Jake9110 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I was wondering this is the specs of my computer. Is it good enough to play this game? windows 7/office 2007/4 gig memory/250 gig hard drive/bios updated to sept 2011/anti-virus/anti-spyware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Need to upgrade version of Office. Joking but what you posted doesn't give enough details about the computer at all. Processor and video card (important) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelsea Malibu Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Video Card and Ram are probably the two most critical after your internet connection. Wireless = bad 512 or smaller video card = bad less than 4GB RAM = bad Less than 1.8 Gb processor = bad Drinking by yourself all night thinking you're hanging out with friends when you are actually alone, online in SL = bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Chelsea Malibu wrote: less than 4GB RAM = bad now that's just stupid... most 32bit OS'es can't use more than 4 (only server versions and customized linux builds can) and most don't get any benefit out of having more than 3GB... I can STILL run a sub1GHz PC on less than 1GB of ram, and only a 128MB vid card... but I'm also a performance freak, so I wouldn't recommend less than ~1.5Ghz, w/ 2GB ram and a 512MB+ video card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake9110 Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 I will tell you what my specs are when I get my PC back. I have DSL which sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelsea Malibu Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 He's running windows 7 which means it is more than likely a 64 bit system. He is also saying he has 4 GB ram which is good. I don't appreciate you calling me stupid Void unless your name relates to your decorum. 4 RAM is minimal for gaming these days and since SL is extremely graphics intensive, it needs the room to store graphics as you enter a scene. Less ram, more lag. I wouldn't run Angry Birds with your windows 98 laptop much less a graphics intensive game such as SL. I do understand what you are saying but please take what I said into context as I was reviewing the entire ecosystem of their computer as what is optimal since in fact, his is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 even a 64 bit system will never let a 32bit application use more than 2GB of ram, it just can't do it... period. I appreciate that you have a nice system, but your recommendations are ridiculous and match neither what is technically possible, nor what is realistically feasible facts have been pointed out to you previously by myself and others yet you chose to ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanas Criss Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Danger danger, just be careful with any new investment in video cards if you're buying a new computer or trying to improve the one you have! I don't know enough of the details but here's a link to a recent post where it seems some of the best equipment out there isn't behaving nicely with Second Life so beeeeee careful! http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Second-Life-Viewer/Viewer-3-performance-issues-ATI-Graphic-cards/m-p/1178327/highlight/true#M8818 I've attached a link to my post from a while back where we'd gotten a marvelous new computer that wasn't too ridiculously priced (HP close out sale) and it made SL smooth as glass for me and I didn't have to do anything other than put on Phoenix and turn up the Look Amazing Dial. I think I put everything up to the tops except the 'view distance' but I'm not on now to check. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Your-Avatar/I-want-my-avatar-improved/m-p/1094345#M9589 Enjoy your quest for SL marvelousness! Lanas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 The specs you listed look like the software bundle that comes with your computer (those tidbits of information listed on the outside of the box it comes in when you buy it or on the display card retailers put above or below the machine that is displayed in the store). Those are not specs. I don't think anyone can tell you if your computer will run SL from that information. You can look in your owner's manual or, better yet, get the specs the easy way.........let your viewer get them for you. If you haven't already done so, download and install one of the SL viewers (it really doesn't matter which for what I'm going to tell you to do). Launch the viewer but don't even log in. At the top of the user interface you'll see a "Help" menu. Open it and then click on "About Second Life". The basic specs for you machine will be listed........copy and paste them back here for us to see. Someone might be able to help you knowing what you have to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BettyBoop String Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Here's what happens with a 4GB Windows 7 32 bit set up... Windows will consume ~700MB once you have typical things like anti virus loaded. The SL viewer rapidly gets to around 1GB or more. Load something like Photoshop at the same time or similar and that 3GB that is addressable is full. At this point as the viewer starts to take more memory or they load a web browser or two and the machine starts to swap badly and gets VERY sluggish. This was the sole reason I ended up spending some money on a complete hardware change. I'm