PC Game Requirements - Ask 'Can my PC run this game?' questions here

[QUOTE="Littleman29"][QUOTE="Ichalabon"][QUOTE="Ichalabon"]

Hi all. I was wondering and thinking of what games I will be able to play once I get a nee video card (preferably an 8800 GTS w/ 640mb). As of right now, these are my system specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13 Ghz

1 gig of ram from Kingston

Nvidia GeForce 7300 GS video card

250 gigs of HD

19 in. Widescreen LCD (Acer) Monitor

_____________________________________________

Now, I will deffinately be upgrading my video card and ram. But can anyone give me some suggestions as to what cards I should get to be able to play games like Crysis and Gears of War (ALSO will this game be for Vista, XP, or both?????)? As for my ram, I am thinking of getting 2 more gigs of ram but will I be needing the extra gig of ram or is 2 gigs or RAM just fine???

Thanks for all the help guys.

Ichalabon

Can anyone please give me some suggestions and some help on this issue please? =p

Yeah, Ill be happy to! You willprobally need more than 2 gigs. 4 gigs will be ideal, since it will really make a difference with Vista and even in the future. 1 Gig is obsolete right now.

I reccommend that you get any DX10 card you can afford, try the 8800 GTS 640 MB edition. Forget about the cheaper 320 mb, you can't even play Quake 4 in ultra with it, you need 512 for that. If you don't have enough money for the 8800, get the 8500. It's a lower end card and has alot more ram, but the ram is slower and its GPU itself is clocked pretty slow. I think its clocked at 450 mbs.

Alright cool, ill be getting 3 gigs of ram total because i only have 2 more slots for ram left on my mobo. And yeah I was planning on getting the 8800 GTS 640mb edition, but still someone has yet to tell me if I Gears of War will be on XP or Vista =[

It will be on both

Can i play games like Call of duty 4, Medal of honor airborne, Juiced 2, crysis .................

I have:

Amd Athlon 3800+ x2 (dual core)

nvidia nforce s70 sli mcp (kn9 series)

512x2=1024 ddr2 dual channel memory (soon 3gb)

Asus nvidia geforce 7950gt (soon 8800gtx)

Can i play those games with my current system

Yes you will.

If you wish to save money, only add 1 GiG of ram to your current setup.

My Laptop has a NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300. i have heard that this compares to a 6600 for desktops.Would this card make to requirements for Crysis and/or Gears PC. I know it can run SupCom and Oblivion on average settings.

These are the specs:

Laptop:

- Intel Core Duo T2300 / 1.66 GHz (Dual-Core)

- 1 GB RAM

- NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300 (TurboCache supporting 256MB)

Desktop:

- 1 GB RAM and Pentium 4 processor

- GeForce 7600

Two things:

1. Can someone compare the two cards for me (although I think the desktop one is better).

2. Can either run Crysis, GoW, Quake Wars, Unreal Tournament 3... (im guessing they require more than Oblivion or SupCom which do run on both)

If not, what would be reccomended upgrades for the desktop?

My Laptop has a NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300. i have heard that this compares to a 6600 for desktops.Sammojo

Wrong. Like a 6200, more truthfully. Look at the last three numbers, not the generational marker.

Would this card make to requirements for Crysis and/or Gears PC. I know it can run SupCom and Oblivion on average settings.

Only if by "run" when you say running a game, you mean you'll accept terrible graphics and slide show slow speeds.

These are the specs:

Laptop:

- Intel Core Duo T2300 / 1.66 GHz (Dual-Core)

- 1 GB RAM

- NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300 (TurboCache supporting 256MB)

That "Turbocache" there says its worse than a non-Turbocache 6200.

Desktop:

- 1 GB RAM and Pentium 4 processor

- GeForce 7600

Two things:

1. Can someone compare the two cards for me (although I think the desktop one is better).

2. Can either run Crysis, GoW, Quake Wars, Unreal Tournament 3... (im guessing they require more than Oblivion or SupCom which do run on both)

If not, what would be reccomended upgrades for the desktop?

I certainly wouldn't call what a 7300 TC does in Oblivion as "running". More like CRAWLING to me.

