Why doesnt this meet the requirements

Verses the 62 idle and 73 to 75 under load for my 9800GTX+.........yeah, I'd say it runs hot! I believe the upper threshold on that card is the same as the old 8600GT I had (which burned up) is 105 degrees celius.......I think you are on borrowed time with temps like that.

This is what I get for going back to Dell and letting them suggest what card to use. Bleh! I'm inclined to get an exchange now.

Well, I'm trading this out... getting a GeForce GT 240. I don't like mail in rebates but it will be cheaper than the card I just got!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127465

That's also a downgrade from an 8800GT. The least expensive graphics adapter that's a significant upgrade from the 8800GT is the GTX260.

The 8800GT is still one of the best graphics adapters for SL. Unless yours is broken, there's little reason to upgrade it.

It is broken. I was seeing red lines/green lines across the screen, even during the bootup in the bios and the card was disabled. I can't afford a real upgrade, so I'm getting the best that I can afford right now.

i notice no one said anything about ATI cards you might wanna take a look at them. i got 7500 and it about 12 years old and i run it at max no problen for last 2 years i been here yip it not listed either . later

Then go for a 9800GT, GTX or GTX+............all are upgrades from an 8800 and are cheap since the 200 series hit the market. They are excellent cards and fully capable of running SL at max. I run mine that way except for the draw distance is at 256 instead of 512.

It's not selling at a price that I ultimately feel comfortable with. If it did, I would!

what isn't mentioned, is SL works just fine on lowered cards... ATI 4650, 4670, Nvidia 9500, 9600, GTS 240, they will all run SL and you will probably be happy with it. They are just not upgrades from the 8800.

SL gains in performance from all 3 prongs... CPU, Memory, and Graphics... where most other games are just strictly graphics.

Before getting the 8800, SL ran just fine on a box with an ATI x1350. "Just fine" is relative, of course, but I wasn't spoiled with 20+ fps until getting the 8800. The 9500 gives me over 30 fps at home, which is more than sufficient. It is a more than sufficient card based on my SL experience, and would be more than sufficient for the average SL user, not the power users with gaming rigs.

I do understand that to actually upgrade, I would need a significantly more expensive card and I'm not in a position to get that right now. So I'm taking a moderate downgrade that fits inside my budget. And my SL experience will be marginally worse for the wear.

I'm still running with a Nvidia 7300GT/256M on
machine that only has 1.5G RAM.

It's slow but it works. =0

-iw

Yup, the 280 was discontinued & replaced by the 285.

And yea, these cards frickin' eat SL, Crysis, Fallout 3, or just about anything else you toss at it.

and don't forget the electricity they eat too, while farting out massive heat...

How much more electricity is any highend graphics card using over an onboard chipset? I hear this statement all the time..........I don't believe it amounts to much at all. The power comsumption of any hardware device inside a computer is measured at it's operatiing voltage in watts. A 1000 watts at 12 volts (what most graphics card use) is 100 watts at 120 volts. That's unrealistic since I know of no graphics cards comsuming that much power but the math is easy (Ohm's law). More in the area of what I graphics actually uses is probably somewhere around 200 watts at 12 volts (20 watts at 120 volts. Again the math is easy). I'm sure someone with electronic expertise will correct me where I've made a mistake with Ohm's law calculation for a step down transformer that computers use to power everything inside. My point is that the additional comsumption for a single device such as a highend graphics card is minimal (bordering on neglible). A large capacity power supply that is required for most highend cards does not use more electricity until it's called upon to do so. An idle power supply, be it 250 watt or 500 watt, in the same computer will use the same power. The additional consumption only comes into play when whatever needs the extra power starts using it..........such as running SL on a highend card. And you are only talking about what that device uses that is in addition to what your computer would use with a lesser card. I don't think that additional wattage at the comsumer's line votlage (120 volts for the US) is enough be concerned with.

It's the same with the heat thing too........if you are using the highend card at it's fullest it will produce a huge amount of heat. Setting idle........not much more (if any) than an Intel chipset.

Edited to correct that "easy" math..........200 watts at 12 volts is 20 watts at 120 volts.

and those higher end cards, require higher end power supplies, which draws more power consistantly (especially if it is 80 plus certified) ... a low end video card, just drawing it's power over the PCI-E bus, can get away with 200watts, that will power the motherboard, the drives, and your CPU fan, with some juice left over. Once you add in the graphics card, suddenly you require 400-450 minimum just to get addiquate amperage upon the 12v rails for the card. The more powerful the card, the higher the amps needed, the higher the wattage of the power supply. And before anyone says oh but my powersupply that dell sent is 450w and way more addiquate then what ATI says I need yadda yadda... good, name brand power supplys are providing that wattage consistently. The cheap shit dell and HP use, is based on peak performance, and your lucky if it actually consistently does half that,

and as for heat... my video card at idle just at the desktop sits at 90-95 depending on the day, most video cards I know of idle between 50-70, depending on the card (trying to get as much in as possible)..... the average motherboard temp even with onboard video when I do my diagnostics on every system build performed, is 30 - 35 (once again depending on chipset, quality of board, manufacturer etc)... so even at idle, that's an additional 20 at the minimum...

