cykarushb

Alright, from the benchmarks ive seen of this APU, it struggles to play games like CS:GO on basically the bare minimum settings. I tend to look for those benchmarks since its a very single threaded cpu bound game built on an older engine, like SL, and they tend to perform similarly on similar hardware. Its passmark benchmark score is worse than a quadcore from a decade before it: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-A9-9425-vs-Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600/3278vs1038 It is entirely incapable of playing pretty much any modern game at all, the CS:GO benchmark i saw to see what i can do graphically is similar to an 8800 GTX, a 12 year old GPU. And i played a lot of SL on a system with a Q6600 and an 8800 GTX, so its gonna be slightly worse than that, and that was pretty bad. It will run SL, as in it will start, it will be an abysmal experience for SL and i highly suggest getting something else.

Anything with a 7th gen i series processor with intel HD620 will play SL at general medium/high settings in 1080p no issues Anything with a mobile 1050/1050ti works fine as well

once again, someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is talking about something and once again they're adamant in their belief which is plain and simple wrong because they refuse to be told that their belief is wrong gee I definitely haven't seen this two billion times before *cough*"ati doesn't work with SL" people*cough* *cough*pulling jiras from a decade ago*cough* *cough*macbook players complaining about SL causing too much heat*cough* let me tldr this because I gotta be up at 4 tomorrow and my phone is burning my retinas you're wrong, plain and simple, you just are wrong and there is no more to it practically any chromebook on the market today is hardware capable of playing SL and having it play fairly well even, those little mobile celerons aren't that incapable the only limitiation is ram, on top of the fact that it's generally harder to do than to just install and play like windows, such as if you don't want to pay for the android app and instead go chroot to Ubuntu to firestorm my basis for playing terribly is that it's going to involve stutter and generally low settings, but it will be playable and enjoyable, not just "well it runs" ive done "well it runs" on a low end machine from 2002, and that's still well below my bar for "runs" there are plenty of people here on SL that play on braswell/haswell igp daily and get very playable results

They asked if it can run it, I told them yes, because it can. I've run SL on much less and while it would be a terrible way to play SL, it could do it. If you dropped down your settings to basically nothing it could even be bearable. I have played this game on its "minimum" and that was terrible but even haswell celerons would be dozens of times better than that. Especially since those N series ones aren't even that bad compared to the same gen mobile i3 dual cores, really it's big drawback is the different igp and lack of ram. The R11 OP has uses a slightly newer quadcore and has either 2 or 4gb of ram, if it's 4gb, they won't have an issue playing SL via firestorm on a chroot. If it's 2gb, you're looking at 300-500mb being eaten by chromeOS and another similar amount by the VM, though you can cut down both but that gets a little more involved. And SL just isn't playable on 1gb of ram. The point here is that a chromebook isn't just some garbage tier android tablet machine. Just because the thing was designed to browse Facebook doesn't mean that's all it can do. And I definitely did not take the system requirements page at face value, I did an entire over typed and incredibly boring post on the system requirements page and why it needs a revamp. And I sure as hell do not "tinker", this is my hobby for sure, but I don't own 50+ graphics cards, 100+ different processors, dozens of motherboards, ram types and countless other parts both rare and obscure for the sole enjoyment myself. I do this to be certain when people ask for help, I first and foremost enjoy dealing with people's little tech support issues. You can't be 100% certain in telling someone how their specific PC will perform in some specific tasks, or how well an upgrade will go and if it's worthwhile, or what their PC is actually capable of if you don't have the hardware yourself. A lot of the time you're gonna struggle to find a performance benchmark of GTA V on something weird like a GTS 150 or a GTX 760ti, there are even a handful of later AGP cards like the 7800GS that can still play modern games. What about egpu with a laptop from 2005? I've got two IBM Z61t's and a 2503 advance dock for that exact purpose. I take tinkering almost downright offensively. "Your opinion doesn't change anything." And nobody asked for yours on what you personally think a chromebook is. I happen to actually know what they're capable of and had information to give OP other than just shunning their machine.

