when choosing a processor for this game (with limited cash to spend...) what is the thing im REALLY looking for?
is it processor speed, front side bus speed, cache etc?
for example, will a 2.0Ghz processor with 1066Mhz front side bus speed perform better in this game that a 2.4Ghz procesor with 667Mhz front side bus speed? these are intel processors...
or do i go for an AMD Turion 64x 2 dual core, with a front bus speed of 1600Mhz and a 2Ghz speed?
which will give me better performance in game? i will try and pair it with a 7 series Nvidia card, but if not then an 8 series.
If possible, you should try to get a processor with a fast clock and a fast FSB. Also, the more L2 cache you've got the better. The faster the FSB, the faster the processor can access the memory, if it's not hampered by the mainboard.
VSMIT.
I have an Athlon 64 3500+ which is about 4..5 years old now. It has a clock speed of 2249MHz and a FSB of 166hMHz and I get anywheres from 30..250 FPS at 1680 x 1050 res, 32bpp, on full BZ2 graphics (except shadows, which are set to low or medium).
So, at this point, anything above that is quibbling. Any one of those you mentioned would work well.
I got a um Core 2 Duo 1.8GHZ and im not sure on the FBS. May i reccomend actually if you dont play many high end games go with a very early series 8 or 7. (with some of the newer ones, you get graphics glitches.)
thats a driver issue not a hardware problem. this laptop is only for BZII
i just cant decide which one to go for. my current FPS with a 2.13 GHz Dual core is only around 50FPS, and thats with an Nvidia 7500 CARD!! so tbh the framerate is pretty pathetic for this machine.
thats why im worried about going for a 2.0 Ghz, if im only getting 50 fps now with that, Lord knows what ill get with a lower speed one. the L2 cache on the AMD is only 1 MB, which is quite low.
Didn't know it was a laptop. My L1 is 64KB and L2 is 512KB, so the reason you're getting that FPS is most likely due to cheesy built-in graphics, so getting another laptop will likely give the same result.
actually my current computer is a desktop, only a 500 quid jobber but its not too bad. its got the sped above.
the Laptop specs are far higher, but im just not sure which i should be REALLY looking at. obviously the best of all three is a good idea, but im on a budget of about 800-900 quid.
Is your desktop running XP or Vista? How much RAM does it have?
Quote from: TheJamsh on August 27, 2008, 09:05:08 PM
actually my current computer is a desktop, only a 500 quid jobber but its not too bad. its got the sped above.
the Laptop specs are far higher, but im just not sure which i should be REALLY looking at. obviously the best of all three is a good idea, but im on a budget of about 800-900 quid.
Thats not bad, one can buy a decent laptop for 1200 CDN (which is probably far less in euros/pounds)
the desky is running vista, and ist has 2 GB of RAM (which i believe you MUST Have to run vista now)
You should get Windows Server 2008 if you want Vista, it can look and act near identical without so much bloat.
it seems to eat through my system rescources.
im confused, is 2008 yet another version of windows or just an update for vista?
Windows Server 2008
That version actually has a nice pretty vista desktop.
Linky (http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windows-2008-vista-done-right.html)
Quote from: TheJamsh on August 27, 2008, 10:45:47 PM
the desky is running vista, and ist has 2 GB of RAM (which i believe you MUST Have to run vista now)
The RAM might explain it. If you run any OS on the specs that the manufacturers claim to be 'recommended', most of the time you need to take into account the additional RAM you will need for apps. -- I bet with 3GB of RAM, you would get better BZ2 performance.
Check out what the M$ page says about the requirements for Windows XP
QuoteMORE INFORMATION
These are the minimum requirements for basic functionality. Actual requirements vary, depending on the system configuration and the programs and features that you choose to install. If you are installing Windows XP over a network, you may need additional available hard-disk space.
The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are:
• Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
• At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
• At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
• CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
• Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
• Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
• Sound card
• Speakers or headphones
I find that funny, because on 128MB of RAM, XP will CRAAAAWWWWLLLL. On 256MB, it will be very slow. And on 512MB it will be sort of decent even if you're running antivirus software and firefox (both which consume a sizable amount of RAM).
MY RAM usage is about 350MB just after booting. That's before I start FF, which uses about 200M more.
the new lappy is bound to have 3 gigs of ram, some with 4 for 64-bit operating systems.
my ram usage is constantly around 600Mb to 1Gb. without BZII running. usually i have vista, norton 360, ad-aware etc running. my TM counts 60 processes average. and my CPU level is NEVER below 5%.
i dont think a virus is eating its way through, but norton is sh*te
Yes, Norton is a pig. I've used AVG for years.
well my norton 360 (or rather my families subscription) runs out in 28 days.
AVG is that free one am i correct? oh and norton never seems to be able to remove itself entirely, i get lots of bits left behind by symantec corporation which REALLY annoys me when companies cant make a decent uninstaller for their program.
i wonder if have any viruses on this. ive used IE since i got it, trying to get into the run of using firefox, but it loads pages a lot slower than IE does.
Slower then IE? Not from what I have heard, both Opera and Firefox3 are faster then IE, quite a bit so actually (Opera used to be blazingly faster then every other browser for Windows, but Firefox3 closed that to near identical). *Especially* if pages are written correctly, since if they are the browser can stay in standards mode instead of dropping to quirks mode. Quirks mode is quite a bit slower (by multiple magnitudes), and IE does not support a compliants mode, only a quirks mode (although IE8 *FINALLY* includes a standards rendering mode, let's see if it really is standard).
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Website for free version of AVG (love it).