|
|
Or, use your gamerDNA username: (more...)
| ||||||
| |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Stick a highlighter up my nose, I'm done Join Date: May 2003 Location: Screenshots
Posts: 1,564
| EQ2 realistic requirements? - help from those in beta So I think I've decided I'll play EQ2 at launch and I'm sitting here wondering if I'll even have a shot with the setup I've got. Just to let you know, here's what I'm running right now. AMD Athlon XP 2200+ (266mhz FSB) 512mb PC2100 GF4 TI4200 128mb The video card will probably go up to a GF 5900XT of some sort that I won in (believe it or not) an EQ2 contest. I have no idea the specifics of this video card, when (or even if) I'll get it, but I'm assuming it will be good enough for EQ2. Now, those of you in beta: Do you think I'll be able to play EQ2 decently with this setup + new video card? I've got two options here if that's not acceptable. I can just upgrade to 1gb of ram, or junk the mb/cpu and get a faster Athlon with faster (and more) ram. Obviously if money wasn't an issue, that would be the best idea, but I'm curious if I can be cheap for now and just upgrade once the raid game starts hitting hardcore (I will be in a full time raiding guild once the playerbase gets there so keep that in mind). At launch for EQ1 I had a really shitty ass setup. My video card was some awful like 8mb piece of shit and I ended up upgrading to a 32mb near top of the line at the time and that was enough to tide me over until like Luclin, lol. |
| | |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 161
| 1280x1024 nvidia x800 pro gig ram sata hd windows xp not playable above normal settings. normal settigns painfull to play at after seeing wow hit 70-80 fps(with everything set to max and 2x aa and max af). 2 settings below that is what I term an acceptable frame rate. now that set up would probably run at the same rate at the lower settings. But really.. go out and spend 70 bucks on another 512 megs of ram. You will notice the diffrence in everything you do with that computer. |
| | |
| | #8 (permalink) |
| Stick a highlighter up my nose, I'm done Join Date: May 2003 Location: Screenshots
Posts: 1,564
| Thanks guys, this is what I was looking for. I figured an additional 512mb ram is what I needed. I'm hoping against hope that this video card will show up that I won...that would be sweet. Otherwise, I'll have to buy something else. Oh and the guy that thought this thread was a joke...I'm assuming you thought so based on my name. The mods changed my name to EQ2sucks, not me. Like I've said before, I'm more than willing to give Sony another shot, which is more than a lot of people on this board are willing to do. |
| | |
| | #9 (permalink) |
| Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 73
| Get an athlon 64 of some sort and another 512 of ram and you'd be fine for a while, or as stated previously at least get another stick of ram. I got an Athlon XP 2800 1gb of ram geforce 4 TI4800 or something Using one a custom setting it runs fine, the predefined settings aren't the best. Mess around with the options and you can get much better preformance by turning off a few pointless settings (theres a ton of options). P.S. Tasso: ATI x800 pro? |
| | |
| | #12 (permalink) | |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,027
| Quote:
The lesser machine is: Athlon 1.4 GHz (real 1.4, not a 1400+) Radeon 9800 Pro 786 MB RAM Balance Settings (w/ slight tone down of water settings) It runs well enough and graphicly similar enough to our godly PC at high settings that my wife, who loves to find any reason to complain any chance she gets, has not commented once on the lack of graphic quality for her PC at those settings. Only times we can tell a difference is when we actively look at the same thing on both PC's side by side and stationary. | |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
| |