-Quote someone who doesnt know what theyre talking about. I had an acer cb3, celeron n2840, 2gb of ddr3, mediocre at best. However its running full fledged linux, ChromeOS is built off of Gentoo Linux. Its designed as a web browsing machine, watch youtube and browse facebook or whatever. But in the end its a haswell mobile celeron and 2gb of ram on linux, its decently capable if you know how to use it. Its not designed for people who know what theyre doing with the hardware but the hardware is there. I used to run a large variety of stuff on an Ubuntu 12.04 chroot ranging from playing Counterstrike: Source via steam on ubuntu, to basic photo editing with Gimp. It will play secondlife with firestorm. Its just going to perform awfully because youre working through a VM layer on a machine thats best suited for older games and mainly for its original purpose, web browsing at best. If you made an ubuntu chroot and installed firestorm on it, and it didnt run, its probably just not going to. I said it was possible, but not that it would work well at all. Its plain and simple not up to the task.

spoiler, its gonna be just as bad i dont know why people bother with apple products when they have a history of having bad experiences with apple products the tl;dr version is: anemic tiny cooler + next to no airflow + extremely poorly constructed mainboard = constant thermal problems and eventual solder failure its been going on since like 2006, i dont know how they keep getting away with it, every single apple product that has ever been made since the mid 2000's has had some kind of serious problem that occurs with it, whether its the old macbooks that had the gpu die because it unsoldered itself due to heat, or the new airs that literally came out of the factory thermal throttling, or the pros that did the same or the trash can mac pro thats been on sale since 2013 and still manages to thermal throttle even though the entire thing is basically one giant fan or the mac mini that just came out that has soldered storage and once again an anemic cooler and no airflow or the 2016 macbooks and the jtag corrosion issue off topic but damn, why does XYZ program suck on a mac? its a mac, buy a real computer, or if you insist on apple, buy a powerbook G4 and dont bother with anything newer

Actually looking into this, the only way I could do it is with 8800GTS cards. To change vram quantities on the same card you need to modify the bios and it gets really unstable and may toast itself if you do that. However the 8800GTS came in 320mb, 512mb, 640mb and 1gb versions. The difficulty is the last 1gb version is extremely rare and super expensive when they do show up on eBay. But otherwise with all GTS cards they could be clocked the same and have the same performance outside of video memory quantity to give an accurate measurement of how much video memory affects performance in SL If I can find a 1gb 8800GTS I'll do it.

I think I posted before elsewhere that I've got GPUs capable of SL without graphical issues with a wild variance of video memory if anyone would like to see SL on 128mb of vram vs 512, 1gb, 2/4/8 etc Unless there's a way to disable quantities of vram to keep it all on the same card though I've been holding off on that test since even if some of the lower end cards can play SL, obviously framerate would differ and I wouldn't want to have to just point out specific issues with textures because that's also kind of inconsistent and hard to test. Ive yet to see texture related problems though with anything more than 256mb of vram, and only really in densely detailed places. Eventually it just uses system ram instead of the vram for short term texture display and it's slow to load but it's there.

Monitor temperatures with some kind of 3rd party program, it might still be overheating if the cooler isn't making proper contact with the CPU die

You need to work through a chroot, install an Ubuntu VM on the chromebook and then install a Linux viewer. im currently on the road so I don't have time to write out a step by step guide, you'll need to google how to use crouton on a chromebook gotta put it in developer mode, mess around with a command line a lot, then use the ubuntu Linux vm to install and play SL its gonna perform terribly just as a warning

Yes it'll do both without issue

Theres a typo on that page, the i5 is actually an i5 8300H (based on its clock speed and the fact that there is no 8300U) It outperforms the i7 slightly. (the reason is that U are ultra low voltage processors that run at lower clock speeds, H are basically just regular mobile quadcores and run a bit faster, one of the situations where a same generation i7 isnt actually faster than the i5). So the i5 and mobile 1050 option is better performance wise. That one also comes with an SSD while the HP Envy only has a 1tb HDD, the 128gb SSD is going to be much faster for everything

