Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
You don't need an SSD for WoW - it's not worth the money.
The i5 is well worth it tho.
The i5 is well worth it tho.
WoW spec
- Thread starter Thesaff
- Start date
Well yeah, that was kind of the point.
Not interested in investing in an SSD for any game really, though I would be interested in hearing about any that will really have meaningful gains from being run off one. But I cannot really see where the gains in World of Warcraft would come form apart from luxury or comfort gains in loading screen times being cut. Which is nice and all, but not something that really would increase game play satisfaction as such.
Anyway, this seems like a huge derail in the thread in general, so sorry about that.
Not interested in investing in an SSD for any game really, though I would be interested in hearing about any that will really have meaningful gains from being run off one. But I cannot really see where the gains in World of Warcraft would come form apart from luxury or comfort gains in loading screen times being cut. Which is nice and all, but not something that really would increase game play satisfaction as such.
Anyway, this seems like a huge derail in the thread in general, so sorry about that.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 353
My palit on is vertually silent and it cools very well, very good temps when i OC'd from 675 to 750, wasnt too bad at 800mhz either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
You might be one of the few lucky ones landed a better card, but the majority of the people that bought the Palit had problem with the noise, some even RMAed it because of it.
Also when you say cool "very well", it depends on your definition of "very well". The Cyclone is like at least 10C lower in temp at load than the Palit's.
WoW doesn't require a seriously high power machine.
I play WoW on a laptop (C2D 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, 8600M GT and an SSD). I've also played it on a 2.66GHz, 4GB DDR3, 9400M shared memory, 5400rpm HD and it's fine. Both OSX.
A mate plays it on a i7 quad core, 12GB, with SLI (I think 460s). Win 7 64bit.
Theres not much in it in game play as his machine indicates it's just idling for everything. 10% GPU for example.
I play WoW on a laptop (C2D 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR2, 8600M GT and an SSD). I've also played it on a 2.66GHz, 4GB DDR3, 9400M shared memory, 5400rpm HD and it's fine. Both OSX.
A mate plays it on a i7 quad core, 12GB, with SLI (I think 460s). Win 7 64bit.
Theres not much in it in game play as his machine indicates it's just idling for everything. 10% GPU for example.
I personally saw a HUGE improvement from overclocking from 2.4Ghz to 3.2Ghz on my Q6600. I run on 1680x1050, with everything on Ultra (apart from shadows which I think is about midway) and it runs pretty much constant 60fps. Even with my older GFX, I expect to be able to play at 1080 with no issues when I get my new monitor. I hope this helps.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Ignore people who say WOW doesnt stress machines, it does. But it doesnt have to, so for example you can play on relatively low powered hardware, but give it a nice quad and strong graphics and it will use them fairly well.
WOW does seem highly dependant on raw Mhz still, so a nicely OCd proc should be good, minimum 3GB RAM now really.
RE SSD I moved to a SSD for WOW and it does make a dramatic difference in some areas. Eg Dalaran, a very large amount of random textures need to be loaded due to players wearing diff gear etc, with the SSD its almost instant as you pop into the world, Raptor isn't for example. You have very very large texture files that you need random bits loaded from, the SSD owns at this. But come raid night the SSD makes little diff.
So depends what your friend does, if hes a hardcore raider the extra spend would be better place somewhere else vs a SSD.
The annoying thing about WOW is it seems to be a hog on CPU and GPU so its not obvious which one will giveyou bang for buck between those 2, so dont under spec either.
WOLK pushed up the graphics demands a fair bit, I expect cata to do the same, plus its just about 100% some DX11 will be in cata launch. Interesting thing is some raiders actually turn graphics down, some effects are much much more obvious with low res textures, low particle density etc.
raiding used to be the killer for a lot of people, but even a nicely overclocked dual plus a 4890 seems me at 50+FPS for most raid encounters. I am upgrading soon just a mater of when, I keep putting it back, but I will have a new rig for Cata raiding so either before xmas or just after.
I had an article somewhere where they experimented and found the best performance on an i7 was to force WOW to use 3 cores, the physical cores 2,3,4 (or 1,2,3 if you want to be ultra picky as the first core is core 0).
WOW does seem highly dependant on raw Mhz still, so a nicely OCd proc should be good, minimum 3GB RAM now really.
RE SSD I moved to a SSD for WOW and it does make a dramatic difference in some areas. Eg Dalaran, a very large amount of random textures need to be loaded due to players wearing diff gear etc, with the SSD its almost instant as you pop into the world, Raptor isn't for example. You have very very large texture files that you need random bits loaded from, the SSD owns at this. But come raid night the SSD makes little diff.
So depends what your friend does, if hes a hardcore raider the extra spend would be better place somewhere else vs a SSD.
The annoying thing about WOW is it seems to be a hog on CPU and GPU so its not obvious which one will giveyou bang for buck between those 2, so dont under spec either.
WOLK pushed up the graphics demands a fair bit, I expect cata to do the same, plus its just about 100% some DX11 will be in cata launch. Interesting thing is some raiders actually turn graphics down, some effects are much much more obvious with low res textures, low particle density etc.
raiding used to be the killer for a lot of people, but even a nicely overclocked dual plus a 4890 seems me at 50+FPS for most raid encounters. I am upgrading soon just a mater of when, I keep putting it back, but I will have a new rig for Cata raiding so either before xmas or just after.
