Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: Which part should I replace?
  • Subject: Which part should I replace?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Which part should I replace?
  • gamertag: lino4
  • user homepage:

aka lino4

Most of the PC issues posted here are the result of PEBKAC.

I know they've been posted somewhere already, but here are my specs:
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 519K 3.06GHz
Video: nVidia GeForce 7600GT
Sound: Realtek HD Audio
RAM: 1GB (2x512) Kingston DDR2 533 PC 4200
HD: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM SATA
MB: ABIT IL9 Pro
Optical 1:ASUS DVD-RW/+RW max speeds currently unknown
Optical 2: ASUS CD-ROM 48x max
PSU: Turbolink 420W (cheap I know)
OS: Windows XP Home/Windows Vista Ultimate

Now I haven't tried any of the newer games like Crysis or STALKER, but I do know I can run both Halo games, UT, CS, and FEAR. I'm going to try to get a Radeon 3870 one of these days because my board supports Crossfire. But right now, I'm running H2V at 25-30 fps, with game settings all high (1280x1024). Only issue is that the game is real jerky upon startup. It takes a good 10 min. for the game to completely "thaw" and become playable. I usually just pause it and let it load, but the holiday season is coming up and I see opportunity for upgrade. I don't have a job right now (working on that) so I'm looking for a cheap upgrade to alleviate my loading time.

I originally thought another GB of RAM would do it, but my P4 is way out of date, and one of the Allendale CPUs looks like a good investment. Readyboost helps improve the loading times, but decreases overall performance.

tl;dr
Specs are above, tell me what to replace or upgrade to help my games load faster.

  • 11.27.2007 11:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

This hurts my eyes X D.
If you're going to get Crysis you may need to buy the newest graphics cards if you want a smooth framerate.

  • 11.27.2007 12:55 PM PDT

This will help.

  • 11.27.2007 3:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: lino4
  • user homepage:

aka lino4

Most of the PC issues posted here are the result of PEBKAC.

I wasn't talking about running Crysis because I know I won't be able to run the game very well. I am downloading the demo to verify though.

I was asking if I should buy more RAM to cut my loading times in H2V, or a new processor, but I'm leaning towards the RAM since that has more to do with it. But the extra data transfer speed does sound tempting.

  • 11.27.2007 8:08 PM PDT

Join the MAW Clan
X-fire username:Iggwilv
My Real Avatar

Processor is fine, you need to feed that thing more memory.

  • 11.28.2007 6:17 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Aj6627
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Anton P Nym
who says you have to be an ace to have fun?

Posted by: TUI_Obi_Wan
Stupid parents let their stupid children play games that are rated M when they should be playing Big Birds Spelling Adventures

Posted by: Kira Onime
Also the AR is actually good in CQB now and no longer a glorified baseball bat.

I agree with Igg. Processors usually require a new motherboard if you want to make a significant upgrade anyways.

I would add another gig of RAM.

  • 11.28.2007 11:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: lino4
  • user homepage:

aka lino4

Most of the PC issues posted here are the result of PEBKAC.

Posted by: Aj6627
I agree with Igg. Processors usually require a new motherboard if you want to make a significant upgrade anyways.

I would add another gig of RAM.


I didn't mention my mobo can take Core 2 Duos. I was going to get the E2140 during the summer but some things happened an that backfired.

Now one more question. You need a 64-bit OS to run more than 3 GB of RAM right? $50 could buy me another 2GB, if I add it to my 1GB already, could I possibly run exactly 3GB on a 32-bit OS?

  • 11.28.2007 11:50 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Maw

Posted by: vincent5
Posted by: Aj6627
I agree with Igg. Processors usually require a new motherboard if you want to make a significant upgrade anyways.

I would add another gig of RAM.


I didn't mention my mobo can take Core 2 Duos. I was going to get the E2140 during the summer but some things happened an that backfired.

Now one more question. You need a 64-bit OS to run more than 3 GB of RAM right? $50 could buy me another 2GB, if I add it to my 1GB already, could I possibly run exactly 3GB on a 32-bit OS?


Which ever way you go, make sure you get the fastest RAM possible for your MB.

  • 11.29.2007 7:36 PM PDT

Now, in the quantum moment before the closure, when all become one. One moment left. One point of space and time. I know who you are. You are destiny.

I know we're talking about vincent's rig, but I was thinking of getting a GeForce 7000 series (Current is GeForce 6800 [256mb.].) and maybe changing my processor (Current is AMD Athlon 64 Processor...). Oh, and maybe buying more RAM. I want to run the high end games that are now being released. Heck, though, I doubt I can even run F.E.A.R well with this rig of mine. It all depends on my motherboard, though.
Anyways, back on subject...

[Edited on 11.30.2007 6:50 AM PST]

  • 11.30.2007 6:48 AM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

I would ditch the P4 ASAP and put some more ram in there now.

