The "Will my computer run this?" thread v1.8

[Digital Pain]

When i run the bench mark tool at 1280 x 720 resolution with Textures on 5 and the shaders on standard i get a miserable score of around the 600 mark i was dropping frames all over the place.

What i find weird though is i run these exact settings in the beta and the game runs like a dream even with so many things on screen at once.. Sega must have optimized this game really well, i'm upgrading my machine next month though in need of a new one i want to run the game at 1080p.

[xenokai]

I got a 5040 on the low setting test with it running at 70-120fps the whole time. This is im on a 2.4ghz AMD Athlon 64 3800+ single core with a 9500gt gpu. How accurate are these benchmark tests?

[Ce'Nedra]

Old:
Sharkoon Case MS140 € 39.95
Huntkey CP400HP ATX V2.3 400W PSU € 19.95
Motherboard Intel Gigabyte GA-Z77M-D3H € 89.95
Processor Intel Core i5 3570K € 229.95
CPU Cooler Arctic Freezer 7 Pro Rev2 € 22.95
Corsair 2x4GB DDR3 1600 CML8GX3M2A1600C9 LowP € 50.95
Crucial RealSSD m4 128GB SATA3 € 132.95
Western Digital 500GB S-ATA3 WD5000AZRX Green € 75.95
VGA MSI Geforce GTX560 1GB € 158.95
NEC Sony DVD+R/-R/RW AD-7280S S-ATA Black €24.95
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium NL OEM 64bit SP1 €109.95
10904 GData InternetSecurity 2012 NL 1PC OEM € 19.95

Total: €976,40

New:
Sharkoon Case MS140 € 39.95
Cooler Master 600w Gxlite PSU €57,95
Motherboard Intel Gigabyte GA-Z77M-D3H € 89.95
Processor Intel Core i7 3770 € 279,00
CPU Cooler Arctic Freezer 7 Pro Rev2 € 22.95
Corsair 2x4GB DDR3 1600 CML8GX3M2A1600C9 LowP € 50.95
WD 1TB Sata3 64mb WD 1002 FAEX Black €129,95
VGA MSI Geforce GTX560 T1 1GB Hawk € 228,95
NEC Sony DVD+R/-R/RW AD-7280S S-ATA Black €24.95
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium NL OEM 64bit SP1 €109.95

Total: €1034,55


So I spoke to 2 people at work and with a little tweaking arround for a little bit more money I get the above, I think that will be more then enough now?

[Xenobia]

Every PC 400$ and up can "handle" PSO2, however, the best price/power ratio is gotten by PCs at a price range of about 1000$.

[Quatre52]

When i run the bench mark tool at 1280 x 720 resolution with Textures on 5 and the shaders on standard i get a miserable score of around the 600 mark i was dropping frames all over the place.

What i find weird though is i run these exact settings in the beta and the game runs like a dream even with so many things on screen at once.. Sega must have optimized this game really well, i'm upgrading my machine next month though in need of a new one i want to run the game at 1080p.

I had the same problem, benchmark on the character creator said, while running at mid settings, i should lower my settings more...

Beta comes out, and I'm running it maxed, as I should be able to.

[kyuuketsuki]

So I spoke to 2 people at work and with a little tweaking arround for a little bit more money I get the above, I think that will be more then enough now?
Umm... not sure where you're even getting those CPUs. I don't see Ivy Bridge SKUs available at Newegg and I wouldn't expect many places to be in line in front of them. But in any case, not sure why you'd up your budget on the CPU by $50 and drop out the SSD altogether. You'll get much less benefit from that CPU upgrade (although it's not much of an upgrade paying more for a non-K-series CPU, unless that was just a typo) than you will from having an SSD for your main OS and application drive.

So yeah, I'd say: spend less on the CPU (and definitely don't pay a premium for Ivy Bridge parts if you can get a Sandy Bridge for cheaper, Ivy Bridge doesn't have any improvements noteworthy outside of the mobile space), and put an SSD back in there. Otherwise, it's fine.

[Ce'Nedra]

First off all there are no typo's in the parts i listed. This is from a local store over here.

SSD is going way to high price wise for me, plus i dont need my pc to load things in 0,00001 sec, idm if it takes a few seconds to load something. Thing with a PC always is that people got diffrent opinions and i got no clue on hardware myself thus i have to rely on opinions of others. I wish I could see solid proof of what is good and not just opinions. You say CPU isn't needed, others I spoke with said CPU does make diffrence. That's the issue i got, dunno who or what to believe...

[kyuuketsuki]

SSD is going way to high price wise for me, plus i dont need my pc to load things in 0,00001 sec, idm if it takes a few seconds to load something.
If you go down $50 on the CPU and get an 80GB or 90GB SSD, your budget won't go up by much, and the SSD will make MUCH more of a difference in the general responsiveness of your system in addition to reducing loading times. It's not a difference between a fraction of a second and a couple seconds loading every so often. Believe me. Anyone building a performance computer nowadays is doing themselves a big disservice not having an SSD for the OS and primary apllication drive.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or something. I just don't want you to waste money taking advice on spending huge on a CPU which won't make a noticeable impact on your computer usage compared to the very real impact made by an SSD. Unless you're using some professional rendering or graphics programs or compiling code in the background all the time, an i5-2500k or equivalent (or i5-2400 or equivalent if you're not the overlocking type) is really the top you should be spending on a CPU for a gaming rig if you don't have an unlimited budget.

An SSD is certainly going to make much more of a difference than the CPU upgrade will. And anyone telling you Ivy Bridge is with a price premium doesn't know what they're talking about. If there's no price premium, sure, there's no reason to not go Ivy Bridge (unless you're an over clocker). But otherwise, just get whatever is cheaper between Sandy and Ivy.

I have no vested interest and I'm spending my free time giving advice because I feel I have a good understanding and can help out those who aren't as knowledgable. I build my own rigs and spend my own time reading tech blogs and reviews because it's something I enjoy. Ultimately, it's your money and you have to do what you feel is best. I just feel you're getting bad advice from anyone telling you to spend up on the CPU and ditch an SSD altogether.

[kdrakari]

http://www.asus.com/Notebooks/Versatile_Performance/K52F/#specifications
3GB of RAM, i3 processor with integrated graphics. Not exactly recommended, but on the lowest standard graphics setting it has no issues.

Not that I actually play on it, but I had one so I figured I might as well try it out.

[spraye]

Finally, I learned why its run very slow, Risen 2 was slow too, it was necessary to remove the driver nvidia 3d vision and all works smooth now

[russellah]

http://www.asus.com/Notebooks/Versatile_Performance/K52F/#specifications
3GB of RAM, i3 processor with integrated graphics. Not exactly recommended, but on the lowest standard graphics setting it has no issues.

Not that I actually play on it, but I had one so I figured I might as well try it out.

I suspect that this game might be able to be run on integrated graphics and im glad you confirmed it.

[Eggobandit]

Of course it does, my laptop is i3 with 3GB ram and Intel GMA and on lowest settings it runs just fine.


Turn any shaders on though and it'll chug at like 4 frames a second, no lie

[kyuuketsuki]

Of course it does, my laptop is i3 with 3GB ram and Intel GMA and on lowest settings it runs just fine.


Turn any shaders on though and it'll chug at like 4 frames a second, no lie
I'm interested to see some screenshots from anyone who played the beta at the lowest settings with no shaders on integrated graphics. Between the fact that Intel's integrated graphics suck and the fact that their drivers really suck, I'm honestly surprised it will run acceptably even at the absolute bare minimum. So, I'm wondering just how ass the game looks at those settings.

'Course, I could've just tried it out on my computer, but it didn't occur to me.

[Hayde]

I was browsing through the options on the last day of beta...so many things you can turn off and on (DoF, lighting, bloom, AA, quality, etc. etc.)--pretty standard stuff, or so you would think...but it's not prevalent in many modern games.

I'm glad Sega took this route though, it allows older and more basic machines to run this game on lower settings, and still give options for players with higher-end rigs to max the game.

Doesn't seem like it takes much to run the game on medium though; was able to play the past weekend on an i5 dell with an AMD Radeon 66xx something...it was definitely not a gaming notebook by any means.

[jmanx]

Tested this game on my Pentium 4 1.4ghz 2gb of ram Nividia 7300 Geforce and it runs pretty damn smooth

[bryanbtje]

Playing it on max setting on my Core 2 Duo laptop with a GTX260M at 30-50fps :P

[Dark Emerald EXE]

I'm interested to see some screenshots from anyone who played the beta at the lowest settings with no shaders on integrated graphics. Between the fact that Intel's integrated graphics suck and the fact that their drivers really suck, I'm honestly surprised it will run acceptably even at the absolute bare minimum. So, I'm wondering just how ass the game looks at those settings.

'Course, I could've just tried it out on my computer, but it didn't occur to me.
IIRC I had everything at lowest setting. (And I still got a only a 500 for benchmark....laptop about 6 years old lol)
And this is what stuff looked like for me and my graphic card is integrated Think only have like 512MB of graphic memory too lol


[spoiler-box]http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_025817_037.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_021006_034.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_001810_031.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_001509_030.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120426_203621_017.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120424_000303_020.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_192542_003.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_183513_001.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn312/jaye3rd89/Phantasy%20Star%20Online%202/pso20120427_180128_000.jpg
[/spoiler-box]

[Ce'Nedra]

If you go down $50 on the CPU and get an 80GB or 90GB SSD, your budget won't go up by much, and the SSD will make MUCH more of a difference in the general responsiveness of your system in addition to reducing loading times. It's not a difference between a fraction of a second and a couple seconds loading every so often. Believe me. Anyone building a performance computer nowadays is doing themselves a big disservice not having an SSD for the OS and primary apllication drive.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or something. I just don't want you to waste money taking advice on spending huge on a CPU which won't make a noticeable impact on your computer usage compared to the very real impact made by an SSD. Unless you're using some professional rendering or graphics programs or compiling code in the background all the time, an i5-2500k or equivalent (or i5-2400 or equivalent if you're not the overlocking type) is really the top you should be spending on a CPU for a gaming rig if you don't have an unlimited budget.

An SSD is certainly going to make much more of a difference than the CPU upgrade will. And anyone telling you Ivy Bridge is with a price premium doesn't know what they're talking about. If there's no price premium, sure, there's no reason to not go Ivy Bridge (unless you're an over clocker). But otherwise, just get whatever is cheaper between Sandy and Ivy.

I have no vested interest and I'm spending my free time giving advice because I feel I have a good understanding and can help out those who aren't as knowledgable. I build my own rigs and spend my own time reading tech blogs and reviews because it's something I enjoy. Ultimately, it's your money and you have to do what you feel is best. I just feel you're getting bad advice from anyone telling you to spend up on the CPU and ditch an SSD altogether.

Well been talking with my friend at work and we came to the conclussion the HDD might become a bottleneck for this setup so decided that I take that SSD afterall, and my current PC has a 500GB HDD that I can most likely use as 2nd HDD so that saves me another 75euro for it. So I think I'm gonna go with the New list I posted but then with that SSD HDD that is in my Old list instead of the 1TB HDD (which I don't need cause my current 500GB isn't even half full).

I think I'm sticking with the I7 though, I mean why should I not for the 50 euro more even though I don't need it probarly. I plan to keep this PC for quite a few years and who knows what other games I might go play in the future that will require it. I got no clue on these Ivy and Sang Bridge things you are talking about though.

[Xenobia]

Hmm someone became wise. SSD at small file reading, does exceed a HDD so many times, i stopped counting. Its a massive gain for OS and game-drive. Of course the SSD does make a PC boot up faster several times, my PC needs about 20 sec bootup time. However, the most important is the very snappy response time as soon as i open application and what else, its making a PC very smooth running, because for any high end sytem, a HDD is the bottleneck.

However, there is a exception: For video files and such, a HDD is the winner because at sequential read a HDD is nowadays pretty fast and videos mainly will need sequential read. On top of that they got lot of space which is a must have vor videos. So... HDD is the winner at media drive, but any other stuff the SSD will eat HDDs for breakfast. So the perfect PC got OS SSD, game SSD and a media HDD. Those 3 is all whats needed. The HDD can also be used as a backup. The newest 4 TB Hitachi HDD got up to 600 MB/s equential read, but its worse as soon as it have to read very small files. Small file read is mainly used on OS and games application, and scanning using virus scanner. At those actions, a SSD is several times faster.

Just dont mistaken sequential read with small file read. And the main performance required is known as "IOPS", input and output a second.

For example we have a ship which got a total load capacity of 1000 t, and its able to ship 100 container a second from A to B. Now whe can not load more than 100 container or 1000 t in total, each second. In case the 100 containers does contain lesser than 1000 t, it means we still cant load more than that, because the container can not be smaller than that, no matter its ingridient. So the performance of the ship is lowered countless times as soon as the ingridient is getting much smaller. We can NOT combine small ingridients with big ingridients into the same container because lets say you mix up sugar with engine oil... then you get a destroyed engine or poisoned food... so we have to get a own container for every single ingridient. Although, under perfect conditions, a 4 TB Hitachi can deliver same speed such as a SSD when the ingridients are very very large (such as video files), thats the only exception.

While the other ship, it got a total load capacity of 1000 t but it got 1000 container and it can ship 1000 container from A to B every second. Now when we have very small ingridients, then we got 900 additional container to put it into it... so the ship is 10 times faster. However, as soon as the ingridient does exceed 1000 t, and in term it doesnt take more than 100 container, we will not have any speed gain. But as soon as the ingridient is small... we have massive speed gain.

Thats what we call IOPS (input/output a second, means how many container with content of different size we can actually ship), one of the most important values in order to have foolproof performance.

[Aeris]

Playing it on max setting on my Core 2 Duo laptop with a GTX260M at 30-50fps :P

I have the same hardware and plays at 40-60 fps for me xD

[kyuuketsuki]

I got no clue on these Ivy and Sang Bridge things you are talking about though.
Heh, my bad. Didn't really think about if you'd know those terms. But anyway, if you want to spend up on that CPU, it's fine. It's certainly not going to hurt your performance in any way. Also, reusing that old 500GB HDD is a great idea.

And thanks for the pics Dark Emerald. As I suspected, it looks pretty bad; rather like Playstation 2-esque graphics. But that's cool for those who can't upgrade to better hardware. Certainly beats not playing at all.

[Ce'Nedra]

Well I think I'm set then for my new pc. Just need to get unlazy now and order it :p thanks everyone for your time

[May0]

If you want to pump out a bit more processing power for any game, PSO2 included, I would recommend trying out game booster

Game booster (http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html)


free to use and download. Shuts down background stuff you don't need to optimize your CPU usage. I can usually see a 46% increase in power (or so it tells me) when in use.

There's probably some other utilities out there that do the same thing but this is the one I use . With all my internet browsers closed except for this forum and steam which I'll have open as a given I was able to get a decent benchmark for the slider all the way up to 5

[Xenobia]

According to my mind those stuff is not necessary and Win 7 is pretty good at auto tuning itself. At least that program is free to use, but its driving me crazy when people pay for stuff which is nothing more than placebo or stuff a experienced user could handle themself. Just never ever pay for it, its always ripp off. When PC junked down way to much, the stuff which usualy works best for Windows is a reinstall... a very old but effective trick. Tools like CC cleaner are free and may help too. Most tasks are in some way critical to the system and its not recommended to disable them. The gain for disabling it is rather low, on Win 7 at least. A gain such as 46% seems like fiction, thats not realistic. In term its true, every single overclocker and performance user is running around using those tools and are dancing while doing so, but its simply not true. It also depends on the kind of system. In term a 6 core is used, multitasking does provide very less impact because there is enough of unused ressources left. So every kind of stuff got its uses. 4 core is sufficient too, but 2 core surely is a worse piece considering multitasking.


Now the Ivy Bridge is released (bit more than a week ago). While the 3770K (340$) is top of the line, the 3570K (240$) is the best value for gamers. Although, those who already got Sandy Bridge no need to worry, theyr CPU is not much behind at all, just a few % in most cases. Ivy Bridge is mainly a IGP (integrated GPU) boost, so its even possible to run PSO using the IGP, at lowest settings. So there is still some time to decide on which dedicated GPU to take. Kinda giving some alternate option to some extend. The stuff i enjoy the most is however the native USB 3.0 support the Z77 chipset is able to provide (because its now foolproof) which is surely a big plus. On performance terms, as i said, SB is still a very comparable piece.

[Chik'Tikka]

If you want to pump out a bit more processing power for any game, PSO2 included, I would recommend trying out game booster

Game booster (http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html)


free to use and download. Shuts down background stuff you don't need to optimize your CPU usage. I can usually see a 46% increase in power (or so it tells me) when in use.

There's probably some other utilities out there that do the same thing but this is the one I use . With all my internet browsers closed except for this forum and steam which I'll have open as a given I was able to get a decent benchmark for the slider all the way up to 5

from what i know, that doesn't work so well with GPUs as CPUs, when running CBT my CPU never went past 20% but my GPU was hitting 60-70% in the lobby, I'll try it out and see what it does but i don't think I'll see much from it on my end, i already manually disabled a lot of background process trees and start-up items+^_^+

[Xenobia]

Thats a waste, the GPU is capped at around 70%, so it wont heat up way to much and there is no need to produce a unecessary FPS amount (basically everything above 60 is considered overkill). The CPU, almost any of those, are way to powerful in order to run PSO2. That tool does nothing, as far as i can tell, judged by nothing more than common sense and tech knowledge.

Besides, im building a 3570K system now. But unless its finish i wont recommend. ;) Lets see if it can clock 4GHz without increase in volt. Very interested how the IGP will pack PSO2 at low res.

[Chik'Tikka]

Thats a waste, the GPU is capped at around 70%, so it wont heat up way to much and there is no need to produce a unecessary FPS amount. The CPU, almost any of those, are way to powerful in order to run PSO2. That tool does nothing, as far as i can tell, judged by nothing more than common sense and tech knowledge.

yep, but i could see where it would help the less tech savvy player using older Pentiums or core 2s and whatnot (I'm surprised how many come into the clinic saying there computer is dying and all that was needed was a disk cleanup, defrag, and to turn off boot up programs in msconfig, i mean, 6 instances of MS word? at boot?) some people just don't mix well with computers+^_^+
oh and good luck on the OC, i plan on building a 3770k rig in a couple months+^_^+

[Xenobia]

I see... its a standart procedure for me to disable unnecessary bootup tasks and what else. Kinda the highest level of common sense. But i dont disable system related stuff which are part of the OS bootup, thats not only a waste but a stability risk. Besides, SSDs do NOT require defrag, its can even cause damage to them. Defrag is a HDD only work, although, as long as a HDD is only used for media files, the need to defrag is close to none. However, when they put in tons of crap and dirt into theyr HDD, it surely can become a big issue. I dont even do that, so i will never reach that point at all. Generally, i avoid installs as much as possible, because many programs can be run outside of a ZIP folder very well. There is simply no need to always install and junk down a system, but many users do not realize because they got in mind they can do endless installs without having any impact in performance at all. Some basic computer knowledge is always useful. To some extend, a machine is kinda like a human. They like to eat certain stuff but other stuff are not healthy. Because every single action... offered food... can create an impact.

Considering IB 3770K: That things main advantage is HT, which is however close to useless for gaming. So its more of a "general purpose" or "master" CPU. There is some other weak spots: Compared with 3570K, it does produce a bit more heat when HT is enabled. Even at disabled HT it could be higher. On top of that, the OC capability can be lowered because of the HT, which is a additional stability killer. So, make your choice carefully. For gaming only, 3570K seems to be the clear ruler. The heat is always a issue on a IB CPU because they do produce more heat than a SB, which is actually theyr biggest disadvantage. However, the TjMax of a SB is 98 C while on a IB its 105 C, still not able to fully compensate for the heat because its about 10 C higher. I wont build 4 core "master" systems because six packs are perfect for that kind of stuff and i already got one.