definitely with Chelsea. The spec you quote is insufficient for sensible use of SL. Yes it works, you can enjoy low graphics but most people aren't interested in trying hard to optimise for a single task that just about struggles to run in 1GB or 2GB of memory and their experience will be poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannie Clowes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 most games require 4GB or better ram nowadays yes but SL isn't a new release, in gaming terms its ancient and shouldn't require anywhere near that much to run......however it poorly coded graphics wise (and probably in lots of other areas as well) so it requires alot more than it does but in absolutly no way is it graphics intensive. go check the graphics of the latest releases (PC versions) and then compare to SL...there is no comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Most games have highly optimised textures on a texture atlas and use all sorts of techniques to ensure performance is tuned. These games are carefully crafted by skilled developers. SL while "old" has no such constraints that prevent someone making a 250 prim necklace with a different 1024x1024 texture per face and then loading it down with masses of scripts. Difficult to compare the two really and the notion that SL is old so only needs an old PC is where people get upset when they find that their 7 year old laptop doesn't work well and declares SL as rubbish because all they've seen is low graphics at a draw distance of 64m with a frame rate of 5 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Most games do not requirement 4 gigs of RAM. Very few require 1 gig of RAM. It's a fact that more RAM equals better performance for almost any program but that's because the more RAM the less virtual memory swapping that takes place (which is much slow than RAM). With decent hardware SL will run quite well on 2 gigs..........that's because modern operating systems use a lot of RAM to stay stable and people often have more than just a single program running at a time. My system has 8 gigs of system RAM plus 1 gig of video RAM...........I've had GIMP running (and actually doing something beside just sitting idle), my web browser running with 3 or 4 tabbed sites, and SL. My memory usage hovered around 2 gigs (that's the max I saw.........mostly around 1.5 gigs). The listed system requirements are certainly outdated........but, SL does not require more than 2 gigs of RAM as long as the system has capable hardware. Graphics adapters that don't have any on board VRAM (or very low VRAM) will put a better burden on the system RAM......even then, 2 gigs will work fine. The more, the better, of course......but, in no way required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannie Clowes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 its not difficult to compare SL to modern games at all, even if you have 10 people all with different variations of those necklaces standing next to each other you wont get anywhere near the graphics load that any of the new games will have, compared to them SL is poorly coded thats why you need a machine with a little umph to run sl nothing more and yes the latest games are starting to need around 4gb of ram to run.....for example skyrim has a minimum specs of 3gb and thats been toned down because its also getting released on consoles......i cant see it going over 4gb of ram however until the next gen consoles are released and catch up to what PC's can do right now but thats beside the point i have a pc running xp P4 3Ghz, 1 gig ram and a 128mb video card....it runs SL...not great but it runs it if this helps the OP any...for W7 you'll need to up the specs a little on the video/graphics card though i bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladi Hazelnut Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I can think of absolutely no games that require 4 gigs of ram to run them. More ram has to do with multi tasking than running any one single application. There have even been several tech articles stating that most have no need for more than 4 gigs of ram. Toms hardware even did a test on it. They tested several games, programs and benchmarks on a system using 3 gigs of ram, 4 gigs of ram and so on up to like 12 gigs of ram I think. The conclusion was most people could get a way easy on 3 gigs of ram but 4 gigs is nice to have. There was no performance increase on games when going from 3 to 4 gigs or higher. Some multitasking ran better with 4 gigs of ram. The only things that showed more than 4 gigs of ram being better was benchmark tests, which is just pretty numbers. None of their real world tests showed any real improvement above 4 gigs of ram. Your video card is the most important factor. Getting the best gpu you can makes a big difference. Even with video cards ram isn't that important. A 512 meg card with a better gpu is always better than a cheaper card with 1 gig of ram. Of course you need a main board, power supply and cpu that can utilize the card as well. I run 4 gigs of ram and my girlfriend runs 3, neither of us have ever ran out of ram when using sl and running other applications in the background. I can run SL, gimp with god knows how many textures open, blender and numerous browser windows opened and I have never ran out of or ran low on ram. I even tried it with no paging file once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Mannie Clowes wrote: i have