The 7600 GS is capable of running in an acceptable manner with many of today's games, if the CPU is up to the challenge, but you didn't say anything about that. Intel made hundreds of different models of their now obsolete P4s before finally following AMD's lead, and even outdoing them, at last, with the C2D (oops! sorry about that, no such processor company as "SMD"). Most of the P4s are more obsolete now than the most recent and fastest of that breed, but the mainboards sold with many late model P4s can also handle the C2D processor.

how much ram do i need if the most advanced game i plan on running is s.t.a.l.k.e.r. or quake wars? i am only running them at 1280x1024.Xeros606

2 GiG of Ram, Ram is very cheap now and 2 GiG is good enough.

AFAIK, once you have the individual game's reommended amounts of RAM in a PC, the additional amount isn't going to be related to the resolution you want to run it at. That resolution is 90% controlled by the quality of display system and video processor you have in the computer. Added RAM smooths out the pauses for area loads from the hard drive, and reduces startup speed from the time you decide to play the game.

There is a perception that the game runs faster that way, but neither frame rates nor resolution are directly impacted.

Right now, we are about to get into some previously mostly uncharted territory with XP and Vista, and at this point, XP has the advantage. Three GBs of system memory is more or less the practical limit for XP (32 bit), and I'm pretty sure the same is true for Vista. Taking the step from 3 to 4 GBs often ends up wasting more RAM than the added DIMM has on it (contradictory, but Windows just isn't well designed in that regard, which is one of the most valuable improvements included in the 64 bit versions of either Windows).

AnandTech has featured two recent articles about the BSODs arising from games exceeding a "Two GB Barrier", and how Vista is far more unstable than XP when running Supreme Commander due to this situation. Here's the URL for the second part of the pair:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044

[QUOTE="Skyriderlink"]

My PC specs

Core2Duo E6600 at 3.0Ghz

Corsair XMS 2GB DDR2 800(oc1066)

ATI Radeon2900XT(old one-geforce7800GT)

Western Digitle 10,000 RPM 150GB Raptor Hard Diskx2(Raid0)

Sound BlasterX-fi(onboard)

It runs nearly all games at their best with respectable framerates.

The only problem is Can my Pc run Crysis at its best.

Feran

I would say your CPU and Ram are ok at least not sure about the card though but if all your current games a running fine on it then I would leave it until crysis comes out and use that time to save up for a top of the range card if you want it on max settings that is.

Okay.

I'm going to be buying a new computer in the next week or so.

Here's the one I have my eyes on.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/HP-Pavilion-Desktop-PC-A-6130-N/sem/rpsm/context/99001085/oid/184445/catOid/-12962/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

Everything sounds good about it.

It has 3 gig of ram, 400 gig hard drive.

The cons are the graphic card (NVIDIA® GeForceTM 6150 SE), and Windows Vista.

So if I upgrade the graphics card (Around Christmas), would this computer run WoW, CoH/CoV, Guild Wars and, Counter Strike?

If so, how will these games run without the new graphic card?

Thanks in advance

-Cody

If u upgrade ur graphics card ur pc wil run anything with the maximum settings! If you don't you can count on meddium-high settings i think!

If u upgrade ur graphics card ur pc wil run anything with the maximum settings! If you don't you can count on meddium-high settings i think!

andremiguelmast

Miles away from accuracy. Among IGP devices, the 6150 is still merely a weak tinker toy (all of them are, of course), better than the majority of those, because the majority are from Intel, and cannot even perform T&L, the most basic of 3D functions. However, it's not within a shooting range of the only IGPs that can almost play games at Lowest Quality settings, being the several "Xpress" onboard chips from ATI, starting from the most common, the Xpress200.

Onboard chips simply have no chance of doing much of anything in games, other than at the lowest settings, and slowest animation speeds. All are based on the slowest of the current generation of GPUs, which are then further robbed of performance. The X300 and the Geforce 6200 were both quite poor video processors, although the 6200 started out probably twice as good as the X300, however, while the Xpress200 still retains about 60 % of the relative performance of the X300, the 6150 ended up with perhaps 15 %, probably only 10 % of the original 6200's performance (and even the dedicated 6200 cards were depowered by half as well, from the 128 bit original, to the 64 bit 6200A that was the only one available within a couple of months after release).

There was an interesting article comparing onboard graphics to the lowest powered of discrete video cards, in games, back about a year ago -- the IGPs showed themselves to be horrible.

So basicly, as long as I get a new graphics card, I'll be good?itslikecody

As long as you get a good one

It appears as though you have the answer you need, Cody:

Jul 26, 2007 7:36 am CT itslikecody wrote: So basicly, as long as I get a new graphics card, I'll be good?

