..yes..what would you consider as a low end configuration (PC), regarding Graphic card and main CPU..im not talking exactly about running puzzle games and so on on such configuration..
Low end config today
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Low end config today Low end for what?
3D games of course..
I would say it very much depends on what sort of 3D games you are interested in playing.
Todays games like Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Crysis demand serious grunt. General specs for these games being:
1 GB Ram (more for Vista)
2.4Ghz processor
Geforce 6600 /ATI 9800 Pro
Todays games like Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Crysis demand serious grunt. General specs for these games being:
1 GB Ram (more for Vista)
2.4Ghz processor
Geforce 6600 /ATI 9800 Pro
I think i'd say it's the lowest spec you can get your game to run on comfortably.
Well I would say a 1Ghz cpu, 32Mb gfx card because that's what I have.
For about 600$ you can get a AMD Athlon64 6000+, 2GB Ram, HDD 160gb, ATI X1950Pro 256mb, which is enough for any modern game and not very expensive.
If you want to save something you can buy a slower processor (5200+ for 50$ less, for example).
If you want a DX10 card go for the nVidia 8800GTS 320mb (add about 50$ to the total), or a 8800GT 512mb (add about 80$ to the total).
Anyway, I wouldn't use the words "entry level" and "3d games" in the same sentence (an entry level system costs no more and usually less than 400$). :)
If you want to save something you can buy a slower processor (5200+ for 50$ less, for example).
If you want a DX10 card go for the nVidia 8800GTS 320mb (add about 50$ to the total), or a 8800GT 512mb (add about 80$ to the total).
Anyway, I wouldn't use the words "entry level" and "3d games" in the same sentence (an entry level system costs no more and usually less than 400$). :)
For about 600$ you can get a AMD Athlon64 6000+, 2GB Ram, HDD 160gb, ATI X1950Pro 256mb, which is enough for any modern game and not very expensive.
Sure, but you can't very well expect the average person to have bought their PC yesterday. What the average low-end user is using today is going to be pretty different from what the average low-end user would buy if they bought a new machine today.
Well I would say a 1Ghz cpu, 32Mb gfx card because that's what I have.
On the other hand, I wouldn't go that far either. Anyone with a 1ghz CPU and 32Mb gfx card who expects to be able to play 3D games is something of an optimist. Casual 3D puzzle games, maybe, but that's about all.
I'd have said a 2ghz CPU, either 512meg or 1gig of ram, and one of the newer Intel chipset. 945, is it? Again that's probably a little optimistic on their part, but an awful lot of people do expect to be able to play 3d games on these onboard Intel thingies. If you're prepared to forego that, then I'd say a 128MB Geforce FX instead. There are still a fair number of those floating around.
Depends on what country you live. That would probably cost a good bit more than the convertion rate in britain. As usual :o)
What the average low-end user is using today is going to be pretty different from what the average low-end user would buy if they bought a new machine today.
Sorry, I thought he was planning to buy a new pc and answered accordingly. :)
An entry level pc is without a doubt a machine with an unexpensive main board and an integrated video card. Anything that requires a AGP or PCI-E video card automatically loses this share of the market.
Then, you have gamers with an average budget, which are the majority and use at their best video cards in the range of the ones shown in my post above (usually slightly cheaper).
Valve ran such a survey regarding their userbase, which could be considered the perfect reference for this situation:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
My wife has what I'd consider entry level and it hardly plays any modern commerical games but is fine for casual and some indie arcade games. Athlon64 3200+ Nforce 4 mobo with Nvidia 6100 512Gb ram.
I'd consider my puter entry an ageing but capable gaming system. Most parts are 2-4 years old.
Athlon64 3000+ OC 400mhz
7800GS 256mb AGP
2GB PC3200 Ram
Nforce 3 250 mobo with onboard sound.
Plays games like witcher very well and crysis reasonably well at 1024x768 with mostly high settings, some medium.
Older games like Oblivion run pretty well at 1280x1024 with a bunch of graphic upgrade mods and HDR on no AA.
I'd consider my puter entry an ageing but capable gaming system. Most parts are 2-4 years old.