[Kion]

Just in general, i found this article interesting at how much of a difference different tweaks actually make.
http://lifehacker.com/5846435/can-i-dramatically-improve-pc-gaming-performance-without-buying-new-hardware

[Chik'Tikka]

I see... its a standart procedure for me to disable unnecessary bootup tasks and what else. Kinda the highest level of common sense. But i dont disable system related stuff which are part of the OS bootup, thats not only a waste but a stability risk. Besides, SSDs do NOT require defrag, its can even cause damage to them. Defrag is a HDD only work, although, as long as a HDD is only used for media files, the need to defrag is close to none. However, when they put in tons of crap and dirt into theyr HDD, it surely can become a big issue. I dont even do that, so i will never reach that point at all. Generally, i avoid installs as much as possible, because many programs can be run outside of a ZIP folder very well. There is simply no need to always install and junk down a system, but many users do not realize because they got in mind they can do endless installs without having any impact in performance at all. Some basic computer knowledge is always useful. To some extend, a machine is kinda like a human. They like to eat certain stuff but other stuff are not healthy. Because every single action... offered food... can create an impact.

Considering IB 3770K: That things main advantage is HT, which is however close to useless for gaming. So its more of a "general purpose" or "master" CPU. There is some other weak spots: Compared with 3570K, it does produce a bit more heat when HT is enabled. Even at disabled HT it could be higher. On top of that, the OC capability can be lowered because of the HT, which is a additional stability killer. So, make your choice carefully. For gaming only, 3570K seems to be the clear ruler. The heat is always a issue on a IB CPU because they do produce more heat than a SB, which is actually theyr biggest disadvantage. However, the TjMax of a SB is 98 C while on a IB its 105 C, still not able to fully compensate for the heat because its about 10 C higher. I wont build 4 core "master" systems because six packs are perfect for that kind of stuff and i already got one.

i hear you, I'm going with the i7 because i use virtual on a lot of my machines (for my own purposes) and the extra HT power will be useful for them, also I've been reading up that it can be OCed just as high as the 3570k if you have proper cooling, which i will+^_^+

[moorebounce]

But that's cool for those who can't upgrade to better hardware. Certainly beats not playing at all.

Amen to that. I was in that boat until I upgraded my graphics card.

[Clunker]

Re-posting this, as my last attempt was right before the CBT, and got ignored.

Kyuuketsuki, I was hoping for your opinions on this set-up specifically.

In general, would this build be able to hit 5k on the benchmarker?
Could I possibly drop the six-core cpu to a four-core, save some $$?
I can go one more stage up on GPU at the place I was had this set up
'planned out' at, but that GPU alone would be ~500 by itself...

DIT Lightning (assembly and the non-priced parts below) $698.00
Windows 7 Professional 64bit OEM
MS Office Home and Student OEM $109.99
AMD Bulldozer FX6100 14MB Cache $37.33
Kingston Valueram 4GB 240-PIN DDR3 1333
500GB WD SATA III 6GB/S 7200RPM - 16MB
Sapphire 11201-0020G Radeon HD 7770 1GB $48.00
LG 24X +/- DVD-RW DL Securdisc SATA BLK
Gigabyte GA-970A-D3 AM3+ AMD 970
Cougar RS-Series RS650 (650 Watts) Power Supply $30.00
Logitech wired MK200 Combo USB Set
Digital USB Multimedia Speaker Sonixer
All in 1 Internal Card Reader
Antec One Mid Tower Case
120mm Ball Bearing Fan FD12025B1L3/4 $9.99

It comes with two fans already, similar to the last item.
Total (with Tax) is: $998.64

[kyuuketsuki]

In general, would this build be able to hit 5k on the benchmarker?
Honestly, I don't know, and also you'd have to specify what your target resolution and graphics settings are. For 1920x1080 at max settings, it's a toss-up. I'd have to do a bit of research. I can say it definitely won't have any trouble running the game at least at mid-range settings.
Could I possibly drop the six-core cpu to a four-core, save some $$?
You could, but since Bulldozers are (relatively) weak and will bottleneck a gaming system that aims for more than basic settings, I'd go ahead and spend the extra $33 on the 3-module (six-core) model.
I can go one more stage up on GPU at the place I was had this set up 'planned out' at, but that GPU alone would be ~500 by itself...
The 7950/7970 and Nvidia 680 options are horrendously overpriced, and for some reason they skip over the most compelling models: the Radeon 7800-series. The best option they have is the Nvidia 560ti for a $120 upgrade.
MS Office Home and Student OEM $109.99
If you really need MS Office (and can't suffice with Open Office for free), you can get that for $10 cheaper on Newegg or Amazon.
Kingston Valueram 4GB 240-PIN DDR3 1333
I'd get an extra 2GB or 4GB of RAM for $23 or $35 extra, respectively.
500GB WD SATA III 6GB/S 7200RPM - 16MB
You can upgrade that to a 1TB model for a mere $13.
Sapphire 11201-0020G Radeon HD 7770 1GB $48.00
While quite sufficient for running PSO2, the best option they have is, again, the Nvidia 560ti.

Now, I say all this assuming that you have a good reason for ordering from that boutique dealer. You can do better for cheaper building yourself, and you can find better boutiques if you don't want to build yourself. Only one of their Intel kits allows you to choose a graphics card, and the options stink, so you're kind of stuck with the AMD kits if you want a gaming build. And, unfortunately, AMD processors just aren't very good for a gaming build (although they're more than fine for PSO2). It'll be better once the Piledriver models are released, since they seem to have fixed a good deal of what was wrong with Bulldozer (although they still aren't at the level of Intel's Sandy Bridge models).

[Chik'Tikka]

[spoiler-box]
Re-posting this, as my last attempt was right before the CBT, and got ignored.

Kyuuketsuki, I was hoping for your opinions on this set-up specifically.

In general, would this build be able to hit 5k on the benchmarker?
Could I possibly drop the six-core cpu to a four-core, save some $$?
I can go one more stage up on GPU at the place I was had this set up
'planned out' at, but that GPU alone would be ~500 by itself...

DIT Lightning (assembly and the non-priced parts below) $698.00
Windows 7 Professional 64bit OEM
MS Office Home and Student OEM $109.99
AMD Bulldozer FX6100 14MB Cache $37.33
Kingston Valueram 4GB 240-PIN DDR3 1333
500GB WD SATA III 6GB/S 7200RPM - 16MB
Sapphire 11201-0020G Radeon HD 7770 1GB $48.00
LG 24X +/- DVD-RW DL Securdisc SATA BLK
Gigabyte GA-970A-D3 AM3+ AMD 970
Cougar RS-Series RS650 (650 Watts) Power Supply $30.00
Logitech wired MK200 Combo USB Set
Digital USB Multimedia Speaker Sonixer
All in 1 Internal Card Reader
Antec One Mid Tower Case
120mm Ball Bearing Fan FD12025B1L3/4 $9.99

It comes with two fans already, similar to the last item.
Total (with Tax) is: $998.64[/spoiler-box]

imo that's a solid rig+^_^+ bulldozer isn't as powerful as they said it would be (not saying it's weak, it's a beast CPU, just that they didn't beat out Intel like they said they would), but these days games want GPU, which you have a good one that should run PSO2 at standard settings just fine+^_^+ (i don't have much experience with Radeon cards but people tell me that 7000 series and higher run PSO2 just fine)
and your list reminds me yet again how lucky i am to have the full MS office 2010 Pro suite + visio for only $78+^_^+ yay for college discounts!!

[Clunker]

Phone-posting, so this'll be short.

The company I was thinking of buying from
is DIT. Website is www.ditcorp.com.

Would anyone care to poke at their site, & see what'd be
a good ~$1,000 to ~$1,200ish build?

They do have Intel-based CPUs, not just AMD.

The reason why I was hoping to just buy one,
rather than self-build, is that I've not the expertise, nor time.

Also DIT doesn't seem to charge to build-to-spec.

Thanks for the quick responses - I'll try to clarify screen sizes
and such once I'm home tonite.

[kyuuketsuki]

The company I was thinking of buying from
is DIT. Website is www.ditcorp.com.

Would anyone care to poke at their site, & see what'd be
a good ~$1,000 to ~$1,200ish build?

They do have Intel-based CPUs, not just AMD.
I did do that before I posted my previous response, that's how I knew about the other options I mentioned. ;)

As I said, 2 of their 3 Intel kits don't offer a video card option, and the one that does has a poor selection. If you're going to stick with that boutique, you're better off going with that AMD build with the changes I noted. Especially the one about switching to the Nvidia 560ti for the video card.

[Clunker]

Thanks for the extra time - I didn't realize you'd recognized the company from my earlier post.

RE: Resolution. The screen I've got is 1680x1050.
It's actually a Genesis-brand tv from a few years ago. It has HDMI capability, of course.
I'm currently using it for my PS3.

As for resolution - er, PS02 is on a 1-5 rating, so 4 +shaders I'm thinking...
I'd like to do max-to-the-wall graphics settings with shaders, but I'm probably
unable to with a $1000ish budget...

As for kits - when I was there in person, they said that they could use any parts available in the store,
rather than just defaults like those in the drop downs.

I think that they meant that one could take a Intel i7, but also still use the Nividia 560...

I have taken your notes, and will definitely keep them in mind when I see them next; should be this weekend or next.

Thank again for the in-depth work.

[Ce'Nedra]

As shown here http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2755885&postcount=943 my new PC runs it just fine now :) Thanks for any who gave info and opinions for me!

[Mag-X]

I'd like to do max-to-the-wall graphics settings with shaders, but I'm probably
unable to with a $1000ish budget...

My $600-ish PC that I built in 2007 can handle PSO2 at max settings. My $1000+ gaming PC I built two years ago runs PSO2 like it's not even there. The same goes for my friend's $600 PC he build just a few months ago.

[kyuuketsuki]

As for resolution - er, PS02 is on a 1-5 rating, so 4 +shaders I'm thinking...
I'd like to do max-to-the-wall graphics settings with shaders, but I'm probably
unable to with a $1000ish budget...
As Mag-x said, it's actually more than doable. PSO2 is not a terribly demanding game.
As for kits - when I was there in person, they said that they could use any parts available in the store, rather than just defaults like those in the drop downs.
Ah, well if that's the case, then definitely get an Intel Core processor. Not an i7, that's a waste unless you use professional photo-editing, 3D rendering, and similar programs regularly. Get an i3 or i5 Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge. And get an AMD Radeon 7850 for the vid card if they have it. If you're sticking with the same budget.

[Ryo]

Re-posting this, as my last attempt was right before the CBT, and got ignored.

Kyuuketsuki, I was hoping for your opinions on this set-up specifically.

In general, would this build be able to hit 5k on the benchmarker?
Could I possibly drop the six-core cpu to a four-core, save some $$?
I can go one more stage up on GPU at the place I was had this set up
'planned out' at, but that GPU alone would be ~500 by itself...

DIT Lightning (assembly and the non-priced parts below) $698.00
Windows 7 Professional 64bit OEM
MS Office Home and Student OEM $109.99
AMD Bulldozer FX6100 14MB Cache $37.33
Kingston Valueram 4GB 240-PIN DDR3 1333
500GB WD SATA III 6GB/S 7200RPM - 16MB
Sapphire 11201-0020G Radeon HD 7770 1GB $48.00
LG 24X +/- DVD-RW DL Securdisc SATA BLK
Gigabyte GA-970A-D3 AM3+ AMD 970
Cougar RS-Series RS650 (650 Watts) Power Supply $30.00
Logitech wired MK200 Combo USB Set
Digital USB Multimedia Speaker Sonixer
All in 1 Internal Card Reader
Antec One Mid Tower Case
120mm Ball Bearing Fan FD12025B1L3/4 $9.99

It comes with two fans already, similar to the last item.
Total (with Tax) is: $998.64



If you're talking 1920x1080 full settings, you won't get to 5K with that rig, but you'll get close. I'd recommend a GTX 560 or 560 Ti, you could expect ~7K in a rig of that quality at full settings with a Ti, probably ~5-6 with the 560.

Bear in mind though, the actual game runs far better than the benchmark.

[Gama]

Bear in mind though, the actual game runs far better than the benchmark.

i suspected that...better engine probbly and bugfixes, also wouldnt mind saying that its a big conspiracy to make people buy computer parts or new pcs!!!!!!


lol

[Ce'Nedra]

@Clunker: If you got the money get a SSD HD as your main drive and use the WD as your 2nd drive. I didn't thought it made much diffrence myself but now I got one I don't ever want to be without one, it makes life so much easier.

[KunoMochi]

If you're going to get an SSD solely as your OS system drive, I'd suggest you go with at least 128GB. I've been struggling to deal with keeping my 40GB SSD drive from filling up (can't even get 10% freed up for optimum free space) and my brother's computer is starting to fill up his 60GB SSD. And this is all just from installing only system essentials and updates, and programs that would not install the bulk of their programs on the designated drive (i.e., Photoshop and Maya).

I'm definitely getting something with more capacity once I've saved up some money for it. But the <10 second boot up time is well worth it.

[Chik'Tikka]

hmm, change in topic, how many here used the new Nvidia 300.xx beta drivers for CBT? the new FXAA is so amazing, it'll make a 720 resolution image look like 1080 using only 1/4 of the performance needed for regular AA x4+^_^+

[kyuuketsuki]

If you're going to get an SSD solely as your OS system drive, I'd suggest you go with at least 128GB.
I have an 80GB SSD as my primary, and it's fine. I have to regularly move games I don't play regularly to the secondary HDD, but I have no problems fitting the OS, most productivity apps, and a couple games on it. I wouldn't discourage anyone from getting an SSD if they can't afford to get to 120GB+.

That said, 120GB is really the sweet spot for performance, price, and having enough space to not have to juggle your data between it and a secondary HDD (although obviously you should still keep larger secondary apps and all personal and media files on the secondary HDD). SSDs are for the OS, performance-sensitive apps, and the swap file only. Anything else is a waste (unless/until their $/GB gets in the same realm as magnetic media). You can easily find excellent SSDs going for at or under a dollar per gig. Soon as I have some spare cash to play with I'm going to grab a 120GB or 180GB SSD.
hmm, change in topic, how many here used the new Nvidia 300.xx beta drivers for CBT? the new FXAA is so amazing, it'll make a 720 resolution image look like 1080 using only 1/4 of the performance needed for regular AA x4+^_^+
FXAA is alright, but it's no substitute for real AA. And it's certainly no substitute for higher resolutions.

[Chik'Tikka]

FXAA is alright, but it's no substitute for real AA. And it's certainly no substitute for higher resolutions.

true, but FXAA can be used in conjunction with real AA to free up resources for those heavy lobby populations and the texture slider, just pointing it out for those that may have had minor issues that this could fix+^_^+ i mostly used it because I like playing around with new things+^_^+

[IKeepItReal]

Well My computer seems to run the good games pretty good and the Beast Games pretty bad.

So My Computer!

Windows Vista Home Premium

Memory(Ram): 3062
System type: 32-bit operating System
processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180
Hard Disk Drive: 233 GB free of 363 GB

[Holylifestar]

Same exact thing I have, meaning NOPE. (I tried running the benchmark and got a score of 8. Never went above 2 FPS, and was usually at 0-1 FPS. And my specs are the exact same thing as yours)

[IKeepItReal]

Really? It can handle Dragon Nest pretty good! Dragon Nest is a pretty laggy game for everybody but I can run it pretty smooth! I can run PSOBB smooth as a whistle to!

[Peejay]

Really? It can handle Dragon Nest pretty good! Dragon Nest is a pretty laggy game for everybody but I can run it pretty smooth! I can run PSOBB smooth as a whistle to!

Dragon Nest is also a pile of crap compared to PSO2, and PSOBB was made years ago and isn't even worth a mention, and you should be fired from a cannon for thinking it would mean something.

Also there was another thread for this sort of crap already. That search button is growing cobwebs now.

[blace]

Benchmark testing can differ from the game itself, the test stresses the computer to its limit. Of course I can't say what it would be like for you until you are in the game.

[FenixStryk]

Dragon Nest is a pretty lenient game graphics-wise. If you are only running that "pretty good," it's hard to say if you can run PSO2 based only on your RAM and processor model. We need to know how strong your graphics card is.

Have you tried running the PSO2 benchmark? That will answer your question better than any of us can.

[IKeepItReal]

Where can I run Benchmark at?

[blace]

http://www.4gamer.net/games/120/G012075/20120330045/link.html?http://file.4gamer.net/demo/PSO2_Chara_Create_Trial_V1_00.zip
Top link.

[~Inu~]

The actual game runs far better then the score of that benchmark.
If you score around ~2000-3000 you should still be okay.

[IKeepItReal]

Do I take the benchmark on web or DO I have to download?

I seen your link blace Just asking.

[blace]

You download and run it.

[IKeepItReal]

Ok! Downloading now!

[Chik'Tikka]

Do I take the benchmark on web or DO I have to download?

I seen your link blace Just asking.

that's the PSO2 Character Creation Demo, it'll allow you to create and save a character for the full game, it also includes the PSO2 specific benchmark tester that will use your own character along with 2 preset bots that run through a rainy city and a forest. the CC Demo also works with the PSO2 English patch, Google is your friend here+^_^+

[IKeepItReal]

I just downloaded it and after all the logo's pass IT CRASHES! WHY?!

[Zorafim]

That probably means, No. No you can't run the game.

Try looking for the "Can my computer run this" thread for more information.

[skuld01]

I just downloaded it and after all the logo's pass IT CRASHES! WHY?!

one word: NOPE

[IKeepItReal]

But i head of others fixing the problem! I just don't know how they fixed it?

[Xenobia]

Win XP SP3.

[kazuma56]

Wondering what you guys think would be the best pc for my budget.... currently i'm eyeing these 3 pcs while my budget is $500...i'm hoping for 50+ fps on 1280x1024 settings and still be able to play recent/upcoming pc games at a decent clip (witcher 2, max payne 3 etc)

First PC
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-ViewAd?AdId=363202506& pname=Activity-R2S&mpuid=1700276%3B16%3B363202506%3B-1677611825%3B%3B&secev=AQAAATd8JJAAAM0AAAACACIxMzc4MmQ1Y2QyOS5hMjBi MjZmLjM4MjUwLmZmZmY0NDU3AAAAABWmB8oBAAAAAgAAAAAUQ% 2F0A1NIQqVTpGJWSi0A3EMmMnQpdSl0*

I was going to buy this PC, then upgrade the video card to a GTX460 or a high-end radeon (6 series).

Computer 2

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/pc2.png
priced @ 350 I don't know good that CPU is.... but I believe the GPU is at somewhat decent given what I seen on reviews about it...

Computer 3

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/pc3.png

Priced @ 450, think the video card is better but again, not sure about CPU

Computer 4

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/kazuma56/pc4.png

priced at 350,I know its not a quad core (would say quad no?) but it has the better PSU out of the bunch....any ideas on what i should go for?

[Kion]

I just downloaded it and after all the logo's pass IT CRASHES! WHY?!

The default setting is high resolution shaders which some graphics cards don't support.

Before opening the benchmark go to 'Environment Settings'. Then go to the fourth tab, select simple shaders and simple textures. Then hit 設定を保存, the button on the bottom left. It should say, "settings saved." hit 返る on the pop-up and then hit 戻る again, the button on the bottom right before running the benchmark.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z88/kion_01/step_01.png
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z88/kion_01/step_02.png

Just a note that my notebook, Sony Vaio YB with an Intel i3-2350M, 6GB 1333 memory, 60GB SDD (not that that should matter too much) using intel's HD 3000 graphics gets a score of 4000 with medium textures, simple shaders at 1280x720 full screen. So intel 3000/4000 graphics are manageable, i just wouldn't get your hopes up for anything prior to that.

