Got a new desktop. Can it play today's demanding games?

My PC has an i5-750 processor w/ 2.66 GHz, an NVIDIA GeForce GT230 card w/ support for DX10, HDMI and DVIcapabilities, and 1.5GB dedicated graphics memory. I have 8 gigs DDR3 system memory, a 1TB hard drive, 3 gigs RAM, Genuine Win7 Home Premium 64-bit, and a SuperMulti DVD burner w/ Lightscribe tech. I wanna no if it will play (w/ fair amount eye candy) Mass Effect 2, Battlefield Bad Co. 2, and other relatively demanding games of today. I don't mean Crysis, btw. That game is too much for my PC just on the demo. FYI, I dont like Crysis anyway lol. So.. Does my comp shape up to recent games, u think?

P.S - If u have trouble finding info on my card, its discontinued, so... that might be why. Andyes, BTW, I no its not as good as a 9800gt, even tho it is newer.

You say you have 8GB DDR3 system RAM, but then you said you have 3 gigs RAM. Which is it?

Other than that you should have no problem playing most games. Not saying you'll get highest quality.

You say you have 8GB DDR3 system RAM, but then you said you have 3 gigs RAM. Which is it?

Other than that you should have no problem playing most games. Not saying you'll get highest quality.

Pirson

8 gigs REGULAR system memory, and like, 3 gigs ram.

BTW, I readin off my PC's sidecase, cuz it has a specs list. RAM wasnt listed, but system info in the control planel said 3 gigs RAM, I think.

The sidecase's specs list said my comp had 8 gigs ddr3 system memory, so I guess thats not bad, and my RAM is fine, whether its 3 gigs 8 gigs lol. I think they're separate things tho, but.. lets get back to GPU...

What resolution do you play at? The higher it is, the lower fps you will get, so the lower settings you will have to use. The GT 230 is a lower end card now a days. It'll run them really well at a low resolution, but at higher resolutions it may struggle.Luminouslight

I have to play at a rez higher than 1024x768, or else I cant stand it, its too ugly. I usually play at 1440x900, but... I could just do it at 1280x720 if I hafta.

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"]What resolution do you play at? The higher it is, the lower fps you will get, so the lower settings you will have to use. The GT 230 is a lower end card now a days. It'll run them really well at a low resolution, but at higher resolutions it may struggle.Tennisobsessor1

I have to play at a rez higher than 1024x768, or else I cant stand it, its too ugly. I usually play at 1440x900, but... I could just do it at 1280x720 if I hafta.

you all realize you told him he could run todays demanding games on what is essentially a 9500gt with a bit higher clocks.

Wouldn't it have been a better idea to ask our opinion before you bought it?

you all realize you told him he could run todays demanding games on what is essentially a 9500gt with a bit higher clocks.

ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

you all realize you told him he could run todays demanding games on what is essentially a 9500gt with a bit higher clocks.

Luminouslight

no the gt240 = 9600gt

gt230 is basically a msifit crossbreed of a 9600gso with a 9500gt.

gt220 IS a 9500gt

gt210 = 9400gt

gt240=9600gt

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

you all realize you told him he could run todays demanding games on what is essentially a 9500gt with a bit higher clocks.

ionusX

no the gt240 = 9600gt

gt230 is basically a msifit crossbreed of a 9600gso with a 9500gt.

gt220 IS a 9500gt

gt210 = 9400gt

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"] The Gt 230 is a rebranded 9600gt, which the performance isn't laughable considering it's just barely below the performance of a 9800gt. Additionally, excluding Crysis, those low resolutions will be fine for Mass Effect 2, etc. Additionally the 9500gt is just a rebranded 8600gt, and looking at benchmarks there is quite the difference between the two.

Luminouslight

no the gt240 = 9600gt

gt230 is basically a msifit crossbreed of a 9600gso with a 9500gt.

gt220 IS a 9500gt

gt210 = 9400gt

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

no the gt240 = 9600gt

gt230 is basically a msifit crossbreed of a 9600gso with a 9500gt.

gt220 IS a 9500gt

gt210 = 9400gt

ionusX

Please... Stop b4 I have a tech overload! All I know is that the gt230 is some kind of OEM re-do of a gt240 or gt220, and it is one notch above the gt240, and one notch below the gts250. If I need an upgrade soon, maybe once NVIDIA's new DX11 series comin soon brings down older card prices, then fine, so be it. Just please tell me in plain english if my card's okay. I heard some1 said ME:2 should b fine at my resolutions, so.... Well, I guess thats fine. Just some background info of my card's supposed power: Performance w/my comp when playing the Batman: Arkham Asylum demo = Couldn't be better, but its strange the demo doesnt let me modify graphics settings so I not sure the game was on high settings or what, but even if it wasnt, it looked great. Performance w/my comp when playing Darkest of Days demo = Truly pitiful. Really honest-to-goodness, almost a slide show on 1440x900, even if I turn off AA, AF, V-sync, and Ambient Occlusion. I had ta go all the way down to 800x600, which is ugly no matter what settings the graphics are at, lol, and I STILL got bad frame rates even w/out AA, AF, Ambient Occlusion, and V-sync. I'm guessing tho, especially from the reviews, that that game is just bad, lol, cuz just lookin at screenshots its really fugly even w/all the settings on high. I can play COD5 at max everything and have no probs except ping in online (thats unrelated tho, I think, to the card's power) and since COD5 works great, I betting COD4 and COD:MW2 will as well. I seem to have no trouble with games whose "recommended" specs say 7600 or 7800gt for NVIDIA, but the 8800gt ones become wobbly ground, cuz I don't rly no how well it will work on 'em.