As long as you get a good one

Beginner gaming cards have a "600" as the last three numbers in the card name, and do not have "SE" anywhere in that name. For PCs used for nothing other than games, a higher performance card, ending in "800", is usually chosen.

P. S. For Crossfire and for SLI, the only pair that really makes financial sense is the top of the ladder, since in every other case, at least at the MSRPs, two of something will both cost more than one of whatever is next higher up the ladder, and won't perform as well as whatever that next one is. Special sales of high quality "lower upper" level cards can make a pair of GTs a better cost comparison than one GTX, especially if the GT cards will Overclock happily. (Added in Edit.)

It appears as though you have the answer you need, Cody:

Jul 26, 2007 7:36 am CT itslikecody wrote: So basicly, as long as I get a new graphics card, I'll be good?Kiwi_1

As long as you get a good one

Begiiner gaming cards have a "600" as the last three numbers in the card name, and do not have "SE" anywhere in that name. For PCs used for nothing other than games, a higher performance card, ending in "800", is usually chosen.

It has 2 slots for graphic cards.

I'm getting 2 "700" 's

hi my system specs are

amd 6000+ 3.0ghz dual core

2 gigs ddr2

500gb hd

i currently am using a 7600gt graphics card and i'm wondering, should i buy another identical card and sli them or should i buy a higher card?

thankyou.

you should buy a new card (8500+) becouse sli will improve your games but not like a new card!!

So wait...let's say I have the money to spend on RAM atm. I have only one gig of RAM right now but I am gonna get more. Should I get another gig or should I get 2 more? I need to know because if I get two will that be enough for future games and stuff? I have enough money for either option and am gonna get an 8800 GTS 640 mb soon.Ichalabon

Can someone please anwser this for me :?

you should buy a new card (8500+) becouse sli will improve your games but not like a new card!!

Bahaa3000

Ignore part of that. The "8500" is unworthy of inclusion as a gaming device. The real fact of the matter is that bought together, a pair of any SLI'd or Cross-Fired cards cost more than the next more powerful single card above them on the performance ladder, without any improvement over what that next single card can offer. However, once you do have the single card, it becomes a less expensive option to add a second, just like the first, than to remove the first one and replace it with one of the next more speedy GPU about them.

To the other question after that, the subject is mutable. No one can know the answer with any degree of certainty at all. At the present time, only a very, VERY few games offer much better performance when given even one step upward, from a single GB of memory to one and a half, and TTBOMK, perhaps two games will show improvement when offered the step from 1.5 GBs to 2 GBs.

Neither our Windows OS nor our games are particularly adept now when faced with more than three GBs of memory, and there is no way I know of to inexpensively make the double step and keep dual channel capability (you need matched pairs of 512 MB and 1024 MB DIMMs, and four memory slots. Many popular MBs have stopped with only three DIMM slots).

(Edit) P S. One of the most (currently) useful of the differences between the 32-bit and the 64-bit Windows versions is the better handling of 4 GBs - plus that the 64-bit versions offer. If only there was better support overall for those 64-bit versions, this 3 GB problem would not be a problem at all.

My computer specs are

E6700
GSKILL 2GB DDR2 800MHzF2-6400CL4D-2GBHK CL4-
Gigabyte Geforce 8800GTS 640MB
Creative sound blaster X-fi Extreme gamer fatality pro
Windows XP Home
DVD writer x18 dual layer
Seagate SATAII 320GB 16MB 3GB/S HDD

Can my computer run ET:QW and Crysis? and what kind of settings?

and what kind of fps do you guy's rkn ill be averaging? cheers. kill

[QUOTE="Bahaa3000"]

you should buy a new card (8500+) becouse sli will improve your games but not like a new card!!

Kiwi_1

Ignore part of that. The "8500" is unworthy of inclusion as a gaming device. The real fact of the matter is that bought together, a pair of any SLI'd or Cross-Fired cards cost more than the next more powerful single card above them on the performance ladder, without any improvement over what that next single card can offer. However, once you do have the single card, it becomes a less expensive option to add a second, just like the first, than to remove the first one and replace it with one of the next more speedy GPU about them.

To the other question after that, the subject is mutable. No one can know the answer with any degree of certainty at all. At the present time, only a very, VERY few games offer much better performance when given even one step upward, from a single GB of memory to one and a half, and TTBOMK, perhaps two games will show improvement when offered the step from 1.5 GBs to 2 GBs.

