Curse

lazyi2etard · Sep 24, 2006, 11:03 PM // 23:03

I am thinking of buying Guildwars as my first game for my new computer (well updated old one)

. Anyway here are my system specs:

Pentium 4 1.7 GHz
2G DDR266 RAM
Geforce 6800GT/GS? (cant member)

I would like to know if I can run it on high, thank you.

frostydoom · Sep 24, 2006, 11:46 PM // 23:46

With 2 gigs if ram and a Geforce 6800 you sould have no problem putting guild wars on the highest possible settings

lazyi2etard · Sep 25, 2006, 12:01 AM // 00:01

excellent, look forward to seeing you in GW

Warpy · Sep 25, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Several things need to be considered. Like what resolution are you to be running in the game in.

For example I run GW in 1366x768 on my 32" DELL, with my old 6800 ULTRA I had problems, till I upgraded. So you need to consider that, even with a 20" + it would put your GPU under stress.

I would also consider what AA level you wish to use too. Anti Aliasing (AA) is a massive video resource muncher, the MAX GW supports is 4xaa. Your CPU is what will be the main problem.

lazyi2etard · Sep 25, 2006, 02:44 AM // 02:44

My monitor at the moment is no bigger than 45cm (metric). Even then I will only play at 1024x768 (usually). As for Anti Aliasing, if that is a CPU hog I can always put that to moderate/moderate-high. So if I use these setting should i get maximum graphic to smoothness performance?

Edit- Might be getting an LCD 24"

TopGun · Sep 25, 2006, 02:48 AM // 02:48

If you can afford a faster processor, get one... if your mobo can handle it, of course. There's no point in limiting a killer system like that with such an outdated processor.

Warpy · Sep 25, 2006, 03:14 AM // 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazyi2etard

My monitor at the moment is no bigger than 45cm (metric). Even then I will only play at 1024x768 (usually). As for Anti Aliasing, if that is a CPU hog I can always put that to moderate/moderate-high. So if I use these setting should i get maximum graphic to smoothness performance?

Edit- Might be getting an LCD 24"

With a 24" LCD you will be running the game in 1920x1200 with a 16:10 aspect ratio. There is no way that the computer you mentioned in your post will run GW with max detail inc reflections and 4aa along with 1920x1200.

When I came out from a valley in Factions deep into the Kurzick Terrority, my frame rate dropped from 85 to 25fps and that was with no action going on. The scenery looked amazing, but the draw distance and detailed landscapes is what caused the huge decrease and that is with a 512MB card.

Just to put things in the picture, my specs are:

AMD64 3800+ X2 (Dual Core)
2GB RAM OCZ
Gainward Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

N E D M · Sep 25, 2006, 06:25 AM // 06:25

with a geforce 6800 you should be in the clear, I run GW at maxed settings at 1280 x 1024

on a RADEON 9200 agp!!!

so the 6800 will eat a radeon 9200 for breakfast.

however p4 1.7ghz??
i have a crappy sempron processor but it runs 1.81ghz, are you sure 1.7ghz is correct??

anyway i predict flawless performance

lazyi2etard · Sep 25, 2006, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Sorry, I forgot to state that i overclock my CPU, it runs at about 2.1-2.2 GHz. Sometimes even more but it takes time for it to get use to the voltage.

Wrath Of Dragons · Sep 25, 2006, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazyi2etard

Sorry, I forgot to state that i overclock my CPU, it runs at about 2.1-2.2 GHz. Sometimes even more but it takes time for it to get use to the voltage.

the only 1.7 processor i can think of are low power consumption laptop processors. pentiums havnt gone below like 2ghz on a normal processor (non-dual or other special circumstances) in years. Everything else on the comp is nice, but even overclocked you arent getting even average performance from the processing side of things

lazyi2etard · Sep 26, 2006, 12:44 AM // 00:44

Yeah my computer is pretty old school, but the RAM was on sale and the video card was cheap, I think I may upgrade to a 3 GHz because it is only $230 after taxes.

Warpy · Sep 26, 2006, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by N E D M

with a geforce 6800 you should be in the clear, I run GW at maxed settings at 1280 x 1024

on a RADEON 9200 agp!!!

That may be true, but I strongly doubt you would have fluid frame rate with 4xAA and 16xAF which are the max settings. Most people forget to crank AA to 4x in the GW video options, and they definitely don't enable Antistrophic in their video card control panel. It makes a massive difference to video quality and performance.

