How good would this computer be for gaming ?

[yoskov]

With these features, how well would it handle newest games

Intel Pentium E5700 processor
4GB RAM and 320GB hard drive
Single ATI 5450 1x1GB graphics card

thanks

 

[Aastii]

Badly.

You are on an outdated dual core CPU and a graphics card that isn't meant for gaming, for how well it will handle the newest games, it won't

 

[compdude]

With these features, how well would it handle newest games

Intel Pentium E5700 processor
4GB RAM and 320GB hard drive
Single ATI 5450 1x1GB graphics card

thanks

Well mate, My specs are just bout the same but my graphics is 512mb clocked to 1gb and it runs most games, i can run, COD MW2, alien vs predator, Saints row 2, COD world at war, black ops and etc

I got :

CPU Type DualCore Intel Celeron E3300, 2500 MHz (12.5 x 200)
Motherboard Name ASRock N73V-S (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 2 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Video, LAN)
System Memory 4096 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 (512 MB)
Monitor SyncMaster B2030/ B2055PLUS(Digital) [NoDB] (HMBZ601007)

And like I said I can run those games at high settings.

Badly.

You are on an outdated dual core CPU and a graphics card that isn't meant for gaming, for how well it will handle the newest games, it won't

????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Aastii]

Well mate, My specs are just bout the same but my graphics is 512mb clocked to 1gb and it runs most games, i can run, COD MW2, alien vs predator, Saints row 2, COD world at war, black ops and etc

I got :

CPU Type DualCore Intel Celeron E3300, 2500 MHz (12.5 x 200)
Motherboard Name ASRock N73V-S (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 2 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Video, LAN)
System Memory 4096 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 (512 MB)
Monitor SyncMaster B2030/ B2055PLUS(Digital) [NoDB] (HMBZ601007)

And like I said I can run those games at high settings.

You can't get a 512MB card "clocked at 1024MB". For one, memory capacity isn't the same as clock speed. You can use RAM as video memory, however, unless you are playing at very high resolutions, it will make no difference, and even if you are trying to game at high resolutions on a GT220 or a 4200, neither will have the power to drive that many pixels, so it is pointless.

To use an example to explain:

GT210 1GB (1024MB): Newegg.com - Galaxy 21GGE8HX3AUM GeForce 210 1GB 64-bit DDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Video Card

9800GTX+ 512MB: Newegg.com - Recertified: PNY RVCG98GTXPXXB GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

GTX 260 896MB: Newegg.com - Recertified: PNY RVCGGTX260XXB GeForce GTX 260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

The 9800GTX+ (Same a GTX250) has half the memory that the GT210 has, and destroys it to say the least. The GTX260 has 10% less memory and it easily outperforms both, it wipes the floor with the GT210.

The only reason graphics cards manufacturers whack large amounts of memory on crappy cards is for marketing, people see more memory, therefore better card, which is just not the case at all.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are gaming at relatively low resolution (1280x1024 at the most), with no AA, no anisotropic filtering and it is keeping maybe 30-40 fps at most.

 

[yoskov]

I see that there are mixed opinions

What about this one then ?

Intel Core i5-760 processor 2.8GHz 8MB Cache.
4Gb RAM. 1Tb Hard Drive.
Inno3D NVidia GeForce 9800GT (E-save edition) 512MB GDDR3.

thanks

 

[Aastii]

I see that there are mixed opinions

What about this one then ?

Intel Core i5-760 processor 2.8GHz 8MB Cache.
4Gb RAM. 1Tb Hard Drive.
Inno3D NVidia GeForce 9800GT (E-save edition) 512MB GDDR3.

thanks

That would be much better, good quad core CPU and good video card.

I'm going to guess this is a prebuilt system. If I am right in saying so, which is it, and would you be willing to build one yourself instead? It isn't a difficult process, the hardest part is getting compatible parts, however, if you give a budget and what, if anything, you already have, one can be put together that would be a better computer for the same price, or the same performance but much higher quality components for less

 

[yoskov]

That would be much better, good quad core CPU and good video card.

I'm going to guess this is a prebuilt system. If I am right in saying so, which is it, and would you be willing to build one yourself instead? It isn't a difficult process, the hardest part is getting compatible parts, however, if you give a budget and what, if anything, you already have, one can be put together that would be a better computer for the same price, or the same performance but much higher quality components for less

Thank you for the answer

I unfortunatelly do not have the budget to upgrade any part just yet, However in nearby future I probably will consider to. Which parts do you recommend I should upgrade first soon as I have the budget

Thanks

 

[Aastii]

Thank you for the answer

I unfortunatelly do not have the budget to upgrade any part just yet, However in nearby future I probably will consider to. Which parts do you recommend I should upgrade first soon as I have the budget

Thanks

It depends.

Like I asked, is this going to be a prebuilt system, as in one you did not build yourself, an upgraded system, or one which you build fully by yourself?

Depending on the current specs, or the anticipated specs, there could be several places to look for upgrade. If it is prebuilt, power supply is a definite first one to go with and if it is not standard ATX size, then for future upgrading, an ATX case, be it mid or full tower, just one which supports ATX standard.

This all really depends on what computer you have or will have though, without knowing you that, I can't give you any decent advice

 

[compdude]

You can't get a 512MB card "clocked at 1024MB". For one, memory capacity isn't the same as clock speed. You can use RAM as video memory, however, unless you are playing at very high resolutions, it will make no difference, and even if you are trying to game at high resolutions on a GT220 or a 4200, neither will have the power to drive that many pixels, so it is pointless.

To use an example to explain:

GT210 1GB (1024MB): Newegg.com - Galaxy 21GGE8HX3AUM GeForce 210 1GB 64-bit DDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Video Card

9800GTX+ 512MB: Newegg.com - Recertified: PNY RVCG98GTXPXXB GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

GTX 260 896MB: Newegg.com - Recertified: PNY RVCGGTX260XXB GeForce GTX 260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

The 9800GTX+ (Same a GTX250) has half the memory that the GT210 has, and destroys it to say the least. The GTX260 has 10% less memory and it easily outperforms both, it wipes the floor with the GT210.

The only reason graphics cards manufacturers whack large amounts of memory on crappy cards is for marketing, people see more memory, therefore better card, which is just not the case at all.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are gaming at relatively low resolution (1280x1024 at the most), with no AA, no anisotropic filtering and it is keeping maybe 30-40 fps at most.

Actually no I play games at 1600:900 and on high settings, I have no drama or lack of performance with my graphics card.

 

[garethtech]

im quite a heavy gamer and here are my specs:

Asus P5QL Motherboard (upgrading soon)
400W PSU (also upgrading soon)
Intel Q8300 @ 3.2GHz
4GB DDR3 RAM 16000MHz
Sapphire Vapour-X ATI Radeon HD 5770
500GB HDD
Win7 Ultimate 64bit

everything runs fine and never have any problems, PSU is enough to power the graphics card as well, but i want a newer one for when i upgrade