Curse

Brianna · Jan 09, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

I got a Fujitsu Lifebook and it has Intel Centrino Duo (Yuck) and an ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 (Double Yuck) but the thing manages 30-40 FPS average with Guild Wars up. Besides.. I can't see why you'd need more then 60 FPS anyway, that's why most people are capped at that.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html

lord_shar · Jan 09, 2008, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvidGamer

Thank you all for your posts.Thanks alot for that link Combatchuck it was very helpful.I think ill save up some more $ and get the laptop with a NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS its about a 100$ more then the one with the 7150.

Check out www.delloutlet.com if you haven't purchased the laptop already. My buddy managed to get a 15" widescreen laptop with a 2.0ghz Core2duo + NVidia 8600M-GT-256MB video card for $800. He bumped up the RAM from 1 to 4 gigs for +$200, bringing his total to $1000 for a sweet mid-range gaming portable.

I Dont Do Coke · Jan 10, 2008, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_shar

He bumped up the RAM from 1 to 4 gigs for +$200, bringing his total to $1000 for a sweet mid-range gaming portable.

No need for 4 gigs of RAM for mid-range gaming, let alone GW. If you're gonna game then get 2GB RAM and invest the rest of the money into the GPU imo, and get more RAM only when needed.

Anet... xD... says GW runs fine on dial-up.

Malice Black · Jan 10, 2008, 01:19 AM // 01:19

2GB is the minimum these days, 3GB is ideal and 4GB is pretty much overkill...for now.

TEB Elite · Jan 10, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

2GB is the minimum these days, 3GB is ideal and 4GB is pretty much overkill...for now.

2 gigs is still overkill, I run a group of 2003/4 tech machines that can still play some of the latest games quite decently. I would recommend people buy 2 gigs of ram if they want to, not because they need it.

lord_shar · Jan 10, 2008, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Does the above apply for both XP and Vista? I think my buddy's system set-up came with Vista, which can be a real memory hog.

TEB Elite · Jan 10, 2008, 04:18 AM // 04:18

Quote:

Does the above apply for both XP and Vista? I think my buddy's system set-up came with Vista, which can be a real memory hog.

Xp's minimum requirements require only 128 megabytes of ram, which under the right setup can run as smoothly as anything as long as you dont plan on any gaming or intense applications.

specs: (From ms.com)

Quote:

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

Vista has a recommended requirement of 1 gigabyte of ram for full feature capabilities, however I have seen it run smoothly at 512 megabytes.

specs: (From ms.com)

Quote:

# 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
# 512 MB of system memory
# 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Biostem · Jan 10, 2008, 04:23 AM // 04:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_shar

Does the above apply for both XP and Vista? I think my buddy's system set-up came with Vista, which can be a real memory hog.

I look at it this way:

WinXP needs ~512MB to run decently. Vista needs ~1GB to run decently. At 2GB, both run quite well. XP doesn't show an appreciable gain in performance at 3GB, but Vista will take all it can get.

XP's little GUI animations and effects, if turned on, don't impact performance too much, but if you turn the ones in Vista on, then prepare for a performance hit if you don't have RAM to spare...

As for the laptop, the biggest issue is getting a GPU w/ dedicated RAM. If it's a shared-memory video card, then it's going to perform below your expectations. My laptop, which has a Radeon Xpress 1150 that shares the system memory, runs GW quite well at 800x600 on medium settings, but the performance drops off steeply if you increase the resolution or other effects.

CptSpaulding · Jan 10, 2008, 08:00 AM // 08:00

For laptop I say go for the better Video Card (not based on MB ie 128, 256, ect since that really makes minute differences).

I have a 3 1/2 year old Alienware running a 128MB Radeon Mobility 9000 and can't support 64MB graphics games because the card isn't a 9400 or 9600 series, just a little fyi.

Also I average 22-30fps with a 300-800ms ping (connection rate only causes lower fps when I get bad lag). Also I run 800x600 since I've always had problems (with different comps and video cards) running higher res. It basically just gives me screen lag, CPU is overwhelmed, hence fps drop (and can drop fast).

To improve your fps you have to turn off or turn down settings via Advanced Display Properties Settings. The GW settings make very little difference I've seen on fps. I saw no to little fps change when changing graphics settings in GW but went from 5-7 fps to the 22-30 fps currents from turning off max settings in the display properties.