  • 11.30.2007 7:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Furtim Gladius
This hurts my eyes X D.
If you're going to get Crysis you may need to buy the newest graphics cards if you want a smooth framerate.
And don't run it on Vista. Vista runs everything like utter crap, and Vista SP1 is a flop, too =[

Also, try to run it in DX9, because DX10 is a flop, too.

  • 11.30.2007 7:44 AM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

how can vista sp1 be a flop when it isnt even out yet?

Vista runs everything besides crysis for me just fine.

  • 11.30.2007 10:14 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: staticx576
how can vista sp1 be a flop when it isnt even out yet?

Vista runs everything besides crysis for me just fine.
It can run it fine, but not great.

There's been a SP1 closed-beta going around (but people have found a way to trick Windows Update to letting you get your hands on it), and a beta for XP SP3 as well.

I read an article about people comparing the two service packs. To basically sum it up, SP3 was pimp, and there was about a 10% performance gain in everything they did. Vista SP1? Total flop. Increase in performance was almost null. There's a problem with Vista's architecture that makes it run like crap, and it can't be fixed via updates/tunes/fixes.

  • 11.30.2007 11:29 AM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

well you can't say that vista SP1 is a flop WHEN IT IS NOT OUT YET. A beta is not a final product despite what you want to believe. But then again vista runs just fine and easily as faster as XP ever was on two of my machines that have it.

As for vista's architecture I am yet to hear why it's so bad...

  • 11.30.2007 1:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: staticx576
well you can't say that vista SP1 is a flop WHEN IT IS NOT OUT YET. A beta is not a final product despite what you want to believe. But then again vista runs just fine and easily as faster as XP ever was on two of my machines that have it.

As for vista's architecture I am yet to hear why it's so bad...
Product? Even if it's a beta, it's a very good representation of it. When we got the Halo 3 beta, we had a very good idea of what the final version of the game would be like, didn't we? Same goes for the SP1. It's not like the beta is gonna be a flop, and then it'll magically improve drastically when we get the final version.

All that's left to do is just a few tweaks wit SP3 and SP1. And from what SP1 has shown us, it seems like a flop. That's a pretty damn good indication of what it's gonna be like when it's released.

And by the architecture of Vista, well... you're on your own. It just sucks.

  • 11.30.2007 1:27 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Posted by: Mr Faucy Paunts
Product? Even if it's a beta, it's a very good representation of it. When we got the Halo 3 beta, we had a very good idea of what the final version of the game would be like, didn't we? Same goes for the SP1. It's not like the beta is gonna be a flop, and then it'll magically improve drastically when we get the final version.

All that's left to do is just a few tweaks wit SP3 and SP1. And from what SP1 has shown us, it seems like a flop. That's a pretty damn good indication of what it's gonna be like when it's released.

Oh give me a break here, do some research on what a beta actually is, Halo 3 public beta was hardly a beta and much closer to a demo. The whole point of a beta is to find these problems before they are released as a final product(release, whatever). If you are expecting a BETA to be the final product then what do you consider the real final release?
Posted by: Mr Faucy Paunts
And by the architecture of Vista, well... you're on your own. It just sucks.

I read this as:
Posted by: Mr Faucy Paunts
I have no real argument here so I am just going to say it sucks

  • 11.30.2007 1:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have been thoroughly owned. Would you like a Gold Star?

I'm too tired to really try and defend myself here, but... Either way, a beta is still a solid representation.

Now, if me being exhausted at the moment doesn't impair my grammatical skills... Vista isn't a bad OS per se, but when you try to run some pretty demanding games on Vista, Vista being a resource whore does not help at all. When compared to XP, Vista is utter crap when trying to run high-performance games. When playing games like COD2, Half-Life 2, and Halo 2 Vista (which I got working on XP), the difference between the two OSs were phenomenal. So much, in fact, that it's not the least bit negligible.

I read an article with people comparing Vista, and Vista SP1, in correlation to XP SP2, and XP SP3. Yes, I'm aware this they're betas. But like I said, they are a very, very close-to-final representation of the final release. Vista SP1 could be a flop, or it could be the best damn thing in the world. But apparently, people that ran tests between the two found there were pretty much no performance gains. Or at least a little, but enough to be negligible.

While XP SP3, like I said, has a 10% performance gain when compared to XP SP2. If I can run my favorite games buttery-smooth on XP, but then have my game run considerable worse on Vista, then who's to say it doesn't suck? I mean, if I'd much rather play a game, not a slideshow...

Well, nobody take me too serious here. You made yourself look like a total jerk. Now... I was gonna say something else... but frankly, I'm falling asleep =[=[

*pets Mitsy

  • 11.30.2007 3:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

*cough*

  • 12.01.2007 2:43 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

Thank you for proving my point that vista uses memory better than XP.

