Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Is this a good gaming computer spec?

NirrtixNirrtix Member Posts: 173

I7 1.6 gighertz with 4 physical cores and 4 simulated cores

1 GB Nvidia Geforce GT 230M

6 GB DDR3 RAM

Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 24,846

    Nope.

    If you're trying to find something used for < $400, then you could be stuck with something like that.  But you don't want to get two year old hardware--including an old video card that wasn't every good even when it launched--if you're buying something brand new.

    Is there some reason why you can't get a desktop?  There aren't that many people for whom a gaming laptop makes sense.   Why do you want a laptop rather than a desktop in the first place?

  • minix2poominix2poo Member Posts: 49

    Well, the most important component of a PC, if you wanna play games is the grafikcard. And modern Desktop grafikcards are just 2 to 3times better than the modern laptop grafikcards. I myself have a 1 year old laptop with similar specs to the one you postet, but well, I just hate it to play games on it.  I would say the specs are still good enough to play most of the newest games on high to highest settings. But for real gaming experience I always play on my desktop. Playing on a laptop or a desktop is a huge difference in my eyes, even if its the same game, and if the game runs smooth on both systems.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 24,846

    Originally posted by minix2poo

     I would say the specs are still good enough to play most of the newest games on high to highest settings.

    No, it's not.  Or at least not if you want it to run smoothly enough for the game to be playable.  If the low end video cards could max settings, then why would the high end cards exist?

  • LetsinodLetsinod Member UncommonPosts: 385

     

    Give us a budget and let us know if it absolutely needs to be a laptop or if a desktop is an option.

  • kzaskekzaske Member UncommonPosts: 518

    Originally posted by Nirrtix

    I7 1.6 gighertz with 4 physical cores and 4 simulated cores

    1 GB Nvidia Geforce GT 230M

    6 GB DDR3 RAM

    Most newer games are looking for a CPU running at 3.0GHz or higher.  The video card is ok, but it will not be enough for the next generation of video games and will not play the current games (other than MMOs) well.  If you are being asked to pay more than $50 for that forget it, it is simply not worth it.

  • NirrtixNirrtix Member Posts: 173

    it is a laptop... it was good for a laptop

    Nirrtix
    ALPHAs:
    -Pantheon
    -Shroud of the Avatar
    -Camelot Unchained
    BETAs:
    -World of Warcraft
    -City of Heroes
    -Star Wars Galaxies
    -Saga of Ryzom
    -Homeworld
    -Starcraft II
    -Warcraft III
    -Hearthstone
    -Star Wars The Old Republic
    -Vanguard Saga of Heroes

  • NirrtixNirrtix Member Posts: 173

    Originally posted by kzaske

    Originally posted by Nirrtix

    I7 1.6 gighertz with 4 physical cores and 4 simulated cores

    1 GB Nvidia Geforce GT 230M

    6 GB DDR3 RAM

    Most newer games are looking for a CPU running at 3.0GHz or higher.  The video card is ok, but it will not be enough for the next generation of video games and will not play the current games (other than MMOs) well.  If you are being asked to pay more than $50 for that forget it, it is simply not worth it.

    I guess most people do not understand the I7 processor... this one boosts to 2.5 gigahertz. Granted its achilles heel is its videocard. It is a midrange card, but all laptop cards are inferior to desktop cards for heat and other reasons.

    Nirrtix
    ALPHAs:
    -Pantheon
    -Shroud of the Avatar
    -Camelot Unchained
    BETAs:
    -World of Warcraft
    -City of Heroes
    -Star Wars Galaxies
    -Saga of Ryzom
    -Homeworld
    -Starcraft II
    -Warcraft III
    -Hearthstone
    -Star Wars The Old Republic
    -Vanguard Saga of Heroes

  • NirrtixNirrtix Member Posts: 173

    As for this machine I am not buying it, I already own it. Yes it is a 2 year old machine. IT is also a laptop. It is not low end now, but not high end obviously. It was probably more medium high 2 years ago. I must confess this is the last laptop i will buy with intent to play games on. computers get obsolete too fast. I figure by the end of 2012 I will have to replace it, but that will make it 3 years old.

