World of Warcraft? I know it's an old game but they are constantly patching and expanding it which boosts up the required shit on your PC.
Heres the cheapest card I'm looking into buying
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2759376&csid=_61
At 7/6/12 05:49 PM, Tramps wrote: For World of Warcraft on medium settings? Fine. For any decent game? Nope.
what about this one.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=852260&csid=_61
Do you think this could run WoW at maybe the lower end of high settings, like 75%+ full settings?
I played WoW on the lowest settings on an 8 year old unmodded pc, worked ok, so I would say any graphics card should run low settings WoW fine.
With my new card I can run it on top graphics easily. So yea my old card which couldn't play any new games sucked. But they never made WoW NEED a new card...just it's recommended.
An 410 is no better (if not worse) then what video cards you find onboard, and 430 is getting up there but not quite.
An 430 will do fine for WoW, but you will struggle with other games. This will probably kill your budget, but you should lean to a GTX 450 (no Ti) or an 6670.
Moved to new account.
Alright, since everyone in this thread is retarded,
1) World of Warcraft relies more on your CPU than your GPU. If your CPU is shit, too, you won't notice any difference buying a new video card.
2) Both of those video cards you linked are utter garbage. Slightly better than onboard, they will have trouble running literally everything made after 2006, even on the lowest resolution possible.
3) Almost all cards less than $100 are garbage and not worth it. They are all extremely low end and will struggle on everything. Your best bet is paying $120 for the Radeon 6770. It won't run everything at max, but it will handle WoW fine.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150 560
At 7/8/12 10:33 AM, Tramps wrote:
Completely untrue. I had a PC with a Pentium 4 Processor in a store-bought family PC back when I was playing WoW, using simply the on-board graphics. It lagged on lowest settings when I went into busy areas to 10fps. I went out and bought a Low Profile Radeon HD 4550 which cost me no more than Ã'£25. After that, I was able to play on medium settings~ high on some, lower on others and got an average 30-40fps. To say it relies more on your CPU is absolute crap.
I'm going to skip straight to the goods: You're lying. First, it's 100% true it relies more on your CPU than your video card. Second, Radeon HD 4550 card is absolutely garbage. It is very seriously barely any better than onboard video. Yeah, I will admit you MIGHT get 30-40 FPS with that setup, if you were in the middle of nowhere, looking at the floor, at 640x480 resolution. MAYBE it would be possible like that.
It doesn't matter if they're garbage compared to what the average high-end gaming card is, he wants a cheap card that will run it faster than it already does, and it will. The fact the graphics processor will now be independent from the CPU means that both pieces of hardware can run faster and at a higher stability. His specifications were that he wants a card to play WoW on. Of course, it's very easy to recommend the best gpu's out there right now but it's totally unnecessary for a game like WoW. That game is optimised to shit to run on any half-decent store bought computer from 2005 onwards.
He's wasting his money if he buys either of them. They're not good cards, at all, and most of the cards like that below $100 are utter garbage and a waste of money.
Assuming that World of Warcraft would even run at good settings on either of those cards, which it won't, there is also an expansion coming out soon, which I assume he intends to buy, that will increase the requirements even more to play it. He would literally be throwing that money away if he went with either of those cards.
Jesus christ, that's overkill. 6770 will run everything at max at 1920x1080. I had a 5670 that did the exact same thing. Don't recommend someone to pay $80 more than they're willing to for something that they won't need. Sure, if they want a good graphics card for most games on the PC that came out before 2009 or are optimised well enough, go ahead and get a 6770 or something but if you really only want to play WoW just completely ignore all of what he's said.
In world of warcraft, I have all of my settings cranked up to high. In org, I get about 20 FPS if I'm lucky. I'm using the Geforce 550TI, a card slightly better than the radeon 6770.
Requesting a moderator ban this retard for trolling. 6770 isn't even a great card. It's a mid-range card. It will struggle to run every game on high at 1920x1080, especially World of Warcraft.
Tramps, seriously, honestly. Never post again. You clearly have no idea about computers, hardware, and you are obviously lying. I don't understand why, either, but get the fuck out.
I have that card, (240 instead of the 210 model but almost identical specs) and i can run skyrim and D3 just fine, the guys calling it trash dont know what they're talking about.
Exile, you're obviously trolling or just incredibly stupid.
Here are the "Recommended" requirements for WoW according to the website:
64bit Windows Vista/7 (latest service packs)
Dual Core Processor, such as the Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2
2GB RAM
256 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 or ATI Radeon HD 2600 or better
Multi-button scroll-wheel mouse
Obviously the video cards he posted would be just fine. Most on board graphics are almost always worse than the card he posted, especially if his computer is a few years old. Also, recommending him to buy a 6770 or something like that is just overkill, considering it would more than likely just bottleneck AND he would probably need to get a power source to go with it.
OP you should post your system specs.
Valar Morghulis []
At 7/9/12 02:36 PM, froggerfreak wrote: Exile, you're obviously trolling or just incredibly stupid.
Oh yeah? Let's see what you have to say.
Here are the "Recommended" requirements for WoW according to the website:
And that is exactly where I stopped reading. Those 'Recommended' requirements are always wrong, and only a retard takes them seriously.
More often than not, they consider they recommend those settings if it can play the game at 20 fps at medium settings.
I have that card, (240 instead of the 210 model but almost identical specs) and i can run skyrim and D3 just fine, the guys calling it trash dont know what they're talking about.