I have no idea what these websites are. I can't get either of these links to work so I'm going off of current gen 17.3" envy spec sheets. For SL you want CPU performance more than anything, if it it has integrated graphics it's likely HD620, or 630. Both of which are fine for SecondLife but may be lackluster in other games. photoshop will also benefit from a more powerful processor the mobile 1050 option is also pretty good, but if they would sacrifice being able to constantly play on higher settings, the i7 will be a better performer in photoshop over the i5 though ideally you'd just get something with the i7 and a dedicated gpu like a 1060 or 1070 maxq if that first option has the GeForce 940MX, don't buy it, it's a terrible graphics adapter in there and even Hd 620 will give better performance.

GPU-Z Its sister program CPU-Z is also pretty useful for other things. Good to have in the nerd toolkit.

the idea of "too long, didnt read" is meant to catch people with an end synopsis because they scroll past the wall of text however on here, i just post that as a general summary

Sorry, no. Very little video memory is used by anything other than vram intensive games. There is a reason that the default VGA windows drivers run on 64mb of system memory, it doesnt need any more and wont use any more. The reason the viewers have video memory limits come when cards didnt really have that much vram, but SL would use it all, so you had the slider to make sure your card wasnt to have all its video memory eaten in SL by textures and not have enough for other things which would then start using system memory. Example, say its 2006 again, youre rocking a 320mb 8800GTS and when you play SL in a super detailed space, youre using all your video memory, so the youtube cat videos youre trying to play in the background, while they use very little vram, is now using system memory instead which is most likely 667mhz DDR2, so gg your video, its now stuttering because its essentially running off core2duo igpu since it cant get the little bit of vram it needs from your anemic 320mb 8800 GTS. God forbid you tried to run two viewers without a 512mb card. THAT, is why that slider exists. Its not needed at all now, not in the slightest. Even that same generation the 8800GT had 1gb vram variants because GDDR3 got cheaper and cards started coming with more vram. SL's slider capped at whatever the high end was and wasnt really updated since. It doesnt really need to have such a limit in 2018 since most people are running cards with at a minimum 1gb of video memory nowadays, even integrated intel HD graphics would use 1.5-2gb of memory. So the LL viewer and its 512mb limit is pretty low. Now the question is, do you actually need SL to be able to use that much video memory exclusively for textures. Because outside of textures if i set that slider to the minimum, SL uses like less than 300mb of video memory for everything else. Max the slider it usually doesnt jump above 800mb total usage in most places, meaning im definitely maxing the video memory slider in the stock LL viewer. Moving over to firestorm however and unless i absolutely max my settings and LOD, and up the resolution scaling, ill maybe top over 1-1.2gb of video memory. WIth that 2gb of video memory for textures available i dont max that at all, barely touch it. Now, video memory isnt the exclusive place textures are constantly held, theyre saved in system storage or cache, then depending on their priority they either get pushed into system memory for the GPU to grab them, or directly into video memory. Also despite some arguments on here, youre not loading an entire uncompressed texture into vram. Despite SL's really large quantity of textures that can use a lot of video memory, youre just not going to ever touch 2gb of usage outside of extremely detailed spaces in very high resolutions at basically max settings. Which i dont think anything except for top tier workstation cards can handle anyway (or should i say, compensate for due to the CPU bottleneck...) Titan V is whats called a toe, it "tests the waters" for a future line. The titan V was a workstation tier low binned quadro given gaming drivers and a premium price tag, to see if high end consumers would pay the extremely high price premium for the mediocre jump in performance. (this is also the ENTIRETY of the RTX lineup because the Titan V was a relative success) Even if it is a gaming card, it is not a relevant card in the slightest considering it was thousands of dollars and almost nobody bought one, ironically the market that did buy them was pretty much the same market that buys Teslas. Nor is the highest of high end considered the average card for gaming, high end cards are a very small portion of the consumer GPU market, most people are running current or previous gen mid tier offerings, such as the 1050ti, 750ti, 650ti, 550/560ti, etc... And thats just the people who really bother to look into the GPU they buy, a large portion of people run integrated graphics, older APUs, weird oem cards like GTX 555's and 4gb GT 730's. Check out the steam hardware survey for peoples PC's, you can see what the most common hardware is: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ The big noticeable chunks, the first 4 cards before you get into obscured relativity by percentage margins are the 1060, 1050, 1050ti and 750ti. Meaning at most these people have 6gb of video memory. Many have 2 or 4gb, some 750ti's had 1gb. As it goes down there are the odd thrown in 1080ti's and 1070's, but then right along side them are 960's and 970's, mobile maxwell gpus, modern low end, significantly older cards such as these few *****s, an INCREASING NUMBER, who are still running 6600GT's for some unknown reason. May god have mercy on their framerate. I used a 6600GT recently and it was terrible. tl;dr, the high end is not the baseline, youre not gonna use that much vram anyway and really most people dont even have that much video memory, the average SL user probably isnt rocking 1080ti SLI, theyre more than likely on something like a 1050 or equivalent, maybe integrated graphics. Id like to see LL do something like what steam did here, since i know SL tracks your system specs with each hardware change, see what every user is running.