I'm thinking I should be fine, but if not, what upgrade would u recommend? I like both ATI and NVIDIA, and actually, I like ATi more but it seems nowadays their cards have probs w/random lines on the screen, and some of their drivers have probs, along with there being basically no documentation for Eyefinity. That sounds like a lot, lol, but I like that they run on blah-level PSU's. Their high-end cards only require 450W w/... uhh.... 12v rail that has something like 22 or 24amps, I think... NVIDIA seems like its more stable. It requires more powerful PSU's and its a bit more expensive and bulky, but... ya, more stable. lol. My comp's case will probably fit a gts250, Radeon HD 5750, or even a gtx somethin or ati radeon hd 5770 and higher. My case, measured by me w/ the ruler, lol, is about 15 inches long, 14 or so tall. That should fit a gts250, right? I think that card is like, um, 9 inches long and 4.somethin inches tall (its a real humdinger lol) so ya.

P.S - I would've asked u guys b4 I gotthe comp whether it was good, but my dad wanted something from Bestbuy or MicroCenter, not Newegg or Amazon, and it had to be in the 900-something $ range or $1,000 exactly. We got the comp for 950 bucks at the holiday sale in xmas time 2009 from Bestbuy. It was originally $1,050 there lol. I had found, tho, some really, really powerful desktops at Newegg.com for only 999.99, but my dad doesnt like buying computers online, cuz he fears getting a card thats DOA and has no warranty or something lol. I'm 13, by the way, so I still hafta put up with my dad's decisions, sadly.

My PC is by HP. The exact model is HP Pavilion Elite e9260f, which I think has been re-named by HP, and the processor was upscaled to an i7. I think my specific model is discontinued, but uh... The newer series looks like it just has a gt230shoved in an i7 machine with otherwise the same specs as my PC, perhaps even less system memory, in some cases.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="Luminouslight"] Technically the GT230 is just a slightly lower clocked 9600gt, but the architecture is roughly the same. You're correct that it performs more like a 9600GSO, but I don't see how it would resemble a 9500gt.Tennisobsessor1

Please... Stop b4 I have a tech overload! All I know is that the gt230 is some kind of OEM re-do of a gt240 or gt220, and it is one notch above the gt240, and one notch below the gts250. If I need an upgrade soon, maybe once NVIDIA's new DX11 series comin soon brings down older card prices, then fine, so be it. Just please tell me in plain english if my card's okay. I heard some1 said ME:2 should b fine at my resolutions, so.... Well, I guess thats fine. Just some background info of my card's supposed power: Performance w/my comp when playing the Batman: Arkham Asylum demo = Couldn't be better, but its strange the demo doesnt let me modify graphics settings so I not sure the game was on high settings or what, but even if it wasnt, it looked great. Performance w/my comp when playing Darkest of Days demo = Truly pitiful. Really honest-to-goodness, almost a slide show on 1440x900, even if I turn off AA, AF, V-sync, and Ambient Occlusion. I had ta go all the way down to 800x600, which is ugly no matter what settings the graphics are at, lol, and I STILL got bad frame rates even w/out AA, AF, Ambient Occlusion, and V-sync. I'm guessing tho, especially from the reviews, that that game is just bad, lol, cuz just lookin at screenshots its really fugly even w/all the settings on high. I can play COD5 at max everything and have no probs except ping in online (thats unrelated tho, I think, to the card's power) and since COD5 works great, I betting COD4 and COD:MW2 will as well. I seem to have no trouble with games whose "recommended" specs say 7600 or 7800gt for NVIDIA, but the 8800gt ones become wobbly ground, cuz I don't rly no how well it will work on 'em.

I'm thinking I should be fine, but if not, what upgrade would u recommend? I like both ATI and NVIDIA, and actually, I like ATi more but it seems nowadays their cards have probs w/random lines on the screen, and some of their drivers have probs, along with there being basically no documentation for Eyefinity. That sounds like a lot, lol, but I like that they run on blah-level PSU's. Their high-end cards only require 450W w/... uhh.... 12v rail that has something like 22 or 24amps, I think... NVIDIA seems like its more stable. It requires more powerful PSU's and its a bit more expensive and bulky, but... ya, more stable. lol. My comp's case will probably fit a gts250, Radeon HD 5750, or even a gtx somethin or ati radeon hd 5770 and higher. My case, measured by me w/ the ruler, lol, is about 15 inches long, 14 or so tall. That should fit a gts250, right? I think that card is like, um, 9 inches long and 4.somethin inches tall (its a real humdinger lol) so ya.

