ZEQ2 : Interactive Anime Experience

Thursday, April 13, 2006

*ponders* no offense but what the heck is that? *laughing out loud*, yea...

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Honestly you should go for 2 gigs and leave it at that once you decide, I'd go and give some recommendations for the TYPE of ram you should be getting, but I'd be going on forever..

If you can't alt tab out of zeq2 to play with photoshop instantly it's not worth having a computer!

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Trust me I seriously would, but money is a factor for me. It may not be for you guys but it is for me....Ill get some here and there. Im getting Kingston by the way.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

http://www.futuremark.com/ -->it's a benchmark for videocards/pc's. Check out the forums for score comparison

Friday, April 14, 2006

3Dmark03/05/06 is overrated.

2006 is too CPU dependant(for total score), 2005 prefers ATi cards and 2003 prefers nVidia cards.

Best way to test it, is with a game you like to play and recording the fps with fraps.

Also 1 gigabyte of ram is more then enough for most of todays games, except for Battlefield 2 and Obvilion.

But that's not gonna run on your videocard, so don't worry about that.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Actually I can run Oblivion. My current video card allows me to have 2 different Video Cards in at the same time, and I switch the desktop to them. I meet the minimum requirements to play it with my FX 5500

Friday, April 14, 2006

Have you actually tried it? Mininum requirements say nothing at all.

Like BF1942 mininum specs were 500MHZ P3 or Athlon equal. It even didnt ran smoothly on a Athlon 1000 with a Geforce 4 Ti 4800SE.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Thats why it's called Minimum. It doesn't mean it's gonna run smoothly, but atleast it will run. I know what you mean. It'd be improbable for me to actually like it. (Is World Of Warcraft playable on my comp?)

Friday, April 14, 2006

Did Devion's presumptuous demeanor just stagger?
What a day for perceptional chaos.
Lesson gained? Intrinsically unlikely.

Friday, April 14, 2006

almost go by the reccomend specs.

minumun requirments just means it will run the game..

Probally at 15fps, everything low. And kinda looks like a slideshow

Saturday, April 15, 2006

World of Warcraft is going to be tricky.

If you set everything off/low, you might be able to play it, but it won't be pretty.

@Zeth, my presumptous demeanor didn't stagger, it's just taking a vacation

Saturday, April 15, 2006

World of Warcraft is going to be tricky.

WoW on an X200/X300 will be a breeze. His ram could be an issue if he hasn't upgraded yet though.
WoW can run on a Radeon 8500 pretty decently. My friend who plays it has this card. 512MB ram, XP 3200+.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

He probably has the same machine:

T6412 eMachine
AMD Athlon 64 2.2 Ghz 3400+
512 MB Ram (Minus the VC stuff)
ATI Radeon Xpress x200

SO yea ANYWAY, as long as it's better then my old VC im good. And now I have to wait to get the RAM cause my moms a puppy

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Zeth wrote :

World of Warcraft is going to be tricky.

WoW on an X200/X300 will be a breeze. His ram could be an issue if he hasn't upgraded yet though.
WoW can run on a Radeon 8500 pretty decently. My friend who plays it has this card. 512MB ram, XP 3200+.

I wouldnt say breeze.

Your thinking too highly of the x300.

First of all the memory bandwidth is even lower then a Radeon 8500 and the x300 intregrated version has to work with an 32 bit memory interface, while a Readeon 8500 has 128bit.(And yes this makes all the difference)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?I=2381&p=4

At 800x600 its playable, but wouldnt set the resolution any higher.(This is ofcourse an average FPS out in the wild and NOT in lets say, STORMWIND)
Furthermore this is a normal card, NOT intergrated.

Integrated is ALWAYS slower, because of mem bandwidth and memory interface.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Devion wrote :

Zeth wrote :

World of Warcraft is going to be tricky.

WoW on an X200/X300 will be a breeze. His ram could be an issue if he hasn't upgraded yet though.
WoW can run on a Radeon 8500 pretty decently. My friend who plays it has this card. 512MB ram, XP 3200+.

I wouldnt say breeze.

Your thinking too highly of the x300.