Athlon64 3000+ OC 400mhz
7800GS 256mb AGP
2GB PC3200 Ram
Nforce 3 250 mobo with onboard sound.
Plays games like witcher very well and crysis reasonably well at 1024x768 with mostly high settings, some medium.
Older games like Oblivion run pretty well at 1280x1024 with a bunch of graphic upgrade mods and HDR on no AA.
Low end is what still sells too much: whatever is in + Intel CPU to VGA / DVI adapter, known as GMA 900, GMA 950, GMA 965 (X3100) ...
Entry level is anything that at least does have an ATI or NVIDIA onboard.
Lowest end for someone actually really considering playing games and not beeing totally dumb is a 300 series dedicated card from ATI or NVIDIA
Entry level is anything that at least does have an ATI or NVIDIA onboard.
Lowest end for someone actually really considering playing games and not beeing totally dumb is a 300 series dedicated card from ATI or NVIDIA
On the other hand, I wouldn't go that far either. Anyone with a 1ghz CPU and 32Mb gfx card who expects to be able to play 3D games is something of an optimist. Casual 3D puzzle games, maybe, but that's about all.
I don't know about you, but I played all the way through Half-Life with a K6-2 300MHz w/ 12MB Voodoo 2 / 8MB ATI Rage IIc graphics cards. And I can remember damn well it was 3D :)
I would consider "lowest end" for indie games written in high level languages to be 800Mhz-1.2Ghz and if its 3D then at least a ge-force 4 MX (still in a LOT of laptops out there) 512Mb-1Gb ram.
These are the specs i would use to rate low end performance on an indie 3D product.
I think indie developers who only target highest end hardware or even just new machines thinking theyre normal pcs are kind of shooting their own feet off.
There are the MAJORITY of users who simply have "PCs", not state of the art games PCs or even basic brand new "off the shelf" PCs, but 4+y/o PCs, second hand PCs oe ex-company PCs (that for example dad bought from his company as a family pc). All looking for games that will still run on their "crappy old" systems.
These are the specs i would use to rate low end performance on an indie 3D product.
I think indie developers who only target highest end hardware or even just new machines thinking theyre normal pcs are kind of shooting their own feet off.
There are the MAJORITY of users who simply have "PCs", not state of the art games PCs or even basic brand new "off the shelf" PCs, but 4+y/o PCs, second hand PCs oe ex-company PCs (that for example dad bought from his company as a family pc). All looking for games that will still run on their "crappy old" systems.
Then Max2D is the wrong way to go ... they have no proper usefull 3D acceleration ... so you would best use BlitzPlus ...
Not unless they have an ati or nvidia card. As you say max"2D" is infact.. erm.. 3D at least from a hardware point of view :/
Most old bog standard laptops will have some kind of 3D card these days (geforce4xx or aging radeon mobility or... intel(boo) ).
Most old bog standard laptops will have some kind of 3D card these days (geforce4xx or aging radeon mobility or... intel(boo) ).
Never, no mather what you do, never call Intel a 3D Card, ok?
Its a crappy shitty CPU to VGA / DVI adapter and the worst joke ever.
They are the only cards beside SiS, that needed an own "performance group" to be fit into something ... Known as Class 5 cards.
Their performance is that bad that even a GeForce FX5200 will outperform them without too many problems.
And as BM Max2D performs better on OpenGL than DX7 (logically, the first has optimized drivers, the later not) the problem is even worse, as Intel OpenGL support is something between a bad joke and a catastrophe, depending on the driver version.
Its a crappy shitty CPU to VGA / DVI adapter and the worst joke ever.
They are the only cards beside SiS, that needed an own "performance group" to be fit into something ... Known as Class 5 cards.
Their performance is that bad that even a GeForce FX5200 will outperform them without too many problems.
And as BM Max2D performs better on OpenGL than DX7 (logically, the first has optimized drivers, the later not) the problem is even worse, as Intel OpenGL support is something between a bad joke and a catastrophe, depending on the driver version.
Anyone with a 1ghz CPU and 32Mb gfx card who expects to be able to play 3D games is something of an optimist. Casual 3D puzzle games, maybe, but that's about all.