[kyuuketsuki]

[...] any ideas on what i should go for?
Of the computers you posted, the 3rd one (with the Intel Q8200 CPU and ATI 3870X2 video card) would have to be my suggestion.

[Ryo]

Of the computers you posted, the 3rd one (with the Intel Q8200 CPU and ATI 3870X2 video card) would have to be my suggestion.

^ This. The rest of them don't even sound like truly viable options.

[kazuma56]

What's wrong with the first PC? only reason i'm eyeing it is because it seems to be the most recent when it comes to support for hardware (ddr3 vs ddr2) and i'm not sure which has the better clock speed but i know at least the first one is 3.1 GHZ....

I'm deciding on that one you suggested and the first...if only cause the 80+ dollars put toward the other one could go towards a more current video card as i'm reading that that its quite dated and doesnt have DX11 support.

[kyuuketsuki]

What's wrong with the first PC? only reason i'm eyeing it is because it seems to be the most recent when it comes to support for hardware (ddr3 vs ddr2) and i'm not sure which has the better clock speed but i know at least the first one is 3.1 GHZ....
Honestly hadn't looked at the 1st one since it didn't have a nice picture like the rest and had to copy and paste the URL.

In any case, the first one is fine if you're going to be purchasing your own video card after the fact. But honestly, all the computers you've linked are dated. The Athlon II X4 in the first one is dated, the Q8200 in the third one is dated. All the graphic options are highly dated. But any of them would run PSO2 decently enough at your low target resolution, and the third one with the ATI 3870X2 would run it the most decently.

The Q8200 in the third one and the Athlon X4 in the first one are really in about the same league, though I believe the Q8200 is actually stronger. Regardless, if you're going to get your own video card separately, saving the money with the first one and investing that into a better graphics card is probably a superior option.

However, like I said, no matter which of those you choose, you're buying into a dated system. You'd be better off finding a cheap, entry-level Sandy Bridge-based system (with a Sandy-Bridge Pentium or Core i3) and sticking your own video card into that if you're not willing to build your own rig.

[doomdragon83]

I didn't play Alpha/Closed Beta so i don't know if my PC will run PSO2 good.

Intel Core i5 750
Radeon HD 4670
4GB DDR3 RAM

I do plan on getting more RAM since that's pretty easy, my GPU on the other hand, was something cheap I got when I built my PC 2 years ago because I needed a GPU. I'd like to get an HD 6870 but probably after PSO2 is released.


But honestly, all the computers you've linked are dated.
This. That's why I could never recommend any of those systems. If you knew how to build a PC, then I'd point you to this:
http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png
Otherwise, save your money and follow kyuuketsuki advice.

[Shadownami92]

If you don't know if you computer will run it, why not just use the benchmark.

Also if people don't know, nvidia released a new driver that uses a new anti aliasing that is a lot less resource heavy called FXAA. If you haven't, then update to the newest driver. You can set FXAA to override the anti aliasing options in any actual game. I tried it with PSO and got a very slight improvement. But I'm on a 9600GT and apparently it's supposed to also give a bigger boost to newer cards.

[Chik'Tikka]

If you don't know if you computer will run it, why not just use the benchmark.

Also if people don't know, nvidia released a new driver that uses a new anti aliasing that is a lot less resource heavy called FXAA. If you haven't, then update to the newest driver. You can set FXAA to override the anti aliasing options in any actual game. I tried it with PSO and got a very slight improvement. But I'm on a 9600GT and apparently it's supposed to also give a bigger boost to newer cards.

FXAA = MSAA at x4, so if you like x8 MSAA but your card can't handle it, use x4 MSAA in conjunction with FXAA+^_^+ and the beta driver with FXAA came out in January i think and it helped me get my slider to 5 for PSO2 CBT and it just rocks+^_^+

[kazuma56]

Honestly hadn't looked at the 1st one since it didn't have a nice picture like the rest and had to copy and paste the URL.

In any case, the first one is fine if you're going to be purchasing your own video card after the fact. But honestly, all the computers you've linked are dated. The Athlon II X4 in the first one is dated, the Q8200 in the third one is dated. All the graphic options are highly dated. But any of them would run PSO2 decently enough at your low target resolution, and the third one with the ATI 3870X2 would run it the most decently.

The Q8200 in the third one and the Athlon X4 in the first one are really in about the same league, though I believe the Q8200 is actually stronger. Regardless, if you're going to get your own video card separately, saving the money with the first one and investing that into a better graphics card is probably a superior option.

However, like I said, no matter which of those you choose, you're buying into a dated system. You'd be better off finding a cheap, entry-level Sandy Bridge-based system (with a Sandy-Bridge Pentium or Core i3) and sticking your own video card into that if you're not willing to build your own rig.

if i'm able to run pso 2 with HD settings and 60+ fps i'm cool with that...again im not looking for top end with the knowledge of ivy bridge cpu dropping soon as well as various other developments on portable gaming via laptops....if i can play games for another year or 3 (guild wars 2, tera etc) I should save enough by then to make my own monster PC....but i will check te q8200 vs the athlon quad though

[Kion]

LMAO!

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z88/kion_01/pso20120527_033208_000.jpg

Took a lot of tinkering. Set resolution to 800x450, MLAA in AMD control panel, turned anti-aliasing on in game; all other effects off, Texture resolution to 3. Also had to play around with the interface size in the benchmark file. But PSO2 on a netbook baby! Now i can put off getting a new comp for a little while longer.

Edit: I found a slightly better approach for people with low specs. When you use virtual full screen it generally makes the text really jagged. If you turn down your monitor's resolution and then set virtual full scree to the size of your monitor you can play the game in native resolution at full screen.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z88/kion_01/pso20120527_035851_000.jpg
At 'native' 1024x600 with everything turned off.

For anyone interested in the lower limit of what's needed to run PSO2. I did more tweaking and managed to get this:
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z88/kion_01/pso20120527_152544_000.jpg

Definitely the better specs you have the better, but it is possible to run the game at a decent frame rate on lower-end computers.

[Sayuri Stardust]

Hey Guys looking around at stuff online

What's your opinion on the AMD Radeon HD 6630M?

[kyuuketsuki]

Hey Guys looking around at stuff online

What's your opinion on the AMD Radeon HD 6630M?
Depending on your resolution, will definitely run PSO2 just fine. Should be able to handle most other recent games at medium settings as well.

[Kion]

i3 with 6470M runs 720p full setting, shaders off gets a score of 6000 on the benchmark. 6630M shouldn't have any problems.

[kushking]

I'm building a computer for PSO 2. I've got most of my stuff (quad core intel, radeon gfx card, 24" Asus LED 5ms monitor)

Really what I'm curious on is the amount of RAM. I do all my photo editing and school work on my Mac. I'm pretty much using this 100% for PSO, might consider using it as HTPC as well... I'm thinking 8GB? Would I even notice a difference (on this game) between 4GB and 8GB?

I don't plan on running this game windowed with "Normal" or "Low" quality graphics. I plan on running it 1920x1080 HQ Fullscreen, so anything you might want to throw in that is a necessity for smooth gameplay don't hesitate to make sure I meet certain recommendations you may have.

[BIG OLAF]

I suggest going to this thread (http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187525) and ask the kind gents that frequent it. They should be able to help.

[Ryo]

The gfx card is the biggest contributor there. 8GB or greater is what I'd recommend, but your video card needs to be good. What Radeon exactly are you running?

[kushking]

sigh, I feel like a complete fool. I looked at that thread but I thought it was talking about PSOBB for some odd reason. My stupidity <


I will copy & paste this post in that thread. Thanks.


The gfx card is the biggest contributor there. 8GB or greater is what I'd recommend, but your video card needs to be good. What Radeon exactly are you running?

I actually haven't even bought it, I just 'decided' on it. Do suggest alternatives but keep in mind I'm trying to be as cheap as possible. I want this game to run the best it possibly can. So if I'm not going to notice a difference between 8gb-12gb of ram, I won't switch, & that really applies to everything. Like I said this will be basically it's only use (PSO2) but with that said I won't slack on anything. If a better graphics card will make it run a little better for some reason I gotta do what I gotta do.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150543&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Video+Cards-_-XFX-_-14150543

[Ryo]

I actually haven't even bought it, I just 'decided' on it. Do suggest alternatives but keep in mind I'm trying to be as cheap as possible. I want this game to run the best it possibly can. So if I'm not going to notice a difference between 8gb-12gb of ram, I won't switch, & that really applies to everything. Like I said this will be basically it's only use (PSO2) but with that said I won't slack on anything. If a better graphics card will make it run a little better for some reason I gotta do what I gotta do.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150543&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Video+Cards-_-XFX-_-14150543

I don't think you're gonna get very good results with that card at 1080P. You'll likely wanna go with a gtx 550 or 560, minimum. Also, PSO 2 is optimized for Nvidia, so I wouldn't recommend an AMD card.

[KunoMochi]

I say go with 8GB of RAM. 12GB would be overkill unless you are planning to use the computer for photo/video/sound editing, 3D rendering, or any other memory intensive programs.

Games at the moment probably won't use up more than 4GB, but it's always good to have some breathing room for the OS and other programs as well.

But as Ryo said, the biggest factor will be your graphics card of choice.

And from your choice there, the 6570 is a budget graphics solution. To play on the settings that you are aiming for, I suggest you look into the 6800 series or equivalent.


To give you an idea, 6700 is the mid-range cards from AMD, 6800 is the higher-end models, 6900 is the highest. (6990 is dual GPU, which would be overkill for a single monitor)


AMD's 7000 series is the latest generation currently out, but still quite pricey at the moment.

[kushking]

Thanks to everyone above.


I have 8GB on my Mac Mini. I mean yeah it crosses my mind to have a Xeon, 32GB Ram badass computer but I'm content with i5 8gb when all I do is run Photoshop CS6, the windows will be running full screen PSO. Theres the 2 uses for my 2 computers!

I'll go with Nvidia then I guess. What's the best
>$60 Graphics Card
$61-99 Graphics Card
$100-150 Graphics Card

in your opinion.

Also. Here's my Mac Mini. If you could just give me 2 scales. One on a scale from 1-10 period. and one on a scale from 1-10 compared to what I'm building.


Mac Mini core i5 (I think sandy bridge)
500GB
8GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Intel HD Graphics 3000


edit: I just realized I'm asking question after question good lord! usually Im the one with answers not the other way around. Sorry about this :(

[KunoMochi]

If you are going with NVIDIA, look for the 550 or 560 models (as Ryo previously suggested). I would like to say to go higher, but the price jumps up quite a bit from the 560 to the 570 models.

Also, look for the ones with at least 1GB (1024MB) of Video RAM. The more video RAM you have, the smoother your game play will be at higher resolutions.

One thing you'll have to mind is that your PC might make a lot of fan noise from high usage. NVIDIA cards pre-600 series were infamous for running a bit hotter and louder than AMD cards (but in no ways a bad choice).


As for comparing to your Mac, I won't be the first to tell you that Intel Graphics technology are crap compared to what you are building for. :P It might be okay for light to medium load, but when it comes to real heavy use, Intel's graphics technology is way behind AMD and NVIDIA.

[kushking]

If you are going with NVIDIA, look for the 550 or 560 models (as Ryo previously suggested). I would like to say to go higher, but the price jumps up quite a bit from the 560 to the 570 models.

Also, look for the ones with at least 1GB (1024MB) of Video RAM. The more video RAM you have, the smoother your game play will be at higher resolutions.

One thing you'll have to mind is that your PC might make a lot of fan noise from high usage. NVIDIA cards pre-600 series were infamous for running a bit hotter and louder than AMD cards (but in no ways a bad choice).


As for comparing to your Mac, I won't be the first to tell you that Intel Graphics technology are crap compared to what you are building for. :P It might be okay for light to medium load, but when it comes to real heavy use, Intel's graphics technology is way behind AMD and NVIDIA.


Well the reason I ask is I could torrent a windows 7, buy bootcamp and play pso2 on my mac. It's not going to be too pricey to build my computer. The processor, mobo, fans, etc etc were given to me.

$40 - Power Supply and Tower
$100 - 8GB Ram
$XXX Graphics Card
$20-50 DVD Drive

So I figured hell, why not sell my PS3 for $200, and spend the difference building a computer. In the winter I'll buy a 360 for $100 and get Halo 4, or sell my jtagged 360 to get it..

I just have become a mac fanboy (industry standard in my fields/hobbys), so part of me wants to not build a computer :P but like you said the intel graphics is a game changer. I will be building this computer.

also what does everyone think of this
http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?sku=229502254&sellerid=13770897

[Chik'Tikka]

You shouldn't talk to much about modding consoles and torrenting and stuff, i don't know what PSOW rules are on that+^_^+

[DeathDragon2332]

I'm building a computer for PSO 2. I've got most of my stuff (quad core intel, radeon gfx card, 24" Asus LED 5ms monitor)

Really what I'm curious on is the amount of RAM. I do all my photo editing and school work on my Mac. I'm pretty much using this 100% for PSO, might consider using it as HTPC as well... I'm thinking 8GB? Would I even notice a difference (on this game) between 4GB and 8GB?

I don't plan on running this game windowed with "Normal" or "Low" quality graphics. I plan on running it 1920x1080 HQ Fullscreen, so anything you might want to throw in that is a necessity for smooth gameplay don't hesitate to make sure I meet certain recommendations you may have.

For a radeon card my 7770 on 1920x1080 on max only got 2000 on the benchmark. If you wan't smooth 60FPS all the time I think a 6870 or a 6950 would do it. Newegg has a great deal going on for a 6950 2GB its only 229.99 comes with a 30 dollar rebate so only 200 which is crazy. I would get 8 for the long run but no 4 and 8 would be no difference on PSO2. I just upgraded my 7770 to a 560GTX TI OC and I just did the benchmark and at max all on the same res instead of 2000 something I got 7800 so yeah. I would say get a 560 GTX TI but I got this for a big discount normal is 250-270 as for the 6950 is 200 on newegg which is a little better I believe it is also a 2GB.

[DeathDragon2332]

That 330 GT won't run it well at all. I don't even think it will run well on low specs.

[Ryo]

Honestly, if you're building for 1080P at full specs, you're going to need to look in a higher price bracket.


Per your request, your Mac Mini (even if it's this year's model, like mine) is a 5

In comparison to said Mac Mini, your current PC build is also a 5 (this could easily be a 10 with the right graphics card)


This is the cheapest card I can recommend that would likely (I can't guarantee this as I've never owned it) get you 60FPS+ at 1080P on full settings:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130664

EDIT: I just realized I didn't answer all your questions. So, by price range:

Sub-$100 (I can't get as low as 60, I have no experience there and I'm relying on Tom's Hardware for these recommendations)

Nvidia GT440 1GB (Can't do 1080P)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121426


At ~$140 you can get a GT460, but I can't vouch for its performance.

I'll edit this again when I have more data, being at work makes this difficult X_X

EDIT: Sorry, not much more time right now. Past $140 you should really look at a GT 550 or 560, they aren't much more and they'll do the job reasonably well.

[MUDGRIP]

I was wondering if my computer that i just recently picked up will run this game on at least medium settings... I have I7 processor at 3.8 ghz, 8gb ram, and evga nvidia 580 gtx 1.5 gb graphics card... but i have a 1080i 32inch tv for the display.

[AnnabellaRenee87]

That 330 GT won't run it well at all. I don't even think it will run well on low specs.

My 310 runs it ok, check the screenshots in my steam album.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197981783450/screenshots

The ones that are 1366x768.

[Mag-X]

I was wondering if my computer that i just recently picked up will run this game on at least medium settings... I have I7 processor at 3.8 ghz, 8gb ram, and evga nvidia 580 gtx 1.5 gb graphics card... but i have a 1080i 32inch tv for the display.

Not sure if joking.

[Ryo]

I was wondering if my computer that i just recently picked up will run this game on at least medium settings... I have I7 processor at 3.8 ghz, 8gb ram, and evga nvidia 580 gtx 1.5 gb graphics card... but i have a 1080i 32inch tv for the display.

That'll do just fine. You won't have any problems.


My 310 runs it ok, check the screenshots in my steam album.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197981783450/screenshots

The ones that are 1366x768.

If he were trying to run at your resolution, I'd recommend it, but he's stated he wants to run full 1080P.

[kushking]

Honestly, if you're building for 1080P at full specs, you're going to need to look in a higher price bracket.


Per your request, your Mac Mini (even if it's this year's model, like mine) is a 5

In comparison to said Mac Mini, your current PC build is also a 5 (this could easily be a 10 with the right graphics card)


This is the cheapest card I can recommend that would likely (I can't guarantee this as I've never owned it) get you 60FPS+ at 1080P on full settings:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130664

EDIT: I just realized I didn't answer all your questions. So, by price range:

Sub-$100 (I can't get as low as 60, I have no experience there and I'm relying on Tom's Hardware for these recommendations)

Nvidia GT440 1GB (Can't do 1080P)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121426


At ~$140 you can get a GT460, but I can't vouch for its performance.

I'll edit this again when I have more data, being at work makes this difficult X_X

EDIT: Sorry, not much more time right now. Past $140 you should really look at a GT 550 or 560, they aren't much more and they'll do the job reasonably well.

That gfx card you mentioned under $100 can't do true 1080p but its max resolution is 2560 x 1600 so does that mean it can do 1920x1080? Seems like this can still produce some pretty damn good graphics. I don't think I would be disappointed, right?

[kushking]

You shouldn't talk to much about modding consoles and torrenting and stuff, i don't know what PSOW rules are on that+^_^+

hmm, me either. Do they say anything about that? Torrenting is legal if you own a copy of windows 7 (i.e. have a windows computer) thats how crossover works for the Mac, thats why sites like pirate bay don't get shut down, it's legal if you're using it for "Backup" purposes or to make undistributed copies. I mainly jagged my 360 to make it a family console save games to the hard drive and screw around with friends, basically made it into a family-console, never goes online or is used to cheat! So hopefully PSOW isn't offended.

[IHeartRice]

Concerning some recommendations for budget cards, on the nVidia side...

I wouldn't bother with a GTX 550 ti, the 460 is cheaper and outperforms it.


GTX 460:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127646

Other recs for spending a bit more:

GTX 560:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130664
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127592

GTX 560ti:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130604

For AMD...

Sub ~$70, I'd recommend the Radeon HD 6670:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150576

Around ~$150 the 6850 is pretty good, but goes on sale pretty often and could be gotten for around $120 after rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908

I would personally recommend going the nVidia route though for PSO2 as it favors it more on when running the benchmarks. Also nVidia cards have some nice features such as Physx, FXAA injection, and adaptive vsync.

[Ryo]

That gfx card you mentioned under $100 can't do true 1080p but its max resolution is 2560 x 1600 so does that mean it can do 1920x1080? Seems like this can still produce some pretty damn good graphics. I don't think I would be disappointed, right?

Max resolution simply means the card can display resolutions that high, not that it'll perform well at said resolutions.

You should see this thread for some examples of how those cards will run the game. A score of 5,000 is considered optimal.

If you're looking for a card that can run PSO2 at 1080P and full settings, you'll be aiming for one that can run it at those settings and achieve a score of 5000 or greater.

My fiancee has a gtx 560Ti in her rig and she gets ~7,000 with it, I have a GTX680 and I score ~20,000

[Ezodagrom]

Concerning some recommendations for budget cards, on the nVidia side...

I wouldn't bother with a GTX 550 ti, the 460 is cheaper and outperforms it.


GTX 460:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127646

Other recs for spending a bit more:

GTX 560:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130664
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127592

GTX 560ti:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130604

For AMD...