Yeah the highend cards have additional fans for cooling that are 12 volt..........so a little more power is required to run them even at idle. But, my point is that the additional wattage required to run a high end video card is minimal. It's going to cost some amount to just have any computer running.......put a higher wattage PS in it and a big video card it's going to require more. But, it's really close to nothing............pennies a month? Statements relating to "how expensive" it is to run them is misleading........how much more expensive is it? My bet is it's almost nothing........pennies at best.

Funny how hot your video cards run at idle. I have an nVidia 9800GTX+ that runs about 50 C (depends on ambiant temperture) at idle. That's about what any card I've ever had that had monitoring capabilities ever ran at idle. Under load I had an 8600GT that would hit 95 C way more often than I was comfortable with. My 9800GTX+ rarely peaks past 65 C. It's the card, how dust free you case is, how crowded your case is, how many fans you have, where the fans are located, where you choose to place your computer, plus any number of other variables that dictate how hot or cool your computer runs. Not all high end cards run hot.............the 8800 was one card that did run very hot. That 8600 was not far behind it either.

Oh, I dunno.... 3Ghz Quad-Core CPU, 8 GB RAM, GTX 280, 2 DVD drives, 3 Hard drives...... and 650watt Power Supply. Never had a problem.

yeah I have the 8800 not that I care about power draw... I have 7 fans in my case, not including the video card, power supply and CPU... so 10 in total... damn thing sounds like a jet engine... and I run it 24/7.

and the only thing in there that the 650 is needed for is the gtx 280... if it wasn't for that you'd be fine with 400 or less, which is what my point was on video cards requiring more power.

When it dies, which it will, may I suggest the 9800GTX+?

hell no when it does die (which should be any time now... had it 3 years almost) it'll be a 5850 to replace it.

So? Are you one of those people who buy a Netbook then cry it can't play the latest-and-greatest games???

If you go cheap you get what you pay for.

Some of us got $$$ to burn on a Desktop system and all the bells & whistles

Video, dual dvd drives, 3-4 hard drives (more coming soon), lighting system, 6 fans, 13 port USB hub, X-fi sound card and one earth-shaking sound system.

I've NEVER had SL crap out on me because of my computer (not counting drivers).

I get frame rates of 40-90+ in busy sims. On something more graphically intensive, like Crysis, with the graphics cranked all the way up, I can still achieve an FPS of around 100+. The whole "download the world" thing slows SL down a bit.

After working on several Dell gaming desktops (not the Alienware ones), I noticed they use the very bare minimum for PSU's. The problem is, some of these clients try added another device- whether video or blue ray or RAM or another hard drive. Then it craps out on them. The "bare minimum" PSU can't handle anything extra.

Besides, 650 watt PSU's are cheap!!! $50!!! Even some kid at McDonald's can come up with that.

The idea behind having more than needed is simple, a PSU that starts to get overwhelmed soon dies. Good luck to you if it doesnt take out the rest of the system when it gets overloaded.

Power Draw of the GTX 280: http://vr-zone.com/articles/power-consumption-tests-for-gtx-280-sli/5870.html


** As an extra "showing off" moment--- I'm typing this on my android phone, remoted into my desktop. I LOVE THIS PHONE!!!

There'd be a reason most people in SL avoid ATI....... ATI has notorious issues with SL and OpenGL.

I'll buy the 40 but 90 is a bit much for me to believe in a busy sim. Even with your draw distance at 64 that is a stretch. Just too much data being tossed back and forth to the server..........sorry. Being able to crank up your graphics settings in a game like Crysis and calling that graphically more intensive is just not true.......it's prettier but it ain't graphically more intensive. It's the difference in professional graphic artists and the folks like me...........the pros know to make efficient use of textures and I try (the difference is I make mistakes). And most of the graphics you see in Crysis is on your hard drive..........what you see in SL is on LL's servers. Bad comparison. SL is probably the most graphically intensive program you can run on a computer that is readily available to the average Joe Blow. However, even after all that I, too can run SL at max and maintain 25 FPS in a REASONABLY busy sim MOST of the time. But I will never say I can consistently get anything more than about 35 FPS anywhere..........my platform at 4000 meters I almost always get 70 FPS.

NVidia 9800GTX+ 512 DDR3, Core 2 Duo Q6600 at 2.4 gig, 3 DDR2 system RAM..........powered with an Antec Earthwatt 650 watt power supply. You don't need the bestest or the newest to run SL extremely well.........just a good computer that is well maintained, and configured to run lean and mean. Well a good connection helps too.

I agree with your assessment of power supplies. I disagree that a high wattage power supply consumes more energy than a lower wattage with the same load. A larger power supply will consume the same as the smaller as long as the load it the same......sort of like a house that has a 200 amp service uses the same power as a house with a 100 amp service as long as the demand for electricity is the same in both houses. The larger capacity has the capability to run more.............and when that happens it does consume more energy. In the world of power supplies bigger is better.........and cheaper too because replacing burned up hardware can be very expensive.

I did ignore it and its doing just fine, so far . Sorry I was away for a few days and on top of that the bad weather here didnt help me to come back and reply. You are all so very helpful!