, Video Editors. Nvidia GPU's are a lot faster and powerful then Intel's CPUs.
For the rest of us right now Adobe is developing their Flash 10.1 player to off CUDA and ATI Stream.
ATI has Stream but it has no where near as many apps that CUDA does. But it does have promise and I would never count AMD out.
I am both a AMD and Nvidia fan. In theory if you go all AMD/ATI you should get better over all performance but, in reality AMD CPU just run hotter the Intel's i7.
Wow you actually have a Compusa. I use to work for them years ago.
As far a PSU make sure to get one that is 80 Plus certify they are better made. Stay away from in house brand and make sure the "+12V" has enough AMP to run your GPU.
For example my GTS 250 needs a +12V with a minimum of 24A. The info is on the box.
And check out the noise level. Some PSU can be really noisy.
They don't make an 8200 as a card for the desktop, so my guess is that you have a laptop with an 8200M built-in GPU. Sorry, that will be far too underpowered for STO. While you might be able to "run" STO at lowest settings with it, that GPU, your experience will be laggy to the point of stuttering at spots. On top of that, in a laptop with an underpowered GPU at full throttle all the time, the heat build-up will be troublesome.
Actually I can run the game at a fluid framerate on lowest at 960x600 without any stuttering issues at all given that my laptop is only a 6150M that does not even support the game's shader model.
System Model: Aspire 5536
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual-Core QL-65 (2 CPUs), ~2.1GHz
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
Card name: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4500 Series
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Display Memory: 2297 MB
Dedicated Memory: 506 MB
Shared Memory: 1791 MB
Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_rtm.090713-1255)
Please Comment if its good or not good
And what framerates do you get? And in ground, in exploration clusters, and in large fleet battles with a dozen plus ships and lots of enemies? Either you're used to slow/laggy gaming (or it doesn't bother you) or you haven't been to the most laggy areas yet (most graphically-intensive areas).
It's rather off-topic, but I've got a few notes about this;
CUDA and Stream are essentially obsolete.
They may stick around for a while, but the functionality they represent has been included in DirectX 11, which means there's now a standard manufacturer independent way of doing GP-GPU work.
(that, is among the main things added to DX 11)
Physx has extensions to let it run on an Nvidia GPU, but it is otherwise simply a pysics API.
(The PhysX logo can be seen on Star Trek Online's startup screen, so to say no MMO uses it isn't quite accurate...)
It has competitors, like anything, a common, (but often not mentioned) one being the Bullet physics libarary.
It generally doesn't get any mention because unlike PhysX, it's free. (However, it's known that GTA 4 uses it.). It supports pretty much the same features, and it'll run on an Nvidia GPU as well, because it has a CUDA implementation.
All of which means that PhysX is just a well-known brand name for something that a lot of games implement anyway, to a greater or lesser extent.
Heh... that mission bogged down my Core i7 920 + GTS 250 combo.
There's one ground high detail feature that can drop my ground FPS to under 20 - the "amber waves of grain", as I call them, because that's exactly what they are - waves of tall grass that sway back and forth, making even my new PC scream in pain, but I've only seen them on screen when there are several dozen, possible over 100.
Windows XP SP3
CPU:AMD Phenom II x4 ~3.21
Memory: 4GB DD3 1333Mhz Ram
Video: EVGA GeForce 9500 GT 1GB PCIe (up to date drivers)
Hard drive: WD Caviar 500GB Serial ATA HD 7200/16MB/SATA-3G
Thanks
Operating System: Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-950 quad-core processor (3.00GHz, 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache)
Memory: 8GB DDR3-1066MHz SDRAM (4 DIMMs)
Hard Drive: 1TB RAID 0 (2 x 500GB SATA HDDs) - Performance
Graphics Cards: 1.8GB NVIDIA Geforce GTX 260 (2 DVI, HDMI and VGA adapters)
Primary optical drive: LightScribe 16X max. DVD+/-R/RW SuperMulti drive
Networking: Integrated 10/100/1000 (Gigabit) Ethernet, No wireless LAN
Front Productivity Ports: 150-in-1 memory card reader, 1 USB, 1394, audio, video (for TV Tuner)
TV & Entertainment experience: TV tuner, ATSC-NTSC with PVR, remote
Speakers: Logitech X-540 5.1 stereo speakers
Will that run STO? And sorry about the specifications, I was reading it off a piece of paper I printed since I actually haven't ordered this PC yet.
*Mr. Burns pose* Excellent, this new PC will serve me well then.
