Curse

Tealjackit · May 13, 2005, 07:05 AM // 07:05

Hi, there are my system specs:

Windows ME
Intel Petium III, 870 Mhz
Memory: 256 ram
Video card: Nvdia TNT2 model 64 quite outdated I know
Sound: DirectSound[SBLive! Wave out [A800]]

I was wondering what the minimum updates I would need to play this game at a fully functioning level at low/medium graphics. When I say minimum I mean the equipment with the least cost. Thank you very very very much for your time.

Principa Discordia · May 13, 2005, 08:58 AM // 08:58

My personal suggestion for a PC that would run Guild Wars in low/medium graphics would be as follows: -

Generic Socket-A Motherboard
AMD AthlonXP 2100+ (1.73GHz)
512mB Corsair Value RAM (DDR333 or DDR400)
Sapphire ATI Radeon 9600 XT

A lesser machine might be able to play this game, but this is the minimum I've played Guild Wars with personally at an enjoyable level. Swapping out the Radeon 9600 XT for a Geforce4 MX440 works, but in my opinion it's too slow and nasty to be any fun.

Hope this helps.

EnDinG · May 13, 2005, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Minimum Requirements To Play On Low Settings

Windows XP/2000/ME/98
800 MHz Pentium III or equivalent
256 MB RAM
ATI Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 or 4 MX with 32MB of video memory
2 GB available hard drive space
Internet connection
DirectX 8.0

Anything less, would be uncivilized. (Pun, yes I know.)

=================================================

For that 6600GT post, keep in mind, who, if they plan on playing any games in the future, would be an almost out dated card? If anything it would pay better to pick up a pretty decent one for a good price ONLY if they expect to be playing games for the next couple of years without fear of paying another $100 or more for the next almost outdated card.

And Forbidden16, keep in mind that graphic cards are expensive as hell for laptops. So the one you buy will be pretty steep when it comes to cost. Most come with intergrated video and well, sure it will run a game, but personal PC's are always going to be leading in that area.

Bruenor · May 13, 2005, 05:02 PM // 17:02

Not to start a war, but as well intentioned as Ending and Principia Discordia may be it simply is not true. I have been a system builder for over 12 years and a member of the videogame media for over 5. It is very easy when you are into PC's to have tunnel vision and see things from your perspective only. The developers themselves have posted minimum and reccomended systems, what would make you think they are wrong?

Now you two have posts all over this forum stating the greatness of the 6600GT and the bang vs. buck argument which is all over the internet. It's true for HEAVY DX9 games a 6600GT is great, GW is not one of them. The Dev's advise an ATI Radeon 9000 or a Nvidia Ti 4200 for BEST results. Not everyone is into synthetic benchmarks or 3D mark scores, they are into games and GW is very light on sys req's. You are pushing people away from enjoying a great game by making them think a 6600 gt is the only way to play. A Geforce 4 MX 440 is all that you NEED to play GW (I use one and play at mid-high detail on a AMD 2800 @ 3200, 512MB PC3200 ddr system).

My advice to all who are confused is to go by the official Guild Wars FAQ under System Requirements. The minimum specs will get you playing with low-mid level graphics the reccomended will get you mid-high graphics. 'Nuff Said

Principa Discordia · May 13, 2005, 05:28 PM // 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

Not to start a war, but as well intentioned as Ending and Principia Discordia may be it simply is not true. I have been a system builder for over 12 years and a member of the videogame media for over 5. It is very easy when you are into PC's to have tunnel vision and see things from your perspective only. The developers themselves have posted minimum and reccomended systems, what would make you think they are wrong?

Now you two have posts all over this forum stating the greatness of the 6600GT and the bang vs. buck argument which is all over the internet. It's true for HEAVY DX9 games a 6600GT is great, GW is not one of them. The Dev's advise an ATI Radeon 9000 or a Nvidia Ti 4200 for BEST results. Not everyone is into synthetic benchmarks or 3D mark scores, they are into games and GW is very light on sys req's. You are pushing people away from enjoying a great game by making them think a 6600 gt is the only way to play. A Geforce 4 MX 440 is all that you NEED to play GW (I use one and play at mid-high detail on a AMD 2800 @ 3200, 512MB PC3200 ddr system).

