Jump to content
  • 0

System requirements out of date - will my spec work?


Ruthmc
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3661 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Question

  • 0

Yes. You won't have screamingly high quality graphics with a GeForce 610 graphics card, and you may wish for a larger memory for cache at times, but you ought to have a very good mid-level experience with that system. If I read your note correctly, it sounds like that's your goal anyway.

I'd strongly advise against using wireless, BTW. We advise against it for anyone SL resident, regardless of the computer.  Since you're connecting to SL from the UK, you will already have a long ping time to SL's servers, and you may have bandwidth limitations.  There's no point in making it worse by using wireless if you have a choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Yes. You won't have screamingly high quality graphics with a GeForce 610 graphics card, and you may wish for a larger memory for cache at times, but you ought to have a very good mid-level experience with that system. If I read your note correctly, it sounds like that's your goal anyway.

I'd strongly advise against using wireless, BTW. We advise against it for anyone SL resident, regardless of the computer.  Since you're connecting to SL from the UK, you will already have a long ping time to SL's servers, and you may have bandwidth limitations.  There's no point in making it worse by using wireless if you have a choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The system requirements are up to date.  If you have a computer that meets (but does not exceed) those basic requirements, you should be able to run SL.  The caveat being that you will not be able to run SL very well at all......those requirements are the bare minimum for a computer and the SL viewer.  Running SL on a computer with those minimum specs will not be pleasant if you are looking for reasonable rendering times and frame rates that are not stop action in nature.  For performance like that you will need a computer spec'd higher, which your listed hardware indicates is in that catagory (but not by very much).  For what I gather from your intended use your system should fit the bill.

To answer your question about whether that is a good price I converted the English pound to USD (to get an idea).  That 537 pounds Sterling is equal to about $856 USD.  For the hardware installed in that system I think it's rather high.  You don't have much system memory for a 64 bit OS, your CPU is the lowest of the Intel "i" series, the video card is the lowest level card in the 600 series, you have a  CPU cooler that is designed for a gaming rig (you don't need that though it will not hurt anything....but a cooler that is less expensive would bring down the cost), a wireless network card is usually only installed in a desktop (laptops come with the wireless as a standard......you're paying 48 pounds for it).......decide if you are going to make use of that device and how important it is,  and I'm sure you can find a better deal on the webcam.  If you take all those extra hardware devices off you will probably wind up being able to get a better (faster and more powerful) video card, and more system memory for the same or nearly the same price you are quoting now.  Take what I recommend with a grain of salt........I'm a tight wad and I have built (or had built for me) a number of computer over the last 10 years.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yes, the System Requirements page has been out of date for years with Linden Lab tinkering with it occasionally such as adding Windows 7 compatibility. Linden Lab seemingly hasn't realised AMD retired the ATI brand in 2010 with no mention of AMD cards at all and that both AMD and Nvidia have issued numerous graphics cards beyond the ATI 5000 series and Nvidia 200 series mentioned in the Recommended section. It took Torley Linden ages to persuade the web people to even add Windows 7 to the page but regrettably the graphics cards section has not been updated since 2010 nor has LL added its recommendations on running SL with Intel's later HD 3000 and HD 4000 chipsets. The Lab still believes it's v3 viewer will run using the old Intel 945 chipset and omits any recommendations on running SL with Intel's later chipsets, which are superior to the 945.