    Nirrtix
    ALPHAs:
    -Pantheon
    -Shroud of the Avatar
    -Camelot Unchained
    BETAs:
    -World of Warcraft
    -City of Heroes
    -Star Wars Galaxies
    -Saga of Ryzom
    -Homeworld
    -Starcraft II
    -Warcraft III
    -Hearthstone
    -Star Wars The Old Republic
    -Vanguard Saga of Heroes

  • NirrtixNirrtix Member Posts: 173

    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Originally posted by minix2poo

     I would say the specs are still good enough to play most of the newest games on high to highest settings.

    No, it's not.  Or at least not if you want it to run smoothly enough for the game to be playable.  If the low end video cards could max settings, then why would the high end cards exist?

    Quizzical I can run most new games like Skyrim and Old Republic on medium settings at least. Why do high end cards exist? There are plenty of reasons. Some people jsut want to make sure they always have insane FPS. Another reason is some people want their machine to not become obsolete as soon.

    Nirrtix
    ALPHAs:
    -Pantheon
    -Shroud of the Avatar
    -Camelot Unchained
    BETAs:
    -World of Warcraft
    -City of Heroes
    -Star Wars Galaxies
    -Saga of Ryzom
    -Homeworld
    -Starcraft II
    -Warcraft III
    -Hearthstone
    -Star Wars The Old Republic
    -Vanguard Saga of Heroes

  • ZezdaZezda Member UncommonPosts: 686

    Just to chime in..

     

    Skyrim and SW:TOR are terrible examples of 'new games' graphically.

     

    SW:TOR is designed to run on a pocket calculator and Skyrim follows suit, although not quite to that extreme. I wonder if your machine would run AvP.. or Metro 2033 for example.

  • KabaalKabaal Member UncommonPosts: 3,042

    Originally posted by Nirrtix

    As for this machine I am not buying it, I already own it. Yes it is a 2 year old machine. IT is also a laptop. It is not low end now, but not high end obviously. It was probably more medium high 2 years ago. I must confess this is the last laptop i will buy with intent to play games on. computers get obsolete too fast. I figure by the end of 2012 I will have to replace it, but that will make it 3 years old.

    So why did you start the thread? If it already plays what you want it to play fine then there was no need. And yes, it is low end.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 24,846

    "I guess most people do not understand the I7 processor... this one boosts to 2.5 gigahertz."

    Higher than that actually, but only on one core.  If you've got 3 cores active, it won't let any of them go over 1.73 GHz.

    "It was probably more medium high 2 years ago."

    The processor was fairly high end two years ago.  Not anymore, though, as it trails way behind Sandy Bridge in performance, and way behind Llano in power consumption.  In six months, it might be a stretch to even call the processor mid-range.  Die shrinks offer huge improvements in performance pr watt, and that means it's easy to pack a lot more performance than before into the same TDP--and laptop processor performance is mainly limited by heat and power, not electromigration.

    The video card, on the other hand, was never medium high end, or even mid-range.  It wasn't the absolute low end, but today it trails behind modern laptop integrated graphics.

    "Quizzical I can run most new games like Skyrim and Old Republic on medium settings at least."

    Medium settings, sure.  High or highest, not if you want it to be playable.  Minix claimed it could do high or highest settings.

  • ZezdaZezda Member UncommonPosts: 686

    The GT230m itself is roughly equivalent to a 512mb version of the 9600GSO (thanks for clarifying, Quiz)

     

    Couldn't track down any reviews for one but lets just say it's a bit lethargic even for it's time and leave it at that.

     

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 24,846

    Originally posted by Zezda

    And just to clarify, the GT230m is roughly equivalent to a 9600GSO.