I can show you some comparison screenshots tonight, so you can tell the difference if you like

Here is a cool animation showing the difference between enabling AF and disabling it. This link is taken from some game, but you can see the effect it has with enabling it, since GW is very terrain based with rolling hills and nice scenery it would pay to enable this option.

Here is this link to the animation. Note this option has to be enabled in your video card control panel to work in GW.

Anisotropic Animation

lazyi2etard · Sep 26, 2006, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Please do.

Warpy · Sep 26, 2006, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Have you ever enabled Anisotropic in your games before?>

lazyi2etard · Sep 26, 2006, 03:46 AM // 03:46

This is the first time my computer has been this up to date( excluding processor) last game i played was CS 1.6.

Kali Ma · Sep 26, 2006, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Warpy is giving you good info about the monitor and resolution settings. With the system you describe, it will likely be possible to run GW at max settings with a smooth frame rate at 1024x768 resolution, and then possibly at high settings at 1280x1024 with AA at 2x and minimal AF. Any resolution higher than that is probably going to bring the frame rate down to choppy land.

I have a Dell 24" widescreen monitor with a native resolution of 1920 x 1200, and the lowest resolution I can run GW at with a non-stretched full screen image is 1680 x 1050. My specs are:

Athlon 64 3000 o/c to 2200Mhz
2GB DDR400 with low timings
o/c Radeon 9550 256MB AGP

Of course, the GeForce 6800 GS/GT series is a better card and will yield better performance... but I've seen the difference, and it's not really that much better. If I wanted to run GW at high settings at the 24" native resolution, the minimum card I'd consider would be a 7800 series.

At 1680 x 1050 with all basic settings maxed and AA and AF disabled, I can get between 15 to 40 FPS, depending on the area. I can get about 5 FPS more by disabling Post-process Effects, and setting the shadows and shaders to medium or low. At 1920 x 1200, even with Medium settings, the frame rate drops to around 12FPS to 25FPS on average. Imho, anything below 20FPS makes the game feel very choppy, though it's still playable down to about 12FPS.

It also somewhat depends on which chapter of GW... I get consistently better frame rates in Propehcies than in Factions; and based on the preview event and the new login screen, am expecting to see a simliar performance hit moving to Nightfall.

So depending on your monitor's resolution and the chapter... yes, you'll probably be able to run GW on high settings. At any rate, you'll likely be able to find a setting that works for you and makes the game enjoyable. But I'd be surprised if it could run Factions at max settings with a smooth frame rate at higher than 1280 x 1024. For that, I'd consider a better graphics card.

lazyi2etard · Sep 26, 2006, 11:20 PM // 23:20

Yes well there is only so much I am willing to spend on a computer. Since im still waiting for my lifeguarding to go through and I still have to work around allowance (yeah FTW). But when I starts makeing some moneh I should be gold.

Mushroom · Sep 27, 2006, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

the only 1.7 processor i can think of are low power consumption laptop processors. pentiums havnt gone below like 2ghz on a normal processor (non-dual or other special circumstances) in years. Everything else on the comp is nice, but even overclocked you arent getting even average performance from the processing side of things

Intel did indeed make a 1.7 GHz P4 Processor. I have seen many of them in Dell OptiPlex GX240 and GX250 systems. However, most of the 1.7 CPUs were bought by companies like Dell and COmpaq for use in their business line systems (OptiPlex, Precision, and Evo) lines. Very few of them made their way to Consumer level systems.

I would look into upgrading the CPU myself. As a minimum, you should be able to upgrade it to at least a 2 GHz P4. It may be upgradeable higher, depending on the motherboard. I know from first hand experience that most Dell systems put a Front Side Bus lock on those systems, so they could not go above 2 GHz. YOu can drop in a 2.8, and the system will still see it as only a 2 GHz. But those CPUs are relatively cheap nowadays. We sell them for around $30.

Ghozer · Sep 27, 2006, 05:36 PM // 17:36

1.7Ghz P4 is more than enough, your all forgetting that the P4 (starting at 1.4Ghz) was the FIRST 800Mhz FSB CPU..

TreeDude · Sep 27, 2006, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Not all P4s had an 800mhz FSB. That wasn't till DDR400 came around. The origional P4s were 533mhz FSB. My gf has an old 1.6ghz P4 with DDR266. Its a 533ghz FSB. She plays on medium with shadows and reflections off and does lag sometimes. Thats with a FX5700LE that I had lying around. And a full gig of RAM.