For a change of topic, and because I seem to have lost the ability to post anywhere but this sub-forum for some reason (not a paying customer yet, I know) ...
I posted a while back in this topic when all things STO were still hypothetical. My coming-up-on-four-years-old laptop (an HP Pavilion dv8330ca) possesses the following:
OS: Windows XP SP2 -- (will upgrade to SP3 once I get around to it)
CPU: Intel Core Duo T2250, 1.73GHz
Memory: 1GB RAM -- (currently looking into upgrading this)
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 graphics card
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX: Version 9.0c or higher
HDD: over 113GB free (200GB total) disk space
Network: high-speed cable (Cogeco) via a wireless network -- (yes, yes, I know cable is preferable, I'll see about that)
Disc: 8X DVD-ROM
The things which may be a concern, I have bolded above.
Now that we know for sure what STO is like and what sort of resources it consumes, do you think it would be possible for my machine to run it? (I assume it would take some lowered graphics settings to pull it off.) Or is Cryptic still hell-bent on putting the game out of reach of all but the newest, most top-of-the-line PCs?
For a change of topic, and because I seem to have lost the ability to post anywhere but this sub-forum for some reason (not a paying customer yet, I know) ...
I posted a while back in this topic when all things STO were still hypothetical. My coming-up-on-four-years-old laptop (an HP Pavilion dv8330ca) possesses the following:
OS: Windows XP SP2 -- (will upgrade to SP3 once I get around to it)
CPU: Intel Core Duo T2250, 1.73GHz
Memory: 1GB RAM -- (currently looking into upgrading this)
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 graphics card
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX: Version 9.0c or higher
HDD: over 113GB free (200GB total) disk space
Network: high-speed cable (Cogeco) via a wireless network -- (yes, yes, I know cable is preferable, I'll see about that)
Disc: 8X DVD-ROM
The things which may be a concern, I have bolded above.
Now that we know for sure what STO is like and what sort of resources it consumes, do you think it would be possible for my machine to run it? (I assume it would take some lowered graphics settings to pull it off.) Or is Cryptic still hell-bent on putting the game out of reach of all but the newest, most top-of-the-line PCs?
CPU will be fine. And you should be able to run with 1GB, though that will be maxed when playing so your paging file on your hard drive will be used a little. Also, a 7600 GT card will be fine, but if you have a 7600 GS you'll be hurting a bit. It will run fairly smooth at low settings with a 7600 GT, as I've tested STO before on a spare PC I have with that card. Yours is going to be a mobile version, so it might be a little laggy, but playable.
I cant keep high FPS at 1280x1024 lol bloom is off, AA is off, depth of field is off, particle density is low, shadows set to low, and relfection set to low and im running
CPU will be fine. And you should be able to run with 1GB, though that will be maxed when playing so your paging file on your hard drive will be used a little. Also, a 7600 GT card will be fine, but if you have a 7600 GS you'll be hurting a bit. It will run fairly smooth at low settings with a 7600 GT, as I've tested STO before on a spare PC I have with that card. Yours is going to be a mobile version, so it might be a little laggy, but playable.
Cool ... so I'll make sure to get that RAM upgrade then! Thanks for the evaluation.
what mobile 7600 is it, there are sevral versions lol.
7600 is pretty much a 7300GT and preforms actully just as fast
7600GS is pretty much a real 7600GS
7600GT is almost a real 7600GT just slighty downclocked
there are 3 Geforce 7600 series cards the GO 7600, GO 7600GS. GO 7600GT lol, if yours is the normal GO 7600 it wont play real well as its pretty much a 7300GT
Sorry about the vagueness. It's a GeForce Go 7600, as would be standard for a laptop.
I presume that doesn't help my case ... ?
Yup, the only 7600 for laptops (three Go models)... that sounds about right. You're looking at a 3,000 MT/s to 3,600 MT/s fillrate on the 7600 Go vs. 6,720 MT/s fillrate with the 7600 GT. Quite a difference. You'll probably be able to play STO with lowest settings, but it's going to lag a graphically demanding places like fleet battles, etc.