Welcome to SL's terrible coding. SL doesnt utilize multiple cores well and most of the graphical hard work is done by the CPU, GPU is really just there for textures and geometry. My system is showing about the same kind of utilization of each component and i get about 20-30fps in more complex places with people around, 50-60 in more empty places. It varies wildly from PC to PC, some specific hardware configs will push obscene framerates, others will be just outright terrible even if it should be fine. Without an OC, the 4820k has the same single threaded performance as a Pentium G4560. So a 60$ processor would perform just about the same in SL. The reason is that its built off some ancient code that was designed originally before dual cores were even a thing, and then later updated on a foundation around the time of early dual cores like the core2duo lineup. So it doesnt really use multiple cores well, which is why youre seeing 2 of your cores entirely idle. 1 probably handling the game, 2 is just not doing anything, 3 is probably a few outlier services running in the background and 4 is also doing nothing. So, tl;dr, SL is only gonna use one core and what it does on one core is a lot of work

Heres some builds, minus OS, just what i would build and recommend. I like Mini ITX, so heres a mini itx option, it has the cost premium of about an extra 70$ compared to micro atx: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fqdPcY Heres a micro ATX option: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/L4N4jy Or the super budget option if you dont care about this PC looking good or being easy to work in the case: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fWrsWD The drawbacks there are a cheap case, ive done a lot of work in cheap cases and theyre just a pain in the butt to build in but they work fine and airflow isnt much of a concern with just a 1060 and a 2200G. And the power supply is just bronze rated and its nothing fancy, its not cheap crap but its not a high end PSU. I personally dont like cheap power supplies because for the extra 20-40$ you tend to get a better warranty and higher efficiency (less heat), i actually have a 1000w PSU in a system that draws under 300w at peak synthetic load simply because it runs passively, no fan, at that load.