AMD athlon 2 X2 3gig - XFX 9800gt 512mb - 2gig DDR2 Kingston HyperX
upgrading from a 3.2gighz pentium D with a radeon 2600pro
im guessing this will play it, does anybody have an idea of what settings i will be running at?
thanks
"edit"
the resolution will be 1440x900
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-750 (8MB Cache, 2.66 GHz)
Memory: 6 GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066 MHz
Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 5450 1 GB DDR3
Hard Drive: 1 TB
Also, I'm running DSL internet using a wireless G network. It's served me well for other things, but does anyone see any problems running this game via that?
Thank you.
I've seen the following Laptop, but I need to know if it will run STO:
Processor Intel® Core i5-520M Processor - 2.4 GHz - 4.8 GT/s DMI - 3 MB L3 Cache
Operating System Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit
RAM 6GB DDR3 SDRAM
Graphics card NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU
Screen type Widescreen LCD
Screen resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD)
Screen size 16.4"
Hard drive 320GB SATA
Optical disk drive Blu-ray Disc Player: BD ROM/ DVD Rewriter
If anyone can PM me with help, I will be very thankful.
I've got a similar laptop (though my processor is an i7) and you will have no issues. I routinely clock 50 to 60 fps in space combat.
Yup.
This is true, but with a caveat. Early Phenom I integrated graphics chipsets were very underpowered in comparison to more recent integrated graphics for Phenom II based machines. This can lead to having to set all lowest graphics settings and still not getting a comfortable frame rate, even though the CPU itself is more then up to the task. Hence my leaving AMD out of the equation of my statement since I cannot say the same without that caveat. Also notice the exclusion of Core 2 based machines in my statement even though the CPU itself is more then enough as well, but the potential encountered integrated graphics that CAN come with that CPU platform may be far too weak to play anything remotely 3D accelerated.
I was simply making a unarguable rule for those who have that particular platform to know they are already covered and totally safe without question. Even the integrated graphics of a Core i3 is more then enough to play STO on, even though the Core i3 CPU itself may even be considered inferior to a first generation Phenom X4. Core i5 only comes with integrated graphics on the mobile side, and it too is more then sufficient for this game. Desktop Core i5 almost always has discreet graphics. Core i7 has no form of integrated graphics anywhere for it and is ONLY available with discreet graphics.
I have the ASUS g51vx-x3a and it runs STO just dandy. It also runs battlefield2: bad company and Mass Effect 2 without problems.
Just my 2 cents
Same is true for integrated graphics on Intel CPUs too. I've seen older 8100 and such built-in GPUs on Core i5/i3 systems too.
We're talking CPUs here, not GPUs. Two very different things, so I wouldn't lump them together at all.
No, you haven't seen any such thing. Please link to any such chipset with 1156 socket and 8100 integrated graphics, you won't be able to as it does not exist nor has it ever nor will it ever. And the rule was based on what GPU will be found with what CPU. You would be ignorant of Core i3 and i5 to say they come with ANY integrated video other then the video built into the CPU itself. Or did you not know that? THAT is why Core i3 and i5 were part of that rule, a technical detail you haven't apparently researched at all.
Core i3 and i5 Clarksdale (not i5 Lynnfield) uses ONLY the PM55 or H55/57 chipsets and has the GPU built into the CPU package (MCP based design of 2 chips, one substrate) now. And a memory controller. And a PCI Express controller. In fact, everything that WAS on the northbridge before, is now on the CPU with i3/i5 and performs WAY better then previous generation Intel integrated video. You could even go so far as to say PM55 and H55/57 are little more then glorified southbridges acting as the whole chipset now that the northbridge completely lives in the CPU itself. Core i5 Lynnfield, on the other hand, has no access to ANY form of integrated video at all since P55 is the only chipset you can run Lynnfield on. Since P55 is completely devoid of any graphics built in at all, a P55 system must have an actual graphics card installed.
Edit: Clarksdale i3 and i5 can also come with discreet graphics that work alongside the integrated graphics and take over 3D duties thanks to Nvidia's Optimus tech. But even without it, the i3 and i5's CPU based video chip is far superior to any integrated video on Phenom I platform or Core 2 platform. There were some "fake" i3's for a little while that were rebadged Core 2's and ran on socket 775, but those are long since dried up and gone, and were never real i3's to begin with.