Sub ~$70, I'd recommend the Radeon HD 6670:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150576

Around ~$150 the 6850 is pretty good, but goes on sale pretty often and could be gotten for around $120 after rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908

I would personally recommend going the nVidia route though for PSO2 as it favors it more on when running the benchmarks. Also nVidia cards have some nice features such as Physx, FXAA injection, and adaptive vsync.
From AMD's side, for those with a budget in the $100-$150 range that have a weak power supply, I recommend the Radeon HD7750 or the HD7770, both have decent performance and have a low power consumption (HD7750 TDP is 50W, HD7770 is 80W).

For those who have a decent power supply, a Radeon HD6770 has better performance than the HD7750 for a similar price, and the HD6850 has better performance than the HD7770, but it's slightly more expensive.

Radeon HD7750 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102969
Radeon HD6770 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127599
Radeon HD7770 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102967
Radeon HD6850 (same as you posted) - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908

[kushking]

all these choices, so difficult!

what do you guys think about this (its been recommended a few times by some of you)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127646

Any graphics card under $130 is what I'm looking at now. I intend to run pso2 at least 1920x1080, but will experiment with higher and lower resolutions.

...btw stanfield block 1 "PSOW" playing on Normal level 10 if anyone wants to carry me PSOBB

[Chik'Tikka]

all these choices, so difficult!

what do you guys think about this (its been recommended a few times by some of you)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127646

Any graphics card under $130 is what I'm looking at now. I intend to run pso2 at least 1920x1080, but will experiment with higher and lower resolutions.

...btw stanfield block 1 "PSOW" playing on Normal level 10 if anyone wants to carry me PSOBB

i don't know how much better this is, but it's a 550 ti for about $119+^_^+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162094

[DeathDragon2332]

i don't know how much better this is, but it's a 550 ti for about $119+^_^+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162094


A 550GTX I dont think will run it smooth at the settings he wan'ts.

[DeathDragon2332]

all these choices, so difficult!

what do you guys think about this (its been recommended a few times by some of you)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127646

Any graphics card under $130 is what I'm looking at now. I intend to run pso2 at least 1920x1080, but will experiment with higher and lower resolutions.

...btw stanfield block 1 "PSOW" playing on Normal level 10 if anyone wants to carry me PSOBB

As stated by others. The only way to get it running the way you want is going to cost about 150-170. GTX 550 should get 5000 not to sure tho. A 560GTX is the way to get. A 6870 is about the same price and is a little worse than the 560GTX. A 7770 is not worth it at all for its price and it barley gets over 2000 at max and 1920x1080. If you can get a few more bucks a 560GTX Ti is the way to go. They are also nice over clockers I got my MSI from 823Mhz clock to 1003Mhz.

[Tetsaru]

I have a factory "superclocked" EVGA brand GTX 560 Ti in my PC:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130610

So far, it's handled any game I've played on near-highest settings, and I only say that because my monitor doesn't support 1080p (1680 x 1050 is what I have to use), and some settings on FF14 like ambient occlusion are just very poorly optimized. Otherwise, so far I've played the PSO2 Beta, Team Fortress 2, League of Legends, and Minecraft all on max settings, and they all ran flawlessly along with my i5 CPU without having to mess with any overclocking or BIOS settings. It'll probably set you back around $250 though, plus maybe another $100 to $200 for a good power supply to support it (currently using a 1,000W, though you may not need that much), but it's well worth it in my opinion.

[doomdragon83]

For AMD...

Around ~$150 the 6850 is pretty good, but goes on sale pretty often and could be gotten for around $120 after rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102908

For another $20, you can get the 6870:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-102-948



I would personally recommend going the nVidia route though for PSO2 as it favors it more on when running the benchmarks. Also nVidia cards have some nice features such as Physx, FXAA injection, and adaptive vsync.

I'm already thinking about getting a 6870 but I'll look at the Nvidia cards and see what I can find.

[DeathDragon2332]

For a 560GTX a 600Watt is more than enough. A 560GTX is much cheaper than 250. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130661 He doesn't really need a TI you only get maybe 10% more performance over the stock GTX not really worth the $50 bucks IMO.

[kushking]

As stated by others. The only way to get it running the way you want is going to cost about 150-170. GTX 550 should get 5000 not to sure tho. A 560GTX is the way to get. A 6870 is about the same price and is a little worse than the 560GTX. A 7770 is not worth it at all for its price and it barley gets over 2000 at max and 1920x1080. If you can get a few more bucks a 560GTX Ti is the way to go. They are also nice over clockers I got my MSI from 823Mhz clock to 1003Mhz.

Yeah I've got a lot of decision making to do. I just don't like spending a thousand dollars on one game but then again, its pso.

[Konflyk]

HD6850 here, benchmark at full Res 1920x1080 and 5 with shaders high I got somewhere between 2000-3000 prob neglible due to the fact that I'm multitasking, CPU was clocked at 3.0ghz anyone test to see if PSO2 runs better on single/dual core opposed to all 4? If not I'll try it when I get home and post results. If anything anyone looking at the 6850, just spend the extra $20 and get the 6870 it's much more worthwhile as a purchase.

Edit: With Graphics at 5, shaders on low I got over 10k, I'll try killing programs and running another benchmark though I will say I have almost no FPS issues when I played in CBT at 5/High

[Ezodagrom]

i don't know how much better this is, but it's a 550 ti for about $119+^_^+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162094
A GTX460 is better than a GTX550 Ti though.


A 7770 is not worth it at all for its price and it barley gets over 2000 at max and 1920x1080.
In the post where I mentioned the HD7770, I said that I recommend it for people who have weak power supplies due to its low power consumption. ^^;
For those with decent power supplies, yeah, there's better options.


all these choices, so difficult!

what do you guys think about this (its been recommended a few times by some of you)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127646

Any graphics card under $130 is what I'm looking at now. I intend to run pso2 at least 1920x1080, but will experiment with higher and lower resolutions.

...btw stanfield block 1 "PSOW" playing on Normal level 10 if anyone wants to carry me PSOBB
If you don't want to spend $170 in a GTX560, that is definitely a great option.
Actually, that card uses the same graphics core as the GTX560, it only has 2 differences, that GTX460 uses a 192bit memory bus instead of 256bit, and it has 24 render output units instead of 32. Everything else is the same as a GTX560.

EDIT: You can also go for this, it's a similar card but from EVGA:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130749
While its base price is $143.99, if you use the mail-in rebate discount, it'll be $118.99 instead (there's no similar system to the newegg rebate where I live, so I don't really know how it works).

[IHeartRice]

If it helps somewhat, here is two screenshots of when I ran the benchmark on my computer at fullscreen 1920 x 1080 max settings. The 6870 screenshot is actually two in crossfire. IIRC, a single 6870 still reached above 5000 when I tested it. For those wondering about the 6870 at this res and settings, it's still a good buy.

[Chik'Tikka]

HD6850 here, benchmark at full Res 1920x1080 and 5 with shaders high I got somewhere between 2000-3000 prob neglible due to the fact that I'm multitasking, CPU was clocked at 3.0ghz anyone test to see if PSO2 runs better on single/dual core opposed to all 4? If not I'll try it when I get home and post results. If anything anyone looking at the 6850, just spend the extra $20 and get the 6870 it's much more worthwhile as a purchase.

Edit: With Graphics at 5, shaders on low I got over 10k, I'll try killing programs and running another benchmark though I will say I have almost no FPS issues when I played in CBT at 5/High

if you have a quad core at 3 GHz you should be more then fine (my i5 quad at 2.9 never went past 50% with CBT), focus on killing programs that affect the GPU such as perhaps windows aero, however, if PSO2 is full screen, then i can't see other programs actively affecting your GPU much+^_^+

[Sayuri Stardust]

I plan to play on my uncle's laptop, but computers isn't really my thing

These are the specs
i7-2640M
Radeon HD6630M
6 gigs of ram

I thought i would ask here since i was kinda confused :-P

[Ezodagrom]

I plan to play on my uncle's laptop, but computers isn't really my thing

These are the specs
i7-2640M
Radeon HD6630M
6 gigs of ram

I thought i would ask here since i was kinda confused :-P
Most likely that should be able to play the game fine at the medium quality settings (probably at the quality preset 3, or maybe 2).

[Xenobia]

My fiancee has a gtx 560Ti in her rig and she gets ~7,000 with it, I have a GTX680 and I score ~20,000

Sounds like your stuff is 4 times overkill to even play it smooth when it is already smooth. :-P
Wonder how this will turn out after 5 years, 8 times overkill? Guess we gonna say "how many times did you overkill 60 FPS" and then the geeks will answer theyr amount. Its kinda fun in some way.

But it truly doesnt need a huge system to place a overkill. I did it using a Mini PC (3 times smaller than a full tower). The gamer system is currently running with a 7870, but i didnt run a test yet. Best price/performance ratio is 7850 from the "next gen" cards. It will allow for the perfect and always smooth PSO2 gameplay experience, not to much and not to less. 7870 is overkill but i play many games other than PSO2 who will need much higher performance.

So again: Perfect condition recommendation still unchanged since many months: 7850 @1050/1450.

Question: 560 GTX better performance than 7850?
Answer: Nope, OC 7850 is about the power of a 570 GTX in real world performance (thats 10% higher performance at least). Although the 560 GTX could be gotten for 70$ cheaper than that (230$ at Newegg) while the 7850 is 300$ and upward. OC of 7850 is as easy as eating pancakes, just enable Catalyst OC and turn the slider to max value, most GPUs will handle it without issues. For further infos can always ask overclockers.com.

Question: What GPU is more heat and noise?
Answer: 7850 is generally lesser heat and therefore lesser noise, even at OC because there is no volt added.

Question: Any other advantage of 7850?
Answer: Yes, much lower power consumption, even a weak PSU could have no issues supplying a 7850. Appart from that, the 560 GTX is a discontinued series while the 7000 series is still actively supported, means, higher driver scaling in the future (= even more performance possible).

Question: Did you ever damage your hardware by OCing.
Answer: Never (although i know my stuff).

Question: Will a 560 GTX be able to get OC in the same way such as a 7850?
Answer: Nope, the 560 GTX is a much worse OC piece and generally OCing only recommended by experts. And it may cause high heat which isnt fun to deal with.

Question: Is 7850/560 GTX required to play it?
Answer: Nope, they are recommended in order to have a perfect gameplay experience at max settings @1080P. PSO2 can be run on a HD 4000 Integrated GPU (as a part of the Ivy Bridge CPU) when lowest settings are used (so, no additional GPU cost). Those settings however will turn PSO2 into a game with graphics looking like a 10 year old game.

The performance using HD 4000 IGP (with some OC) is:
スコア
・簡易設定1(高画質) 1280*720 20000
・簡易設定3(高画質) 1280*720 1800+
・簡易設定5(高画質) 1920*1080 360+

Means, lowest settings at 720P fully playable without issues. Even Level 3 is possible but FPS can be rather low, like 20-30. Using a HD 3000 the lowest settings is the only playable option. Using HD 4000 level 3 still can be considered to use. It may need some OC however.

IGP = Integrated Graphic Processor

Question: Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge?
Answer: Sandy Bridge is much cooler temperature and easyer to cool down, especially when stock cooler is used. On the other hand a Ivy Bridge may OC higher, but it will generate very high heat and only experts should deal with. For those running at stock, a Sandy Bridge is still a very good and cool running CPU. The performance difference is very low and not truly worth to mention. Price and temperature is more important. Lesser temperature = lesser noise and lesser overheat issues (in term someone got bad cooler).

Question: How demanding is PSO2 on the hardware?
Answer: Not demanding at all, in 5-10 years we may have some smartphones able to play the PC version of PSO2 using its original engine... in some way.
Question: But why does some GPUs overheat?
Answer: Because PSO2 may throw around insane and totaly useless amount of framerates which are overly stressing the system. In term its capped at 60 FPS the stress is low. Its never required to have more than 60 FPS, it doesnt make a feelable difference.

[DeathDragon2332]

Sounds like your stuff is 4 times overkill to even play it smooth when it is already smooth. :-P
Wonder how this will turn out after 5 years, 8 times overkill? Guess we gonna say "how many times did you overkill 60 FPS" and then the geeks will answer theyr amount. Its kinda fun in some way.

But it truly doesnt need a huge system to place a overkill. I did it using a Mini PC (3 times smaller than a full tower). The gamer system is currently running with a 7870, but i didnt run a test yet. Best price/performance ratio is 7850 from the "next gen" cards. It will allow for the perfect and always smooth PSO2 gameplay experience, not to much and not to less. 7870 is overkill but i play many games other than PSO2 who will need much higher performance.

So again: Perfect condition recommendation still unchanged since many months: 7850 @1050/1450.

Question: 560 GTX better performance than 7850?
Answer: Nope, OC 7850 is about the power of a 570 GTX in real world performance (thats 10% higher performance at least). Although the 560 GTX could be gotten for 70$ cheaper than that (230$ at Newegg) while the 7850 is 300$ and upward. OC of 7850 is as easy as eating pancakes, just enable Catalyst OC and turn the slider to max value, most GPUs will handle it without issues. For further infos can always ask overclockers.com.

Question: What GPU is more heat and noise?
Answer: 7850 is generally lesser heat and therefore lesser noise, even at OC because there is no volt added.

Question: Any other advantage of 7850?
Answer: Yes, much lower power consumption, even a weak PSU could have no issues supplying a 7850. Appart from that, the 560 GTX is a discontinued series while the 7000 series is still actively supported, means, higher driver scaling in the future (= even more performance possible).

Question: Did you ever damage your hardware by OCing.
Answer: Never (although i know my stuff).

Question: Will a 560 GTX be able to get OC in the same way such as a 7850?
Answer: Nope, the 560 GTX is a much worse OC piece and generally OCing only recommended by experts. And it may cause high heat which isnt fun to deal with.

Question: Is 7850/560 GTX required to play it? Nope, they are recommended in order to have a perfect gameplay experience at max settings @1080P. PSO2 can be run on a HD 4000 Integrated GPU (as a part of the Ivy Bridge CPU) when lowest settings are used (so, no additional GPU cost). Those settings however will turn PSO2 into a game with graphics looking like a 10 year old game.

The performance using HD 4000 IGP (with some OC) is:
スコア
・簡易設定1(高画質) 1280*720 20000
・簡易設定3(高画質) 1280*720 1800+
・簡易設定5(高画質) 1920*1080 360+

Means, lowest settings at 720P fully playable without issues. Even Level 3 is possible but FPS can be rather low, like 20-30. Using a HD 3000 the lowest settings is the only playable option. Using HD 4000 level 3 still can be considered to use. It may need some OC however.

IGP = Integrated Graphic Processor

Question: Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge?
Answer: Sandy Bridge is much cooler temperature and easyer to cool down, especially when stock cooler is used. On the other hand a Ivy Bridge may OC higher, but it will generate very high heat and only experts should deal with. For those running at stock, a Sandy Bridge is still a very good and cool running CPU. The performance difference is very low and not truly worth to mention. Price and temperature is more important. Lesser temperature = lesser noise and lesser overheat issues (in term someone got bad cooler).

Question: How demanding is PSO2 on the hardware?
Answer: Not demanding at all, in 5-10 years we may have some smartphones able to play the PC version of PSO2 using its original engine... in some way.
Question: But why does some GPUs overheat?
Answer: Because PSO2 may throw around insane and totaly useless amount of framerates which are overly stressing the system. In term its capped at 60 FPS the stress is low. Its never required to have more than 60 FPS, it doesnt make a feelable difference.

Very well stated. Ha ha I see your a radeon fan :D.

[kushking]

A GTX460 is better than a GTX550 Ti though.


In the post where I mentioned the HD7770, I said that I recommend it for people who have weak power supplies due to its low power consumption. ^^;
For those with decent power supplies, yeah, there's better options.


If you don't want to spend $170 in a GTX560, that is definitely a great option.
Actually, that card uses the same graphics core as the GTX560, it only has 2 differences, that GTX460 uses a 192bit memory bus instead of 256bit, and it has 24 render output units instead of 32. Everything else is the same as a GTX560.

EDIT: You can also go for this, it's a similar card but from EVGA:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130749
While its base price is $143.99, if you use the mail-in rebate discount, it'll be $118.99 instead (there's no similar system to the newegg rebate where I live, so I don't really know how it works).

Thank you. Two quick questions. This computer combined with a quad core intel processor, 4-8GB of ram, running PSO2 and PSO2 only full screen at 1920x1080 online via ethernet. Do you think I should be fine, or will I experience problems? Also, I'm between the EVGA you recommended and the one you said was a great option. If you could pick, which would you pick. Anyone else reading this feel free to input your opinions as well.

[Konflyk]

Update with images on my 6850, I OC'd the settings a bit and will list them below along with other PC specs.
PC Specs:
Win 7 Home Premium
8GB(4x2) RAM 1333
AMD Athlon II x4 3GHZ
HD6850 - (core Clock/memory Clock, Voltage) Default (775/1000, 1.15V), OC (840/1080, 1.25)
Benchmark pics:
@720
[SPOILER-BOX]http://i.imgur.com/ZCj1x.jpg[/SPOILER-BOX]
[SPOILER-BOX]http://i.imgur.com/rQ2te.jpg[/SPOILER-BOX]
[SPOILER-BOX]http://i.imgur.com/nz0Ii.jpg[/SPOILER-BOX]
@1080 Also ended up getting screen jitter...so I wouldn't recommend using this setting w/OC
[SPOILER-BOX]http://i.imgur.com/Vw6uh.jpg[/SPOILER-BOX]

Also I couldn't change core settings on the benchmark, option was locked out.

[Ezodagrom]

Thank you. Two quick questions. This computer combined with a quad core intel processor, 4-8GB of ram, running PSO2 and PSO2 only full screen at 1920x1080 online via ethernet. Do you think I should be fine, or will I experience problems? Also, I'm between the EVGA you recommended and the one you said was a great option. If you could pick, which would you pick. Anyone else reading this feel free to input your opinions as well.
You should play it fine at 1080p/max settings.
About the card, I recommend the EVGA, since it's a very popular Nvidia graphics card brand (plus it has better owner reviews than the MSI card).

[Xenobia]

Very well stated. Ha ha I see your a radeon fan :D.

Well, its kinda common that people, especially US people, only look at performance and price but there are so many other factors which can be important. Those factors are mainly the ones Radeon cards are able to provide. Nvidia mainly is producing almost over performing gamer cards and many outdated cards which can match newer Radeon cards at performance and price, but will lose at any other spot.

The newest Kepler series from Nvidia is totaly high end and for PSO2 gamers simply overkill. In that spot, Radeon cards could fill a important gape. While Nvidia is trying to fill that gape using some old Fermi-GPUs which are totaly outdated and the only reason people still buy them is the huge price drops Nvidia recently executed on them.

Its true, Radeon cards will perform 10% weaker in PSO2 because Sega did tune the engine for Nvidia cards in mind and they probably even got a free Dev Kit sponsored from Nvidia as long as they write down "Nvidia, meant to be played", which they did (free sponsoring and boost in performance for Nvidia). Anyway, as long as people interested in many games other than PSO2, Radeon cards will perform better than that. If they only play PSO2 Nvidia cards certainly may provide a performane boost. However, performance does become meaningless as soon as the power is equal or higher than 560 GTX or Radeon 7850 because they do provide the max performance required. It would not make any feelable difference when stronger than that. So it will become meaningless at that point.

Remember: A good card isnt the one able to succeed a high average FPS in a benchmark. A good card is the one who is having lesser framedrops! Thats the most important value considering its performance. The best card might not be able to provide the highest FPS ever seen but you can throw 10 Foie spell at them and they will barely drop at all, so they will not beg for mercy at some special situations. Thats the kind of stuff newer Radeon GPUs are strong at (and of course, the new Kepler series).

Actually benchmark is junk, it can be fooled in endless ways (for example driver tweak, setup adjustment or OCing) and i was able to fool it pretty heavy with my 99999 score :D Those stuff is simply for entertainment... if you want to know my true view. The real performance is some stuff only experts are able to tell and only those are able to judge.