1) SSD will help with boot times, its good for SL cache as its significantly faster than an HDD so things like pre cached textures and objects will load much faster. A good combo is a boot disk with room for your common applications with a "scratch disk" hard drive. So a 120/240gb SSD with a 1tb HDD is a very common solution. Just windows and SL, 120gb will be fine. SATA vs NVME isnt too much of a big deal for the average consumer, it has more to do with form factor than it does speed unless youre have some real drive intensive applications that rely on fast storage. 2) A 2600x is a great deal, theres not to drastic of a difference between Zen 2 and Zen, so a 1600/1600x would also be fine. SL is very single threaded and wont utilize multiple cores much, 6 cores is definitely not going to be used even with SL and multiple other things open. But it doesnt hurt to have and the R5's arent too much more expensive than the R3's. I have an i5 4570 and its juuuust about on par with the R3 1200, 4c/4t 1st gen Zen: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4570-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1200/2770vs3931 It would be a good choice if you wanted to save a little more money if this PC isnt going to be used for things like photo/video editing or more intensive games where you would need more cores. Overall single threaded performance is a little better on the 1600 but nothing crazy. If you go with Ryzen 3, get a 2200G as it costs about the same and performs slightly better and has integrated graphics as a backup (or as hybrid crossfire with an AMD gpu in applications that support crossfire, works similar to Nvidia PhysX where the lower tier gpu handles things like physics) 3) 8gb is fine, 16gb is recommended just to be certain. Web browsing + SL wont use crazy amounts of ram, i have 12gb and rarely top 6-7gb with a ton of crap open. 4) Not needed, more of an idea for overclocking or aesthetics. A good aftermarket air cooler can outperform most AIO water coolers, i personally like them though and think they look really nice. If youre not going to overclock, the stock Wraith coolers on zen processors are really good and will do just fine. If youre looking at cheap hard drives, Western Digital greens cost nearly nothing, however they are fairly slow since they have "parking" to reduce power consumption. Its their big drawback but theyre used by server farms since they reduce overall power costs when you have thousands of them. GPU wise, a 1050ti is a great card and will do what you want, but with a Ryzen 5 2600x i would suggest something more high tier to adequately pair with the system. A 1050ti will pair fine with a Pentium G4560 or i3's, Ryzen 3 or whatever. Ryzen 5 is best with the 6gb 1060 to something like a 1080ti. You will definitely be able to crank up to max settings for a photo though. If youre on a tight budget, used GPUs are also a good option. An RX 580 post crypocurrency mining boom is around 170-180$ on ebay now and will perform like a 6gb 1060. This generation of AMD gpus is a fairly safe used buy since they stayed fairly cool under 24/7 max load unlike the R9 series which resulted in a lot of burnt gpus. Nvidia used post mining isnt a safe buy however since many people used the stock blower cooler designs which ran hot as hell. I have a metric crap-ton of GPUs and theyre almost all used and ive never had problems with them, just investigate what is and isnt a safe buy. Used Maxwell cards (960/970/980/etc) werent good at crypto mining and all the used ones are safe to buy. A 970 will run you under 150$ and perform above the 6gb 1060's performance. In fact, as im looking at these, this one is 150$ shipped: https://www.ebay.com/itm/EVGA-GeForce-GTX-970-4GB-GDDR5-FTW-GAMING-w-ACX-2-0-04GP42978-KR-04GP42978KR/264035484625?epid=220470984&hash=item3d79bdc3d1:g:xI4AAOSw9g1b6LvI:rk:1:pf:0 So tl;dr version, on a budget, R3 2200g, 8 or 16gb of ram, 1050ti OR 1060 6gb. More budget, R5 2600x and 1060 6gb. Used gpus optional, Zen 1 or Zen 2 optional. 120gb SSD will handle OS and SL without issue and be useful. Stock coolers fine, water cooling optional.

Max settings, 1080p, 4.0 shadows and 16x aa and all that: Roughly 8fps tops, expected I also tried bringing the resolution back down on my other monitor, same max settings, 12-14fps in 1280x1024. Which is a weird change because most games im looking at almost double the framerate.

Thanks for posting a 1280x1024 to see a comparison. I think ive got something wrong going on then if im seeing those low fps numbers on 1280x1024. I went and busted out the 1080p monitor and installed firestorm to get a reading based off of OP's settings and resolution as well. 1080p, same settings as the top: I got this screenshot at a bad time, its averaging more like 55 fps, note the little spot of sub 20fps when i was not in that tab so it averaged to 42. These images are big so its gotta be multiple posts (most xenforos are like 20mb per post, whats up LL?)