Neither our Windows OS nor our games are particularly adept now when faced with more than three GBs of memory, and there is no way I know of to inexpensively make the double step and keep dual channel capability (you need matched pairs of 512 MB and 1024 MB DIMMs, and four memory slots. Many popular MBs have stopped with only three DIMM slots).

(Edit) P S. One of the most (currently) useful of the differences between the 32-bit and the 64-bit Windows versions is the better handling of 4 GBs - plus that the 64-bit versions offer. If only there was better support overall for those 64-bit versions, this 3 GB problem would not be a problem at all.

Yeah I took what you said and thought about it (kinda) but I just don't want to have to re-buy more RAM if I find out that future/next-gen games will need +3 gigs of ram. But yeah I am sure that having only 2 gigs is sufficient but at E3 a demo of Crysis was shown playing on the following specs:

Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX

4 Gigs of Ram

Dual Core Processor

Even though the game isn't optimized for the full potential of lesser computers I'm worried that I might spend money only to find out that I have been mislead in my purchases and will need to start over again...As for the differences between OS's (32-bit vs. 64-bit), I never even knew about those exact differences till after I bought it. Also, after hearing that a 32-bit system wouldn't read 4 sticks of ram on your mother board I was dumbfounded. Even though I planned on getting 2 more gigs of ram to add to my current ram (2 x 512mb= 1024mb) I was still very confused on why that was so. So does this mean that I won't be able to add more ram because my motherboard only has 4 slots for Ram and I have already used up 2. I was hoping to use the other 2 to add 2 more gigs of ram but is that not possible because of my OS? Or does it just not read 4 gigs of ram in general?

My computer specs are

E6700
GSKILL 2GB DDR2 800MHzF2-6400CL4D-2GBHK CL4-
Gigabyte Geforce 8800GTS 640MB
Creative sound blaster X-fi Extreme gamer fatality pro
Windows XP Home
DVD writer x18 dual layer
Seagate SATAII 320GB 16MB 3GB/S HDD

Can my computer run ET:QW and Crysis? and what kind of settings?

and what kind of fps do you guy's rkn ill be averaging? cheers. kill

killitech

*Whistles* Now that there will be able to play both those games with smooth gameplay. Your video card and cpu are pretty good so that should deffinitely help you :D

[QUOTE="Kiwi_1"][QUOTE="Bahaa3000"]

you should buy a new card (8500+) becouse sli will improve your games but not like a new card!!

Ichalabon

Ignore part of that. The "8500" is unworthy of inclusion as a gaming device. The real fact of the matter is that bought together, a pair of any SLI'd or Cross-Fired cards cost more than the next more powerful single card above them on the performance ladder, without any improvement over what that next single card can offer. However, once you do have the single card, it becomes a less expensive option to add a second, just like the first, than to remove the first one and replace it with one of the next more speedy GPU about them.

To the other question after that, the subject is mutable. No one can know the answer with any degree of certainty at all. At the present time, only a very, VERY few games offer much better performance when given even one step upward, from a single GB of memory to one and a half, and TTBOMK, perhaps two games will show improvement when offered the step from 1.5 GBs to 2 GBs.

Neither our Windows OS nor our games are particularly adept now when faced with more than three GBs of memory, and there is no way I know of to inexpensively make the double step and keep dual channel capability (you need matched pairs of 512 MB and 1024 MB DIMMs, and four memory slots. Many popular MBs have stopped with only three DIMM slots).

(Edit) P S. One of the most (currently) useful of the differences between the 32-bit and the 64-bit Windows versions is the better handling of 4 GBs - plus that the 64-bit versions offer. If only there was better support overall for those 64-bit versions, this 3 GB problem would not be a problem at all.

Yeah I took what you said and thought about it (kinda) but I just don't want to have to re-buy more RAM if I find out that future/next-gen games will need +3 gigs of ram. But yeah I am sure that having only 2 gigs is sufficient but at E3 a demo of Crysis was shown playing on the following specs:

Nvidia GeForce 8800GTX

4 Gigs of Ram

Dual Core Processor

Even though the game isn't optimized for the full potential of lesser computers I'm worried that I might spend money only to find out that I have been mislead in my purchases and will need to start over again...As for the differences between OS's (32-bit vs. 64-bit), I never even knew about those exact differences till after I bought it. Also, after hearing that a 32-bit system wouldn't read 4 sticks of ram on your mother board I was dumbfounded. Even though I planned on getting 2 more gigs of ram to add to my current ram (2 x 512mb= 1024mb) I was still very confused on why that was so. So does this mean that I won't be able to add more ram because my motherboard only has 4 slots for Ram and I have already used up 2. I was hoping to use the other 2 to add 2 more gigs of ram but is that not possible because of my OS? Or does it just not read 4 gigs of ram in general?