I expect to be able to play most pre-DirectX 9 games, I don't expect to be able to play World of Warcraft or Crysis or whatever the latest thing is. This doesn't make me an optimist, it makes me an economist.
There are many laptops out there that have useless graphic cards, and laptops are becoming more and more common. Integrated Intel GMA 950 or around there would be a good target.
I guess if it runs on my aging iBook (1.3ghz G4, some slow onboard ATI card, around as fast as the GMA 950 at OpenGL), would be a good reference machine. It can run most BlitzMax games I've tried on it fine, and most other 2D casual games, and even a few 3D ones (tried Gish, Bridge Builder and a few others). I've run Second Life on it too, but as I was just chatting the horrendously low frame rate didn't bother me too much. :)
I guess if it runs on my aging iBook (1.3ghz G4, some slow onboard ATI card, around as fast as the GMA 950 at OpenGL), would be a good reference machine. It can run most BlitzMax games I've tried on it fine, and most other 2D casual games, and even a few 3D ones (tried Gish, Bridge Builder and a few others). I've run Second Life on it too, but as I was just chatting the horrendously low frame rate didn't bother me too much. :)
the main difference actually is that the apple machines have drivers.
The intel do not have it. Intel are not a problem per se, its their trash they allow you to download and call "driver"
Even my ATI Rage Pro OpenGL beta drivers back in the early ATI days when Q3 was new were more opted than X3100 drivers!!!
The intel do not have it. Intel are not a problem per se, its their trash they allow you to download and call "driver"
Even my ATI Rage Pro OpenGL beta drivers back in the early ATI days when Q3 was new were more opted than X3100 drivers!!!
Never, no mather what you do, never call Intel a 3D Card, ok?
Its a crappy shitty CPU to VGA / DVI adapter and the worst joke ever.
They are the only cards beside SiS, that needed an own "performance group" to be fit into something ... Known as Class 5 cards.
Their performance is that bad that even a GeForce FX5200 will outperform them without too many problems.
LOL AGREED!. (hence the booo :)Its a crappy shitty CPU to VGA / DVI adapter and the worst joke ever.
They are the only cards beside SiS, that needed an own "performance group" to be fit into something ... Known as Class 5 cards.
Their performance is that bad that even a GeForce FX5200 will outperform them without too many problems.
Although ive got a GeForce FX5200 and its not *that* bad for an old card and at least it supports OGL & DX9. Even though its only PCI it actually outperforms my old AGP geforce4 (not saying much of course but even that kicks butt from all intels of the same gen and both run blitz3D/MAX stuff well) .
I prefer to design stuff using older hardware as you know its less likely to have slowdown issues on anything less than the latest and best.
i have an intel 915 gms, and i can play flatout very fine. ok, its not the newest title, but it works pretty cool on my 3 year old laptop. so i do call an intel chipset a 3d card.
TBH, As far as im concerned any GPU that cannot handle openGL properly isnt a real "3D graphics card" at all, its simply a "direct3D rendering b\*@h board".
Not sure about the 915, had an few Intels in the past however that sucked a golfball through a 1cm diameter hose, so i kind of got put off them for life.
Not sure about the 915, had an few Intels in the past however that sucked a golfball through a 1cm diameter hose, so i kind of got put off them for life.
I've a GMA 900, and calling that trash a 3D card at best would qualify the one calling them like that as a beginner in 3D dev ...
Even microsoft will certificate that ... as they lack basic vertex pipeline capabilities needed for the WDDM certification why this stuff does not like Vista very much (not like would be more precise, even thought they get vista capable certified systems out)
Something that offers pixel shader 2 but has not even vertex hardware transform is no GPU but a somehow missdesigned photohop accelerator as it is worthless in 3D.
Even microsoft will certificate that ... as they lack basic vertex pipeline capabilities needed for the WDDM certification why this stuff does not like Vista very much (not like would be more precise, even thought they get vista capable certified systems out)
Something that offers pixel shader 2 but has not even vertex hardware transform is no GPU but a somehow missdesigned photohop accelerator as it is worthless in 3D.