  • 12.01.2007 4:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: staticx576
Thank you for proving my point that vista uses memory better than XP.
Listen, no need to be a jerk. I know that article may seem contradictory, and Vista does make better use of memory than XP. Because, let's face it, memory that's doing nothing is no good at all. But, when it comes to playing games, Vista is total ass. When you wanna play a game, it still feels the need to suck-up RAM.

You seriously need to get over yourself, man :X

I'm on XP now, and m'yes, XP runs some things considerably worse than Vista... in some ways. I just tried playing Gears on XP, and it runs buttery-smooth =]

Also, what are you talking about? You never said anything about how Vista manages memory. We were talking about its efficiency - and that doesn't mean it has to be related to RAM. Vista just spends more cycles off doing other things (thus, using more memory, of course, and makes some apps run better/consistently) which is good for the most part, but totally makes games run like ass on it. I'd much rather have my resources spent on running my game smoothly, then having it do non-important background tasks.

Also, I love you <3

  • 12.01.2007 4:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: lino4
  • user homepage:

aka lino4

Most of the PC issues posted here are the result of PEBKAC.

Posted by: Mr Faucy Paunts
Posted by: staticx576
Thank you for proving my point that vista uses memory better than XP.
Listen, no need to be a jerk. I know that article may seem contradictory, and Vista does make better use of memory than XP. Because, let's face it, memory that's doing nothing is no good at all. But, when it comes to playing games, Vista is total ass. When you wanna play a game, it still feels the need to suck-up RAM.

You seriously need to get over yourself, man :X

I'm on XP now, and m'yes, XP runs some things considerably worse than Vista... in some ways. I just tried playing Gears on XP, and it runs buttery-smooth =]

Also, what are you talking about? You never said anything about how Vista manages memory. We were talking about its efficiency - and that doesn't mean it has to be related to RAM. Vista just spends more cycles off doing other things (thus, using more memory, of course, and makes some apps run better/consistently) which is good for the most part, but totally makes games run like ass on it. I'd much rather have my resources spent on running my game smoothly, then having it do non-important background tasks.

Also, I love you <3


I couldn't help but come through and read this post.

Games get slightly lower framerates in Vista because of graphics card drivers and DX9 emulation, it has nothing to do with Vista's architecture. Although I've found that if you ran certain games more, Vista takes this into account and it begins to load faster the more you run it.

I've got plans to buy an Xbox 360, so I'm not trying to play any new PC games anymore. It's just too hard to keep up with, and there isn't much of a selection. But I will try to get the extra RAM, but is 3GB really overkill?

  • 12.01.2007 4:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It doesn't really matter if I'm running DX9, or DX10. And by DX9 emulation do you mean it's running DX9 in reference mode? Because if that's what you're saying, then that's jibberish. But I highly doubt that's the case (and I know it isn't :X)... But... do you have any idea what you're talking about? Why would it need to "emulate" DX9 (or any other version of DX under 10.0)? All DirectX is, is just an API to get low-level hardware interaction. I don't see why DX9 would need to go through any emulations. I mean, it's all just software to the machine.

And no, getting an extra gig or two is no problem at all for me. But, my point still stands... Wait, what am I saying? I don't really have a point. I was just saying that I think XP runs games a lot better than Vista. I'm sure getting a RAM upgrade would probably fix that up. But Vista still doesn't run my games too well. Especially the demanding ones.

Uhm, <3

EDIT: Also, nobody take me too seriously here... I'm burnt-out right now.

EDIT 2.0: Upon further research, I have concluded that you are correct. I thought you were talking about software rendering, because that'd just be retarded. But also, I'm not talking about just a lower framerate in my games, just some really big inconsistencies every once in a while. But I guess you meant DX9 is emulated through Windows, that makes sense. But even my DX10 games don't run all to well :X


[Edited on 12.01.2007 5:04 PM PST]

  • 12.01.2007 4:57 PM PDT

you may know me as X[IGN]

Posted by: Iggwilv

*hands Kim a crowbar*
Here you will need this to help you get your foot out of the back of your throat, looks llike its in there pretty deep. And what is that on your face? Egg?! *hands Kim a washcloth*

I can max gears of war at 1920x1200 on vista, stranger things have happened.

Dx9 is NOT emulated on vista either.

also please do me a favor and try to run the crysis demo on XP with only 1 GB of ram.

[Edited on 12.01.2007 6:18 PM PST]

  • 12.01.2007 6:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

RAM.

  • 12.01.2007 7:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: staticx576
do some research on what a beta actually is, Halo 3 public beta was hardly a beta and much closer to a demo.

*Facepalm*

WHAT IS A BETA :

Beta means test version. Beta is not the final version of a product, but it's close enough to show in public and work the bugs out.

AND/OR

The second stage a software program goes through before a final is released. Software undergoes rigorous testing until it is ready to be released.

[Edited on 12.01.2007 8:33 PM PST]

  • 12.01.2007 8:24 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2