(EDIT) P.S. So really what I am inquiring about is if I should just add one more gig of ram or should I play it safe and buy 2 more gigs of ram? I'm really just all confused on all these specifications and restrictions of lots of hardware =[

*Whistles* Now that there will be able to play both those games with smooth gameplay. Your video card and cpu are pretty good so that should deffinitely help you :D

wow thanks :D what about my 2 gig of ram? and will games stll be reasonably smooth on 1600x1050 resolution? because i have a 22 inch lcd 5ms screen.

I do not know of any overall problem involving a fourth RAM slot, other than the limitation in the A64 architecture (I think it was in the CPU, not in all of the Chipsets), wherein the S939 MBs couldn't carry forward with a DDR Front Side Bus setting of 400 MHz if all four DIMM slots were filled, and would downclock to 333 MHz instead.

The problem with a 4th GB of RAM is the OS's problem, nor related to the number of slots used (you could get to 4 MBs with two DIMMs that provide 2 GBs of memory each).

I do not know of any overall problem involving a fourth RAM slot, other than the limitation in the A64 architecture (I think it was in the CPU, not in all of the Chipsets), wherein the S939 MBs couldn't carry forward with a DDR Front Side Bus setting of 400 MHz if all four DIMM slots were filled, and would downclock to 333 MHz instead.

The problem with a 4th GB of RAM is the OS's problem, nor related to the number of slots used (you could get to 4 MBs with two DIMMs that provide 2 GBs of memory each).

Kiwi_1

Hmmm so do you think this will work with my mobo and OS:

1 gig of ram (2 sticks= 512mb x 2)

+

2 gigs of ram (2 sticks- 1024mb x 2)

I only got 4 available slots on my motherboard and have 2 used up already. So if I install 2 more gigs of ram I won't have problems reguarding my OS and I'll have enough ram to play all the next-gen/future games? Or is 2 gigs of ram total just fine lol.

[QUOTE="Kiwi_1"]

I do not know of any overall problem involving a fourth RAM slot, other than the limitation in the A64 architecture (I think it was in the CPU, not in all of the Chipsets), wherein the S939 MBs couldn't carry forward with a DDR Front Side Bus setting of 400 MHz if all four DIMM slots were filled, and would downclock to 333 MHz instead.

The problem with a 4th GB of RAM is the OS's problem, nor related to the number of slots used (you could get to 4 MBs with two DIMMs that provide 2 GBs of memory each).

Ichalabon

Hmmm so do you think this will work with my mobo and OS:

1 gig of ram (2 sticks= 512mb x 2)

+

2 gigs of ram (2 sticks- 1024mb x 2)

I only got 4 available slots on my motherboard and have 2 used up already. So if I install 2 more gigs of ram I won't have problems reguarding my OS and I'll have enough ram to play all the next-gen/future games? Or is 2 gigs of ram total just fine lol.

(EDIT) Oh yeah and the ram being used is: Kingston 2GB KIT DDR2-667 PC2-5300 CL5 240-pin

*Whistles* Now that there will be able to play both those games with smooth gameplay. Your video card and cpu are pretty good so that should deffinitely help you :D

killitech

wow thanks :D what about my 2 gig of ram? and will games stll be reasonably smooth on 1600x1050 resolution? because i have a 22 inch lcd 5ms screen.

Hmmm from what I have heard: Yes it should? I'm not too sure when it comes to screen resolutions and how well video cards/games will perform on them but that vide card should be able to play your games with smooth gameplay. If not, then the higher end video cards will. (Like the one you have but with 320mb more)

[QUOTE="killitech"]

*Whistles* Now that there will be able to play both those games with smooth gameplay. Your video card and cpu are pretty good so that should deffinitely help you :D

Ichalabon

wow thanks :D what about my 2 gig of ram? and will games stll be reasonably smooth on 1600x1050 resolution? because i have a 22 inch lcd 5ms screen.

Hmmm from what I have heard: Yes it should? I'm not too sure when it comes to screen resolutions and how well video cards/games will perform on them but that vide card should be able to play your games with smooth gameplay. If not, then the higher end video cards will. (Like the one you have but with 320mb more)

And your 2 gigs of ram is fine for gaming.

