Reading the last post, i reacently, changed my GPU it was a ATI radeon HD 4670 512mb ultimate, silent cooling so there was no fan, just a big metal heatsink.My last PSU i think was 350W it says on the box a 400W is needed.Its a little dusty....but what a brilliant graphic card, i think it would run it, it ran things like crysis on a mix of high/veryhigh at 30fps+, i know there is a 1g version of it. Needs a PCI express X16 lane slot on your motherboard.I changed it becasue i reckon it won't run anything well atfer this year (i think) so i decided to up my system.
The 4670's a good card, lacking only DX11 support. Definitely much better than a 3650. It's long been a good choice for systems that must be low-power. The 5670 has the advantage of DX11 support, and on some cards (look for them) 1GB GDDR5 memory. A 4670 with 1GB is a little bit lopsided, because it usually uses GDDR3, so its 128-bit bus becomes a bottleneck when a game tries to load up a gigabyte of textures. A 5670 with GDDR5 can load up a gigabyte twice as fast. If you want 1GB, I would get the 5670 instead.The 400W power supply recommendation is overkill for those cards. A good 300W power supply is plenty, especially with the low-power Sandy Bridge CPU. Though I usually use an Antec Earthwatts 380W or Thermaltake TR2 430W for low-power computers like that. Just because it says 300W or 350W or 400W on your power supply doesn't mean it's actually going to draw that much from the mains. It's only going to draw what your components need, plus 25% to 30% for its own electronics.Ruaridh said:Reading the last post, i reacently, changed my GPU it was a ATI radeon HD 4670 512mb ultimate, silent cooling so there was no fan, just a big metal heatsink.My last PSU i think was 350W it says on the box a 400W is needed.Its a little dusty....but what a brilliant graphic card, i think it would run it, it ran things like crysis on a mix of high/veryhigh at 30fps+, i know there is a 1g version of it. Needs a PCI express X16 lane slot on your motherboard.I changed it becasue i reckon it won't run anything well atfer this year (i think) so i decided to up my system.
It should play the game very nicely indeed, but I'm going to risk having to eat my words by saying it will be good for high but not Ultra settings.The E8400 is a very fast dual core with a big cache, but what we have seen so far is that the game is optimized for more cores. And with LGA 775 now being two generations out of date, the good quad cores (Q9550, Q9650, QX9650) have become harder to find and expensive, so there is not much of an upgrade path. I would still rather have the E8400 than a low-grade quad core like a Q8400.The 4870 is also a couple generations old, and while it's still a formidable card, it's roughly equal to a 5770/6770 and below the GTX 460 or HD 5850 that have been seen to achieve Ultra settings. So I'm not going to stick my neck out by predicting it will achieve Ultra.Goranhr said:@Guy N'wahYou seem to know a lot about PCs. Do you think that I'll be able to play Witcher 2 on ultra settings with my E8400 Core2Duo (3.00 Ghz)? I have an ATI 4870 1GB (slightly above recommended) and 4GB DDR3.
If you are looking for good bang for buck. Consider these specs: Core i5 2500k, ASUS P8P67 Pro motherboard, 4GB RAM (you decide on brand, depending on what you wish to pay. Best Makes that i know of: Corsair Dominator for extreme performance, G.Skill for good price/performance, Kingston for reliable budget RAM and OCZ Reaper for highest quality) Windows 7 (Home premium or higher) 750/800/850+ PSU (Antec and Corsair are two brands i strongly recommend) GTX 560/ ATI 6950. GTX 560 has slightly less performance than the 6950 in some games, but really holds its own in heavy DX11 rendering (I am talking about maybe 2-5 FPS less than the 6950, so I recommend the 560 for driver support and future proofing.) . HAF-X/NZXT Phantom are some cases that are really good. But of course there are cheaper options. The lga1155 range may limit you to choice, but sandy-bridge is an excellent CPU. The i5 2500k is definitely the best price/performance chip in the range. For Hard drive, look at the new Western digital SATA 3 6GB/s drives, they are really well priced. I picked one up recently and it is incredible. Loads super fast. The other components you can decide on depending on price. I hope this helped you.