P.S - I would've asked u guys b4 I gotthe comp whether it was good, but my dad wanted something from Bestbuy or MicroCenter, not Newegg or Amazon, and it had to be in the 900-something $ range or $1,000 exactly. We got the comp for 950 bucks at the holiday sale in xmas time 2009 from Bestbuy. It was originally $1,050 there lol. I had found, tho, some really, really powerful desktops at Newegg.com for only 999.99, but my dad doesnt like buying computers online, cuz he fears getting a card thats DOA and has no warranty or something lol. I'm 13, by the way, so I still hafta put up with my dad's decisions, sadly.

Fitting a video card like a gtx 250 in a HP/Compaq/Gateway/Dell is usually a nightmare. They always manufacture their cases to the bare minimum and without upgrade-ability in mind.

Well, dude, its 15 inches long, 14 inches tall.my comp case, that is.That means it's bigger than a 9inch long, 4pointsomething inch tall graphics card and... Where are u getting this info, btw? And what do u recommend then? Those are the biggest names in computers. Are the ASUS and Acer comps better? Ur ruling out pretty much all of the main companies but those two. And if Dell isn't big enough for upgrading, that is sad, honestly, because Dell is considered one of the best, if not THE best, in comps, with HP close behind it. I know ASUS is supposed to be good, but they arent as popular as Dell, from what I hear. Also, if u add up the cost of a relatively cheap gts250 w/ 1 gig dedicated memory,which is 145 bucks on Newegg, (It's gtS 250, btw, not gtX 250.) AND a new 30 dollar case, the total is $170.00 I'm a budget fellah, and I know thats a lot to spend when ur only trying to upgrade to a mid-range gpu, lol.

I think I'll stick with my gt230 for a while, if it can play recent, demanding games w/max settings (with or without AA doesn't matter much, I guess.) at 1440x900, or, at least, 1280x720. I rly do think thats a pretty sweeping statement ur making tho. I can believe maybe Compaq has smaller PCs, but HP, Dell, and Gateway are some of the biggest and best names in computers.

Edit: Sry, its actually a total of 175 bucks, not 170 lol. Bad math.

Well, I guess whenever I need a graphics card upgrade, I can just transplant my stupid computer's guts into a new $30 mid-tower case, along with getting a new card, but honestly, why is my case considered "small" if it's 15 inches long and 14 inches tall? Do I need to have some kind of buffer room in my case? Do other parts like the motherboard get in the way? I would think with my case being bigger than the 9 inch cards I'm looking into, it would be no problem. Even with a 12 inch card, I wouldn't see a problem. That's still 2 inches of space no matter whether I put it in sideways or, even tho its probably not possible,vertically.But I guess, since I have not yet looked to see what exact guts are really in my computer, or ever even upgraded a computer with my bare hands, that I would not know. Perhaps my dad will, since he has fiddled with older computers and upgrading their parts. I have read som reviews of graphics cards like the gts 250, and they say that even though it is big, it can fit in the case, with a little tweaking, maybe even requiring one to bend the edges of their motherboard chips or something along those lines. Alienware Auroras, by the way, are made with cases about the same size as a mini ATX one, and show that off as a size that makes it "easy to upgrade."

Also, how would HP be able to keep making gaming computers if they are supposedly "too small to upgrade?" That doesn't make sense to me, because even consoles nowadays have easy upgrades, and I would come to think that since PC gamers require upgrades more often as the times change and technology advances, the big "kingpins, " so to say, of computers, like HP and Dell, would catch on to the upgradeable parts thing and make it possible to fix up your tower every now and then. To me, if they didn't it would not make sense or any profit, either, because who would buy computers that would be a pain in the backside to fix up and modify? It's just stupid. And if my case is so small, could u tell me what size ur case is? I'm not pissed, don't take it like that, but it doesn't make much sense.

In addition to that, I doubt that even the laptop gamers would buy a laptop where even professionals can't go in and upgrade it. Could that be a good option for me? If this scenario really is like you say it is, then alright, that puts HP and Dell a little lower on my list of good, reliable companies for gaming computers, and rather than fighting with Hewlett Packard, Dell, or Gateway, I would just like to know if any of you have any ideas for a computer case that is a good size for everyday mid-range graphics cards, without making me fork over fifty dollars. I would like to get a case and card, if needed, that dont hit $200 altogether. I believe the gts 250, even if it is just a re-branded 9800 like people say, would be a good upgrade. Especially when Newegg has a 1gig version for only $145.00 . I want a case that's good enough, and only costs $20, or at most, $25. I live in the U.S, so don't recommend Canadian stores or products, please, lol, unless they have a United States location.

P.S - Do u think I need an upgrade for my PSU as well? I don't know for sure how many watts it is, but I think the gt230 requires around 400 or 450, right?

Again, I'm not pissed, so please don't take offense, but I want the facts. Facts, not fiction. Any help would be much appreciated.