Edit #2: In order to really put this in perspective, the ONLY other GPU you find, right now, beside a current i3 or i5 notebook is the Geforce GT330, WAY more powerful then a piddly 8100. I honestly think your either completely mistaken or making it up about seeing an i5 or i3 with 8100 integrated graphics since 8100 integrated graphics is ONLY found in socket 775, socket AM2, AM2+, and AM3, none of which is compatible with Core i3/i5/i7. The Core i3 and i5 series are socket 1156 and Core i7 can be socket 1156 or socket 1366, depending on model number (800's are 1156, 900's are 1366, except mobile 900's which are 1156).
Edit #3: And where exactly is Nvidia's bus license to even MAKE a Core i3/i5/i7 chipset with integrated graphics to begin with? Oh, right here:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/10/day-of-nvidia-chipset-reckoning-arrives.ars
There is not, nor will there EVER be a Core i3 or Core i5 with Geforce 8100 integrated graphics. It cannot happen because Intel said "no-no" to Nvidia, so Nvidia makes no Nehalem based chipsets as DMI is locked out for them. Core i3, i5, and i7 are all Nehalem variants, either Bloomfield, Lynnfield, or Clarksdale CPUs. And Clarksdale specifically comes with integrated video of it's own.
Edit #4: All that above boils down to, my rule still stands on it's own technical merit. If you have a Core i3, i5, or i7, you have nothing to worry about being able to play this game. The same can NOT be said of any other CPU series, Intel or AMD. When AMD's Fusion hits, AMD will have a brand to say the same as i3/i5 for integrated video (though I think almost any Phenom II system bought in the last year should qualify as well since AMD does sweet integrated graphics on 790GX and above).
I stand corrected, I see none out there with a non-Intel built-in GPU that uses an Intel Core i3/i5/i7 compatible northbridge chipset. I was probably thinking of AMD boards.
However, you can have a 1156/1366 socket board without built-in graphics. So they could easily have a low-end video card plugged in there. Your argument is still flawed that any 1156/1366 (Core i3/i5/i7 board) is fine with STO if you want to lump graphics in there too.
159 motherboards on Newegg with that: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&Subcategory=280&Description=&Type=&N=2010200280&srchInDesc=&MinPrice=&MaxPrice=&PropertyCodeValue=705%3A45356&PropertyCodeValue=705%3A49182&PropertyCodeValue=1256%3A27400
Actually, it seems the only one arguing for the sake of it is you since you keep trying and failing to shoot down a pretty common sense rule of thumb because it offends your brand sensitivity. Get over it. If you can actually FIND a Core i3, i5, or i7 system for sale online with insufficient video power for this game, link it or give up already. Anybody building said rig themselves already knows well enough how to answer these questions for themselves and won't be asking here
The only flawed logic is your attempt to save AMD face when none needs saving. Let me repeat my challenge for you. Find the Core i3, i5 or i7 built system online (not parts only, as I said, if you can build it yourself, you're NOT in here asking if it will run this game, you're in here telling others if they can or not) or surrender your argument position as untenable.
Edit: Last point to shoot down any further attempts to argue since it will eliminate any further debate on this point. Anybody buying a socket 1156 or socket 1366 motherboard to put a video card on will NOT be buying anything low end to stick on such a high end setup. It's a ridiculous point for you to have even made. Who buys a Ferrari and puts Yugo tires on it? Nobody, that's who.
You started the argument by lumping video in with CPUs. :rolleyes:
Huh? You stated Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs would be adequate, and I add Phenom. Then you went into a flaming fit by trying to lump GPUs in with CPUs. Again: :rolleyes:
I've seen it happen before. You're dealing in absolutes, which is always going to come back and bite you in the TRIBBLE. I deal with the real world. I've seen it happen before even if (I agree) it isn't logical. Stop making sweeping generalizations.
No, you did by ignorantly thinking Core i3 doesn't come with it's own GPU built in. It's your ignorance of hardware that is the problem, not my "lumping" of anything. You don't know what your talking about.
No. Once again you show ignorance. Core i3 and i5 ARE CPU AND GPU. Your ignorance of this is amazing.
Wrong. As pointed out above, your ignorance of Core i3 and i5 shows you have no room to say a word on this subject, you've shown ZERO knowledge of this hardware therefore have done nothing but troll and argue. You're proven wrong, LONG since so. You didn't even KNOW that Core i3 and i5 has a GPU built into the CPU. LAME! Quit arguing subjects you know nothing about already!
Edit: Everytime you respond to argue this point, you make yourself look more ignorant of the subject at hand, please stop trying to derail this thread with MISINFORMATION. You really don't know anything about which you speak.