+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Lurker Games (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: World of Warcraft (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: Your video cards (/thread-8959.html)
Pages:
1
2
Your video cards - Nystul - 04-08-2004
I can run TFT at 1600x1200 with all settings maxed without any slowdown even in huge battles. Since that is the same engine can I expect the same coming out of WoW?
I have no idea what TFT is like for comparison, but the engine is really not the issue. The landscape of WoW is very elaborate and uses a ton of polygons. Being able to run another game at 1600x1200 with settings maxed will not guarantee you the ability to do that with this one. You certainly might be able to though.
Your video cards - --Pete - 04-08-2004
Hi,
Comes up with NVIDIA GeForce DDR, Chip type n/a, DAC type n/a, 32 MB. And it is AGP.
I think the PCI connector on your ATI card definitively would give it the edge (trailing, that is) :)
--Pete
Your video cards - Jim - 04-08-2004
Hi Pete...Hi Magi :D
Want to know what you have in your computer, DL this Free utility, it lists Everthing including the Installed Microsoft Hotfixes, click on "Details" to see what the fix does...I hope this helps ;)
Quote:The Belarc Advisor builds a detailed profile of your installed software and hardware and displays the results in your Web browser. All of your PC profile information is kept private on your PC and is not sent to any web server.
Operating Systems: Runs on Windows 95/98/Me, NT 4, Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003.
Browsers: Requires IE 3 or Netscape 3, and higher versions. Also runs on Opera, Mozilla, and Firebird.
File size: 594 KB.
Click here to download a free copy for personal use.
Quote:a Very small Sample of Info for my 3 year old Alienware Gaming Rig
[too long a list to post]:
Processor:
1.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon
32 kilobyte primary memory cache
256 kilobyte secondary memory cache
Main Circuit Board:
Board: First International Computer, Inc. AD11 PCB 1.X
Bus Clock: 133 megahertz
BIOS: Award Software International, Inc. 6.00 PG 03/07/2001
Memory Modules:
256 Megabytes Installed Memory
Slot 'DIMM1' has 128 MB
Slot 'DIMM2' has 128 MB
Display:
NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/GeForce2 Pro [Display adapter]
HP 15.7 [Monitor] (15.7"vis, August 1997)
Drives:
46.10 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
18.89 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space
PIONEER DVD-ROM DVD-116 [CD-ROM drive]
PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-106D [CD-ROM drive]
Generic floppy disk drive (3.5")
IBM-DTLA-307045 [Hard drive] (46.12 GB) -- drive 0, s/n YMEYMNB1503, rev TX6OA60A, SMART Status: Healthy
Your video cards - --Pete - 04-08-2004
Hi,
Glad to see you around :)
Usually I keep pretty good records of what's in my machines, but those records are either in a machine that isn't hooked up right now or buried in a pile of stuff in the garage. For sure they're not in my mind :) Got interrupted while doing home improvements, and we've been in a "temporary" state for about two years now. Hopefully I'll get everything back to where it should be this Summer.
Take care,
--Pete
Your video cards - JustAGuy - 04-09-2004
My system:
AMD Athlon XP 2100+
1.5 Gigs of DDR-333 RAM
MSI GeForce 4 Ti4200 128 VRAM
Lots of ATA133 hard drives (760 gigs all together... one day I'll have a terrabyte...one day...)
The game chugs in certain spots, but most of the time it's livable at default settings (whatever they are, I haven't checked).
The worst places are in Stormwind with lots of people all dueling, jumping around, etc. It seems like the 1.5 gigs of RAM really helps, because everyone complains about the game getting slowly laggier, whereas I don't have this problem. The thing is, if the game had a memory leak (it most likely does), then my memory would run out more slowly than someone with, say, 256 megs of RAM.
As far as performance goes, it's poor when there's lots to display, and there's always LOTS to display.
Your video cards - Mephista - 04-10-2004
P4 1.8
769 MB RDRAM
220 GB HDD, over three drives, all 7200 RPM
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card
Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB video card
Your video cards - Jarulf - 04-11-2004
Pentium 4, 2.66GHz
1 Gb ram
GeForce4 Ti 4200, 256 Mb (it is an ASUS V9280)
Works great, even in Stormwind I don't have that much lag I would say. I typically run at 1280x1024.