I had an article somewhere where they experimented and found the best performance on an i7 was to force WOW to use 3 cores, the physical cores 2,3,4 (or 1,2,3 if you want to be ultra picky as the first core is core 0).
I got win7, wow, bfbc2 and few apps on a 60gb 2e one, about 8-10gb free
Latest patch (5gb) fits on too, cata beta is on another drive though.
I tested it on my SSD and it was all instant, no loading at all But its 27GB! so back on my raid
up until the recent pre-patch downloads mine was 17gb.
2 tips.
Delete all the old patches and updaters..I still had v 1.xx to 1.xx on there.
Screenshots, mine was nearly 1gb.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 29
Just thought I would throw in my two pennies worth here.
Have been playing WoW for three years and have the two expansions.
My specs are quite old:- Athlon XP 3200+, 1GB DDR1 Ram (PC 3200), Geforce 7600GT, and havn't really had many problems other than the occasional lag in Dalaran. Even during 25 man raids, I don't get much slow down, other than occasional lag spikes. Battleground, is however almost unplayable, so I don't bother going there much.
Needless to say, I think the i3 would suffice, and if you can afford it the i5 would be better for a more future proof system.
Dont listen to those peeps who say WoW needs high specs, just look at my specs!. single core, 1GB Ram etc etc......
Hope this helps.
Have been playing WoW for three years and have the two expansions.
My specs are quite old:- Athlon XP 3200+, 1GB DDR1 Ram (PC 3200), Geforce 7600GT, and havn't really had many problems other than the occasional lag in Dalaran. Even during 25 man raids, I don't get much slow down, other than occasional lag spikes. Battleground, is however almost unplayable, so I don't bother going there much.
Needless to say, I think the i3 would suffice, and if you can afford it the i5 would be better for a more future proof system.
Dont listen to those peeps who say WoW needs high specs, just look at my specs!. single core, 1GB Ram etc etc......
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,629
DO you play at Higher then HD with all set at ultra and 8x aa??
I vry much doupt your rig could play it at 10fps like that.
Loading Dalaran, lich king locations and others the hdd does get raped.
I run at 3600 x 1920 at all ultra settings with 8x AA and i use 80% of my 6GB ram
Loading times can be from 1-30seconds depending, thats on my 2x 1TB On raid.
I tested it on my SSD and it was all instant, no loading at all But its 27GB! so back on my raid
Dont underestimate WOW, Need's a lot of power on ultra.
Also Cat is on its way soon which will make the graphics better and much better textures!
hey mate could you explain why such high ram usage? im looking at sandybridge @ 5GHZ with 4GB ram instead of an i7 6GB for wow and well u just put me off there
i must know!! PS wow can own pc's quite easily try out wow on ULTRA with 8xAA 16xAF + ambient occulsion+3D come bk when it made ur SLI gtx 480 cry
I forgot to add that it requires minor config changes:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=294551
I got mine from an edition of PC Format.
WOW is CPU dependant. And handling muliple strings really helped speed it up with my 8800gtx. I play at 1680, 60-200fps on ultra with my q6600 oc'd to 3.4ghz. With my 120htz monitor I prefer the lower res and higher rates. 60fps is when in a texture/model filled town when dueling etc.
WOW is stressful on hardware, sure, but not in an efficient way. It can end up looking pretty nice on the top end. But very inefficient at handling that extra gpu power.
My choice: Get an i5 over any other upgrade. An SSD will help with loading times for dungeons etc, but really excessive when loading times will be 5-15 seconds and you'll still have to wait for the rest of the party to load anyway! :s
I have a friend who has my old system that is similar to this. He is running my old Athlon 4200+ (Dual Core), 1GB PC3200 and a GeForce 7800GT. He can run the game at highish settings but nothing on Ultra. I believe he just runs the game on a normal settings but with a higher resolution. He gets around 20fps in ICC25man but normal 10mans (unless it gets crazy) and other things it runs fine. So yea, I do agree with you that it will run on lower end systems but given the choice I would spend a little bit more cash and allow myself some room for other gaming options and better graphics on WoW itself.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- SE London
WoW on low-ish specs runs fine, hell, I even emulate windows and run WoW fine, check the workhorse spec in my signature, that's what I run it on and I do fine.
This is no longer needed. As of patch 3.2.2 WoW will detect and run on as many cores as you have. In a heavy LK heroic 25 fight all 4 cores of my 3.2GHz Q6600 are maxed.
Ok i am putting the build together for my friend, he agrees with all my spec except for the GFX card i want him to have the 460 768mb version graphics card. His argument, I play WoW, I don't play Crysis, and i dont play BBC2, what do i need that graphics card for, its overpowered. Is he right and im wrong
I guess it really depends on what resolution he plays on. The 460 little brother card might be over the top for smaller monitors, but then again I do not see many competitive cards that will save him a lot of money on the GPU and still give him a lot of performance.
Do not understand why he would be opposed to it, but if his heart is set on a cheaper option and he games at 1680 or lower, then something less powerful will suit him as well.