My advice to all who are confused is to go by the official Guild Wars FAQ under System Requirements. The minimum specs will get you playing with low-mid level graphics the reccomended will get you mid-high graphics. 'Nuff Said

Learn to read, I suggested a 9600 XT. I only suggested a 6600GT for people who want to max-out their detail at an affordable price. By the way, I have played Guild Wars on a Geforce4 MX440, it just wasn't fun having to run Guild Wars in those levels of detail, the MX440 is six feet under.

EnDinG · May 13, 2005, 06:21 PM // 18:21

Same here, read before posting man.

I mentioned that they ONLY buy the video card if they plan on playing more then just Guild Wars in the next year and half in order to save them money upgrading their video card again for more intense experiences.

Sure, you can say that the low 9000 series is fine for Guild Wars, we are only giving a heads up to these people that its pretty low grade right now and future games will require a better card if they wish to play them.

Would you rather hear from someone "Yes, the 9200 works for Guild Wars." or "Yes, the 9200 works for Guild Wars but if you are looking to play any other games in the next couple of years without spending ANOTHER $100 or so on the next low grade card, I'd suggest picking up a 6600 card."

If anything we are just helping the person out and trying to save them money in the long run. Why waste $100 for a card that works for Guild Wars but has (possibley) very low settings to play something like Doom 3? The more intense something is, the better card we would SUGGEST to them so they can experience decent graphics from these games of the future. Who honestly wants to play in ugly mode?

Bruenor · May 14, 2005, 07:51 PM // 19:51

Once again, I know you guys think you know PC hardware because you follow online reviews that highlight FPS framerates and 3D Mark scores but you are not in tune with the reality of hardware. No one here cares about Doom 3, and if you guys had read Forbidden's previous posts he is looking to get a budget system to play GW... he even states he will soon be getting a laptop with upgraded features and needs something for now.

Oh and just to prove your MX 440 bash totally wrong, I just did a bit of system tweaking and was able to play GW on full high settings and after effects except for AA (which makes no difference in GW) and except for medium shadow detail (which again makes no big difference) at an average above 35FPS which is perfectly smooth gameplay.

Quote:

What are the system requirements for Guild Wars?

Minimum System Specs

* Windows® XP/2000/ME/98
* Intel Pentium® III 800 Mhz or equivalent
* 256 MB RAM
* CD-ROM Drive
* 2 GB Available HDD Space
* ATI Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 or 4 MX Series Video Card with 32MB of VRAM
* 16-bit Sound Card
* Internet connection
* Keyboard and mouse

Recommended System Specs:

* Windows® XP/2000/ME/98
* Intel Pentium® III 1GHz or equivalent
* 512 MB RAM
* CD-ROM Drive
* 2 GB Available HDD Space
* ATI Radeon 9000 or GeForce 4 Ti Series Video Card with 64MB of VRAM
* 16-bit Sound Card
* Internet connection
* Keyboard and mouse

This is straight from the developers. A $40-60 card that can play GW and a good number of other titles at normal resolutions and mid details is a good deal for those with casual gaming and low funds, and a $80-100 card that is median today will still be obsolete for most new DX9 upcoming games anyhow. Unless you are spending around the 6600GT future gaming is not a concern and by then the 6600GT will have dropped $40 and purchasing it at a later date will still equate to the same amount of cash but spread out to help the pocketbook of the average person.

Years of hardware sales teaches a lot of wisdom about pricing and economy, not looking at things from a review/benchmark fanatic POV also keeps things objective and accurate, if you could put away the preconceived notions you guys have you would see my point. I just hope to bring a level-headed, fair, and honest opinion to people with legitimate questions... unlike 90% of what you read on the internet that is filled with bias and hype. FWIW.

Principa Discordia · May 14, 2005, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

Once again, I know you guys think you know PC hardware because you follow online reviews that highlight FPS framerates and 3D Mark scores but you are not in tune with the reality of hardware.

Hasty generalisation fallacy, try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

No one here cares about Doom 3, and if you guys had read Forbidden's previous posts he is looking to get a budget system to play GW... he even states he will soon be getting a laptop with upgraded features and needs something for now.

I didn't mention Doom 3, I mentioned Guild Wars. I also mentioned the Radeon 9600, which in the real world (not Bruenor world) is a budget graphics card.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

Oh and just to prove your MX 440 bash totally wrong, I just did a bit of system tweaking and was able to play GW on full high settings and after effects except for AA (which makes no difference in GW) and except for medium shadow detail (which again makes no big difference) at an average above 35FPS which is perfectly smooth gameplay.

