Best Computer For SL?

Thank you -- that was one of the most comprehensible and comprehensive descriptions of an optimal SL hardware configuration that I've ever read.

It also sets my mind at ease about the choices I made for my computer build. I was afraid I had cheaped out, but instead you confirm that I made the right choices for my goal: which was running SL as well as I could for my budget. Spending more would not have gained me anything, so I'm good.

*reads the part about cpu speed*

*considers using his old P4 which might get better performance then the bleeding edge system he just built*

*cries*

CPU speed is NOT a good gauge.

a P4 2gig - is terrible.
a XP1800 ( which runs at under 2 gig ) is better than the P4.
a X23800 ( which runs at under 2 gig ) is better again.
a Core Duo running at 1.9 gig is better again.

Basically any modern AMD or Intel CPU ( i.e. 754/939/AM2 socket for AMD or Core-Duo for Intel ) is plenty for SL. Doesn't matter about the CPU speed. Yes I know I included older sockets for AMD - intentionally.


As for comparing WoW with SL.. like comparing chalk and cheese.

WoW's requirements are EXTREMELY low, it's the only MMPORPG I know that won't tax a modern ( as per previous list ) CPU - my X2 3800 runs WoW at around 45% CPU useage ( it's a dual core CPU so a single core would be 90% ). All other games + SL run a core at 100% and if they can use some of the second core will do.

SL's requirements are comparable with Everquest II. My Laptop will run EQ2, EvE-Online and SL no problem, but struggles with LOTRO.

wellthe guy above disagrees with you that the game doesn't scale which means that the dual core process i added that runs very fast doesn't do much good and has diminishing returns and likely my performance is not much better then on the p4 that i was using this last winter

since i seem to crash like wildfire presently with a system with what appears to be above recommended specs or even the average user has blah blah blah then it appears that I can do as well with a computer that is not bleeding edge.

in fact it appears that its just a waste of money if i was only to use it for SL which is something I suspected. HOwever I made it for more then just SL but I suspect that i can run the p4 with about as much success as this present computer right now. Since a better graphics card wont give you stellar graphics and its not a multithreaded game its actualy a waste of money to buy the fastest CPU and biggest baddest graphics card on the market which was my point my dual core is 3.0 or 3.2 or according to the info above this works against me because anything above 3.0 gives diminishing returns( i have to check my cpu speed but it appears that this holds with what is being said so again I bet you that i wont have much worse performance with my old p4 at present then with my present computer )

also your telling me that about eq2 I didn't need a dual core to run eq2 i ran it on a p4 with 1 gig of ram with zero lag, crashes or anything so i'm not sure what is wrong with SL but I know I should get better performance and i dont so i dunno what to say

/shrug

Point with dual core is whilst it's not multi threaded, you can multi task with SL a LOT better.

SL will hog one core, Web browsers, Poser, Photoshop, e:mail, IM programs, the OS etc. get the other core.

Because SL will eat up all of one core, dual core is worth it. Allows the rest of the system to run a lot smoother.

P4 is a really poor CPU, your new PC should run MILES better. I agree it's a waste of money to buy a bleeding edge Graphics card, but it's allways worth getting as much CPU horsepower as you can afford. Diminishing returns on the higher end CPU's? Probably but doesn't mean it's pointless.

TBH unless your running insane graphic's resolution a bleeding edge graphics card is a waste of money in any game. I run a X1800XT on a 19" monitor and most games it'll run just happily at max settings (EQ2 ironically is one it can struggle on occasionally - but EQ2 scales to some of the nicest graphics in any game).

People are generally buying 8800's and 8600's because they think they need to jump on the DX10 bandwagon without waiting to see how the market/performance unfolds.

1) Vista is overall unpopular, Dell for instance now supplies their systems with XP or Linux as options. My Laptop is now running XP too because Vista is a poor OS.

2) Tests so far have shown DX10 to be highly intensive graphically and even solo 8800's can struggle. A XP/DX9 box in the direct comparison I saw (same PC, same (DX10 enabled) game) ran at higher frame rate (despite MS's statements to the contrary), was smoother and the differences in visuals is not that high.