a pc running xp P4 3Ghz, 1 gig ram and a 128mb video card....it runs SL...not great but it runs it if this helps the OP any...for W7 you'll need to up the specs a little on the video/graphics card though i bet and you're running that with Ultra at 256m or more draw distance with all the graphics settings at maximum yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannie Clowes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 obviously not, but i cant up my draw distance to a resonable level (slider bar around mid way i forget what the number is) and it will run fine the OP just asked what will run SL not whats required for all the bells and whistles which quite frankly i never notice when i have them on anyway but perhaps thats because i usually play of the latest AAA PC releases being mentioned, SL graphics just seem horrible after that whatever i do with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Vladi Hazelnut wrote: I run 4 gigs of ram and my girlfriend runs 3, neither of us have ever ran out of ram when using sl and running other applications in the background. I can run SL, gimp with god knows how many textures open, blender and numerous browser windows opened and I have never ran out of or ran low on ram. I even tried it with no paging file once. Comparison: Windows 7 says of my 12GB, available is 5GB and free is 2GB. You're just not trying hard enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Right but that's my point. Yes you can play most of those other games too on low graphics with a low frame rate but it's not what people want to do so it's not appropriate to compare silky smooth drop dead gorgeous graphics and then say but SL only needs a modest machine because you can run it in low graphics with a low draw distance. Then there's the different type of user. Someone that comes here to script may not bother with their avatar, doesn't care about the pretty pictures and says "it all works fine" then there are those who want to enjoy richer graphics and decorate their avatar much more. Low graphics to them just doesn't make the grade. Very different experiences and ending up at the low end for someone that expects so much more will be a very disappointing experience that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Hmmmm...........me thinks you need to do some research before you make such a statement as "even if you have 10 people all with different variations of those necklaces standing next to each other you wont get anywhere near the graphics load that any of the new games will have" You definitely will get a bigger load on your graphics rendering. A 1024 by 1024 pixel texture is 4 times the size of a 512 by 512 pixel texture. And that is exactly what happens in SL with amateurs creating content.........they simply don't know what their texture does for people viewing the textures. You can't say they are stupid........but they are ignorant. SL is full of textures and content that is not "optimized"......a program that has professionally designed content will put a hell of a lot less load on anyone's graphics than content created in SL. It's the both the great and msierable thing about SL. We can create our content..........but if we are professionals we are not doing to correctly. That's why SL is difficult to run on a system that does not have the hardware to handle all that un-optimized content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sy Beck Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 This is true as true gets and I was guilty myself when i first started building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannie Clowes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 hmm no not really this pc (the specs i posted before) hasn't been able to run any releases for the last 2 years or so unless there not graphically intense, and im not talking low fps im talking plain up wont run, where as SL runs because its old and its not graphically intense even in the slightest compared to the latest releases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannie Clowes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 and i think you need to look what sort of grahpics the modern AAA titles are pumping out now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I have..........and they are all professionally made. My bet is not a single texture is larger than 128 by 128 pixel (32 times smaller than a 1024 by 1024 texture). Each pixel has to be processed and rendered.......if your graphics card/adapter has to do 32 times the work it's going to take more time. More time to render equals lag. As I said dig out Google and do some research.........or contact a professional video game artist (your choice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannie Clowes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 and there will be lots more of those smaller textures to render, far far more, yes the 1024x1024 are more graphically intense individually but the smaller ones on modern games far outweight the proccessing power needed to render the scenario we were talking about. anyway im sorry to have taken the conversation offtrack from what the OP wanted to know in trying to point this out for you, i have no doubt you'll post again after me but as i cant make you see the light i'll simply stop posting to stop myself deralling this anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
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