# Gaming computer issues..



## weltweit (Mar 9, 2013)

Sprog has been given Guildwars 2..

It loads on my PC - Win7, Pentium E6700, Intel GMA X4500, 1tb hdd, 3GB DDR3  
But my graphics card is not powerful enough to run full graphics.

The other computer we need it on is not up to spec to run it at all, it does not even load from the DVD at all.

I think one can upgrade memory and graphics cards but not processors. Wondering how much we could sell the other used normal desktop for if we were to go to upgrade to a more games suitable pc?

So how much for a standard used pc these days?
and how much for a new games compatible pc?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2013)

You could probabky get a gaming machine for around £400, perhaps cheaper. Sourcing the parts and building it yourself brings the cost down. It won't have the best stuff in it though.

Doubt you'll get much for a second hand pc that isn't very high spec.

check youtube for budget gaming rig builds.


----------



## Chz (Mar 10, 2013)

The base PC is awfully cheap these days. Cheapest Core i3, or even a Pentium will actually do the job for the CPU. Processor horsepower isn't a limiting factor in most things these days, and you can always do a drop in upgrade later. 4GB of RAM is sufficient for pretty much all games right now, as well. (Though I'd make sure you have slots free for the inevitable upgrade to 8GB some day) Solid State Disks, the biggest possible upgrade for overall system snappiness, have very little effect on games.

The cost for gaming is in the graphics card. I'd say a Radeon 7850 or 660GTX is a minimum, and you're looking at £150-170 minimum for that alone.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 10, 2013)

Chz said:


> The base PC is awfully cheap these days. Cheapest Core i3, or even a Pentium will actually do the job for the CPU. Processor horsepower isn't a limiting factor in most things these days, and you can always do a drop in upgrade later. 4GB of RAM is sufficient for pretty much all games right now, as well. (Though I'd make sure you have slots free for the inevitable upgrade to 8GB some day) Solid State Disks, the biggest possible upgrade for overall system snappiness, have very little effect on games.


 
How does one know if a processor is fast enough. This PC has an Intel Pentium E6700 .... does the 6700 mean something? speed perhaps?

I see your comment on Ram, this PC has just 3gb and I have no idea how many slots it may have..



Chz said:


> The cost for gaming is in the graphics card. I'd say a Radeon 7850 or 660GTX is a minimum, and you're looking at £150-170 minimum for that alone.


 
Again, Chz does the number denote the speed of the card?

This PC does not have as good a graphics card as the game GuildWars 2 wants but we seem still able to play it. The other PC I know has a worse graphics card than this, but at least I think they are upgradeable.


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2013)

weltweit said:


> How does one know if a processor is fast enough. This PC has an Intel Pentium E6700 .... does the 6700 mean something? speed perhaps?
> 
> I see your comment on Ram, this PC has just 3gb and I have no idea how many slots it may have..
> 
> ...


 
The number is just a model number and does not contain an indication of speed. Your processor is 3.2 Ghz (I looked it up) which is plenty fast enough.

3Gb of Ram is not a lot for a Windows 7 PC. To tell how much RAM and how many slots you have either open up the case and have a peak (not hard but take an air duster if you've never opened it before, and be prepared for a shitload of dust and fluff) Or download Belarc Advisor (just google) and that will be able to tell you your configuration. I would try to upgrade to 8gb if I were you, it will make a noticeable difference including to games.

My graphics card was about 120 quiddish nearly 2 years ago and all my games run on ultra so think the quote above is a little excessive if you're just looking for a slightly nippier machine for games.

A budget games build will cost about 400 quid for the box alone. If you want to be able to choose components but don't fancy building it yourself (it's not that hard and would be a nice project with the sprog surely? you'd both learn something) then try somewhere like PC Specialist.


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2013)

If you're looking to do it on the cheap then this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-Radeon...NO24/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1362924010&sr=8-2

would be fine and let your kid play games. A lot better than the integrated graphics in your computer now. It's a very budget card and it's a good deal too.


----------



## Chz (Mar 10, 2013)

And it's about 3 years old. A 6670 is a 5670 clocked up a bit, which our teenager was forced to replace recently as it wasn't up to anything modern. It struggled with mods for Company of Heroes - a game from 2006.



> My graphics card was about 120 quiddish nearly 2 years ago and all my games run on ultra


What on earth are you playing? Or do you have a 15" screen? My graphics card was £180 2 years ago and it definitely doesn't do ultra on anything recent. Which is why I replaced it once I realised I could still sell the old one for 50% of its original price.