If you're looking to upgrade your laptop, I'd recommend it. If you're avoiding that, adding another 1GB of memory to that would at least just get you by, even if a little slow in some areas of the game.
Yup, the only 7600 for laptops (three Go models)... that sounds about right. You're looking at a 3,000 MT/s to 3,600 MT/s fillrate on the 7600 Go vs. 6,720 MT/s fillrate with the 7600 GT. Quite a difference. You'll probably be able to play STO with lowest settings, but it's going to lag a graphically demanding places like fleet battles, etc.
If you're looking to upgrade your laptop, I'd recommend it. If you're avoiding that, adding another 1GB of memory to that would at least just get you by, even if a little slow in some areas of the game.
Curses. Yeah, I figured upgrading the graphics card would be less feasible than upgrading RAM. Still, I could use the extra capacity for other programs in the meantime.
Even so, I have no idea what Cryptic is thinking requiring such new systems to run the game. How complex is the stuff they want to render? And could they have spent the time making the gameplay better?
Stop the personal attacks, it's not welcome. That's all you apparently want to do.
No, it's not "all I want to do". I want you to stick to what you know and quit trying to correct people when you have no clue what you're correcting. You were wrong. Period.
The Intel i3 and i5 CPU with the Codename Clarkdale (desktop) Arrandale (mobile) has Integrated GPU. The i5 Codename Lynnfield which was release first does not have Integrated GPU.
Now the_moshpit, if you actually would had read the "graphic" reviews on Clarkdale and Arrandale you would know the graphic on these processors are design to run HD movies and not "demanding" 3d games.
While it isn't ideal for gaming, the Intel HD Graphics passes itself off nicely. It runs Windows 7 in Aero mode flawlessly. As entry level graphics go Intel has made a nice improvement, just don't expect to play the latest blockbuster game titles with all the bells and whistles turned on.
In the grand scheme of things, not too well. Its result of 5,429 at the Entry (1,024-by-768 preset) in 3DMark Vantage is respectable enough, but otherwise the Intel HD Graphics aren't ideally suited for even basic 3D gaming with medium levels of detail or higher. As you can see by the scores for the Core i5-661 when we added in the GTS 250, even a moderately inexpensive discrete video adapter makes a huge difference if you want to pursue light 3D gaming. But if you're interested in primarily 2D games and watching movies or online video content, the graphics are more than suitable.
Final Thoughts
For those who aren't always sure what graphics card is the best for themor even if they really need one at allIntel's new Clarkdale processors will definitely simplify the computing experience. They won't provide a discrete-level experience for 3D games, but will provide a sufficient boost for more casual titles and everyday tasks. The Core i5-661 displays admirable performance against the formerly similarly priced Core i5-750, and fits snugly within the midrange of Intel's new CPUs. If you're putting together a home-media system, the Core i5-661 is an attractively priced and powered option.
Whether the GMA HD lives up to "mainstream 3D gaming" very much depends on what you define as a mainstream 3D game. And, I suppose, whether you're willing to tolerate extremely low resolutions and detail levels. Intel still has work to do on the compatibility front, as evidenced by our issues in Geometry Wars. I tried to use GRID for testing, as well, but it crashed to the desktop before even loading. That particular issue has afflicted older GMA revisions for a while now, and I guess it hasn't been fixed.
Intel's may only expect the GMA HD to handle so-called casual or mainstream titles, and it'll do just fine if you pick and choose your titles, resolutions, and in-game detail levels carefully. But there are plenty of games that are simply too slow or too ugly on the GMA HD to be worth playing. I'm not talking about cutting-edge titles, either. Call of Duty 4 is more than two years old now, and any sort of on-screen action will bring the GMA's frame rates into the low 20s, even at the lowest resolution and detail levels.
So, just exactly how much hardware does a person need to run Star Trek Online? With an ultra-budget Athlon II X2 250 paired with integrated 785G graphics, we were able to run the game smoothly at 1280x1024 at the maximum detail level, as long as we selected the Half Resolution option in the detail settings. Yes, the half resolution setting makes things a lot less attractive, but it works. If nobody's PC gets left behind, the MMO is viable.