Weird to note, tried that place, similar view, every single slider to the max and every box ticked in (yes i know this is dumb:) 1280x1024 ~15-17fps after everything loaded And ive got a drastically lower tier system than you, with an i5 4570, GTX 970 and 12gb of 1866mhz ddr3 running windows 7 enterprise, using the regular LL veiwer 1280x1024 is kind of weird and i know, i use this monitor because it runs at 120hz and i like the 5:4 aspect ratio more can you grab a screenshot in 1280x1024?, id like to see what the comparison would be if we were in the same resolution

thats not a consumer GPU in the slightest note how much video memory is actually used by most games: https://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html Which is next to nothing, cards these days have way more video memory than they actually need. Most of that is future proofing, but some is definitely about "big numbers" to make a product more appealing. Like why the RX 480/580's have 8gb variants, nothing a 480/580 would normally be capable of would really be able to use that much video memory. I have hardware that old and older if you want to see SL run on hardware thats limited by having under 512mb of video memory. I actually played SL on its minimum and recommended requirements and found that the 896mb GTX 275 (recommended GPU according to LL requirements) was perfectly capable of playing SL with no issues. Fantastic framerates? Nah, but very manageable with some settings tweaked. And i did this on a dual core from 2009, i could try this out in a modern PC to entirely eliminate any CPU bottleneck (because SL is extremely CPU bound) if anyone would like to see how far back in pcie gpus you can go before video memory and sheer performance of the card becomes a problem.

I replied to his duplicate thread on this. Tldr version is that SL isn't going to use multiple GPUs and threadripper is about core count, SL doesn't care how many cores you have. Radeon pro duo is basically two RX 470's and only one is being used, threadripper is a bunch of cores that compete with haswell in single threaded performance, SL won't use more than 1 or 2 of those 32 cores. Maxed with people around, single digit framerates aren't unreasonable. I can also say after an E X T E N S I V E amount of testing there are absolutely no AMD/ATI only issues with SL outside of some stuff like forcing crossfire profiles on old dual gpu cards. There are definitely issues with older cards in general but wether it's ATI/AMD or Nvidia makes no difference. This belief came from the early 2000's when ATI dominated the mobile chipset market and Nvidia barely touched it. People wondered why their laptops couldn't play SL, plain and simple the Radeon Mobility graphics of yore were on a tier several levels below the FX series Nvidia dedicated GPUs. When it was thought "I have an ATI chipset that doesn't work, and they have a Nvidia one that does, it must mean ATI doesn't work for SL" When really it was just that they were trying to play SL on weak for gaming, adequate otherwise mobile chipsets. Everyone who had Nvidia would've been a desktop user and their desktop cards played SL fine. I really dislike seeing that concept that's theres any history of AMD or ATI cards having issues with SL because it's misleading information for people who may be trying to figure out their performance problems or are looking into hardware for a PC for SL.

SL relies on single thread performance and doesn't utilize multiple GPUs outside of a few older dual gpu cards where you can force a universal crossfire profile (and it's really unstable when you do so). Threadripper is all about the core count, but the individual cores themselves aren't that impressive. For multi threaded applications threadripper will do phenomenally well, but not in something like SL. The 1950x is only slightly faster than my now 4 year old (5?) Haswell i5 4570 when it comes to single thread performance. The Vega Radeon pro duo performs like two RX 470's with better video memory, but you'll only be using one so you basically have an RX 470 with a lot of video memory. SL doesn't use a lot of video memory and the RX 470 performs between a 1050ti and 3gb 1060, though closer to the 1060. Graphically it'll do it fine but your CPU is where the issue lies. Basically you have the worst possible New high end PC for SL. For just about anything else it's god tier but SL won't use the majority of that hardware to its full potential. You should still be seeing fairly decent frame rates in 1080p even with a bunch of people around. I usually run maxed and in most more complex places get 30fps with my i5 and GTX 970. More people can drop that to around 15 at the minimum.