Good for you, I would provide you with a Blue Peter badge, but I'm running short. Just as a matter of record, it wasn't a bash, I'm still using my Geforce4 MX440 in another PC, but unlike you I know how to let it go. "A little tweaking", really, take us through it step by step please because I wish my little MX440 could run Guild Wars in even half that framerate on pathetic detail levels (and don't bash how I maintain or build my system in response to this, that would just be stupid.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

This is straight from the developers. A $40-60 card that can play GW and a good number of other titles at normal resolutions and mid details is a good deal for those with casual gaming and low funds, and a $80-100 card that is median today will still be obsolete for most new DX9 upcoming games anyhow. Unless you are spending around the 6600GT future gaming is not a concern and by then the 6600GT will have dropped $40 and purchasing it at a later date will still equate to the same amount of cash but spread out to help the pocketbook of the average person.

Yeah, because we all know that "official system requirements" are always accurate. You'd be a fool to believe that. As for pricing, the 9600 is the lowest card I will ever suggest for this game, why? Because it's a budget card. You're harping on about how cheap a Geforce4 MX440 or whatever is, but you're forgetting to aknowledge that the 9600 is also dirt cheap and offers great (read: enjoyable) performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

Years of hardware sales teaches a lot of wisdom about pricing and economy, not looking at things from a review/benchmark fanatic POV also keeps things objective and accurate, if you could put away the preconceived notions you guys have you would see my point. I just hope to bring a level-headed, fair, and honest opinion to people with legitimate questions... unlike 90% of what you read on the internet that is filled with bias and hype. FWIW.

Yes, it's all good harping on and blowing smoke about all your credentials and whatnot for a second time, but you're making all the wrong points and spewing hasty generalisation fallacies from every orrifice again (one in particular). I'm not one of those kinds of people, I simply judge a piece of hardware based on how fun it is to play with that piece of hardware. I found the game fun on a Radeon 9600 because it ran smoothly and still looked very good, especially for a card so old and cheap. I found the game unfun on my Geforce4 MX440.

You may continue to blow smoke about your credentials, you may continue to cheerlead for the MX440, and you may even continue to make hasty generalisation fallacies about where my opinions come from. But when it comes down to it, I'm suggesting one of the best value for money cards on the market, and you're suggesting a sub-standard piece of obsolete crap.

Have a very nice bloody day.

Edit: By the way, I just went to check prices of cards other than the MX440 or 9600. The 9600 is double the price of an MX440 (but you get more than what you pay for), however, if that price was a serious issue with a person (don't see why, it's cheap as dirt) the 9550 is almost the same price as the MX440 and stomps right all over it (much higher clock speeds and 4x the memory). Seriously Bruenor, the MX440 is obsolete and a waste of money compared to even the lowly 9550, I honestly don't know why you continue to cheerlead for it.

Serafita Kayin · May 14, 2005, 10:03 PM // 22:03

You know, I AM a hardware reviewer. Does that mean I'm biased?

No, it means I've had my hands on more hardware than most people will ever see. And it means I know how to push it to ridiculous levels. I had my 1400 Tbred at 1740. 1700 JIUHB @ 2.5 (10x250). 3000+ AXDA @ 2.45 (10x245). 2.53 @ 3.4. Last of this list, and certainly not least, my 3000+ Winchester at 2700 (with screenshots).

All that means I had better understand optimization. Otherwise none of those processors would still be alive (they all are.) When it says you can play it on base spec, it means you'll get blair witch effect from chugging graphics, and it looks like a monkey with a dry erase board drew it, but it plays.

I've used everything from a trident PCI on up. That includes off brands, who heard of it and wildcats, and the famous ones. I can tell you, playing on a GF4 MX440 is enough to make me wish to perform a self-emasculation and hang myself with the leavings. I buy games to play them maxed. Not to squeak by. If I did that, I'd never own this watercooled AMD64. Or the 6600GT, or the gig of RAM. There are people who actually like doing that, and our recommendation is for them. And those who look to us for advice about becoming that way.

Principa Discordia · May 14, 2005, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Serafita, I don't know how you do it, but you always somehow make me chuckle.

Serafita Kayin · May 15, 2005, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Glad to see I had the intended effect.