Your video cards - Roland - 04-11-2004
...that either my old TNT2 Vanta LE (16MB), or my old ATI Rage 128Pro (32MB) would be able to play WoW. Undoubtedly it would have to be on the lowest settings, and it would probably be a bit choppy / laggy in places, but I'm willing to wager (just as an off-the-hop shot) that it could work. I have a habit of trying to bend those minimum specs as far as they can go. Call it a hobby of mine. :)
Mayhap I'll give it a shot when the real game comes out, as I don't have the beta unfortunately. :( Ah well. Can't win them all. :)
Your video cards - Saxywoo - 04-12-2004
The minimum specs for the WoW beta was a system with at least a 1.0GHz processor (I seem to remember seeing), but I see several people that are using machines that are just like mine.... a Pentium III 600MHz.
I think it also said that it would require a graphics card with at least 64MB memory. Again, many of us are running it on 16MB video cards. Bouncing between AGP and PCI architectures. Interesting... I'm sure that the video card in my laptop is an AGP, and I'm wondering if it's a 32MB card.
The amount of system memory that is used seems to vary only slightly.
Another thing that I've noted with my relatively low memory card is that when I'm running just off the road, but with the road still in view, the video seems to get funky on me. It's like there are two completely different texture map sets that the system is trying to load into memory, but it can't since there isn't enough memory.
The task-swap workaround will only help this slightly, but it does help. However, you do need to keep in mind that my viewpoint is more going down on the character from about a 60°-70° angle. If I'm looking from a viewpoint from <40°, I'm down to the ever so enjoyable 1fps. (0° being where you are on the ground right behind your character)
Anyone else experience this?
For those of my fellow lower memory bracket (hey, tax time is coming up in the US) members, about what angle to do you guys use to play? I've found that anywhere from 60°-90° will give me the optimal frame rates, but a viewpoint of 40°-60° will give me less than desirable frame rates, but still okay enough to allow me to function. But once I get back to my usual >60° viewpoint, I'm generally back up to my standard 20-30 fps.
More thoughts coming.... used to be specificly a PC tech, changed jobs, and now I'm dying to get back into troubleshooting machines... Thanks for the the patience and the willingness to humor me....
SaxyCorp
Your video cards - DeeBye - 04-13-2004
I splurged and bought a new video card for my 30th birthday.
Now I've got:
AMD Athlon 1700+ XP
512 MB DDR RAM
ATI Radeon 9200se 128 VRAM
The 9200se is a dirt-cheap card. You can get one from newegg for about $45USD. I live in Canada, so I can't order from newegg. I did manage to find a local vendor selling one for $78CAD (about $58USD), which I thought was more than reasonable since video cards up here tend to be 1.5x more expensive (even after applying the currency exchange rate) than in the US. I paid another $10 to have them install it, and now I've got a 1 year parts and labour warantee on it.
I can now run WoW at 800x600 with all of the goodies turned up, and the farclip slider set to about half. I average 25-30 fps outside, and 40-50 fps inside. I haven't yet tried it at any higher resolution, but I suspect I could with little slowdown. Frankly, WoW looks simply gorgeous even at 800x600.
Your video cards - Jarulf - 04-13-2004
> about what angle to do you guys use to play?
I am lucky to have a system that handle any angle with no problem and noticable difference, so it is more of a situation issue. When in actual fight, I prefer a slightly more top view of things, while running arround, I go down, usually below 40 even so that I see ahead enough. Usually swingning camera left and right to scout for monsters on the side. I usually have the camera as far away from the character as possible then. When fighting and even more inside caves and such, I prefer to move it much closer to the character to avoid the constant jumps when the camera would otherwise end up inside walls.
Not sure were to check fps values though to actually compare what I have.
Your video cards - Saxywoo - 04-13-2004
"Not sure were to check fps values though to actually compare what I have."
In order to display your FPS, hit CTL-R. The FPS should display in yellow text in the bottom center of the screen, about where your your experience meter is.
Note: That FPS reading is in realtime, and can fluctuate dramatically, depending on what is going on in the screen.
One question for you... once you are able to see your frame rate, what's the lowest it goes when you're riding a griffin, and at what angle is your viewpoint from?
Since my FPS generally sucks, I will look straight down, which will help the viewpoint. But for the sake of my system, is there a way to skip actually "seeing" the flight from one point to another? Does anyone think that might be something that people would be interested in having the option to see or not? That way, people that don't have the "uber" systems, can get from one point to another without the video issues associated with the game so far, but you can also have the option to see the flight and be able to look around for future exploration...
Just another thought.... :-)
SaxyCorp
Your video cards - Ruvanal - 04-13-2004
Try looking at the sky so that there are less textures that are being accessed. Alernatively you could try doing most of the flight with screen on map display instead of in the first/second person perspective.