However, if you want to push STO's fidelity to maximum at full resolution, you're going to need some decent graphics hardware. At 1280x1024, you'll want a GeForce 9600 GT, at minimum. For 1680x1050, a Radeon HD 4850 will do the trick. At 1920x1200, a GeForce GTS 250, GTX 260, Radeon HD 4890, Radeon HD 5750, or better should be on your shopping list. At 2560x1600, consider lowering the detail a bit, because none of the cards we've tested here could hit a solid 30 FPS at maximum settings.
the_moshpit, before you recommend something you best do your research first. Yes, STO will play on these CPU but you would need to reduce the settings and resolution to a point that the game will look ugly. You should try using the Half Resolution setting and see how ugly this game is.
LOL, but you admit they WILL run the game. Nobody said anything about it looking great. Or did you just add that part in yourself? My rule is STILL standing, If you have a Core i3, i5, or i7, you don't need to ask if you can play.
For the record, I HAVE read the reviews. I also build PCs for a living (and do VERY well by it). STO plays just fine on Core i3. Whether you think it's pretty or not is NOT part of the point. The point simply is that it WILL run at an acceptable frame rate and be playable. If it looks like first generation Eve Online, oh well, next time make sure to get a discreet graphics card, not my problem and NOT part of the rule mentioned
And for the "next time" thing you mentioned, maybe next time YOU should try READING what is said. I never promised antialiasing or anistropic filtering or anything resembling high settings. In fact, I said NOTHING about settings. Just that it can and WILL play the game. Or did that slip by you before you jumped to try to take me to task (you thought...).
Edit: Also, next time don't blatently rip off my posts.
The Intel i3 and i5 CPU with the Codename Clarkdale (desktop) Arrandale (mobile) has Integrated GPU. The i5 Codename Lynnfield which was release first does not have Integrated GPU
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.
LOL, but you admit they WILL run the game. Nobody said anything about it looking great. Or did you just add that part in yourself? My rule is STILL standing, If you have a Core i3, i5, or i7, you don't need to ask if you can play.
For the record, I HAVE read the reviews. I also build PCs for a living (and do VERY well by it). STO plays just fine on Core i3. Whether you think it's pretty or not is NOT part of the point. The point simply is that it WILL run at an acceptable frame rate and be playable. If it looks like first generation Eve Online, oh well, next time make sure to get a discreet graphics card, not my problem and NOT part of the rule mentioned
And for the "next time" thing you mentioned, maybe next time YOU should try READING what is said. I never promised antialiasing or anistropic filtering or anything resembling high settings. In fact, I said NOTHING about settings. Just that it can and WILL play the game. Or did that slip by you before you jumped to try to take me to task (you thought...).
Edit: Also, next time don't blatently rip off my posts.
Rip off your post? You are a fool. You think you are the only one who knows this stuff?
Now I do this for a living.
I was a System/Network Administrator. I work in DOS, Windows 3.0+,95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, 2003, Vista, Win7. Plus Novell, Linux and UNIX. Let's not even go over routers, PBX and network security/design. I been building and supporting systems and users while you where in grade school. I seen and done things you never even heard of.
I spend most of my free time reading tech news. And going the conferences and take classes to staying up to date. That what it's like in Silicon Valley.
A good tech support and salesperson is honest and tells the client exactly want is going to happen and what they are going to get. If you think that saying "it will run" is all you need to say then you been ripping off your clients.
"Design is in the Details"
You are obviously a pretender. Go troll somewhere else.
And I know you don't know Cipher Nemo but he is the primary IT Support for the college he works for. And he is a programmer. He actually gets paid to do that. Real hours, sick days, vacation days. You know the things adults get.
You see you are actually dealing with real IT professionals with real years of work experiences. We live and breath IT. It's our true love. Well, mine at least.
So go back to your little high school friends who think you are the "bomb".
Self Edited - Not going to get into the "my weeny is bigger then yours" thing about who's resume is more impressive. It's a silly argument. The fact is, you still fail to shoot down the original rule I posted. PC's based on Core i3, i5, and i7 are all 100% garunteed to be able to play this game (unless you purposefully hamstrung the system with a Matrox unGPU), you even admitted so yourself. Any further debate beyond that is pointless.