Now, back to /trollbash, eh?

Bruenor · May 15, 2005, 03:46 AM // 03:46

Hey no problem, I take no offense to any of it. I actually plan to leave these boards due to the uselessness anyhow, I was trying to cut through the BS being spread by the so-called hardware experts here that keep making the same comments to everyones questions.

I'll answer your points though. For the MX 440, it has the ability to reach very close to the clock speeds and memory speeds of a number of the FX series and low end ATI cards that as you stated are TWICE as expensive. My tweaks were simple clock adjustments to the memory and core 380MHz on Core ~410 on memory (which is a medium level of overclock). Now mem bandwidth it not great so no AA or Anistropic which do not make too much difference on GW. Medium on shadows is the only sacrifice. That is hardly squeaking by, or playing at base levels.

I am not a fan of the MX 440 and I have a number of video cards for your info as I have done reviewing as well and run a mid-size corporation's network and systems, I was trying to give a good solid baseline for lower end systems or people with limited funds who only care about the here-and-now and playing GW without breaking the bank on unneeded hardware. I've played GW on MX440, volari v5, 9500 pro, and 9800 and they were all very capable. I don't like the V5 and the 9500 pro is very good median point that plays GW at max and can play most titles out there.

My points are valid, I stand by my word, I'm sorry to all of those who will be put-off by the 133t hardware "experts" on these boards who spend more time bragging about their systems and buffer them with small pictures of their scarrification 'cause that's extreme. I'm not fighting anymore, because win or lose fighting on the internet makes you a retard.

Principa Discordia · May 15, 2005, 10:21 AM // 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

I actually plan to leave these boards due to the uselessness anyhow

Bye then, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

I'll answer your points though. For the MX 440, it has the ability to reach very close to the clock speeds and memory speeds of a number of the FX series and low end ATI cards that as you stated are TWICE as expensive. My tweaks were simple clock adjustments to the memory and core 380MHz on Core ~410 on memory (which is a medium level of overclock). Now mem bandwidth it not great so no AA or Anistropic which do not make too much difference on GW. Medium on shadows is the only sacrifice. That is hardly squeaking by, or playing at base levels.

Then your MX440 is magic, because my MX440 on a similar overclock (of course it's pointless overclocking an MX440, you get no performance increase) couldn't take the "stress" of the overclock for more than a week and I had to underclock it gradually until it was back to near-factory speeds. The MX440 does overclock greatly for such an old and crap card, but it doesn't last, and produces no real performance increase to speak of as nothing multiplied by two is still nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

I am not a fan of the MX 440 and I have a number of video cards for your info as I have done reviewing as well and run a mid-size corporation's network and systems, I was trying to give a good solid baseline for lower end systems or people with limited funds who only care about the here-and-now and playing GW without breaking the bank on unneeded hardware. I've played GW on MX440, volari v5, 9500 pro, and 9800 and they were all very capable. I don't like the V5 and the 9500 pro is very good median point that plays GW at max and can play most titles out there.

You're yet to challenge my suggestion about the 9550 being almost the same price as the MX440 and a hell of a lot better. Feel free to admit that the MX440 is obsolete rubbish any time you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruenor

My points are valid, I stand by my word, I'm sorry to all of those who will be put-off by the 133t hardware "experts" on these boards who spend more time bragging about their systems and buffer them with small pictures of their scarrification 'cause that's extreme. I'm not fighting anymore, because win or lose fighting on the internet makes you a retard.

Again with the hasty generalisation fallacy, you simply can't make a post without them, can you. In the tradition of debating I accept your three fallacies as your concession. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

Serafita Kayin · May 15, 2005, 02:46 PM // 14:46

You know, I don't even have to post a defense of myself. Your attack was sufficient.

The only reason we have to post things more than once is cause people don't read the instructions. Follow from the time of such as the video card thread, and then afterwards, people aren't reading it... ...unless we link it to them, which shows that we're dealing with people we have to lead by the hand.

Corporate networks and systems does not in any way translate to my former and present job of professional modder and sometimes sponsored overclocker. If you need proof of either of those, I can give that. But enough trying to defend myself. Truth is, most people are just glad someone listens to them and wants to help. That's all we're doing.

Wanna help, telling a n00b to OC a GF4 isn't helping.