Good starting point, but I'm going to differ with you in a few particulars.Unless you're overclocking, don't bother with the "K"-numbered Sandy Bridge CPUs. The only difference is the unlocked TurboBoost. And no matter what your experience level, don't be tempted by the inferior Core i3's.I don't buy OCZ anything at all. They've been so willing to put their name on crap that you can't tell what the hell they're supplying. Cholera, they even bought and trashed PC Power & Cooling and sold crap Sirtec power supplies under their name.Anyway, G.Skill's Ripjaws line is the fastest DDR3 you can get now (DDR3 1600 CAS 6). Faster-clocked DDR3 comes with long CAS cycles (typically CAS 9), which means it's actually slower. And G.Skill parts are hella reliable, not a price-performance-reliability compromise at all. But the most important thing about memory is to have enough of it; how fast it is is only secondary.Buying power supplies is a minefield. Antec and Corsair both sell good PSUs and cheap crap. I like Antec PSUs at lower wattages, but not above 650W -- and never get the Basiq line. Above that, go with Corsair "HX" (modular) or "TX" (fixed-cable) models. Consider "VX" or "CX" models only at 650W or lower.Lhino said:If you are looking for good bang for buck. Consider these specs: Core i5 2500k, ASUS P8P67 Pro motherboard, 4GB RAM (you decide on brand, depending on what you wish to pay. Best Makes that i know of: Corsair Dominator for extreme performance, G.Skill for good price/performance, Kingston for reliable budget RAM and OCZ Reaper for highest quality) Windows 7 (Home premium or higher) 750/800/850+ PSU (Antec and Corsair are two brands i strongly recommend) GTX 560/ ATI 6950. GTX 560 has slightly less performance than the 6950 in some games, but really holds its own in heavy DX11 rendering (I am talking about maybe 2-5 FPS less than the 6950, so I recommend the 560 for driver support and future proofing.) . HAF-X/NZXT Phantom are some cases that are really good. But of course there are cheaper options. The lga1155 range may limit you to choice, but sandy-bridge is an excellent CPU. The i5 2500k is definitely the best price/performance chip in the range. For Hard drive, look at the new Western digital SATA 3 6GB/s drives, they are really well priced. I picked one up recently and it is incredible. Loads super fast. The other components you can decide on depending on price. I hope this helped you.
Id have to disagree with that actually,buying a non-K SB CPU would be dumb because SB is just to easy to overclock.People reach 5GHz on air with them with just decent cooler(even for a person who has no idea how to o/c he can reach 4 - 4.2 GHz with NO stress.Also 2500K is recommended for gaming, as u dont need hyperthreading .2600K is needed only if u are into hardcore video editing which i'd assume your are not.Mobo - Good mid-range mobos are ASUS P8P67 Pro or ASUS Sabertooth P67As far as recommendations, the best bang for buck GPU out there is AMD 6950 not only because of its price,but also its ability to unlock to a 6970 ( pretty much all 2GB cards can - non reference design - RAM - Quite cheap and quality ram modules are the Corsair Vengeance ( they have decent overclock potential ) and are loads cheaper than Dominator ones.Hope i helpedUnless you're overclocking, don't bother with the "K"-numbered Sandy Bridge CPUs. The only difference is the unlocked TurboBoost.
The 8600 GT is a big step down from the minimum 8800 GT, but with this card, it may depend more on the card's memory configuration. If your card has DDR2 instead of GDDR3, its performance will be significantly worse. And if your card has 256MB instead of the required 512MB, you are out of luck.All G80, G84, G92, and G94 GPUs were especially good at texture handling, so your situation is not dire; it may well work at low to minimum settings if your card has enough memory. Your CPU should be fine for low settings.2 GB RAM is the bare minimum. The game will probably use all of it and force everything else out, and you will notice that the desktop is unresponsive for some seconds to as long as a minute after you exit the game. I would really want 3 to 4 GB RAM, even if your OS is Windows XP.guciop said:I was just wondering if GF 8600 GT will work with witcher 2 cause i badly want to play this game. I know that in minnimum requiremnts is at least 8800 but i want to be sure.P.S. My processor is intel core 2 duo 2.4 Ghz and my PC has 2 GB ram if it is important
I have Athlon XP 2800 HD 3650 (512) MB1 gb ramDoes anybody know is W2 using new built of Aurora engine and does this engine support SSE processors like Athlon xp ? First Witcher supported SSE.Some games have high sys.req. but I can play them (for example Mass effect 2, Bishock 2, Arkham Asylum...) cause of good optimized engine.Thanks
My reasoning is that overclockers will already know about the "K" parts, and non-overclockers should not be confused into spending more than they must. Not everybody is interested in overclocking, or should be.EvilDantee said:Id have to disagree with that actually,buying a non-K SB CPU would be dumb because SB is just to easy to overclock.People reach 5GHz on air with them with just decent cooler(even for a person who has no idea how to o/c he can reach 4 - 4.2 GHz with NO stress.Also 2500K is recommended for gaming, as u dont need hyperthreading .2600K is needed only if u are into hardcore video editing which i'd assume your are not.Unless you're overclocking, don't bother with the "K"-numbered Sandy Bridge CPUs. The only difference is the unlocked TurboBoost.