Furthermore, I expect fully that AMD's Fusion products will be much the same.
not true the GO 7600GT is 200mhz slower ram and 60mhz slower core than the desktop 7600GT while having the same amount of shaders, vertex and rops
True, they are different models with different specs, but if you look at the fillrates (raw performance comparison), they don't very much. It's 3,000 vs. 3,600.
White Knight, this is why I stopped bothering to give moshpit even the time of day. :rolleyes: He's just here to argue and flame by putting out straw-man bait. But he doesn't listen to his own advice...
White Knight, this is why I stopped bothering to give moshpit even the time of day. :rolleyes: He's just here to argue and flame by putting out straw-man bait. But he doesn't listen to his own advice...
What are you even babbling about? Talk about sour grapes for being proven wrong.
Self Edited - Not going to get into the "my weeny is bigger then yours" thing about who's resume is more impressive. It's a silly argument. The fact is, you still fail to shoot down the original rule I posted. PC's based on Core i3, i5, and i7 are all 100% garunteed to be able to play this game (unless you purposefully hamstrung the system with a Matrox unGPU), you even admitted so yourself. Any further debate beyond that is pointless.
Furthermore, I expect fully that AMD's Fusion products will be much the same.
Heres the problem. You know what we are saying is correct but you are so bent on being right that you wont do right.
You did a blanket statement that you should have known was wrong.
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.
Here you are wrong. Not all i5 and i7 have integrated video. This is a fact.
Only the Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 with the Clarkdale and Arrandale cores have integrated GPU.
But not on the Core i5 Lynnfield or i7 Bloomfield, Lynnfield, and Gulftown. These CPU do not have integrated GPU.
So this rule you keep referring to is a falsehood.
The next thing you should have done was to explain how well it will play. That is where you fail again.
I never promised antialiasing or anistropic filtering or anything resembling high settings. In fact, I said NOTHING about settings. Just that it can and WILL play the game. Or did that slip by you before you jumped to try to take me to task (you thought...).
Don't you think this info would be important to them?
You stated that you have all this knowledge then why did you not really, truly share it? But you choose not too. Instead of admitting that you where wrong and work towards correcting this you choose to start a flame war.
You say you build PC for a living. When a customer comes to you, do you not qualify them? Do you not explain to them the difference between integrated graphic and Graphic card? Do you not explain that if they wish to do demanding 3D games, video editing or CAD that having a Graphic card is better than integrated graphic? What the performance difference is.
If you want to truly help people then be truly helpful.
If you don't want to truly help then just walk away.
Don't you think this info would be important to them?
You stated that you have all this knowledge then why did you not really, truly share it? But you choose not too. Instead of admitting that you where wrong and work towards correcting this you choose to start a flame war.
You say you build PC for a living. When a customer comes to you, do you not qualify them? Do you not explain to them the difference between integrated graphic and Graphic card? Do you not explain that if they wish to do demanding 3D games, video editing or CAD that having a Graphic card is better than integrated graphic? What the performance difference is.
If you want to truly help people then be truly helpful.
If you don't want to truly help then just walk away.
Do the right thing.
That was insane to even go into. The point of the rule (which was correct, nothing you said disproved a darn bit of it) was to head off questions about wether or not they can play with what they have, not sell machines. Geeze, man, stay somewhat on topic...
The right thing is for YOU not to make such a crusade out of molehills. This isn't the place to sell products, or is that over your head?
Edit: Please show me the machine you can buy right now with Core i5 or i7 that doesn't have sufficient video or STFU. Not the MOTHERBOARD, if you can build it yourself then you're NOT asking if you can play this game, you already know what you have, I'm talking the whole machine you can buy RIGHT BLOODY NOW with Core i5 or i7 and insufficient video power that is less capable then the integrated video of i3/i5, link er up or shut er up. You won't be able to because YOU ARE WRONG and my rule is right. Link me wrong and I'm big enough to admit I'm the one who was ignorant of a model of machine that broke that rule.
The sad part of all this is, I didn't start any of the trolling here, I just put forth a STILL undefeated rule (that could indeed be helpful in cutting down the questions), and a couple people take offense to it and look for holes in it. Good luck. I can link up machines all day long that fit my rule just fine, you cannot link a single one that breaks that rule.