[kyuuketsuki]

Well, its kinda common that people, especially US people, only look at performance and price but there are so many other factors which can be important.
Not really. Price/performance is really the only metric worth looking at, unless you're building an HTPC or other sort of rig where power consumption and thermals might come into play.
While Nvidia is trying to fill that gape using some old Fermi-GPUs which are totaly outdated and the only reason people still buy them is the huge price drops Nvidia recently executed on them.
Fermi cards are only one generation old, hardly "outdated". There's no good reason not to buy one unless there's an AMD card with a better price/performance ratio (which AMD does have at pretty much every price point under $400 currently, which is why I almost always recommend them now).
However, performance does become meaningless as soon as the power is equal or higher than 560 GTX or Radeon 7850 because they do provide the max performance required. It would not make any feelable difference when stronger than that. So it will become meaningless at that point.
Not really. Higher performance = future-proofing. Unless the one-and-only goal is to get playable PSO2 performance (which isn't terribly ambitious), and the person is sure they'll never look at another PC-game again, it's silly to build a rig strictly around a single game.
Remember: A good card isnt the one able to succeed a high average FPS in a benchmark. A good card is the one who is having lesser framedrops!
Uh, less dropped frames = higher average framerate.

It is true that average FPS, by itself, isn't the ultimate metric. Minimum framerates and microstutter should also be taken into consideration. But really, this is way outside the realm of what people coming into this thread need to think about. People who come into a thread like this aren't looking to get lectured and get some in-depth lessons about benchmarking and other areas of computer nerd-ism. They're looking for advice. Good advice should generally be concise. It doesn't do anyone any good to overload them with unwanted information.
Actually benchmark is junk, it can be fooled in endless ways (for example driver tweak, setup adjustment or OCing) and i was able to fool it pretty heavy with my 99999 score.
The benchmark is fine for what it was intended for: give a quick estimation of how well a person's rig will handle the game and recommending turning settings down if necessary. Whether someone can intentionally fudge the results or not is irrelevant.

[Xenobia]

I do not agree on what you said, but not gonna make precise statement because it is endless war and finally everyone can get what they enjoy.

2 of the matters are however critical thats why im gonna explain:
Heat/Cooling: Very important, not much people will enjoy high noise or a unstable hardware because of to much heat. The issues can be endless, heat and cooling is the most critical stuff for hardware and it is the kind of stuff which will ultimately decide how much of potency is able to be unleashed. If you cant get that stuff under control, forget about your so called "performance is all what counts". On challenging mini system builds its basically the most difficult stuff to tackle. But even huge systems are not free from those issues. Less heat means more performance, very easy maths. On the other hand, higher power need does mean that the need of a stronger and more expensive PSU is required, and it seems like people do not add that kind of cost to the total cost. No one needs a expensive 1000W PSU using a efficient hardware, it could run on a 500-600W.


A card providing high average frames doesnt necessarely do well at demanding situations. Because the cards architectures got a different scaling regarding such matters. For example Radeon cards of the newest generation are unbetable at huge resolutions (eyefinity) and will scale better than Nvidia cards under such conditions. Another example when i compare a 3870 with a 4850, the 4850 would have probably 50% higher average framerates but in certain conditions the 3870 will occasionally get extremely huge framedrops (more than twice the amount) while the 4850 will get very few drops. Those drops however does not add a huge number to the average FPS because its usualy only a short time. Finally, as more of resources in order to counter demanding situations, as lesser drops. Doesnt matter for how long, even a short drop can be nasty for gameplay but it does barely reflect on average framerate. I made that example because i once had those GPUs and when i used the 3870 as soon as i casted a high res spell, the GPU was going down like a fallen apple from a tree. But when i used the 4850, i barely did notice any impact, it was much more stable at its behaviour. The average framrate on the older card was lower but i didnt even notice it unless there was that kind of spell appearing.

I recommend to study highest/lowest framerate and different cards behaviour regarding scaling first, and then you may have some different view. Its far more complicated and not a simplified matter in the way you apparently got in mind. A GPUs architecture is pretty complex and in most situations half of the ressources arnt used at all. Of course micro studder is another issue but non SLI/CF systems are not vulnerable to it, thats clearly a multi GPU issue.




I have a factory "superclocked" EVGA brand GTX 560 Ti in my PC:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130610

[...] (currently using a 1,000W, though you may not need that much), but it's well worth it in my opinion.

1000W? :D I run a card stronger than that on a 500W PSU. What you need 1000W for? I could tri-fire your card using your PSU.

Besides, a OC 560 GTX is a high power leecher but i guess energy is free in the US and huge supplys too. Regarding its OC, its between 5-10%. I can add more than that on a 7850 or 7870 and get out more performance with at every single added %, because it got higher performance scaling. I mean its fine whatever people decide to get, but i do disapprove presenting it in a way like "it is the ultimate deal". Its 250$ for a good performing but ineffective hardware, with lower performance scaling at increased clocks. Bigger, fatter, isnt always that much better, but trying to tell it to a US is like trying to teach a cow how to talk. ;)

For me, GFLOPs/W ratio is a critical value, but most people dont even know what it means. XD

[KunoMochi]

Well, at least he's future-proof in that department... XP

[Chik'Tikka]

People who come into a thread like this aren't looking to get lectured and get some in-depth lessons about benchmarking and other areas of computer nerd-ism.

not true!!!! as a first year college student for IT administration i like seeing all these informative arguments about all sorts of hardware, why do you think i've been so quiet?+^_^+

[DeathDragon2332]

Yes considering that this is really what this thread is about.

[Xenobia]

Well, at least he's future-proof in that department... XP
Not necessarely because a PSU of bad quality wont live forever, those stuff is kinda vulnerable to breakdowns unless its high quality (not to much of them). That can only be detected by opening the PSU and investigate the parts. Caps should be 105C and preferably Japan made because the caps is one of the most vulnerable ingridients, some of them only will live for like 5000 h. No matter what the manufacturer are telling us (for example 100 000h MTBF) its all a huge lie. There is no law against lying, but most people still didnt notice it.
Good stuff: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1336/pg3/seasonic-platinum-series-1000w-power-supply-review-internal.html

[Ryo]

Well, its kinda common that people, especially US people, only look at performance and price but there are so many other factors which can be important.




Besides, a OC 560 GTX is a high power leecher but i guess energy is free in the US and huge supplys too. Bigger, fatter, isnt always that much better, but trying to tell it to a US is like trying to teach a cow how to talk. ;)


You know, think what you want about Radeon vs. Nvidia, but I'm going to ask you kindly, ONCE to stop belittling an entire country.

I happen to live in the US, and I pay for my resources, same as those in most other countries. I pay for the utilities I use along with everything else.

Make your arguments on video cards all you want, but leave nationality, geographic location, creed and race out of it or I'll report you.

[kyuuketsuki]

[...] but I'm going to ask you kindly, ONCE to stop belittling an entire country.
But I thought belittling and stereotyping entire countries was fashionable on PSO-W (it's just usually targeted at Japan).

Really, I agree with you though.

[Ryo]

But I thought belittling and stereotyping entire countries was fashionable on PSO-W (it's just usually targeted at Japan).

Really, I agree with you though.

Don't get me started on that argument... Let's hate on the country that produces the games we love to play.

Sometimes, I just gotta shake my head.


Also, on topic:

I shop for graphics cards by doing the following:

1. Define a price range.
2. Make a list of games I'm interested in.
3. Look up benchmarks for games using cards in step 1's price range.
4. Buy the best performing card on the games I want to play within my price range.

It just so happens most of the games I enjoy are optimized for Nvidia and as such, GeForce cards have been my mainstay. Also, I'm above the ~$400 price range these days, where Radeons don't really compete.

[Xenobia]

Dont compete? Source?

Here is one of my sources (lot of comparisons, just check them out):
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1494/pg6/nvidia-geforce-gtx-670-graphics-card-review-overclocked-editions-3dmark-11.html

Also those two resolutions are most important to me (thats why i find that comparison useful) because either i play 1080P or im gonna play a 3-screen eyefinity which seems to be popular those days for many PC gamers. Especially at 3-screen eyefinity the 7970 is totaly comparable to the 680 GTX and may have a better price. The only reason to get a super high end card is when people use eyefinity, because at 1080P those cards are way to powerful in like 90% of the situations. Those who play 1080P do not necessarely need a high end card.

Of course, a stronger card is more future proof, thats clearly true. However, many people may buy a new card at every new generation and simply sell the old card (Ebay or other locations). Mainly those who show some concern about GFLOPs/W and it could even have additional performance. So they are willing to lose some cash for that kind of demand.


On a side note, i find it rather odd that the 670 GTX is that close to the 680 GTX and Nvidia never ever sold a GPU which is almost flagship power for "only" 400$. Its because they want to fight Radeon cards else they would not have such a agressive pricing and performance strategy considering theyr second strongest single GPU. Indeed, in term AMD would not truly compete, Nvidia could rip the unholy out of us... unfortunately theyr dreams didnt become true. Looked better in the past, for example at Nvidias GTX580 which was more ahead of AMDs (6970) single GPU, and Nvidia indeed ripped the unholy out of the customers. Because many people would just pay about any price as long as it is faster. However, at the newest generation the difference has been lowered and many enthusiast become unsure if they truly want to spend a big bonus. Most of them are going to use a 670 GTX because its the way better deal or they may enjoy eyefinity, in which a 7970 is great competition. Highly recommended card for enthusiasts, the MSI Lightning, one of the deepest temperature (and noise) of any cards while able to provide astounding performance. http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-radeon-hd-7970-lightning-review/11 Overclocked it does compete the 680 GTX: http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-radeon-hd-7970-lightning-review/26 Thats more of competition than someone who got in mind that there is none ever believe. Of course a overclocked 680 GTX at 1080P could be 10% higher but the Lighning will run with cooler temps and lesser noise for the same price, if that isnt competition? At eyefinity the 7970 is basically comparable at those clocks (even vs. OC 680 GTX). Nvidia got the lead at 1080P but not at eyefinity, both about comparable. Anyway, in my country the 680 GTX is more expensive than 7970. 60-70$, it could make the difference between good and bad PSU, so the 7970 will give good PSU. Its a hard choice. However, there is no offer for MSI Lightning 7970 in my country so far, because the demand is to high, its kinda some legendary piece.

Certainly, that talk doesnt affect PSO2, we are at another league. However, at the league PSO2 is located at, there is many great offers from both companys. Nvidia is the leecher and AMD is the one providing "true next gen" at that spot.

[kyuuketsuki]

not true!!!! as a first year college student for IT administration i like seeing all these informative arguments about all sorts of hardware, why do you think i've been so quiet?+^_^+
Well, I'd call you an exception. If you're really interested in getting into computer hardware at an enthusiast level, there are much better resources than a couple people in thread on a video game forum, such as numerous tech blogs and forums dedicated to the subject.
I shop for graphics cards by doing the following:

1. Define a price range.
2. Make a list of games I'm interested in.
3. Look up benchmarks for games using cards in step 1's price range.
4. Buy the best performing card on the games I want to play within my price range.
Right. Generally speaking, it's best to simply have a budget in mind and get the best performing components you can within that budget. If you're not up to the research yourself for whatever reason, many websites put up guides to the best current parts at various price points. Such as Tom's Hardware's monthly best CPU/GPU/SSD for X dollars articles. Or you can ask on forum thread like this one... but then you run the risk of, well, having to deal with what's going on in this thread.

[Ryo]

Haha, no kidding! This thread has gotten a bit out of hand.

For me personally, I'm just beginning to scratch the surface of Enthusiast-level knowledge. I bought an SSD last night for a boot/PSO2 drive. My price range was around ~150ish so I ended up with a Mushkin Chronos MX Deluxe.

Had to do all the research on synchronous vs. asynchronous vs. Toggle-Mode last night and figured I want toggle-mode, but it's out of my price range for now.

Today's topic will be a bit more on video cards. I'm trying to teach myself something new every day, since I enjoy building them.

Also, when I get stumped, I usually end up at Tom's forums, pretty helpful stuff!

[Chik'Tikka]

Toms forums are awesome, one of these days i aught to quit lurking and make an account+^_^+
another good place to go is http://stackoverflow.com/ , there you can post a question kinda like yahoo answers and get a specific answer relating to your issue+^_^+


If you're really interested in getting into computer hardware at an enthusiast level, there are much better resources than a couple people in thread on a video game forum, such as numerous tech blogs and forums dedicated to the subject.


i know, i just get really excited to hear tech talk anywhere+^_^+ more often then not, everyone knows a little something that no one else does and i like hearing everyone's opinions i can on a subject+^_^+

[Xenobia]

Oh, im not a programmer, im to busy for that kind of stuff. Usualy i answer some stuff i have experience with when im working on my PC or doing research toward way to many matters. Im basically a entity which is interested into as good as anything as long as a certain level has passed. I guess im the worlds most interested person as long as i have no proof of someone even more interested. ;) Until that day i was unable to find. Im permannently short on time when i study about something else, its a weird feeling. Hardware is only one of way to many matters which seems to be haunted by my brain, i dont know where to start and where to stop... thats life.

Certainly, i do appreciate people doing effort toward knowledge, its of very high reputation. Although, knowledge is only useful combined with a pure heart, thats where many holder of knowledge unfortunately have some lack and may use it in a very self centered way. Everyone seeking for it should have the rights to get theyr share about the knowledge of others, so i do support sites such as Wikipedia.

[Clunker]

Ok, took earlier suggestions down to the local DIT store, and came up with the following build.

What would the likely "Benchmark" be for this set-up?

Base Kit Type: DIT Navigator III 639.99
Processor: Intel Quad Core i5 3570K 3.4 GHz 6MB 1155 58.67
OS: Win7 64bit Home Premium OEM 0
Applications: MS Office Optional: 0
RAM: Kingston VALUERAM 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 1333: [8GB TOTAL] 0
HDD: 1TB WD SATA II – 7200RPM – 32MB Cache 13.33
DVD BURNER: LG 24X +/- DVD-RW DL SECURIDISC SATA BLK 0
Motherboard: GBT GA-H77-DS3H LGA 1155 INTEL H77 0
Power Supply: Cougar RS-Series RS650 650 Watts 89.99
PC Case: Antec One Mid Tower Case 69.99
Graphics Card: GBT GeForce GTX560ti (FERMI) GDDR5 1 GB 239.99
Cabling: 10ft HDMI to HDMI Highspeed 480 to 1080 19.99
25ft CAT5E Patch Molded (Ethernet Cable) 9.99
Cooling: Antec Case - x2 120mm Fans Built-In 0
x2 120mm Ball Bearing Fan FD12024B1L3/4 19.98
NOTE: as a Kit-Based Build, comes with a 1yr Warranty.
Total Cost 1161.92
Total w/Tax 1243.25

Another point of question: Power Supply. One of the earlier agents I spoke to suggested
I go 'up' to the 'Cougar RS-Series RS650 650 Watts' from the default, due to the
power requirements of the build.

How 'good' is the Cougar RS-Series RS650 as a PSU for this build?

There are other PSUs available at this store; I was hoping to keep things under $1,300...
but I don't want to have a underperforming PSU - then have my whole rig fry.

Here are the other 'comparable' to 'higher end' PSUs at this store (in order of $):

TP-650 Antec Truepower 650 Watts
http://www.ditcorp.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=PWSATCTP650&eq=&Tp=

HCG-900 Antec 900 Watts
http://www.ditcorp.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=PWSATCHCG900&eq=&Tp=

Coolermaster Silent Pro 1200W Modular
http://www.ditcorp.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=PWSCLMSPG1200&eq=&Tp=

Advice on the overall build, but particularly the PSU issue would be
greatly appreciated.

[DeathDragon2332]

Ok, took earlier suggestions down to the local DIT store, and came up with the following build.

What would the likely "Benchmark" be for this set-up?

Base Kit Type: DIT Navigator III 639.99
Processor: Intel Quad Core i5 3570K 3.4 GHz 6MB 1155 58.67
OS: Win7 64bit Home Premium OEM 0
Applications: MS Office Optional: 0
RAM: Kingston VALUERAM 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 1333: [8GB TOTAL] 0
HDD: 1TB WD SATA II – 7200RPM – 32MB Cache 13.33
DVD BURNER: LG 24X +/- DVD-RW DL SECURIDISC SATA BLK 0
Motherboard: GBT GA-H77-DS3H LGA 1155 INTEL H77 0
Power Supply: Cougar RS-Series RS650 650 Watts 89.99
PC Case: Antec One Mid Tower Case 69.99
Graphics Card: GBT GeForce GTX560ti (FERMI) GDDR5 1 GB 239.99
Cabling: 10ft HDMI to HDMI Highspeed 480 to 1080 19.99
25ft CAT5E Patch Molded (Ethernet Cable) 9.99
Cooling: Antec Case - x2 120mm Fans Built-In 0
x2 120mm Ball Bearing Fan FD12024B1L3/4 19.98
NOTE: as a Kit-Based Build, comes with a 1yr Warranty.
Total Cost 1161.92
Total w/Tax 1243.25

Another point of question: Power Supply. One of the earlier agents I spoke to suggested
I go 'up' to the 'Cougar RS-Series RS650 650 Watts' from the default, due to the
power requirements of the build.

How 'good' is the Cougar RS-Series RS650 as a PSU for this build?

There are other PSUs available at this store; I was hoping to keep things under $1,300...
but I don't want to have a underperforming PSU - then have my whole rig fry.

Here are the other 'comparable' to 'higher end' PSUs at this store (in order of $):

TP-650 Antec Truepower 650 Watts
http://www.ditcorp.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=PWSATCTP650&eq=&Tp=

HCG-900 Antec 900 Watts
http://www.ditcorp.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=PWSATCHCG900&eq=&Tp=

Coolermaster Silent Pro 1200W Modular
http://www.ditcorp.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=PWSCLMSPG1200&eq=&Tp=

Advice on the overall build, but particularly the PSU issue would be
greatly appreciated.

Hmm being that we have the same rig besides are CPU and being yours is an i7 I on 1920x1080 and max settings at 5 I would say prob 8-10K.

[Ryo]

Hmm being that we have the same rig besides are CPU and being yours is an i7 I on 1920x1080 and max settings at 5 I would say prob 8-10K.

Are you sure? My fiancee is running a very similar rig, (gtx 560Ti 2GB, core i5 3450K, 8GB DDR3 1600) and only managed ~7K on full settings.

[Clunker]

Just for clarity - my processor: Intel Quad Core i5 3570K 3.4 GHz; not an i7.

Max settings at 5 - does this also include shaders? I've seen postings on how Shaders' effect can really trash framerate and such...

[KunoMochi]

The 1st tab has a 1-5 slider setting which seem to affect the texture quality of the models and environment.

The 4th tab has 2 more graphical settings. The left settings (with the 3 options), I noted, affected the billboard advertisement textures. The right setting (with the 2 options) seems to affect the shadows and some other effects (particles, ground effects, etc.).

Putting the right setting to the bottom option affected drastically boosted the performance. My usual score of 3000 with max settings jumped up to a score of 54000 with the changed setting.

I still need to test this out with my laptop. I'll post the results when I do.

PC score comparison:
CPU @ 3.2 GHz
DDR3 @ 2000 MHz
HD 5770 @ stock

[Chik'Tikka]

The 1st tab has a 1-5 slider setting which seem to affect the texture quality of the models and environment.

The 4th tab has 2 more graphical settings. The left settings (with the 3 options), I noted, affected the billboard advertisement textures. The right setting (with the 2 options) seems to affect the shadows and some other effects (particles, ground effects, etc.).

Putting the right setting to the bottom option affected drastically boosted the performance. My usual score of 3000 with max settings jumped up to a score of 54000 with the changed setting.

I still need to test this out with my laptop. I'll post the results when I do.