EnDinG · May 16, 2005, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Go away for a weekend, come back to a bible, LoL.

I'm just going to say it again since you didn't quite read it the first time, but I was using Doom 3 as an example of the upcoming graphic intense games. No one can honestly expect games in the next year to be anything less then wonderful when it comes to visuals. At the rate software is being constantly updated anyone who uses older engines for games will never get the popularity of another company who goes new.

The common gamer will always play a game if it looks pretty.

As for your new "Oh, I overclocked my card and it runs just as good as this!" comment, again, the common gamer and computer purchasing human has no idea how to overclock a card, motherboard, or even how to open a computer case to pop in a stick of memory. (Many a times I'm standing in Best Buy listening to people get ripped off because their upgrade of 128 costs $100. Thats what, $30 for a stick, $70 for 2 minutes of labour? Most of the time I feel the need to tell the person to give the damn computer to me, give me a minute and I'll do it for $10 on the spot if they have bought the stick.)

People spend tons of money on pre-built computers because they have better things to do with their life (god knows what!) then to spend time learning about how a computer works down to its bare bones. Stating about how we declare certain cards for the best long term value, and use for the consumers dallor is all based upon the fact that we are forced to used a generalized view that the people do not know how to overclock anything on their system. The fact that they read "Warning, you might get screwed!" scares people off and it should. Who wants their system fried after spending so much money on it?

So overall, the best way to suggest something is by taking into consideration as to where games and computers are going and what is the best possible deal that the average person would like. If we know someone overclocks their graphic card and/or system, I'm pretty sure those people wouldn't be posting for help when buying a new card on these forums.

So... Simple enough of a breakdown? The best suggestion for the generalization of the average computer user is our knowledge of what the future holds for these people and not to have them ripped off if they wish to plan for the next couple of years. Not buying a cheap video card and telling a person, here over clock this and your good to go, just follow these steps, don't screw up, or you just wasted money.

Thomasuwoo · May 16, 2005, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwaite80

I have the following, any thoughts on how it will run:

1.2 ghz AMD
512 ram
Radeon 9000 pro 128 megs of ram

I have a 1.4 ghz AMD
512 (old SDRAM)
Readon 9000 pro 128 megs.

Runs damn fine on my system.
Having viewed other computers the game will "run" On just about any system.
playabilty once more comes into scope though.

I found that any less then 512 ram really hurts GW. Noticle chuggyness on most settings. Chucked in an extra 256 ram into a friends comp and the perforance boost was amazing.

Funnyly enough i have an old 900hmz with a TNT 32 Meg (Mainly for my older games

) and 256 meg and GW still runs! very chuggy but still playable for patient peeps

Basicly i think top proity goes to ram, followed by a decent card, then processor speed.

Considering how the game looks I'd say it's very well coded to run on such a broad range of setups.

The Forerunners · May 17, 2005, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Will Guild Wars work on mine?

Pentium 4

2.93 GHz

480 MB RAM

My graphics card is:

SiS 661 FX 32MB

Principa Discordia · May 17, 2005, 11:04 PM // 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Forerunners

SiS 661 FX 32MB

I think that your processor and RAM should be fine, as for your graphics card I think that you should ask Serafita Kayin as he's somewhat of an aficionado of non-mainstream graphics cards.

With 32mB video memory, though, I can't say I'm the slightest bit optimistic. I've had limited success running this game on 64mB graphics cards.

Serafita Kayin · May 18, 2005, 01:56 AM // 01:56

The 661 FX is actually older than the Xabre, so no go.

Tealjackit · May 18, 2005, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

I have a 1.4 ghz AMD
512 (old SDRAM)
Readon 9000 pro 128 megs.

Runs damn fine on my system.
Having viewed other computers the game will "run" On just about any system.
playabilty once more comes into scope though.

I found that any less then 512 ram really hurts GW. Noticle chuggyness on most settings. Chucked in an extra 256 ram into a friends comp and the perforance boost was amazing.

Funnyly enough i have an old 900hmz with a TNT 32 Meg (Mainly for my older games

) and 256 meg and GW still runs! very chuggy but still playable for patient peeps

Basicly i think top proity goes to ram, followed by a decent card, then processor speed.

Considering how the game looks I'd say it's very well coded to run on such a broad range of setups.

sadly enough your 900 mhz system outperforms mine =/. Maybe I'll just not buy the game...