Edit: Heck, I'll even make this interesting. You can use Ebay and Craigslist links to home build machines and I won't complain against them not being common. I would LOVE to see you win this one by finding that ONE machine that defies logic and reason because some dummy stuck a Matrox or S3 Virge on an i7
That was insane to even go into. The point of the rule (which was correct, nothing you said disproved a darn bit of it) was to head off questions about wether or not they can play with what they have, not sell machines. Geeze, man, stay somewhat on topic...
The right thing is for YOU not to make such a crusade out of molehills. This isn't the place to sell products, or is that over your head?
Edit: Please show me the machine you can buy right now with Core i5 or i7 that doesn't have sufficient video or STFU. Not the MOTHERBOARD, if you can build it yourself then you're NOT asking if you can play this game, you already know what you have, I'm talking the whole machine you can buy RIGHT BLOODY NOW with Core i5 or i7 and insufficient video power that is less capable then the integrated video of i3/i5, link er up or shut er up. You won't be able to because YOU ARE WRONG and my rule is right. Link me wrong and I'm big enough to admit I'm the one who was ignorant of a model of machine that broke that rule.
The sad part of all this is, I didn't start any of the trolling here, I just put forth a STILL undefeated rule (that could indeed be helpful in cutting down the questions), and a couple people take offense to it and look for holes in it. Good luck. I can link up machines all day long that fit my rule just fine, you cannot link a single one that breaks that rule.
Edit: Heck, I'll even make this interesting. You can use Ebay and Craigslist links to home build machines and I won't complain against them not being common. I would LOVE to see you win this one by finding that ONE machine that defies logic and reason
You never even took the time to look up cipher_nemo and my profiles. If you did you would had seen that we have been helping people here since November when the system specs where announce. We have answer a lot of questions here and on the PC & Technical Issues. Cipher even has a sticky he created on tech support http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=57331
We have been praise for our work here.
You never even took the time to look up cipher_nemo and my profiles. If you did you would had seen that we have been helping people here since November when the system specs where announce. We have answer a lot of questions here and on the PC & Technical Issues. Cipher even has a sticky he created on tech support http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=57331
We have been praise for our work here.
You see you are the one trolling here.
No, you are the one trolling since I made a simple and correct rule and you've done nothing but throw a fit about it. I don't care WHAT you think you've done, if you're wrong, you're wrong. What part of that don't you get? Link up the proof of a system you can buy with Core i3/i5/i7 that has graphics inferior to i3/i5 integrated graphics or admit you were wrong and cannot prove your point. Fail much?
Edit: OMG!!! I just realized what you just said and it's insane. How can you DARE say that your past deeds have ANY bearing on your behavior now? You are the one who has disputed my stated rule of thumb and failed to back up your claim. Not a single link to a single system you can buy with the stated CPU that comes with insufficient graphics to play this game at least at minimal settings with an acceptable frame rate.
Show that logic and technical sense you claim or give it up. You've done nothing now but try to sit on your laurels and I have no respect for that kind of laziness.
No, you are the one trolling since I made a simple and correct rule and you've done nothing but throw a fit about it. I don't care WHAT you think you've done, if you're wrong, you're wrong. What part of that don't you get? Link up the proof of a system you can buy with Core i3/i5/i7 that has graphics inferior to i3/i5 integrated graphics or admit you were wrong and cannot prove your point. Fail much?
Comments
I posted a while back in this topic when all things STO were still hypothetical. My coming-up-on-four-years-old laptop (an HP Pavilion dv8330ca) possesses the following:
The things which may be a concern, I have bolded above.
Now that we know for sure what STO is like and what sort of resources it consumes, do you think it would be possible for my machine to run it? (I assume it would take some lowered graphics settings to pull it off.) Or is Cryptic still hell-bent on putting the game out of reach of all but the newest, most top-of-the-line PCs?
CPU will be fine. And you should be able to run with 1GB, though that will be maxed when playing so your paging file on your hard drive will be used a little. Also, a 7600 GT card will be fine, but if you have a 7600 GS you'll be hurting a bit. It will run fairly smooth at low settings with a 7600 GT, as I've tested STO before on a spare PC I have with that card. Yours is going to be a mobile version, so it might be a little laggy, but playable.