On the proposed computer specification, I agree with Peggy. There is no point in adding a CPU cooler to a basic i3 processor unless it is overclocked and there is little point in overclocking the i3 3220.  Try and upgrade the graphics card instead.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have a computer (it's the other computer connected to my keyboard, mouse and monitor via a KVM switch) that has the GMA 965 on board IGP. It's disabled now since I put the GTX 250 1GB card from this computer in it about 6 months ago (when I upgraded this computer to the GTX 550 Ti). Before I put the 250 card in that computer I was using the GMA 965 IGP. It ran SL V-3 (not the current V-3 but whatever was the current about 6 months ago). It did not go very well at all (10 to 30 minutes for some textures to rezz, super lag in all but the almost barren regions, and it often took up to 30 minutes for me to cease being the cute little fuzzy ball of mist. But, as far as running SL V-3, it did do it. Now I fully understand that some people would say that with that kind of performance, the computer wasn't quite running SL.........I only argue that it does because I did not crash nor did I get disconnected (but I have to admit I never stayed in-world for more than an hour or so using that computer with the GMA 965). I do know the 965 is only slightly better than the 945 so I don't believe I'm going too far out on a limb saying that the GMA 945 would have similar "success". If someone has a decent connection and runs their system "lean and mean" (meaning running the SL viewer and only security software, along with no resource robbing eye candy) they will be able to run SL..........barely.

 

Minimum system requirements are just that........the bare minimum. The recommended requirements are a better set of minimums (and even then, you would not get anywhere the potential that SL has to offer). The OP's spec's are above the recommended (and also much above the minimum) so I'm sure the computer will run SL. Not what I would call well but it will run..........plus the OP does not seem to be very interested in performance. However, that interest could very well change. That's why I mentioned the "overkill" on the CPU cooler, ect to free up some money for things that will improve SL performance......a better video card and more system memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi Peggy. I'm happy that the OPs spec will run SL and I fully agree with your comments to put the money into a better video card and memory. It's just LL's indifference to updating the System Requirements page that annoys me. I'm not sure what processor you have in the 'other computer' but the 965 will support a Core2 so if that's what you have, it would be superior to a 945 which can only support a single core processor. If the 965 is used with a single core processor then there probably isn't much difference. Personally, I wouldn't regard waiting 10-30 minutes for some textures to rez and up to 30 minutes to rez my avatar as acceptable and meeting what LL deem to be a minimum standard for running SL but I guess it is open to interpretation. Some people cannot even run SL with the later HD 3000 and 4000 let alone the much older 945. My other points are valid though, LL has not updated the graphics card section since 2010, does not mention AMD cards at all, does not mention any cards younger than 2010 and does not mention the latest Intel HD 3000 and 4000. If LL considers the GMA 945 as meeting the minimum requirement, should Intel's 2nd and 3rd generation HD graphics not get a mention too? (and now we have the even later GT1-GT3 as well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Fair enough. I'm not arguing with you. All I know is that the GMA 965 will, technically, run SL V-3 (with rather limited performance to be sure). My other computer has an Intel i5 CPU (first generation and spec'd at 2.0 Ghz speed). As for the HD 3000 it too will run SL (and of course so will the HD 4000)......the performance will be just about the same as the GMA 965 (maybe a little better but not by much). None of the current on motherboard and on CPU chipset video accellerators are designed for 3D graphics (yes, they will run 3D but very poorly). The 4000 might give somewhat more acceptable performance but, really, it's just a later version of the old GMA 965 chipset designed to be on the CPU chipset instead of the motherboard........technology for more efficiency and, for the laptop users, much less drain on the batteries (a good idea in my opinion but the accellerators are just not designed for what SL requires of a video adapter). Since SL will run on a GMA 965 I don't see where LL needs to expressly mention any adapter with greater performance........that list would be a very long list that no one would ever read. I can't answer why LL hasn't mentioned AMD and still uses ATI to identify that chipset manufacturer.........it's been a couple years (or close to that time) since AMD bought out ATI so it would be a very minor update to the minimum requirements. However, I can see someone coming to the forum complaining that they have a ATI Radeon 9250 adapter and SL only lists AMD Radeon 9250. Some people will be upset either way. Plus I'm one of those who think that a user of a computer should know a little about what's inside that computer and how to idenfify the hardware in order to maintain it properly........that is something of a peeve of mine but I've learned to hold my tongue (or, I should say, fingers).

 

I'm not actually disagreeing with except on the technicalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3661 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...