PC score comparison:
CPU @ 3.2 GHz
DDR3 @ 2000 MHz
HD 5770 @ stock

omg, i had no idea what those were and no one had a launcher translation so i left them alone, it's nuts but i ran three tests at lowest possible setting with a resolution of 1900x600 and got like 45K (then 24K, then 45, then 8K, Optimus gives me false readings like crazy) +^_^+ ima leave the right one on high though as it made my Character look very pretty in CBT and other then the drastically reduced score, everything else was still smooth as butter+^_^+ got a 2nd gen i5 and a 540m OCed to 750 on core, mem at 950, and shaders at 1500+^_^+

[DeathDragon2332]

Are you sure? My fiancee is running a very similar rig, (gtx 560Ti 2GB, core i5 3450K, 8GB DDR3 1600) and only managed ~7K on full settings.

I got a 7800. I also have a 6Core which would make a little difference.

[Ark22]

All I can say is that my laptop (which PSOW PC experts told me) couldn't run this game on med and barely on low. Beta came, pssh I could max set the game and with it on 30 fps.

=) But awesome rigs guys

[skuld01]

All I can say is that my laptop (which PSOW PC experts told me) couldn't run this game on med and barely on low. Beta came, pssh I could max set the game and with it on 30 fps.

=) But awesome rigs guys

Wow, I envy, what's your laptop btw?

I think my build (ATI HD Mobility 4650 1GB)
can run preset 2 at 30FPS ....

[Ark22]

Wow, I envy, what's your laptop btw?

I think my build (ATI HD Mobility 4650 1GB)
can run preset 2 at 30FPS ....

If you mess around with the Notepad.txt for the graphics in PSO2 you can go higher. Just take off AA you will see a difference.

It's a customized HP DV6. Not to show off or anything. I got it live 8 months ago. And now you can buy a better laptop than mine for about $600.

[Ezodagrom]

All I can say is that my laptop (which PSOW PC experts told me) couldn't run this game on med and barely on low. Beta came, pssh I could max set the game and with it on 30 fps.

=) But awesome rigs guys
Just out of curiosity, what are your specs? (specifically the processor and graphics card)

[Ark22]

Here ya go Ezo.

Windows 7 (64)

AMD Quad-Core A8-3510MX Accelerated Processor (2.5GHz/1.8GHz, 4MB L2 Cache)
• 1GB GDDR5 Radeon(TM) HD Dual Graphics (AMD 6755G2) [HDMI, VGA]
• 8GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 640GB 5400RPM Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive

If I am missing anything just tell me.

It's not a boss but for a laptop that got shot down, I am amazed that it was able to run PSO2, let alone max settings while duplicating screens on my 32 inch HD flat screen.

[Gama]

i wonder how much performance improvements will there be comparing the open beta client and the char creator.

[Chik'Tikka]

i feel the same way for my Toshiba+^_^+ i turned just that AA off in the text file and used FXAA straight off the nvidia card and.... smooth as butter+^_^+


i wonder how much performance improvements will there be comparing the open beta client and the char creator.

I'm sure quite a few, i noticed a good jump in performance just from CC demo to CBT+^_^+

[KunoMochi]

Just wanted to post my laptop results from running the benchmark.

Same as before, one is with all settings maxed (30fps average); the other had only the shader turned off (100fps average). Not the greatest laptop either, but it enough for what I mainly use it for.

Laptop score comparison:
CPU @ 2.4 GHz, Turbo Boost to 3.0GHz
Resolution @ 1366x768
DDR3 @ 667MHz

[Xenobia]

The RAM speed is basically useless, would only make a few % of difference (1-3% in usual, its that low that it is not able to be noticed unless we use a measurement tool). Thats why i run my RAM low speed but high timings. The turbo boost of the CPU is another useless thing, that CPU is already overkill. The only stuff which matters is the GPU and a 540M isnt the perfect condition, but still successfull to run at max detail. Occassionally it still will have some nasty framedrops ingame, but at highest or high settings only. I only OC the RAM for entertainment purpose, because it may remove some bottlenecks, but that only happens at above 500 FPS. Usualy the GPU is the only bottleneck for gaming but only at max setting.

Highest lack you got is however, the 4 GB RAM combined with a 64 bit system. 4 GB is fine when used with a 32 bit system but when you run a 64 bit system you do need twice the RAM usage for the exactly same stuff. Thats related to technology and not avoidable. So that means that you truly may run into RAM shortage at some point. I do recommend at least 6-8 GB RAM for 64 bit systems and 4 GB for 32 bit. Of course the demand will increase in the future, so its not wrong to be more future proof. RAM is usualy never noticed unless they run out of space, when that happens, they will have the highest impact ever seen. Some other spot is the size of the video RAM**, because when that is flooded it will access the system RAM which is much slower and already way to limited.

** For PSO2 256 MB is enough (although 512 recommended), but for some other games its possible that they exceed 1 GB at 1080P.

I was indeed able to run into the 32 bit RAM limit of 4 GB. It did happen when i had opened EVE Online and WoW at once... then my 32 bit system did run out of RAM. Same could happen on 64 bit systems using 6 GB. So i did nothing special except to multitask. Although, might not happen on PSO2, its tuned for smartphone and barely using any ressources at all. Unfortunately PSO2 isnt the only game i play.

[KunoMochi]

The RAM speed is basically useless, would only make a few % of difference (1-3% in usual, its that low that it is not able to be noticed unless we use a measurement tool). Thats why i run my RAM low speed but high timings. The turbo boost of the CPU is another useless thing, that CPU is already overkill. The only stuff which matters is the GPU and a 540M isnt the perfect condition, but still successfull to run at max detail. Occassionally it still will have some nasty framedrops ingame, but at highest or high settings only. I only OC the RAM for entertainment purpose, because it may remove some bottlenecks, but that only happens at above 500 FPS. Usualy the GPU is the only bottleneck for gaming but only at max setting.

Highest lack you got is however, the 4 GB RAM combined with a 64 bit system. 4 GB is fine when used with a 32 bit system but when you run a 64 bit system you do need twice the RAM usage for the exactly same stuff. Thats related to technology and not avoidable. So that means that you truly may run into RAM shortage at some point. I do recommend at least 6-8 GB RAM for 64 bit systems and 4 GB for 32 bit. Of course the demand will increase in the future, so its not wrong to be more future proof. RAM is usualy never noticed unless they run out of space, when that happens, they will have the highest impact ever seen. Some other spot is the size of the video RAM**, because when that is flooded it will access the system RAM which is much slower and already way to limited.

** For PSO2 256 MB is enough (although 512 recommended), but for some other games its possible that they exceed 1 GB at 1080P.

I was indeed able to run into the 32 bit RAM limit of 4 GB. It did happen when i had opened EVE Online and WoW at once... then my 32 bit system did run out of RAM. Same could happen on 64 bit systems using 6 GB. So i did nothing special except to multitask. Although, might not happen on PSO2, its tuned for smartphone and barely using any ressources at all. Unfortunately PSO2 isnt the only game i play.
Regardless, I'm running it on my laptop just as a benchmark for people curious about how well it performs with different game graphic settings. And yes, I was already planning on upping the RAM to 8GB later on down the road, but for now, it suits my needs just fine.

Mind you, my laptop is strictly for things other than gaming; I'll be using my desktop for that.

[Ezodagrom]

Here ya go Ezo.

Windows 7 (64)

AMD Quad-Core A8-3510MX Accelerated Processor (2.5GHz/1.8GHz, 4MB L2 Cache)
• 1GB GDDR5 Radeon(TM) HD Dual Graphics (AMD 6755G2) [HDMI, VGA]
• 8GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 640GB 5400RPM Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive

If I am missing anything just tell me.

It's not a boss but for a laptop that got shot down, I am amazed that it was able to run PSO2, let alone max settings while duplicating screens on my 32 inch HD flat screen.
I'm a bit surprised that it can run on max settings (unless you're using the 5th preset and turn off some settings manually, which isn't really max settings), but whoever said that it couldn't run on medium or barely on low was obviously wrong, based on your laptop specs, my guess would have been that it could run PSO2 fine at the 3rd preset. ^^;

Since you're using the 6755G2 graphics, that means you're using both the dedicated graphics (most likely an HD6750M) and the graphics that are integrated in the processor together.
In some games using both together increases performance, but in others it actually decreases performance, I wonder if you disabled dual-graphics (if it's possible, I don't have an AMD Fusion laptop, so I'm not sure how it works), maybe it could increase performance (but, if PSO2 makes good use of the dual-graphics, it would decrease performance and the best option would be indeed the dual-graphics mode).

[Gama]

where is the ini file located? i would like to try tampering with the settings aswell :3

[Ezodagrom]

where is the ini file located? i would like to try tampering with the settings aswell :3
In the case of PSO2, it's not an ini file, but it can be modified with a text editor just like ini files, the file is located in Documents\SEGA\PHANTASYSTARONLINE2, but the file depends on the version you're playing.
If it's the closed beta, the file is user_beta.pso2, if it's the character creator/benchmark, the file is user_benchmark.pso2.

Also, the extra settings that can be changed in that file, can also be changed in-game in the beta (whenever the pre-open beta starts, but those settings can't be changed in-game in the character creator though).

[Ark22]

I'm a bit surprised that it can run on max settings (unless you're using the 5th preset and turn off some settings manually, which isn't really max settings), but whoever said that it couldn't run on medium or barely on low was obviously wrong, based on your laptop specs, my guess would have been that it could run PSO2 fine at the 3rd preset. ^^;

Since you're using the 6755G2 graphics, that means you're using both the dedicated graphics (most likely an HD6750M) and the graphics that are integrated in the processor together.
In some games using both together increases performance, but in others it actually decreases performance, I wonder if you disabled dual-graphics (if it's possible, I don't have an AMD Fusion laptop, so I'm not sure how it works), maybe it could increase performance (but, if PSO2 makes good use of the dual-graphics, it would decrease performance and the best option would be indeed the dual-graphics mode).

Honestly, the only thing I take off is AA. Because I don't really see the point of it. But besides that it's all good =). So....4.9 present settings.

[lKeima]

Is there any noticeable difference when you remove the AA from the text file?

[Chik'Tikka]

Is there any noticeable difference when you remove the AA from the text file?

it frees up you GPU core for other things+^_^+ like GPU monitored AA

[kyuuketsuki]

All I can say is that my laptop (which PSOW PC experts told me) couldn't run this game on med and barely on low. Beta came, pssh I could max set the game and with it on 30 fps.

=) But awesome rigs guys
AMD Quad-Core A8-3510MX Accelerated Processor (2.5GHz/1.8GHz, 4MB L2 Cache)
• 1GB GDDR5 Radeon(TM) HD Dual Graphics (AMD 6755G2) [HDMI, VGA]
• 8GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 640GB 5400RPM Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive

If I am missing anything just tell me.

It's not a boss but for a laptop that got shot down, I am amazed that it was able to run PSO2, let alone max settings while duplicating screens on my 32 inch HD flat screen.
Eh? Who told you that laptop would barely run PSO2? The AMD 6750 by itself is more than capable of handling PSO2 at decent settings. I doubt running it in asymmetric crossfire with the APU's integrated GPU (which is what the "6755G2" is) helps much, if at all. It may even hurt performance, unless AMD has made some massive strides with driver support of asymmetric crossfire recently.

Anyway, what resolution are you running it in? It's hardly "max" settings if you're running it at 1366x768 or lower. Note: I don't care what resolution people use, I'm simply stating that low resolutions like that aren't demanding and it's disingenuous when people claim to be playing something at max settings but fail to mention they're at 1024x720 or some other low-end resolution. Resolution plays a huge role in how demanding a game is to render. Also, duplicating the screen on your TV isn't terribly performance intensive.

Further, coming into a thread like this to ask people's opinions on how a game will run on X set of hardware, and then coming back to throw it in their face if they weren't dead-on is a bit rude. People can only make their best educated guess unless they just happen to have experience with the exact set of hardware you're asking about. Especially when people were largely asking about a game that hasn't even really come out yet and people had little to go on about exactly how demanding the game was outside of the alpha's minimum specifications and some screenshots. And even now, there aren't any really good benchmarks of how the game runs on different sets of hardware at various settings, outside of one conducted by some Japanese website I believe.

But anyways, again, I don't know who shot down your laptop before, but really it's more than adequate for PSO2 at medium resolution/details, as you have discovered. Though the HDD is awful.

[Ark22]

Don't worry Kyu I was the guy that kept telling them it would run on the lowest of the low.

And I hook my laptop up to my HD TV and run it on 1920 x 1080.

"Further, coming into a thread like this to ask people's opinions on how a game will run on X set of hardware, and then coming back to throw it in their face if they weren't dead-on is a bit rude." - KYU

The people that told me this were extremely rude people, hell they were worse than rude. They would even shoot down my intelligence for no reason because I didn't know about PC's that well back then. And I wasn't trying to be mean or shove it in their face was just stating that they were wrong and anyone else they shot down should feel a bit better. But as well, what is done is done.

But yeah back on topic my laptop isn't the greatest but it plays it the way I like it, smooth, little tiny drops here and there but above all runs like a beaut.

Also, how does Resolution matter? It looks the same to me on any resolution, I mean why would I run it higher than 1366 x 768? I mean sure everything is more spaced out but the graphics to me look the same. :-?

[Chik'Tikka]

resolution is just the number of pixles utilized by the game, if you set it to 720 on a 1080 display, you might notice some jaggy edges, but that's what AA is for+^_^+

[Ark22]

resolution is just the number of pixles utilized by the game, if you set it to 720 on a 1080 display, you might notice some jaggy edges, but that's what AA is for+^_^+

Oh thanks for the tip.

Well my resolution is perfect for the resolution I use, I don't really see jagged lines but when i do, I don't care bout it xD.

[moeri]

Again these are the minimum requirements for the alpha. Anything lower will not do,

As in...

the game will not play

...or...

game will be of poor quality

?

I don't really mind the second one because I generally play games on machines that are below minimum requirements anyway, just wondering what "minimum" is for this game. I am used to playing at ~15 fps(lowest settings) on today's games.

[Mike]

I don't really mind the second one because I generally play games on machines that are below minimum requirements anyway, just wondering what "minimum" is for this game. I am used to playing at ~15 fps(lowest settings) on today's games.

Grab the demo/benchmark (http://cc.pso2.jp/PSO2_CC.zip) as see how well it runs.

[moeri]

Grab the demo/benchmark (http://cc.pso2.jp/PSO2_CC.zip) as see how well it runs.

I have already done that.

I only said what I did to point out the fact that I am used to playing games at the low end of the performance spectrum.

[Alucard V]

I think I might try Mag-X's build out. It's cheep & easy with little negative feedback. It seem like a good "first build". But since the the benchmark is so froth coming on how the beta test behaved and Xenobia is shooting down every idea that has come along, what should one aim for with the CCD benchmark?

In my mind 60 fps seems playable.


[SPOILER-BOX]
You probably can't buy a decent PC for around $500, but you can totally build one that can play PSO2 (and pretty much anything else, really)

Here's something I threw together real quick.

Processor: Intel Pentium G620 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116399) $69.99
Video Card: XFX HD 6770 1GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150540) $109.99
RAM: Crucial 4GB DDR3 1333 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148262) $22.99
Motherboard: ASRock H61M-VS LGA 1155 Intel H61 Micro ATX (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157241) $54.99
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar Blue WD3200AAKX 320GB 7200 RPM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136770) $74.99
DVD-Burner SAMSUNG 22X DVD Burner (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151244) $14.99
Power Supply: COOLER MASTER GX 450W (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171060) $49.99
Case: Rosewill R218-P-BK Black SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147073) $29.99
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986) $99.99

Total: $527.91

Those looking to stay under $500 can downgrade the video card to a Radeon 5670. Those looking to spend a little more should bump the processor up to an i3 2100 or 2120 and 8GB of RAM.

As is though, this PC would play any game currently out, and would blow PSO2 away.[/SPOILER-BOX]

[Xenobia]

resolution is just the number of pixles utilized by the game, if you set it to 720 on a 1080 display, you might notice some jaggy edges, but that's what AA is for+^_^+
Well, its not as easy as that. Usualy the picture quality is highest when played at native resolution, because when that resolution is used, then there will be no downsampling. So basically we have a "uncompressed" format. When we use a resolution lower than the native one (the one the game or screen is been optimized with) then we get some sort of "compression". That means that we may lose details and therefore graphic quality. Jaggy edges may even exist at 1080P but they will be smaller and may not bother that much. It also depends on the size of a screen, as bigger the screen as more of details is able to be "released", so that means, user of big screens generally are able to see more details. At very big screens, jaggy edges can easely be noticed even at 1080P, but when the screen is small they may not be noticed at all because the pixel/cm3 ratio is already way to small and it can not be accurately seen and in many terms not even accurately shown. At above 50 inch, a native 1080P source is very useful because anything lower than that may suffer a high quality loss. Simply because "the eye can see more than the source is able to deliver".

As of nowadays, most games should be tuned at 1080P (1920x1080 or 1920x1200), those formats usualy should always give the max detail possible. Means, as soon as we have it above that resolution it usualy is bloated. In the matter of games its not same such as upscaling, its basically a artificially increased tech count which may not release new infos. Bloating means, we do increase pixel amount but the amount of detail will stay same. However, most games may have more detail than 720P is able to deliver, so that means that we have the opposite of bloating, some kind of reduction. So the perfect compromise between quality and performance is nowadays the 1080P resolution, thats why i use it and im happy with. Another thing to remember: A screen is having its best quality at native resolution too, so that means, when 1080P is used, and the screen is exactly set to 1080 pixel, and when even the game is produced/optimized in 1080P native resolution, then we have the perfect match and highest quality possible. I play my games at 1080P and i use a 1080P native resolution plasma screen, and i do believe that it is the best quality i have ever seen.

However, the whole "native" matter regarding the software isnt as easy as that. For hardware, native means, same resolution such as screen, and thats always the best resolution in term of quality. For software, for example console games are fixed at 720P, so anything higher than that is upscaled and there is no difference in detail and the picture quality will not change at all. At PC games its bit more complicated than that. It does support the resolution the engine is able to deliver, that can be a lot of different resolutions. The engine may adjust the objects on the screen in a dynamical approach, so it isnt fixed (such as on consoles). However, dependable on game there is still only so and so many details able to be shown. In term we do exceed that quantity (lets call it "tech count") we have very few or no gain from increasing resolution because we may already see the max amount of detail possible on a lower resolution. So its indeed not easy to explain and very hard to measure. So basically PC games are limited to tech count, but consoles are limited to internal (native) resolution. Not worth it study to much about, most important to known is that the 1080P is the best detail/peformance ratio and may deliver the best gameplay experience for most of the gamers. Regarding movies, its basically a mix between console and PC behaviour. It may be fixed at 1080P, however, its also limited by tech count. Many movies are produced for native 1080P however, the tech count is to weak in order to fully use the 1080P format, so we have some sort of upscaled... in another word "bloated" result. Thats because the tech count doesnt allow for 1080P but its still produced in a 1080P format. We simply have to many pixels for way to less details, so we use the same pixel multiple times. It will increase data size for no real reason, because it could be shrinked down. So we reduce the amount of pixels and try to put the same amount of details on them. And then it will be dynamically upscaled for same results, thats what we call "upscaling", some sort of bloating.

Its indeed a very complicated matter and not any easy, so that stuff does just cover the peak of the mountain and i still know way to less.

Besides, console games are tuned for 720P (because the hardware is simply to weak), although that doesnt necessarely mean that the detail is maxed out. Thats one of several reaons why PC versions of many games will look way better. Next gen consoles such as Wii U might even be able to finally use a native 1080P format. Wii games looks terrible, however, they could deliver a much better graphic because the software is able to increase the tech count in a very dramatic manner, and it would increase the viewable details.