Athlon x2 6400 BE
XFX Geforce 8800GS 384mb
4gb DDR2 667
im a little bothered that it runs so poorly id have expected to run it at high at 12x10 I can run every game besides Crysis maxed at 12x10
Cool ... so I'll make sure to get that RAM upgrade then! Thanks for the evaluation.
7600 is pretty much a 7300GT and preforms actully just as fast
7600GS is pretty much a real 7600GS
7600GT is almost a real 7600GT just slighty downclocked
I presume that doesn't help my case ... ?
Son of a ptaQ. I mean, I could run something like WoW just fine on my computer if I wanted to ... only I'm after STO, not WoW.
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1761/TechPowerUp_GPU-Z_v0.3.9.html
it will tell you the info just download the tool it will tell us the excat model number
Yup, the only 7600 for laptops (three Go models)... that sounds about right. You're looking at a 3,000 MT/s to 3,600 MT/s fillrate on the 7600 Go vs. 6,720 MT/s fillrate with the 7600 GT. Quite a difference. You'll probably be able to play STO with lowest settings, but it's going to lag a graphically demanding places like fleet battles, etc.
If you're looking to upgrade your laptop, I'd recommend it. If you're avoiding that, adding another 1GB of memory to that would at least just get you by, even if a little slow in some areas of the game.
Well, this sucks. Didn't realize it made that big a difference.
Curses. Yeah, I figured upgrading the graphics card would be less feasible than upgrading RAM. Still, I could use the extra capacity for other programs in the meantime.
Even so, I have no idea what Cryptic is thinking requiring such new systems to run the game. How complex is the stuff they want to render? And could they have spent the time making the gameplay better?
The three laptop models are not that different from each other. But they're quite different from 7600 GT cards for desktops.
Thanks for the info, though!
not true the GO 7600GT is 200mhz slower ram and 60mhz slower core than the desktop 7600GT while having the same amount of shaders, vertex and rops
No, it's not "all I want to do". I want you to stick to what you know and quit trying to correct people when you have no clue what you're correcting. You were wrong. Period.
Now the_moshpit, if you actually would had read the "graphic" reviews on Clarkdale and Arrandale you would know the graphic on these processors are design to run HD movies and not "demanding" 3d games.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1170/15/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2357439,00.asp
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/18218
Here is Tom's Headware Star Trek Online: Game Performance Analyzed And Benchmarked the_moshpit, before you recommend something you best do your research first. Yes, STO will play on these CPU but you would need to reduce the settings and resolution to a point that the game will look ugly. You should try using the Half Resolution setting and see how ugly this game is.
For the record, I HAVE read the reviews. I also build PCs for a living (and do VERY well by it). STO plays just fine on Core i3. Whether you think it's pretty or not is NOT part of the point. The point simply is that it WILL run at an acceptable frame rate and be playable. If it looks like first generation Eve Online, oh well, next time make sure to get a discreet graphics card, not my problem and NOT part of the rule mentioned
And for the "next time" thing you mentioned, maybe next time YOU should try READING what is said. I never promised antialiasing or anistropic filtering or anything resembling high settings. In fact, I said NOTHING about settings. Just that it can and WILL play the game. Or did that slip by you before you jumped to try to take me to task (you thought...).
Edit: Also, next time don't blatently rip off my posts.
Now I do this for a living.
I was a System/Network Administrator. I work in DOS, Windows 3.0+,95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, 2003, Vista, Win7. Plus Novell, Linux and UNIX. Let's not even go over routers, PBX and network security/design. I been building and supporting systems and users while you where in grade school. I seen and done things you never even heard of.
I spend most of my free time reading tech news. And going the conferences and take classes to staying up to date. That what it's like in Silicon Valley.
A good tech support and salesperson is honest and tells the client exactly want is going to happen and what they are going to get. If you think that saying "it will run" is all you need to say then you been ripping off your clients.
"Design is in the Details"
You are obviously a pretender. Go troll somewhere else.