First of all the memory bandwidth is even lower then a Radeon 8500 and the x300 intregrated version has to work with an 32 bit memory interface, while a Readeon 8500 has 128bit.(And yes this makes all the difference)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?I=2381&p=4

At 800x600 its playable, but wouldnt set the resolution any higher.(This is ofcourse an average FPS out in the wild and NOT in lets say, STORMWIND)
Furthermore this is a normal card, NOT intergrated.

Integrated is ALWAYS slower, because of mem bandwidth and memory interface.

Stormwind? Don't you mean Lagrimmar or Ironlag?

Saturday, April 15, 2006

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?I=2381&p=4

Those tests are based on maximum settings. EVEN according to those tests, he should be able to get 30-40 fps easily 1024x7678 with some moderate settings.

I'm only speaking from personal tests on what the frame rates I've actually SEEN on a X300 integrated. Yeah, I guess what my eyes tell me doesn't compare to someone's benchmarks though

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Hah, Zeth has a point. He actually "Saw" the game on a X300 IGP or w/e. I dunno, I should be able to run it and enjoy the game I don't care so much for graphics wise, so im not worried about it.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Devion wrote :

Zeth wrote :

World of Warcraft is going to be tricky.

WoW on an X200/X300 will be a breeze. His ram could be an issue if he hasn't upgraded yet though.
WoW can run on a Radeon 8500 pretty decently. My friend who plays it has this card. 512MB ram, XP 3200+.

I wouldnt say breeze.

Your thinking too highly of the x300.

First of all the memory bandwidth is even lower then a Radeon 8500 and the x300 intregrated version has to work with an 32 bit memory interface, while a Readeon 8500 has 128bit.(And yes this makes all the difference)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?I=2381&p=4

At 800x600 its playable, but wouldnt set the resolution any higher.(This is ofcourse an average FPS out in the wild and NOT in lets say, STORMWIND)
Furthermore this is a normal card, NOT intergrated.

Integrated is ALWAYS slower, because of mem bandwidth and memory interface.

...I've got a x300 so does everybody else in my school..and everybody can run world of warcraft fine...at 1024 x 768 ( whatever that size was) the one above 800x600.....

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Well WoW uses a lot more resources than it should considering how damn fugly everything is in that game. Anyway! Its not allways a matter of the VC, the processor and ram also play quite a big part in it. If you have the newest vc but like a pentium 2 and like 50 megs of ram then its not gonna play it well anyway. (not possibly but ya know just making an example). So don't focus only on the vc, its only a 3rd of what it takes to run a game, well a 4th if you count HDD space *laughing out loud*.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Well the AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2 Ghz and a 200 Gig hard-drive make up a good half of the resources your talking about.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The game runs fine. I have no problems with the FPS. Texture detail is all the way up and so on. I think it could be called sorta-high settings :p but it runs fine.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

1.8 ghz...
1GB RAM..
x300 ati...64mb

WOW runs fine

Sunday, April 16, 2006

dale_22x wrote : 1.8 ghz...
1GB RAM..
x300 ati...64mb

WOW runs fine

Explain how people get still zippy FPS with 6600GT and 6800GT, when they visit, lets say Stormwind?(Or Ironforge)

The x300 isn't nowhere near faster then a 6600GT, let alone a 6800GT.

It will be playable with a x300, as I already said(Yes read damnit), but it's not gonna take Stormwind crowded.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Well now, I don't exactly remember you saying anything about a crowded area now did I? You need to clarify your statements. You said, "On low/off settings maybe." I have my settings almost all the way up, and I have NO problems going into any place, even with a lot of mobs. The place I start at has around 30-40 people average. I understand what your saying though, so what ever. You just need to make your statements more clear.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Shioku wrote : Well now, I don't exactly remember you saying anything about a crowded area now did I? You need to clarify your statements. You said, "On low/off settings maybe." I have my settings almost all the way up, and I have NO problems going into any place, even with a lot of mobs. The place I start at has around 30-40 people average. I understand what your saying though, so what ever. You just need to make your statements more clear.

Or you should read a little bit better.

At 800x600 its playable, but wouldnt set the resolution any higher.(This is ofcourse an average FPS out in the wild and NOT in lets say, STORMWIND)