I think I might try Mag-X's build out. It's cheep & easy with little negative feedback. It seem like a good "first build". But since the the benchmark is so froth coming on how the beta test behaved and Xenobia is shooting down every idea that has come along, what should one aim for with the CCD benchmark?

In my mind 60 fps seems playable.


[SPOILER-BOX][/SPOILER-BOX]
All you need is a 7770 OC (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102993), its one of the few gems (http://www.overclockers.com/sapphire_Hd7700_Ghz_vaporX) because of the awesome cooling and never any heat issue and low noise.

Either get a gem, 8 GB RAM and the cheapest quadcore you can get, and you are good to go or simply get the cheapest stuff possible. I cant help on minimalist stuff however, because i have zero experience with.

However, You might get a AMD A6-3870K (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106001&Tpk=A8-3870K&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3754110&SID=skim1132X509988Xab06d29f6ff47431158cc3370381c5 7f)instead, because they do offer better performance for minimalists (it overclocks very easy). Pentium stuff simply isnt the stuff for gamers and AMD might not be strong but a unlocked 4 core from AMD is still more powerful than Pentium CPUs for the same price. The A6 even got a integrated APU. Although i have no experience using AMD CPUs, would be time consuming research. Using that CPU you dont even need a GPU, it already got a APU inside which should be able to play PSO2. Almost no one doing reviews and i got exactly 0 infos and experience regarding this, so there is no warranty at all but it could be the cheapest solution ever seen and it could work. I certainly think, that Sega is hilarious, because they do boost (reward system) I7 CPUs and powerful graphic cards but theyr game is not in need of that kind of stuff at all. Still,... when i see pentium stuff and even the cheapest of them, i kinda cant feel to good. AMD could have some unlocked CPUs in a comparable price range... it just have to work. Sure everyone says "AMD bad" but they didnt even try it out... its some prejudice.

Anyway, i might build such a super cheap AMD system as a mail server, because MS certainly is already spying out my mails and i like some sort of privacy. Its probably cheapest to use a AMD CPU with APU and Ubuntu OS. Then i will see if it is truly all that bad. I however cant try out PSO2 because i will have a incompatible OS. Although the AMD APU (HD 6530D) could be more powerful than the HD 4000, i dont know how well it will run on PSO2. Finally, i just would never touch a Pentium. *shudder* and its IGP, a HD 2000 is nothing more than office expander but unable to play games with.

Besides, i like to shot down things but the stuff i enjoy the most is slashing it down... im a master of sword. ;)

[Chik'Tikka]

*looks at wall of text, like amount of detail and work put into it as it should clear up lKeima's question better then me, then dares writer of wall of text to sum all that up in less then 40 words*
+^_^+

[Ark22]

[SPOILER-BOX]
Well, its not as easy as that. Usualy the picture quality is highest when played at native resolution, because when that resolution is used, then there will be no downsampling. So basically we have a "uncompressed" format. When we use a resolution lower than the native one (the one the game or screen is been optimized with) then we get some sort of "compression". That means that we may lose details and therefore graphic quality. Jaggy edges may even exist at 1080P but they will be smaller and may not bother that much. It also depends on the size of a screen, as bigger the screen as more of details is able to be "released", so that means, user of big screens generally are able to see more details. At very big screens, jaggy edges can easely be noticed even at 1080P, but when the screen is small they may not be noticed at all because the pixel/cm3 ratio is already way to small and it can not be accurately seen and in many terms not even accurately shown. At above 50 inch, a native 1080P source is very useful because anything lower than that may suffer a high quality loss. Simply because "the eye can see more than the source is able to deliver".

As of nowadays, most games should be tuned at 1080P (1920x1080 or 1920x1200), those formats usualy should always give the max detail possible. Means, as soon as we have it above that resolution it usualy is bloated. In the matter of games its not same such as upscaling, its basically a artificially increased tech count which may not release new infos. Bloating means, we do increase pixel amount but the amount of detail will stay same. However, most games may have more detail than 720P is able to deliver, so that means that we have the opposite of bloating, some kind of reduction. So the perfect compromise between quality and performance is nowadays the 1080P resolution, thats why i use it and im happy with. Another thing to remember: A screen is having its best quality at native resolution too, so that means, when 1080P is used, and the screen is exactly set to 1080 pixel, and when even the game is produced/optimized in 1080P native resolution, then we have the perfect match and highest quality possible. I play my games at 1080P and i use a 1080P native resolution plasma screen, and i do believe that it is the best quality i have ever seen.

However, the whole "native" matter regarding the software isnt as easy as that. For hardware, native means, same resolution such as screen, and thats always the best resolution in term of quality. For software, for example console games are fixed at 720P, so anything higher than that is upscaled and there is no difference in detail and the picture quality will not change at all. At PC games its bit more complicated than that. It does support the resolution the engine is able to deliver, that can be a lot of different resolutions. The engine may adjust the objects on the screen in a dynamical approach, so it isnt fixed (such as on consoles). However, dependable on game there is still only so and so many details able to be shown. In term we do exceed that quantity (lets call it "tech count") we have very few or no gain from increasing resolution because we may already see the max amount of detail possible on a lower resolution. So its indeed not easy to explain and very hard to measure. So basically PC games are limited to tech count, but consoles are limited to internal (native) resolution. Not worth it study to much about, most important to known is that the 1080P is the best detail/peformance ratio and may deliver the best gameplay experience for most of the gamers. Regarding movies, its basically a mix between console and PC behaviour. It may be fixed at 1080P, however, its also limited by tech count. Many movies are produced for native 1080P however, the tech count is to weak in order to fully use the 1080P format, so we have some sort of upscaled... in another word "bloated" result. Thats because the tech count doesnt allow for 1080P but its still produced in a 1080P format. We simply have to many pixels for way to less details, so we use the same pixel multiple times. It will increase data size for no real reason, because it could be shrinked down. So we reduce the amount of pixels and try to put the same amount of details on them. And then it will be dynamically upscaled for same results, thats what we call "upscaling", some sort of bloating.

Its indeed a very complicated matter and not any easy, so that stuff does just cover the peak of the mountain and i still know way to less.

Besides, console games are tuned for 720P (because the hardware is simply to weak), although that doesnt necessarely mean that the detail is maxed out. Thats one of several reaons why PC versions of many games will look way better. Next gen consoles such as Wii U might even be able to finally use a native 1080P format. Wii games looks terrible, however, they could deliver a much better graphic because the software is able to increase the tech count in a very dramatic manner, and it would increase the viewable details.


All you need is a 7770 OC (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102993), its one of the few gems (http://www.overclockers.com/sapphire_Hd7700_Ghz_vaporX) because of the awesome cooling and never any heat issue and low noise.

Either get a gem, 8 GB RAM and the cheapest quadcore you can get, and you are good to go or simply get the cheapest stuff possible. I cant help on minimalist stuff however, because i have zero experience with.

However, You might get a AMD A6-3670K (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106002)instead, because they do offer better performance for minimalists (it overclocks very easy). Pentium stuff simply isnt the stuff for gamers and AMD might not be strong but a unlocked 4 core from AMD is still more powerful than Pentium CPUs for the same price. The A6 even got a integrated APU. Although i have no experience using AMD CPUs, would be time consuming research. Using that CPU you dont even need a GPU, it already got a APU inside which should be able to play PSO2. Almost no one doing reviews and i got exactly 0 infos and experience regarding this, so there is no warranty at all but it could be the cheapest solution ever seen and it could work. I certainly think, that Sega is hilarious, because they do boost (reward system) I7 CPUs and powerful graphic cards but theyr game is not in need of that kind of stuff at all. Still,... when i see pentium stuff and even the cheapest of them, i kinda cant feel to good. AMD could have some unlocked CPUs in a comparable price range... it just have to work. Sure everyone says "AMD bad" but they didnt even try it out... its some prejudice.

Anyway, i might build such a super cheap AMD system as a mail server, because MS certainly is already spying out my mails and i like some sort of privacy. Its probably cheapest to use a AMD CPU with APU and Ubuntu OS. Then i will see if it is truly all that bad. I however cant try out PSO2 because i will have a incompatible OS, although the AMD APU could be more powerful than the HD 4000, although when the PSO2 engine is unable to support it, it may not necessarely work.

Besides, i like to shot down things but the stuff i enjoy the most is slashing it down... im a master of sword. ;)
[/SPOILER-BOX]

When I take my classes this year, if we ever have to type an essay about resolution gonna copy and paste this.

[Xenobia]

I feelt like that text was small, funny how the view can be very different. Besides: I have endless amount of such texts stored on my computer with new ideas i sometimes get, regarding the shape of certain things such as how to handle my new PCs, its hardware and software, any given detail is important, not a single factor is excluded because im a perfectionistic person. *decided to hide rest of it because several reasons*.

Of course hard and software (including many kind of media) is just one of way to many matters. [SPOILER-BOX]Another matter is for example every single detail about chinese and japanese tea and its culture (including Yixing pottery and much more related to it), and a lot of stuff regarding minerals (i do study them)... and i do study fishkeeping and my most beloved fish, the amazon wels catfish, politics and some kind of philosophical content in general, and i know almost every single detail about food (entire backgrund, knowledge of its body influence), many stuff related to human mind/body itself, and even more stuff but this is a hardware topic so lets keep out to much of it.[/SPOILER-BOX]

Of course when someone is telling me "i do want my software able to... kinda.. somehow and barely run on my system, i dont mind low FPS, im used to play at 15 FPS or something like that" i kinda reach my mental limitation because i never ever have in mind that i want something to be... somewhat... able to be run. It would be a huge burden to me when im unable to improve that matter. But recently i found out, even on the subject when facing a very high limitation on the matter of wealth, i might be able to improve... and that is kinda something joyful to set another layer of limitation. However, its not my personal target and i am already a very busy person.

[Chik'Tikka]

kinda run at 15 FPS? that is a little low, and that would grind my nerves, but you also have to remember that movie theaters for the past century have been displaying movies generally at 24 FPS, and many games (usually console games) like Zelda TP and Gears of War 3 run at 29.97 FPS (NTSC), and most people never notice+^_^+ so if anything goes past 30 FPS, i consider it perfectly playable+^_^+

[moeri]

just so you know... i play at 15 fps because I cannot afford another computer

I have one more year of college to go, and then, if I get a job I should be able to upgrade (already on a semi-ramen noodle diet)

Its just currently money is the limiting factor, and I want to play the game T.T
So... i just need to be able to play on a crap system

So yeah... I don't get to be picky ><

[Ark22]

just so you know... i play at 15 fps because I cannot afford another computer

I have one more year of college to go, and then, if I get a job I should be able to upgrade (already on a semi-ramen noodle diet)

Its just currently money is the limiting factor, and I want to play the game T.T
So... i just need to be able to play on a crap system

So yeah... I don't get to be picky ><

It's ok, I understand what you're going through. During college I seriously limited myself.

As for the whole FPS thing, 25 and higher is ok for me. I will get fairly annoyed below that.

[Xenobia]

I would not bother to get a dedicated GPU when all what matters is that it will play at all. IGP is the way to go. Told already, AMD got currently the most powerful IGPs and they could be very low on price so the choice is obviously to go AMD. Some other day can still upgrade with dedicated GPU, but at least the game will be "able" to be run. When more cash, get a second 4 GB stick, a 7770 or 7850 GPU and maybe some good cooler and case. Then the CPU can get a overclock and may serve well for many years and many games. The CPU (especially its IGP) should be stronger than the crappy Pentium 620. No case needed, just run it on a table. But if can afford one, just get the cheapest ever made, no big cooling needed. Dunno how it could be cheaper than that. Just dont save up on MB to much because at MB, every cent counts.. the cheapest of them could be big trouble.

For example could get a (thats only a short example, i didnt have time to check it out).
ASUS F1A75-V Pro (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131765R)
A6-3870K (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106001&Tpk=A8-3870K&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3754110&SID=skim1132X509988Xab06d29f6ff47431158cc3370381c5 7f)
-Cheapest HDD available for like 50 $ (bad time buying a HDD... the flood is still hurting the HDD market).
-Cheapest RAM of 4-8 GB (2x4 is needed but if it helps the pocket, a single 4 GB would work too (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231421)).
-Windows OS... guess like 100$.
-DVD drive for 15$.
and a 50$ PSU

= aproximately ~400$

EDIT: Someone just told me that it is useful to wait for the new A10 (Trinity) APU from AMD (http://www.techpowerup.com/162843/AMD-A10-5800K-quot-Trinity-quot-APU-Tested.html)because that one will be 40% faster and i think it would play PSO2 at medium settings with 30 FPS (a HD 4000 still is struggling doing so). It seems to be released soon but i dont have accurate infos yet. That APU is far stronger than Intels HD 4000 at a fraction of its price. Just always remember not to get a crappy board. Intel will probably never have the best IGP because the GMA is a eternal curse. ;)

[Gama]

i noticed something

i downloaded the windows 8 release preview, the character creator runs smoother than it does on win 7. my gfx card also didnt heat up as much.

anyone else noticed this slight performance boost. i got like 5 more frames per second on the benchmark test.

[Kion]

Windows 8 is probably less of a resource hog. I plan on testing it out this week end.

[Gama]

i still have windows 7 installed, 8 in another partition. ill post bench results when i can

[goldwing]

iv noticed when i took the benchmark my score went from 400 to about 1k. i haven't done anything differently and every time i try to test on higher settings it just crashes i don't get it...


[spoiler-box]http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w432/gold2512/pso20120604_234113_009.jpg
[/spoiler-box]

[Gama]

maybe your gfx card dosent support the shaders?

i honestly dont understand why i get almost 10k with no shaders, and then i get like 1k with shaders lol

anoys me!

[Aeris]

I think the shaders are more resource heavy then most of the game itself lol

[DeathDragon2332]

Yeah those Shaders are a bitch! I go from like 60K to 7k-8K

[Aeris]

Yeah those Shaders are a bitch! I go from like 60K to 7k-8K

Seems like they are like 8 to 10 times more demanding then everything else maxed out with all effects on and such, ouch that is a big hit right there xD.

[Mitz]

PSO2 partied up with Alienware as a sponsor. I don't think they would like it if they were publicly bashed in the front page of this topic.

[Takaaaa]

I was wondering how my laptop would run PSO2~ my specs are

HP DV7-2185dx
Processor 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Core Q9000
Memory 6GB, 800MHz DDR2
Hard drive 500GB 7,200rpm
Chipset Mobile Intel PM45 Express Chipset
Graphics 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650

Thanks

[Gama]

it should run with shaders off. like most laptops. -.-"

[Takaaaa]

it should run with shaders off. like most laptops. -.-"
Would it be slow or laggy? Or will it be able to run good?

I would like to be able to play on my laptop, just so I can take it around with me. I am planning on building a desktop too. but would still like to play on my laptop~

[goldwing]

Would it be slow or laggy? Or will it be able to run good?

I would like to be able to play on my laptop, just so I can take it around with me. I am planning on building a desktop too. but would still like to play on my laptop~

With mines and no shades it dosnt lag what so ever it depends on the top. I was hitting 400 and no lag so cant speak for u but that may encourge u

[Gama]

like goldwing said, on my laptop i am able to have 30/40 framerate on max settings, wich is playable, but since the game dosent look very bad with shaders off "well kinda" i will probably play with them off, and use max settings for screencaps.

you should with shaders off be able to play smoothly... my mom's toshiba satelite A200 runs the game... almost decently... and its like "OLLDDDDD" so... it should run on your dv7.

beware that if ur pc is a dv7 its very likely to get hot with pso2. in my case i already made a custom cooling pad for my laptop sumertime is really bad for laptops.

it dosent overhead but i dont like it running hot.

my pso running the benchmark gets realy hot "but remais cool to the touch" i just dont feel confortable with the hot air coming from it. so i«d rather cool it a bit for safety.

[Mitz]

Would it be slow or laggy? Or will it be able to run good?

I would like to be able to play on my laptop, just so I can take it around with me. I am planning on building a desktop too. but would still like to play on my laptop~

Download the Character Creation benchmark tool and find out for yourself.

[goldwing]

Download the Character Creation benchmark tool and find out for yourself.
or they could do that to

[MasterSpark]

Download the Character Creation benchmark tool and find out for yourself.

I haven't had the chance to try it out for myself but I've heard that the closed beta of the game featured much better resource optimisation than the character creator benchmark did. People who scored quite low on the benchmark were able to play the actual game just fine on the same settings.

[Mitz]

I haven't had the chance to try it out for myself but I've heard that the closed beta of the game featured much better resource optimisation than the character creator benchmark did. People who scored quite low on the benchmark were able to play the actual game just fine on the same settings.

That doesn't necessarily have to do with that. The score just isn't a good representation of how well you can or can't run the game however if he posts the score, that's a good guideline for us where he's kinda at.

[SStrikerR]

How important is the amount of memory your computer has? I checked the specs and it seemed like I had all the requirements, but only 4GB of memory, half of the 8 stated in the OP. Is that why my computer got such a bad grade in the benchmark test?

[Ezodagrom]

How important is the amount of memory your computer has? I checked the specs and it seemed like I had all the requirements, but only 4GB of memory, half of the 8 stated in the OP. Is that why my computer got such a bad grade in the benchmark test?
4GB is still plenty of memory nowadays, I have 4GB of memory and I got a score of around 5300 in the benchmark at 1440x900/max settings.
The score doesn't matter much though, as long as you get something above 1000 (preferably above 2000), it should be playable.

[SStrikerR]

4GB is still plenty of memory nowadays, I have 4GB of memory and I got a score of around 5300 in the benchmark at 1440x900/max settings.
The score doesn't matter much though, as long as you get something above 1000 (preferably above 2000), it should be playable.

I don't know then, because I'm getting under 1000. I remember when it first came out I got between 1000-2000 on the minimum settings, but I don't care enough to look up the menus to set it back to the minimum and see what I get...but seriously, I can't figure out why I'm getting such a bad score. It's only 3 years old or so, it has a good nvidia graphics card and a decent processor. Fuck this, I don't have the money to buy a new laptop.

[Chik'Tikka]

I don't know then, because I'm getting under 1000. I remember when it first came out I got between 1000-2000 on the minimum settings, but I don't care enough to look up the menus to set it back to the minimum and see what I get...but seriously, I can't figure out why I'm getting such a bad score. It's only 3 years old or so, it has a good nvidia graphics card and a decent processor. Fuck this, I don't have the money to buy a new laptop.

i take it you didn't play in CBT? CBT made benchmark test look like vomit when it came to performance+^_^+

[Mag-X]

How important is the amount of memory your computer has? I checked the specs and it seemed like I had all the requirements, but only 4GB of memory, half of the 8 stated in the OP. Is that why my computer got such a bad grade in the benchmark test?

Even 2GB should be plenty for this game. It would just take forever to ALT+TAB in and out of the game.

[SStrikerR]

i take it you didn't play in CBT? CBT made benchmark test look like vomit when it came to performance+^_^+

Nope. I can still sign up for the open beta right? The hours aren't that bad for me, so I guess the only way for me to see if my computer can really handle it is by trying that out if I can.

[LokinModar]

My pc is C2Q9550 with 8GB of Ram and GTX560 and the crappy benchmark only gives me 2k something in the test... I think it is only optimized for i5/i7... I ran the CBT at maximum with no lag at all besides my crappy internet connection. It is like Chik'Tikka said: CBT made benchmark test look like vomit when it came to performance

[Ezodagrom]

I don't know then, because I'm getting under 1000. I remember when it first came out I got between 1000-2000 on the minimum settings, but I don't care enough to look up the menus to set it back to the minimum and see what I get...but seriously, I can't figure out why I'm getting such a bad score. It's only 3 years old or so, it has a good nvidia graphics card and a decent processor. Fuck this, I don't have the money to buy a new laptop.
BTW, what is your processor and graphics card?