£400 is about right. Something like this:
http://www.ebuyer.com/389415-acer-aspire-m1-desktop-pc-dt-sjrek-015
with an added graphics card as mentioned above will be adequate for a few years of playing brand new releases. Bear in mind, this will actually make a decent gaming PC! Something impossible for £400 even in the recent past. You can save more money on the graphics processor, but it's probably the one component it's worth spending money on.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 10, 2013)

Chz said:


> £400 is about right. Something like this:
> http://www.ebuyer.com/389415-acer-aspire-m1-desktop-pc-dt-sjrek-015
> with an added graphics card as mentioned above will be adequate for a few years of playing brand new releases.


 
Do note that you'll need a Windows 7 (or 8) licence for that.



weltweit said:


> How does one know if a processor is fast enough. This PC has an Intel Pentium E6700 .... does the 6700 mean something? speed perhaps?


 
At 3.2 GHz, that processor is plenty fast enough. Full details here.



> I see your comment on Ram, this PC has just 3gb and I have no idea how many slots it may have..


 
It will have 2, 4, 6, or 8 memory slots. Most likely 4. Go to www.crucial.com/uk and run their scanner and it will tell you precisely.



> Again, Chz does the number denote the speed of the card?


 
No - it's  a code in the form ABC(D) for both Nvidia and AMD where A is the Generation and B is the model, the higher the number the better. Generally you want to prefer B over A as long as A is the current or last generation. A Geforce 580 will outperform a Geforce 640, for instance.


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2013)

Chz said:


> What on earth are you playing? Or do you have a 15" screen? My graphics card was £180 2 years ago and it definitely doesn't do ultra on anything recent. Which is why I replaced it once I realised I could still sell the old one for 50% of its original price


 
It's an ATI Radeon HD 5770. I've been playing mostly Skyrim with the high resolution texture pack on ultra, doesn't stutter at all. On a 23" screen.


----------



## Chz (Mar 10, 2013)

> At 3.2 GHz, that processor is plenty fast enough. Full details here.



I agree that it will probably do the job for now. But bear in mind that it's a totally different architecture the the current Pentiums. That's probably only equivalent to a 2-2.2GHz current Pentium. I was going along the lines of a £400 budget, but you can certainly just plop a decent graphics card into the current machine and it will make a *huge* difference.


----------



## Chz (Mar 10, 2013)

maomao said:


> It's an ATI Radeon HD 5770. I've been playing mostly Skyrim with the high resolution texture pack on ultra, doesn't stutter at all. On a 23" screen.


I beg to differ. I don't want to get into an argument over it, but I think you'll find very few people agree with you.


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2013)

Chz said:


> I beg to differ. I don't want to get into an argument over it, but I think you'll find very few people agree with you.


Well I spent about 6 hours playing it today, it's definitely set to highest graphic settings and it definitely wasn't running slow or stuttering. It did previously occasionally stutter but hasn't since I upgraded my RAM. I have never felt it necessary to check my fps but I can if you want. What is there to disagree with?

Anyway, the original post asked how can his kid (who I believe is a preteen and already owns a console) can play Guild Wars 2 on his computer. And I told him how to do that for 70-80 quid (including a RAM upgrade). Definitely, very budget card but will definitely do that and run the vast majority of new games on decent graphics settings (probably not ultra on TW2 but that again, wasn't the question). What's the fucking problem? There are plenty of hardware wanking threads on this board where you can persuade people they 'need' to spend at least 150 quid on a graphics card. This isn't one of those.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 10, 2013)

Sprog lives in his mum's and also in his dads house. My puter can run his game but the PC in the other house is no way powerful enough. We are considering options for there.

Why he couldn't just enjoy his Xbox I don't know but he seems only to want RPGs for the PC now.

We are not made of dosh so he may have to wait a while for what he really wants.


----------



## Chz (Mar 11, 2013)

Like I saiad, maomao, I don't want to get into an argument over whether 30fps is "smooth" or not. It's open to interpretation and personal preference. I found the same settings unacceptable on a more powerful card at a lower resolution. A lot of that is what the HD texture pack does to cards with under 2GB.

If there's only £50 to spend, then yes that's the only option. I'd say it's a poor way of spending money if there's a larger budget available though. Similar to how a 28" CRT off Ebay does work for watching television, but it's not the wisest purchase unless that's all you can afford. The PS4 specs are set and we know it's a PC architecture with a GPU right smack in the middle of the current £150-200 range. Not only would a 7850/660GTX/7870 be 3x faster, it would be a set baseline for multiplatform games for the next several years. It's irresponsible to suggest a 3 year-old architecture with 1GB of VRAM is great value for money. (again, unless that's the entire budget and there are no other options)

I'm sorry that there appears to be a "fucking problem" with that. I'll go wank with my hardware or something.


----------