With my knowledge of Vista you also want to probably run 4GB RAM since Vista is a ram hog and you'll want to tune that down some. Also you want to run Vista Ultimate Edition since you'll get better gaming off of it (also 64-bit OS's norm run games better but XP Pro has been beating out all Vista OS's last I saw).

Also for the money the Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 is the best CPU for the money even though it seems pricey. The CPU won't really start being an issue until is fallen out of mid range and current programs start becomming process heavy. I run Dual 3.01 P4's (I believe at least can't member) with no issues on GW, but not sure how GW2 will be if I keep the rig. I do have heavy process issues with other updated programs and newer games and new programs.

Man I keep editing :P. Also you want a 7200rpm HD at a minimum and you want to have a HD that's double the size of what you want to have installed ie. your currently run with 50-60GB on your HD and never really exceed that, go 100-120GB. It'll keep the performance running good. Also I recommened a program called Diskeeper which is nothing but a defragger that runs in the background and uses little to no CPU power (does cost about 100 bucks though but is well worth it imo).

dont feel no pain · Jan 10, 2008, 08:15 AM // 08:15

I was always under the impression that your graphic card gives the main FPS and every other bit of hardware supports how well the graphic card gives FPS

or am i wrong?

And for some reason when i lower my graphics i get the same or even less fps than i usualy get (30-110 depending on areas)

oh yeah if your going fora new graphic card check benchmarks, not MB's lol

I once bought a £45 graphic thinking it will be the S*** but infact my New out of date x1650Pro (£34) out performs it ten fold because of its performance and spec.

CptSpaulding · Jan 10, 2008, 08:29 AM // 08:29

To improve your fps step by step from personal experience.

First "rick click" on your desktop.
Select "Properties"
Click the "Settings" tab
Click "Advanced"
Click through the tabs and if you see one that has Anti-Atrophsic (or whatever AA is lol).
Tweak these (I personally have everything on low 0 or off).

Next open Guild Wars and change the screen res to 800x600 (massive fps improvement if you were running something like 1600x1200). Then start tweaking the graphics settings in Guild Wars (my stuff is off, 0, or low for faster performance) but remember that you loose animations and effects with some stuff and others make minimal to no fps changes.

lord_shar · Jan 10, 2008, 09:03 AM // 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biostem

I look at it this way:

WinXP needs ~512MB to run decently. Vista needs ~1GB to run decently. At 2GB, both run quite well. XP doesn't show an appreciable gain in performance at 3GB, but Vista will take all it can get.

XP's little GUI animations and effects, if turned on, don't impact performance too much, but if you turn the ones in Vista on, then prepare for a performance hit if you don't have RAM to spare...

As for the laptop, the biggest issue is getting a GPU w/ dedicated RAM. If it's a shared-memory video card, then it's going to perform below your expectations. My laptop, which has a Radeon Xpress 1150 that shares the system memory, runs GW quite well at 800x600 on medium settings, but the performance drops off steeply if you increase the resolution or other effects.

Agreed with most of the above, though I'm finding 1gig RAM insufficient for XP once anti-virus/anti-spyware apps are factored in (their in-memory definition footprints easily push my system into heavy virtual memory use unless I go 1.5gigs+ RAM).

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSpaulding

For laptop I say go for the better Video Card (not based on MB ie 128, 256, ect since that really makes minute differences).

...<SNIP>...

Discrete/Dedicated video RAM is usually a big requirement for most performanced based gaming laptops since shared video / system RAM memory is significantly slower than the latter. Beware of routine factory misrepresenting actual dedicated video memory present in their products (like the 256MB 8400GS's or similar low-end video card line which actually has 128MB discrete memory + 128MB shared memory). Yes, GPU grade is much more important than dedicated video memory quantity present, but memory type and quantity does matter.

Malice Black · Jan 10, 2008, 11:39 AM // 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEB Elite

Vista has a recommended requirement of 1 gigabyte of ram for full feature capabilities, however I have seen it run smoothly at 512 megabytes.

specs: (From ms.com)

I can't see Vista running on 512MB RAM. I'm using that much RAM just to run background applications.