Incedently I disagree on memory useage, SL can easilly get up to 800Meg over a long session.

...is my MacBook Pro. It's the only computer out of four systems in my house that runs SL extremely well. It wasn't cheap, but you get what you pay for. As far as I'm concerned, I am done with Bill Gates forever. Mac's rule!

I am using a Dell Dimension 8400 Desktop with a 3.0 P4, 2.5 Gig RAM and a Radeon x300 with the original drivers SL runs fine, unless it chooses to act up. I could use a video upgrade for sure, if I can come up with reason besides than SL to do so, I may.

My computer is rather new.

It is a Dell Optiplex 745MT. It has a Intel Duo Core processor. 2 Gb Memory. An ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256Mb.

It runs SL wonderful. It also runs Everquest II greatly in high graphics (only in very busy area's or when there are lots of fighting going on, then things get a little laggy. But switching to balanced graphics always solves that).

Morwen.

I continue to opt for my Apple MacBook Pro for both SL and eve-online.

I run both MacBook Pro (as the laptop) and Windows XP Pro on the PC desktop so I'm no Apple evangelist, but the MacBook Pro continues to be the most convenient, consistent, and I personally now just keep my secondlife directory of stuff on the MacBook, that's what I find to be the best balance for me.

When I bought the MacBook Pro, I also spent $60.00 on a program called Parallells and installed it. I moved my Windows XP Pro license to the MacBook Pro and now run both, native, on the laptop, on the MacBook Pro.

So, I have the opportunity to run SL on the PC descktop with a single GeForce 8800, or on the the laptop under OS X (linux), or on the laptop under Windows XP Pro. My preference has been in the OS X environment because it just hangs less, lags less and is pretty much trouble-free for me, or the most trouble free, anyway.

For what it's worth, I do my sculptie editing on the MacBook Pro in Windows XP Pro, by the way.

Just what works for me the best, anyway.

Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~3.0GHz
Memory: 3328MB RAM
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Display Memory: 1024.0 MB

xD

i get about 75-80 fps avarage, 20-30 if i lag

How many times have the Dell field tech's been there to replace a part?

That & the D630 seem to have a bad batch of motherboards out there.

Desktop is definately cheaper and more expandable in the long run.
You don't need a gamers dream to run SL, but you do need a gaming spec machine rather than a wordprocessor.
Graphics Card! Graphics Card! Graphics Card! Go the 8800 GeForce from Nvidia with 512Mb or 1Gb , anything lesser may not be supported by SL or any new games in 2 years time anyway.
Get at least 2Gb of DDR2 memory in 1Gb sticks so you should have 2 spare slots to ad another 2Gb later. XP doesn't allow you to use the full 4Gb but 3.5Gb still works better than 2Gb and most cards like memory added in pairs anyway.
CPU, near anything currently made over 2.0gtz should be fine, dual or quad core, whatever.
Lesser grade hardware will run SL, but if you want to be still online building stuff when others can't login or TP then you need to go better than the minimum. Also remember this is just to run SL, if you want to run a secon monitor with Blender , photoshop or something open on the side you need to beef up memory and CPU speed a bit.
Of course no matter what PC you have, it's also reliant on a good quality ISP provider, so consider that before changing to a cut price or freebie ISP that throttles its users during peak times to save $10 a month to finance the new PC

Don't know what laptop is best, though if you are looking for something that is in expensive and works well try looking for the IBM ThinkPad T42, specifically the 2373-L5U, or at least make sure it is the model with the ATI Radeon 9600 Mobile graphic chip, its 64Meg but flies, and rumor has it that its "Thermaly Safe" to over clock it from 400MHz to 667MHz, and that if you have a laptop guru you can run up to a 2.2 Celeron. Get high end 20ish frames a second, and in intensive areas, lots of moving avies around 7 frames a second with a 1.7 GHz CPU and 1.5G DDR400. They may not be pretty but they just work and I like that myself. If you can pick on up in great condition for around $500 you are par for market and in my opinion compared to the 2378 T42 WELL WORTH IT!

its funny to read 18 month old computer advice... but what's with the necro posts?