[SStrikerR]

BTW, what is your processor and graphics card?

Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T6400 @ 2.0GHz
NVIDIA Geforce 9300M GS

[Mag-X]

I don't know then, because I'm getting under 1000. I remember when it first came out I got between 1000-2000 on the minimum settings, but I don't care enough to look up the menus to set it back to the minimum and see what I get...but seriously, I can't figure out why I'm getting such a bad score. It's only 3 years old or so, it has a good nvidia graphics card and a decent processor. Fuck this, I don't have the money to buy a new laptop.


Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T6400 @ 2.0GHz
NVIDIA Geforce 9300M GS

A 9300M GS isn't a "good Nvidia graphics card." It's very low spec, even for a laptop. It wasn't good even when it was new.

[fay]

Hi guys. I was looking over this but i'm a little confused. I understand a decent amount about computers but one thing that I have no clue about is graphics cards. The rest of my specs seem to be OK for running this. Just no idea what graphics card is better than the other. Was hoping one of you could give me some advice.

I'm currently using a NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce430

I don't have a lot of money that I can spend on a new graphics card if needed, so if I do need a new card then could you also make some recommendations for me, preferably cheap ones.

Thanks.

[LokinModar]

Hi guys. I was looking over this but i'm a little confused. I understand a decent amount about computers but one thing that I have no clue about is graphics cards. The rest of my specs seem to be OK for running this. Just no idea what graphics card is better than the other. Was hoping one of you could give me some advice.

I'm currently using a NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce430

I don't have a lot of money that I can spend on a new graphics card if needed, so if I do need a new card then could you also make some recommendations for me, preferably cheap ones.

Thanks.


Even 9600GT can run this game in mid-to-high settings at 1024x768


My laptop is Amd Athlon2 x2 with HD 4200 Graphics card. It runs the game at low settings with 1366 x 768 resolution...

[Ezodagrom]

Hi guys. I was looking over this but i'm a little confused. I understand a decent amount about computers but one thing that I have no clue about is graphics cards. The rest of my specs seem to be OK for running this. Just no idea what graphics card is better than the other. Was hoping one of you could give me some advice.

I'm currently using a NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce430

I don't have a lot of money that I can spend on a new graphics card if needed, so if I do need a new card then could you also make some recommendations for me, preferably cheap ones.

Thanks.
You definitely can't run the game with that graphics chip. What is your processor?


Even 9600GT can run this game in mid-to-high settings at 1024x768


My laptop is Amd Athlon2 x2 with HD 4200 Graphics card. It runs the game at low settings with 1366 x 768 resolution...
The 9600GT and HD4200 are alot better than a Geforce 6150SE though.

[fay]

My processor is an AMD Athlon 64x2 dual core processor 5000+ 2.60GHz

[Ezodagrom]

My processor is an AMD Athlon 64x2 dual core processor 5000+ 2.60GHz
Even if you get a new graphics card, you're still going to be limited by the outdated processor.
I guess a graphics card like this one should be good enough for you to play PSO2 at a decent enough framerate, even with that processor:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102988

[SStrikerR]

A 9300M GS isn't a "good Nvidia graphics card." It's very low spec, even for a laptop. It wasn't good even when it was new.

Okay. If I were to upgrade, what would you recommend as a decent "bang for your buck" nvidia card? I don't need a high end card to run graphics intensive games, but something that will run PSO2 well.

[Ezodagrom]

Okay. If I were to upgrade, what would you recommend as a decent "bang for your buck" nvidia card? I don't need a high end card to run graphics intensive games, but something that will run PSO2 well.
Laptops that allow graphics cards to be replaced are very rare (I wonder if they're even made anymore), plus new graphics cards for laptops are usually expensive. :\

[Mag-X]

Hi guys. I was looking over this but i'm a little confused. I understand a decent amount about computers but one thing that I have no clue about is graphics cards. The rest of my specs seem to be OK for running this. Just no idea what graphics card is better than the other. Was hoping one of you could give me some advice.

I'm currently using a NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce430

I don't have a lot of money that I can spend on a new graphics card if needed, so if I do need a new card then could you also make some recommendations for me, preferably cheap ones.

Thanks.


My processor is an AMD Athlon 64x2 dual core processor 5000+ 2.60GHz


Even if you get a new graphics card, you're still going to be limited by the outdated processor.
I guess a graphics card like this one should be good enough for you to play PSO2 at a decent enough framerate, even with that processor:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102988

My old gaming PC has a 2.5GHz Athlon X2, and it seems to handle PSO2 on max settings just fine.
And that Radeon 6670 is exactly what I was going to suggest as an upgrade.

[Ezodagrom]

My old gaming PC has a 2.5GHz Athlon X2, and it seems to handle PSO2 on max settings just fine.
And that Radeon 6670 is exactly what I was going to suggest as an upgrade.
Is it a recent Athlon II X2 or an older Athlon 64 X2? Because the older Athlon 64 X2 are not as good as the Athlon II X2.

[SStrikerR]

Laptops that allow graphics cards to be replaced are very rare (I wonder if they're even made anymore), plus new graphics cards for laptops are usually expensive. :\

I see. I guess I'm saving some money now then. If I built a new laptop, what's a ballpark range for one that would run PSO2 decently?

[Ezodagrom]

I see. I guess I'm saving some money now then. If I built a new laptop, what's a ballpark range for one that would run PSO2 decently?
A few options:

- An entry level $500 laptop capable enough of running PSO2 at around medium settings (with this laptop you might have to play with shaders in low though):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246328

- A $1050 gaming laptop with a rather good graphics card, should be able to play PSO2 fine at max or close to max settings:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834214604

Unfortunately I couldn't find any laptop with a decent graphics card between those 2. :\

[SStrikerR]

A few options:

- An entry level $500 laptop capable enough of running PSO2 at around medium settings (with this laptop you might have to play with shaders in low though):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246328

- A $1050 gaming laptop with a rather good graphics card, should be able to play PSO2 fine at max or close to max settings:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834214604

Unfortunately I couldn't find any laptop with a decent graphics card between those 2. :\

Hm...tricky situation in that case. I guess If my current laptop can run the game at all, even at low settings I'll stick with this one, and save for the more expensive one. But if mine can't run it at all, I'll have to think about the cheaper one.

[Ezodagrom]

Hm...tricky situation in that case. I guess If my current laptop can run the game at all, even at low settings I'll stick with this one, and save for the more expensive one. But if mine can't run it at all, I'll have to think about the cheaper one.
Since others have been able to play with graphics cards like the Radeon HD4200 series, and the Geforce 9300 series are comparable to the HD4200 series, you should be able to play PSO2 at the lowest settings with your current laptop.

[Mag-X]

Is it a recent Athlon II X2 or an older Athlon 64 X2? Because the older Athlon 64 X2 are not as good as the Athlon II X2.

It's an Athlon X2, not an Athlon II X2. Socket AM2. It's from like 2007.

[SStrikerR]

Since others have been able to play with graphics cards like the Radeon HD4200 series, and the Geforce 9300 series are comparable to the HD4200 series, you should be able to play PSO2 at the lowest settings with your current laptop.

Okay, so minus the constant flickering on my screen I should be good. Maybe this comp will finally die sometime soon, that way I have no choice but to get a better one. Fucking best buy employee telling me that the graphics card was decent when I was picking a laptop. I don't even want to know how much I overpaid for this thing.

[Mag-X]

Fucking best buy employee telling me that the graphics card was decent when I was picking a laptop. I don't even want to know how much I overpaid for this thing.

Best Buy employees generally don't know a damn thing about computers. They're just used car salesmen for electronics.

[Gama]

yeah also i never trust salesmen i always do some research first before buying a computer...

most salespeople want to sell either the highest price they can get you to pay or the item they want out of the store.

[fay]

Thanks for the helps guys. Much appreciated. I bought a GeForce 9600 card today. Got it off Ebay and for a great price apparently. It was roughly £25. Think that's about $35 or so.

That was one of the recommended cards so that should be fine now. Just hope it gets here before the pre open beta starts lol. Just need to wait and see if it goes well now.
I just hope that when the full game is released that the requirements won't jump right up.

[Mag-X]

I can't see the requirements going up. Sega wants everyone to be able to play so they can make more money. If anything, they'll go down.

[Ezodagrom]

Thanks for the helps guys. Much appreciated. I bought a GeForce 9600 card today. Got it off Ebay and for a great price apparently. It was roughly £25. Think that's about $35 or so.

That was one of the recommended cards so that should be fine now. Just hope it gets here before the pre open beta starts lol. Just need to wait and see if it goes well now.
I just hope that when the full game is released that the requirements won't jump right up.

Optimizations to make the game run lighter will be carried out if necessary after the official release.
http://bumped.org/psublog/phantasy-star-online-2-pre-open-beta-test-615-through-6162012/

[IHeartRice]

A few options:

- An entry level $500 laptop capable enough of running PSO2 at around medium settings (with this laptop you might have to play with shaders in low though):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246328



That laptop is a pretty good deal for $500. I have an older extra laptop with the predecessor 5650m and runs the game great. For those on a budget I think it's a great alternative. The benchmark hangs out around 200 fps while it's going.

Here's a screenshot of the benchmark ran at fullscreen 1366 x 768 at Preset 5, but with Shader set to Simple.

[Aeris]

Okay, so minus the constant flickering on my screen I should be good. Maybe this comp will finally die sometime soon, that way I have no choice but to get a better one. Fucking best buy employee telling me that the graphics card was decent when I was picking a laptop. I don't even want to know how much I overpaid for this thing.

That happened to me back in 06 when i was buying my first laptop, i made the mistake of not doing research when getting one and that laptop broke down like 3 years later of normal use, lesson learned but thats what i don't do when buying a new laptop/desktop for now on.


yeah also i never trust salesmen i always do some research first before buying a computer...

most salespeople want to sell either the highest price they can get you to pay or the item they want out of the store.

Quoted for the truth

[Kion]

yeah also i never trust salesmen i always do some research first before buying a computer...

most salespeople want to sell either the highest price they can get you to pay or the item they want out of the store.

Just kind of off hand. Once at Bic Camera this white woman was looking to buy a Sony computer for her husband. The staff led her to this 14 inch first generation core i3, 2GB model that was around 1200$. The dollar having starting to slip made it much cheaper to buy it in America anyways, and the computer in and of it's self was pretty terrible. For 14 inches it was big and clunky and didn't really have any power behind it to make it worth leaving on a desk. While the staff was checking the inventory of the computer, I went over to the woman and told her there were a bunch of other computers that made more sense; you could either go slightly more portable and still have the same processing power, or go 15 inches and get something with a graphics card/more memory. She took it into consideration but was still okay with the computer recommended to her. But at that point the staff ran up freaking out and frantically lowered the price of the computer she was buying by $150. Still a rip IMO, but at least it worked out for her, sorta.

So yeah, more than a lazy salesman, i'm more concerned about ones that intentionally try to screw you over.

[Chik'Tikka]

It isn't always the salespersons fault, they are often told by their boss to move the old, obsolete and the most expensive merchandise+^_^+ And those local bosses are told to do so by the companies, and companies will sell ice to Eskimos if they can+^_^+ recently i heard a valid rumor of Best Buy hiring in my area, only to find out that they are on a hiring freeze across the nation while upper levels of the company are being restructured, ticked me off because i actually wanted to work there+^_^+

[doomdragon83]

recently i heard a valid rumor of Best Buy hiring in my area, only to find out that they are on a hiring freeze across the nation while upper levels of the company are being restructured, ticked me off because i actually wanted to work there+^_^+
Well, so much for that idea, I'll still make an effort to apply anyway but as usual, I won't hope for anything.

[Chik'Tikka]

Well, so much for that idea, I'll still make an effort to apply anyway but as usual, I won't hope for anything.

do so, i called the one here, and they said; "even though we are on a hiring freeze, [the position] you applied for will still need to be filled when the freeze is over, so to help filter out the massive number of applications we are getting. we are only considering applicants that did a follow up call"
that's as much as i remember the guy telling me 2 weeks ago, he took my name and e-mail+^_^+ i qualify for that job too, and i have awesome references, i really hope i get called+^_^+

[Gama]

staples over here is on a hiring freeze aswell.


also most pcs should run pso2 smoother than they did the character creator. i wonder which engine theyre using, and also why are they using lua.

[Mitz]

Thanks for the helps guys. Much appreciated. I bought a GeForce 9600 card today. Got it off Ebay and for a great price apparently. It was roughly £25. Think that's about $35 or so.

That was one of the recommended cards so that should be fine now. Just hope it gets here before the pre open beta starts lol. Just need to wait and see if it goes well now.
I just hope that when the full game is released that the requirements won't jump right up.

You got ripped. For that price you can get a HD 4850 or GTX 8800, which blow the 9600 out of the water. That being said, you were probably better off paying double that amount to get something that will make you run near max settings.

[Ezodagrom]

You got ripped. For that price you can get a HD 4850 or GTX 8800, which blow the 9600 out of the water. That being said, you were probably better off paying double that amount to get something that will make you run near max settings.
fay's PC is rather old and most likely it has a weak power supply, I doubt it would be able to handle cards that consume more power than a 9600GT (even though probably there could be other better options).

[Mitz]

fay's PC is rather old and most likely it has a weak power supply, I doubt it would be able to handle cards that consume more power than a 9600GT (even though probably there could be other better options).

9600 GT wasn't exactly the most power-friendly card out there though. There are newer options around that price that work better. A GTS 250 or HD 5750/5770 would have been a better choice.

[Ezodagrom]

9600 GT wasn't exactly the most power-friendly card out there though. There are newer options around that price that work better. A GTS 250 or HD 5750/5770 would have been a better choice.
A GTS 250 has a TDP of 145W, which is considerably higher than the 9600GT 95W (or the 9600GT green edition 59W). Note that the GTS 250 is just a rebranded 9800GTX+, so it's normal that it consumes considerably more than a 9600GT.
The HD5750/HD5770, yeah, they probably would have been better choices, but I doubt they could be found at that price.

[Mitz]

I just checked at a local second hand site and they were around the same price point. Of course, it's all about the deal you can set up.

[SStrikerR]

A few options:

- An entry level $500 laptop capable enough of running PSO2 at around medium settings (with this laptop you might have to play with shaders in low though):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834246328

- A $1050 gaming laptop with a rather good graphics card, should be able to play PSO2 fine at max or close to max settings:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834214604

Unfortunately I couldn't find any laptop with a decent graphics card between those 2. :\

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006740%204021&IsNodeId=1&page=2&bop=And&Order=RATING&PageSize=20

How about any of these? I may be able to get the Toshiba you recommended because some family members are willing to help pay for various reasons (college, things I've helped with, etc) but if there was some middle ground between the Lenovo & the Toshiba I would like that. Because I'm going to use the new computer for the next 4-5 years, I feel like the Lenovo may not satisfy all my needs between now and then, but the Toshiba might be overkill. If there's nothing that's fine, I wouldn't complain about getting the Toshiba :wacko:

[Ezodagrom]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006740%204021&IsNodeId=1&page=2&bop=And&Order=RATING&PageSize=20

How about any of these? I may be able to get the Toshiba you recommended because some family members are willing to help pay for various reasons (college, things I've helped with, etc) but if there was some middle ground between the Lenovo & the Toshiba I would like that. Because I'm going to use the new computer for the next 4-5 years, I feel like the Lenovo may not satisfy all my needs between now and then, but the Toshiba might be overkill. If there's nothing that's fine, I wouldn't complain about getting the Toshiba :wacko:
They all have worse graphics processors than the $500 laptop I mentioned before, and PSO2 depends alot in the graphics card.

[moremouse]

They all have worse graphics processors than the $500 laptop I mentioned before, and PSO2 depends alot in the graphics card.

It actually doesn't. It's not very graphically intensive at all. PSO2 is one of those games that runs on max settings with a mediocre graphics card, as long as you have a good processor to handle the workload.

[Ezodagrom]

It actually doesn't. It's not very graphically intensive at all. PSO2 is one of those games that runs on max settings with a mediocre graphics card, as long as you have a good processor to handle the workload.
I meant that it depends more on the graphics than the processor, for example Mag-X mentioned before that he can run PSO2 with an outdated AM2 2.5GHz Athlon X2 (I guess it's either an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, or an Athlon X2 4850e).

While the game runs on weak graphics cards, it runs better in more decent graphics cards, while the processor seems to make a smaller difference.

[Aeris]

Pretty much it putted a lot of load work on my gpu then my Core 2 Duo 2.13Ghz on my laptop since i see it getting very hot because of the game.

[Dragwind]

Most people with a dual core CPU or higher shouldn't have to worry much about their cpu, and should focus more on their graphics card. However, if you're trying to run PSO2 on a single core CPU, you'll notice PSO2 will possibly strain your CPU a lot more.

I've been fooling around with a P4 2.8ghz CPU (Yes, a Pentium 4, hyperthreading disabled even), and overclocking it to test the results. Overclocking the CPU just a few hundred mhz has yielded much higher benchmark gains than OCing the GPU to it's max load.

Of course there are a lot more factors to consider and a lot of other things were adjusted, but overall if you have a single core CPU, that'll probably be slowing you down the most.

(this test did not take shader performance into consideration)

[Mitz]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006740%204021&IsNodeId=1&page=2&bop=And&Order=RATING&PageSize=20

How about any of these? I may be able to get the Toshiba you recommended because some family members are willing to help pay for various reasons (college, things I've helped with, etc) but if there was some middle ground between the Lenovo & the Toshiba I would like that. Because I'm going to use the new computer for the next 4-5 years, I feel like the Lenovo may not satisfy all my needs between now and then, but the Toshiba might be overkill. If there's nothing that's fine, I wouldn't complain about getting the Toshiba :wacko:


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834158401 I'd pick this one up if I were you, but if you're going to go the laptop route it would probably better to wait a month or two and invest a bit more money.

[Ezodagrom]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834158401 I'd pick this one up if I were you, but if you're going to go the laptop route it would probably better to wait a month or two and invest a bit more money.
Oh, didn't see that one, that has rather good specs, I probably missed the part with the out of stock laptops. ^^;

[Mitz]

Oh, didn't see that one, that has rather good specs, I probably missed the part with the out of stock laptops. ^^;

It's okay, I missed the out of stock part completely.

[Gama]

just watched the video of "apples stunning new macbook pro" with the retina display.

i wonder if you could run pso2 on full specs on that screen xD

it would probably blow up.

[Aeris]

That mac laptop is pretty high priced and no thanks at that rez with that gpu, game would probably rape it

[Gama]

precisely! would be fun to watch :3

[Kion]

The macbook with an i7, 8GB memory and nVidia 650GT at 2880 x 1800? Maybe not with shaders on, but with shaders off it seems like it shouldn't be a problem. Also the new patch supports frame limiting so you're not forcing your gpu to re-render and indefinite amount of times every second.

[Ezodagrom]

The macbook with an i7, 8GB memory and nVidia 650GT at 2880 x 1800? Maybe not with shaders on, but with shaders off it seems like it shouldn't be a problem. Also the new patch supports frame limiting so you're not forcing your gpu to re-render and indefinite amount of times every second.
If I'm not mistaken PSO2 only supports resolutions up to 1920x1200 (or at least it only shows resolutions up to 1920x1200 for me, even though my monitor doesn't support more than 1440x900).

[Kion]

If you open the user.pso2 file in your documents/SEGA folder



Windows = {
FullScreen = false,
Height = 1800,
Height3d = 480,
VirtualFullScreen = true,
Width3d = 640,
Width = 2880,
}

And set virtual fullscreen to true and then set the dimensions of the game in width/height the game will run in the resolution of your monitor.

[Gama]

i pretty much wanted to see how badly a 2.500 machine would run pso 2

^^ i just want to see it melt. or something daramtic.