     

    the 9600GSO in turn is several 'tiers' lower than the 8800GTX which was released in Q4 2006. It's closer in performance to a 7800 GTX which was released about half way into 2005.

     

    A review for the 9600 GSO can be seen here

     

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9600-gso-386-mb-review-point-of-view/8

     

    No, that's the wrong card entirely.  Wrong die, wrong process node, wrong architecture, wrong everything.  What you linked to is easily more than double the performance of what the original poster has.

    A GeForce GT 230M is a laptop version of a desktop GeForce GT 220.  It's the GT216 die that was supposed to launch around the end of 2008, and then got delayed most of a year, so that its competition was the Radeon HD 5000 series rather than the 4000 series.  It might have held its own against the latter, but got destroyed by the former, as Nvidia hadn't figured out how to make TSMC's 40 nm process node work yet, so they managed to get no power efficiency improvements at all out of a full node die shrink.

    There were two completely unrelated versions of the GeForce 9600 GSO.  The first was a cut down G92, that is, GeForce 8800 GTS/9800 GTX.  The second was a cut down G94, that is, GeForce 9600 GT.  The second 9600 GSO had around half the performance of the first.  And even the second one was still faster than the GT 230M, as the GT 230M had to clock way down to fit in a laptop.

  • Goll25Goll25 Member UncommonPosts: 187

    take this into consideration, your pc truely is a good as your worst component. slow hard drive - long loading times, bad gpu - poor graphics quality + fps, bad cpu - bad fps, old motherboard - less upgrade options, less ram - slower system proformance, improper cooling - overheating parts lowering their lifespan and proformance, not a beefy enough psu - won't use your parts to full potential and could damage your system. I mean the only thing to really not care about would be a dvd drive, unless you plan on using it alot for what ever. Don't cheap out your first time around when building a gaming pc it will cost you more in the long run. I know because I cheaped out the first time and just a few months ago dumped double what I did 2 years ago just to run modern games. 

  • ZezdaZezda Member UncommonPosts: 686

    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Originally posted by Zezda

    And just to clarify, the GT230m is roughly equivalent to a 9600GSO.

     

    the 9600GSO in turn is several 'tiers' lower than the 8800GTX which was released in Q4 2006. It's closer in performance to a 7800 GTX which was released about half way into 2005.

     

    A review for the 9600 GSO can be seen here

     

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9600-gso-386-mb-review-point-of-view/8

     

    No, that's the wrong card entirely.  Wrong die, wrong process node, wrong architecture, wrong everything.  What you linked to is easily more than double the performance of what the original poster has.

    A GeForce GT 230M is a laptop version of a desktop GeForce GT 220.  It's the GT216 die that was supposed to launch around the end of 2008, and then got delayed most of a year, so that its competition was the Radeon HD 5000 series rather than the 4000 series.  It might have held its own against the latter, but got destroyed by the former, as Nvidia hadn't figured out how to make TSMC's 40 nm process node work yet, so they managed to get no power efficiency improvements at all out of a full node die shrink.

    There were two completely unrelated versions of the GeForce 9600 GSO.  The first was a cut down G92, that is, GeForce 8800 GTS/9800 GTX.  The second was a cut down G94, that is, GeForce 9600 GT.  The second 9600 GSO had around half the performance of the first.  And even the second one was still faster than the GT 230M, as the GT 230M had to clock way down to fit in a laptop.

    I thought I would just go double check what I said to make sure.

    From what I can see the 230m consisted of 48 SP's 16 TU's and 8 ROP's which would have put it in the same ballpark as the later version of the 9600 GSO. I was under the impression that the later variants of that were the only ones made so apologies there. And yeah you are right the 230 is slightly lower clocked as well which won't help.

     

    So yeah, all in all it would have been a truely terrible card considering what else would have been around. Let alone them renaming it and sticking it in a laptop 4 years later...

Sign In or Register to comment.