The whole ASUS P8P67 line is excellent and comes in at least 8 variations, so pick the one that has the features you want.The Sabertooth, however, is the one I would go out of my way to avoid. That silly plastic cover is a counterproductive gimmick that makes it as difficult to cool as the old BTX motherboards. Under that cover, it's just another P8P67; get the P8P67 with the features you need and leave the Sabertooth for kiddies who think it looks cool.Mobo - Good mid-range mobos are ASUS P8P67 Pro or ASUS Sabertooth P67
I am not sure that u can play it at all...TW2 uses RED ENGINEI haveAthlon XP 2800HD 3650 (512) MB1 gb ram
TW2 has a brand new engine. It is not an updated Aurora. Athlon XP processors are nowhere near supported, and a 3650 has only a fraction of the processing power needed to meet minimum requirements.vejn said:I have Athlon XP 2800 HD 3650 (512) MB1 gb ramDoes anybody know is W2 using new built of Aurora engine and does this engine support SSE processors like Athlon xp ? First Witcher supported SSE.Some games have high sys.req. but I can play them (for example Mass effect 2, Bishock 2, Arkham Asylum...) cause of good optimized engine.Thanks
For example Mass effect 2 states in sys.req :Intel Core 2 Duo or equivalent AMD CPU, 1 Gb for XP..And it runs smooth and fine because of this new marvelous built of UT 3.5 engine.I don't know RED engine.EvilDantee said:I am not sure that u can play it at all...TW2 uses RED ENGINE
An Athlon XP is not the equivalent of a Core 2 Duo. It's not even the equivalent of a Pentium 4.You'd need at least an Athlon 64x2 to make TW2 playable.vejn said:For example Mass effect 2 states in sys.req :Intel Core 2 Duo or equivalent AMD CPU, 1 Gb for XP..And it runs smooth and fine because of this new marvelous built of UT 3.5 engine.I don't know RED engine.vejn said:I am not sure that u can play it at all...TW2 uses RED ENGINE
I know it is not equivalent, I just say that I can play Mass effect 2 smoothly no mater what sys.req says.I posted question to developers if this new engine supports old SSE technology .GuyN039wah said:An Athlon XP is not the equivalent of a Core 2 Duo. It's not even the equivalent of a Pentium 4.
Well, the developers have stated that a minimum of 2 cores will be required. That means an Athlon 64x2 and up.I don't think you'll get anybody here to say the game will be playable, or even start, on an Athlon XP. You may get lucky and find out that it works. But nobody will predict it will work.vejn said:I know it is not equivalent, I just say that I can play Mass effect 2 smoothly no mater what sys.req says.I posted question to developers if this new engine supports old SSE technology .vejn said:An Athlon XP is not the equivalent of a Core 2 Duo. It's not even the equivalent of a Pentium 4.
Thanks, but i got one more question. What if i have GDDR3 but memory 256 MB?GuyN039wah said:The 8600 GT is a big step down from the minimum 8800 GT, but with this card, it may depend more on the card's memory configuration. If your card has DDR2 instead of GDDR3, its performance will be significantly worse. And if your card has 256MB instead of the required 512MB, you are out of luck.All G80, G84, G92, and G94 GPUs were especially good at texture handling, so your situation is not dire; it may well work at low to minimum settings if your card has enough memory. Your CPU should be fine for low settings.2 GB RAM is the bare minimum. The game will probably use all of it and force everything else out, and you will notice that the desktop is unresponsive for some seconds to as long as a minute after you exit the game. I would really want 3 to 4 GB RAM, even if your OS is Windows XP.GuyN039wah said:I was just wondering if GF 8600 GT will work with witcher 2 cause i badly want to play this game. I know that in minnimum requiremnts is at least 8800 but i want to be sure.P.S. My processor is intel core 2 duo 2.4 Ghz and my PC has 2 GB ram if it is important
The stated requirement is 512MB. I couldn't tell you whether this game checks at startup; TW1 did, and refused to start if there wasn't enough VRAM. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the game would not start, but CDPR hasn't said anything about sub-minimum hardware.guciop said:Thanks, but i got one more question. What if i have GDDR3 but memory 256 MB?