Actually it seems you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. Geforce 240 is quite a bit better than the geforce 210.
Of course, you're still not playing skyrim and D3 "just fine", unless you consider "just fine" to be 800x600 resolution, lowest possible settings, running at a max of of 20 FPS. Especially on Diablo 3. Why do I say this? Because Diablo 3 is horribly optimized and runs like shit, even on my computer, which no doubt shits all over yours.
Can everyone here who clearly has no idea about computers GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD?
At 7/9/12 06:31 PM, Exile wrote: Can everyone here who clearly has no idea about computers GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD?
It's cute when you google/wiki all your facts and pretend to be a big boy.
You should totally add me on one of my various game accounts:
360 - Malachi117. Steam - Malachi117. PS3/PS4 - NarcolepticCat.
No good cards for under 100 may be true for NVIDIA, but you can get a decent GDDR5 6670 for just 90 something..
Moved to new account.
At 7/9/12 07:25 PM, malachi117 wrote:At 7/9/12 06:31 PM, Exile wrote: Can everyone here who clearly has no idea about computers GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD?It's cute when you google/wiki all your facts and pretend to be a big boy.
No, I actually know about computers, unlike everyone else in this thread. Not everyone is an uneducated retard like you.
However, if they were to google/wiki all of this shit, they wouldn't look so stupid.
No good cards for under 100 may be true for NVIDIA, but you can get a decent GDDR5 6670 for just 90 something..
6670 isn't a good card when you can get a Radeon 6770, which is significantly better, for $30 more.
At 7/9/12 06:31 PM, Exile wrote:
Oh yeah? I'm too stupid to realize when everyone in the thread disagrees with me. I will hold fast to my dumbass claims.
Or maybe some ppl know how to optimize windows for performance and dont need to dish out tons of $$ to compensate for lack of basic pc know how and overall retardery which seems to be your problem.
specs are 2.8 ghz dual core processer, 3 gigs of ram and galaxy geforce 240 1 gig video card all for under $600 and no i dont have to come anywhere close to minimum settings to run any modern game.
At 7/9/12 07:56 PM, Exile wrote:
6670 isn't a good card when you can get a Radeon 6770, which is significantly better, for $30 more.
Read, herp derp. You said there are no good cards under 100, when I just listed one. The performance is made up by GDDR5, powered by the bus alone, and the cost itself... Even thougb the 6770 has all of the above, you mentioned <100.
Moved to new account.
At 7/9/12 08:31 PM, CritcalOne wrote:At 7/9/12 07:56 PM, Exile wrote:6670 isn't a good card when you can get a Radeon 6770, which is significantly better, for $30 more.Read, herp derp. You said there are no good cards under 100, when I just listed one. The performance is made up by GDDR5, powered by the bus alone, and the cost itself... Even thougb the 6770 has all of the above, you mentioned <100.
It's NOT A GOOD CARD WHEN A CARD $30 MORE IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER.
Christ, you people have down syndrome.
At 7/9/12 08:33 PM, Exile wrote:
It's NOT A GOOD CARD WHEN A CARD $30 MORE IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER.
Christ, you people have down syndrome.
I must have down syndrome because I stick exactly to your context.
Moved to new account.
At 7/9/12 08:18 PM, JonWB2005 wrote:
Or maybe some ppl know how to optimize windows for performance and dont need to dish out tons of $$ to compensate for lack of basic pc know how and overall retardery which seems to be your problem.
specs are 2.8 ghz dual core processer, 3 gigs of ram and galaxy geforce 240 1 gig video card all for under $600 and no i dont have to come anywhere close to minimum settings to run any modern game.
You can barely spell the language you speak, and none of you have any idea what you're talking about. Just because more uneducated retards disagree with me doesn't mean you're right.
I must have down syndrome because I stick exactly to your context.
Since you're retarded and don't get why buying a Radeon 6670 is pointless (because you have no knowledge of computers) I made this image for you and made sure to circle the important bits in red so even down syndrome toddlers like you can understand.
At 7/9/12 07:56 PM, Exile wrote: Not everyone is an uneducated retard like you.
So you can't go without name calling? Are you 12?
At 7/9/12 08:33 PM, Exile wrote: Christ, you people have down syndrome.
Then get off the site if you're so high above us.
You should totally add me on one of my various game accounts:
360 - Malachi117. Steam - Malachi117. PS3/PS4 - NarcolepticCat.
At 7/9/12 08:55 PM, malachi117 wrote:At 7/9/12 07:56 PM, Exile wrote: Not everyone is an uneducated retard like you.So you can't go without name calling? Are you 12?
It's true though. You're all uneducated retards trying to pretend you're not, and are spreading bad information because you have no idea what you're talking about.
At 7/9/12 08:56 PM, Exile wrote: uneducated retards
I see I was correct. You're twelve.
You should totally add me on one of my various game accounts:
360 - Malachi117. Steam - Malachi117. PS3/PS4 - NarcolepticCat.
At 7/9/12 09:03 PM, malachi117 wrote:At 7/9/12 08:56 PM, Exile wrote: uneducated retardsI see I was correct. You're twelve.
Hey man whatever helps you feel better about being a retard, but just so we're clear, it's not a good idea to go around calling others "twelve" when you have ponies in your signature image.
I admit fault on not going to reconfirm the prices on Newegg, but do I honestly lose a chromosome for that? There is no need to be an stuck up asshole about someone being wrong, gosh.
Moved to new account.
