Hey Killingfloor players, I need some help with my graphics on my computer, it is the NIVIDIA Geforce 7050/ NIVIDIA nForce 610i is this a good enough graphic card for this type of game to work sucessfully?
Hey Killingfloor players, I need some help with my graphics on my computer, it is the NIVIDIA Geforce 7050/ NIVIDIA nForce 610i is this a good enough graphic card for this type of game to work sucessfully?
It will run, but it won't be pretty as it could be with a dedicated videocard and may need some tweaks to run without lag. How about the rest of the PC?
I always deactivate Motion Blur. Not to save performance, but normally it's ugly and makes no sense.
I mean the game runs but I have to put it on lowest quailty and even then the game still runs slow. I timed it and takes me 2 minutes to get the game started and 4 minutes and 53 seconds inorder to get into a game lobby. When I do eventually get into a game, everytime I stop it like teleports me a 1inch away from where i stop. I'm pretty sure it's not lag because it happens when i play solo.
But do the graphics cards effect the game performance? Not just the quality but also like how much time it takes me to get into a lobby?
Nah, that's a bit too high. A lot of the lower clocked Core 2 Duos (mostly 1.86 Ghz) are pretty decent for gaming. I used to get by on my 6320, which was 1.86 Ghz. Ran fine, though I have OCed it quite a deal (2.8 Ghz).those are basically the minimum specs to do anything on a pc NOT GAME. To play games I recommend at least: 2.5GHZ processor
Nah, that's a bit too high. A lot of the lower clocked Core 2 Duos (mostly 1.86 Ghz) are pretty decent for gaming. I used to get by on my 6320, which was 1.86 Ghz. Ran fine, though I have OCed it quite a deal (2.8 Ghz).
Even runs Crysis pretty well, even on stock settings. 2.5 is a little high IMO.
Modern Warfare 2 requires a 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4 (taken from STEAM requirements). A 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4 gets crushed by Core 2 Duos running at 1.86 Ghz. Ghz does not directly = performance. MW2 won't be that much more demanding than the first one, and my Core 2 Duo running at 1.86 Ghz + 9800 GT ran the first Modern Warfare in the 70 fps range at 1440x900 all high settings. Sure if you game higher than 1440x900 that's when a faster CPU is appreciated, but most gamers don't play higher than 1440x900. Even bumping it up to 1680x1050 would still be alright as long as you overclocked them, but even then, games are a lot more GPU dependent these days than they are CPUFor recent games its quite low. Have you seen the modern warfare 2 specs? it REQUIRES 3.2 GHZ processor no question asked and thats the minimum. Well according to steam. Also what do you mean by "pretty well" pretty well is over 30fps.
Modern Warfare 2 requires a 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4 (taken from STEAM requirements). A 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4 gets crushed by Core 2 Duos running at 1.86 Ghz. Ghz does not directly = performance. MW2 won't be that much more demanding than the first one, and my Core 2 Duo running at 1.86 Ghz + 9800 GT ran the first Modern Warfare in the 70 fps range at 1440x900 all high settings. Sure if you game higher than 1440x900 that's when a faster CPU is appreciated, but most gamers don't play higher than 1440x900. Even bumping it up to 1680x1050 would still be alright as long as you overclocked them, but even then, games are a lot more GPU dependent these days than they are CPU
Anyways I hate intel all out AMD is much better for a PRICE-preformance ratio and the AMD phenom processors overclock like a beast.
Should of got the 955, it's basically the same thing just under clocked a little. Could have saved yourself $60http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692
mostly because I use it and it overclocks to 4.3GHZ with water cooling and IMHO beats the intel i7s in price-preformance every day.
Should of got the 955, it's basically the same thing just under clocked a little. Could have saved yourself $60
Well damn, hand me over $60 then Could really use it, especially with the prices of RAM lately...Thats what people were saying but W/E $60 isn't anything anymore.
I was going to suggest the 5850 as well...but yeah they're hard to find. What's your current video card and what resolution do you play at?I'm gunna be building another PC for gaming and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions on a good graphics card and processor. Im looking at the ATI HD5850 but they are out of stock ****ing everywhere! And It's looking better than the GTX 200 cards because Nvidia is really really behind on the next gen cards.
Well damn, hand me over $60 then Could really use it, especially with the prices of RAM lately...
I try to save money anywhere possible. Especially when you build a rig, if you can save $20 here and there on certain parts and especially $60 on a processor that's the same as the 965 just under clocked a little, it adds up man.
I was going to suggest the 5850 as well...but yeah they're hard to find. What's your current video card and what resolution do you play at?
4890 is NOT outdated...it'll max any game you throw at it, especially at those resolutions. It doesn't have DX11 support, but who knows if that'll take off since DX 10 never did either.
If you want 4890 performance w/ DX11 for around the same price, try looking for the 5770. It's about as powerful and cheap on the wallet.
Modern Warfare 2 requires a 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4 (taken from STEAM requirements). A 2.5 Ghz Pentium 4 gets crushed by Core 2 Duos running at 1.86 Ghz. Ghz does not directly = performance. MW2 won't be that much more demanding than the first one, and my Core 2 Duo running at 1.86 Ghz + 9800 GT ran the first Modern Warfare in the 70 fps range at 1440x900 all high settings. Sure if you game higher than 1440x900 that's when a faster CPU is appreciated, but most gamers don't play higher than 1440x900. Even bumping it up to 1680x1050 would still be alright as long as you overclocked them, but even then, games are a lot more GPU dependent these days than they are CPU
Hell yeah, that resolution will get it's *** kicked by the 4890. Might have to sacrifice a little AA but it will be near max. Won't notice it too much.I know I probably will but do you think I would get a steady 30-40 frames even in really open maps? Also I couldn't care less if I had to play on x4 AF and x2 AA.
Oops, my mistake. Still, a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 still sucks for gaming and will get it's butt kicked by any Core 2 Duo chip.Acually as I already said it is a 3.2 pentium 4. I copy and pasted mine from steam. http://store.steampowered.com/app/10180/