And I know you don't know Cipher Nemo but he is the primary IT Support for the college he works for. And he is a programmer. He actually gets paid to do that. Real hours, sick days, vacation days. You know the things adults get.
You see you are actually dealing with real IT professionals with real years of work experiences. We live and breath IT. It's our true love. Well, mine at least.
So go back to your little high school friends who think you are the "bomb".
Furthermore, I expect fully that AMD's Fusion products will be much the same.
True, they are different models with different specs, but if you look at the fillrates (raw performance comparison), they don't very much. It's 3,000 vs. 3,600.
What are you even babbling about? Talk about sour grapes for being proven wrong.
Heres the problem. You know what we are saying is correct but you are so bent on being right that you wont do right.
You did a blanket statement that you should have known was wrong.
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=2391415&postcount=2061
Here you are wrong. Not all i5 and i7 have integrated video. This is a fact.
Only the Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 with the Clarkdale and Arrandale cores have integrated GPU.
But not on the Core i5 Lynnfield or i7 Bloomfield, Lynnfield, and Gulftown. These CPU do not have integrated GPU.
So this rule you keep referring to is a falsehood.
The next thing you should have done was to explain how well it will play. That is where you fail again.
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=2401894&postcount=2090
Don't you think this info would be important to them?
You stated that you have all this knowledge then why did you not really, truly share it? But you choose not too. Instead of admitting that you where wrong and work towards correcting this you choose to start a flame war.
You say you build PC for a living. When a customer comes to you, do you not qualify them? Do you not explain to them the difference between integrated graphic and Graphic card? Do you not explain that if they wish to do demanding 3D games, video editing or CAD that having a Graphic card is better than integrated graphic? What the performance difference is.
If you want to truly help people then be truly helpful.
If you don't want to truly help then just walk away.
Do the right thing.
That was insane to even go into. The point of the rule (which was correct, nothing you said disproved a darn bit of it) was to head off questions about wether or not they can play with what they have, not sell machines. Geeze, man, stay somewhat on topic...
The right thing is for YOU not to make such a crusade out of molehills. This isn't the place to sell products, or is that over your head?
Edit: Please show me the machine you can buy right now with Core i5 or i7 that doesn't have sufficient video or STFU. Not the MOTHERBOARD, if you can build it yourself then you're NOT asking if you can play this game, you already know what you have, I'm talking the whole machine you can buy RIGHT BLOODY NOW with Core i5 or i7 and insufficient video power that is less capable then the integrated video of i3/i5, link er up or shut er up. You won't be able to because YOU ARE WRONG and my rule is right. Link me wrong and I'm big enough to admit I'm the one who was ignorant of a model of machine that broke that rule.
The sad part of all this is, I didn't start any of the trolling here, I just put forth a STILL undefeated rule (that could indeed be helpful in cutting down the questions), and a couple people take offense to it and look for holes in it. Good luck. I can link up machines all day long that fit my rule just fine, you cannot link a single one that breaks that rule.
Edit: Heck, I'll even make this interesting. You can use Ebay and Craigslist links to home build machines and I won't complain against them not being common. I would LOVE to see you win this one by finding that ONE machine that defies logic and reason because some dummy stuck a Matrox or S3 Virge on an i7
We have been praise for our work here.
You see you are the one trolling here.
No, you are the one trolling since I made a simple and correct rule and you've done nothing but throw a fit about it. I don't care WHAT you think you've done, if you're wrong, you're wrong. What part of that don't you get? Link up the proof of a system you can buy with Core i3/i5/i7 that has graphics inferior to i3/i5 integrated graphics or admit you were wrong and cannot prove your point. Fail much?
Edit: OMG!!! I just realized what you just said and it's insane. How can you DARE say that your past deeds have ANY bearing on your behavior now? You are the one who has disputed my stated rule of thumb and failed to back up your claim. Not a single link to a single system you can buy with the stated CPU that comes with insufficient graphics to play this game at least at minimal settings with an acceptable frame rate.
Show that logic and technical sense you claim or give it up. You've done nothing now but try to sit on your laurels and I have no respect for that kind of laziness.
Truly sad.:(
Find that proof yet? No?