Curse

Shredkill · Dec 15, 2007, 06:18 PM // 18:18

I'd like some opinions on my system specs. (whether or not they're decent or very poor)

I know my comp is kinda old so...

Proc: Intel Celeron D330 2.66GHz, 256k L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB
OS: XP Home SP2
RAM: 760MB
Video Card: GeForce FX5500 256MB

thats the basics.

I'm thinking it might be time for a new rig, but cash is short.

iridescentfyre · Dec 15, 2007, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Well, it should run Guild Wars around Medium detail without much trouble, but anything more than that will probably cripple performance. As far as Celeron CPUs go, why not just do in-game calculations on a piece of paper and save electricity?

Your CPU is terrible, but at least you're not using integrated video.

As for the price of a new PC, you can save yourself hundreds of dollars by building it yourself. You would end up with a much better PC for the money.
http://www.newegg.com/

Chaos Stein · Dec 15, 2007, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Ur CPU was bad when it was realesd.And that was 3 years ago...
But since GW is hardware friendly i think thesee setings should provide otpimal quality and performance:
Res:1024x768
Shaders:High
Texture quaility:Medium or High
Post process:U choose, doesnt influence performance so much.
Everything else set to low.Reflections and terrain detail just kill the performance.Shadows as well.
I run this setings at Sempron 3k, 512MB RAM, Radeon 9550 @345,440 and it runs smoothly.Cheers.

Quaker · Dec 15, 2007, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shredkill

Proc: Intel Celeron D330 2.66GHz, 256k L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB
OS: XP Home SP2
RAM: 760MB
Video Card: GeForce FX5500 256MB

thats the basics.

Well, no individual part is particularly terrible. But by today's standards it would be pretty low end. You didn't say if you had anything particular in mind, but as other people said, you could run GW at lower settings.

The cpu is not as bad as some would suggest. The Celeron D's are basically Prescott P4's. Cpus have gotten faster since then (mostly in terms of instructions per second), but 2.66GHz is still pretty good (probably around a more modern 2 gig chip).
760 Meg is better than 512, but not as good as 1 or 2 gig.
The FX5500 is much better than the FX5200 you often find in computers of that vintage, but lacks many of todays features.

The big problem is that it is not practical to upgrade any one part. Newer processors require a new motherboard (socket), RAM is now DDR2 instead of DDR, and the graphics slot is now PCIe instead of AGP.

So, your best bets are to either get a new mobo/cpu, new RAM, and a new graphics card, and most likely, a new power supply too (but you can re-use the rest.) Or, you can look around for some used pieces.

Shredkill · Dec 16, 2007, 05:31 AM // 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos Stein

Ur CPU was bad when it was realesd.And that was 3 years ago...
But since GW is hardware friendly i think thesee setings should provide otpimal quality and performance:
Res:1024x768
Shaders:High
Texture quaility:Medium or High
Post process:U choose, doesnt influence performance so much.
Everything else set to low.Reflections and terrain detail just kill the performance.Shadows as well.
I run this setings at Sempron 3k, 512MB RAM, Radeon 9550 @345,440 and it runs smoothly.Cheers.

Thanks for the advice and setting recommendations.

And thanks also to Quaker, for not totally ripping on my system, vintage as it may be.. lol