I'm trying to get Descent II to run on my laptop. It's OS is Vista, and when I try to install it, the computer says it can't be done. Is there a patch or something I can use to make it run in Vista? (For those who don't know, Descent II was made in 1996, so it runs on DOS, Win95, and Win98. I never tried XP.)Quadrax

Uhh if it doesn't work on Vista cause it was made for all those other OS's than XP is your only bet lol.

What kind/type of games can a Nvidia 7300 GS play/max out on?LordChar

Pinball, Minesweeper, Solitaire, etc (2D). For 3D, nothing newer than about four years ago.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=387&card2=376

As you can see, it's the puny 64 bit memory system that makes it useless for real games, as opposed to casual type gaming.

what graphics card do you recommend? LordChar

1. Name a budget amount that isn't just more of the same silly Geforce 7300 category of a joke.

2. Name the video card slot that your PC has (forget it if all you have is plain PCI, you just can't use such a PC for games).

3. Name the genre of games you are interested in, and the degree to which you would prefer them to have been recent releases.

I certainly wouldn't call what a 7300 TC does in Oblivion as "running". More like CRAWLING to me.

The 7600 GS is capable of running in an acceptable manner with many of today's games, if the CPU is up to the challenge, but you didn't say anything about that. Intel made hundreds of different models of their now obsolete P4s before finally following AMD's lead, and even outdoing them, at last, with the C2D (oops! sorry about that, no such processor company as "SMD"). Most of the P4s are more obsolete now than the most recent and fastest of that breed, but the mainboards sold with many late model P4s can also handle the C2D processor.

Kiwi_1

Thanks for the reply kiwi

Oblivion actually runs just as well on the laptop with Geforce GO 7300. It runs smoothly on medium set graphics and SupCom also on the default graphics. I got the specs off the internet because the actual specs on my laptop have worn away and i can't read them so the info on the card may have not been totally correct, judging by your reply.

I am considering buying a Nvidia Geforce 8900GTX when they come out. Anyone have any opinions on whether it will be worth buying a 8900GTX over a 8800GTX or 7950GX2?

Is it correct that the Geforce 8900 and 8950 cards, and ATI Radeon X2800XTX are the only cards which support DX10?

nVidia's publicity claims that all 8xxx cards can run with Dx10, so that's the current 8400 and 8500 for business and casual usage, plus the 8600 and 8800 for part-time games and then for dedicated gaming systems (8800). So far, both nVidia and ATI have been fumbling with the drivers for their cards in Dx10. ATI may have the lead in that regard for their HD 2900 XT.

ATI's HD 2400 and 2600 cards are quite new to the market, and the HD 2900 hasn't really been available very long, either. All of the HD cards are described by AMD/ ATI as capable of Dx10, but from what I've been reading, the drivers for their low end cards are worse than the equivalent nVidia drivers (so that neither has much to brag about yet for those).

I have an advent T9307 with an intel core 2 duo E6300 processor

ATI Radeon X1650SE

320 Gb HDD(7200 rpm)

and 1Gb of DDR2 RAM

will i be able to run The Elder Scrolls IV:Oblivion with everything on max

Thanks,I'll probably upgrade my card then( I'm getting it on Tuesday)PikminmegMaster

You want DirectX10 ..Can Try used 8500GT 512mb or 8600 256mb GT/GTS ...CHeaper than 8800 Alot..Resultjust Great....

Yeah a few days I got a P.O.S computer made in 97 for free, so canthis run the first half-life?

233Mhz Pentium MMX

128MB of ram (i understand this was worshipped back in the day)

8GB hard drive with about 5GB left

ATI RAGE Pro Turbo 8MB

Win XP PRO (I upgraded this from win 2000 soon after i got it.)

So, is this PC good enough to play Half-Life 1? If so, at what settings? The only thing i'm really worried about is the proccesor.

[QUOTE="LordChar"]What kind/type of games can a Nvidia 7300 GS play/max out on?Kiwi_1

Pinball, Minesweeper, Solitaire, etc (2D). For 3D, nothing newer than about four years ago.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=387&card2=376

As you can see, it's the puny 64 bit memory system that makes it useless for real games, as opposed to casual type gaming.

Lol...yeah I understand that card sucks (I have it...) but I can actually play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on it lol. Somehow (don't ask me) I was able to play on all settings maxxed with only minor lag except of course when I had to fight people. The only reason I was able to play efficiently was probably because of my processor and ram lol. Anyways, I just thought I'd say something about this card and in no way am I telling people this card is capable of playing any good games.:D