Computer Needed for FM 2010???

ok so i have been playing 2010 now for a month or so on and off

but 1 thing i cant work out is when i start a new game my computers performance is half a star? i mean half a star that c**p

its a P4 3.2 with HT

1 GB ram

500 GB Hard Drive

256MB graphics card

Would i really benefit from say a Intel Core 2 Quad at like 2.6 with 3GB ram??? or a amd?

If you just multiply it out you'd probably experience that amount of benefit. Reckon quad cores aren't value for money though. especially when it seems like you won't be using it for anything.

ok so i have been playing 2010 now for a month or so on and off

but 1 thing i cant work out is when i start a new game my computers performance is half a star? i mean half a star that c**p

its a P4 3.2 with HT

1 GB ram

500 GB Hard Drive

256MB graphics card

Would i really benefit from say a Intel Core 2 Quad at like 2.6 with 3GB ram??? or a amd?

Firstly you should ignore what the stars say. This system doesn't work properly and should be fixed in a forthcoming patch.

The other problem is that a P4 processor is pretty poor by todays standards and 1gb isnt all that much ram either. Its hard to suggest a system without knowing how much money you are prepaired to spend but if you can afford something with a core2quad and 3gb ram then that would work great for fm. Just make sure that any graphics card is dedicated and not shared.

Can a graphics card slow down the speed of the game? Also what is the difference between shared and dedicated?

Of course you would benefit. P4 wasnt a very good processor when it was released all those years ago. If you have the money go for it. Its going to be much faster and you will be able to play with more leagues loaded.

If you have a lot money then buy an intel i7 920 and if you are slightly poorer then go for amd phenom II 955be. Its slightly slower but its also much cheaper (motherboards are also cheaper for it). If this is the only game you play you wont need a powerful gfx card so just make sure its not some intel on board graphics. ATI and NVIDIA on board gfx card should be okayish, but forget about playing any modern 3d games on them. IF you are getting a dedicated gfx card get something from ATI since nvidia currently is not competing on price/performance. Radeon 4850 is fast enough and cheap enough IMO. OF course there are better choices if you prepared to pay more. (like the 5XXX series) Memory is cheap so get something with at least 4gb and install the latest windows 7 64bit version on it.

Can a graphics card slow down the speed of the game? Also what is the difference between shared and dedicated?

Dedicated and shared memory are exactly what they sound like: dedicated memory is memory, usually embedded on the graphics card itself, that is used only by the graphics card. Shared memory means that the graphics card uses system memory (RAM), adjusting the amount it borrows based on the kind of work it's doing. Dedicated memory tends to be faster.

to the OP in the long run yes you would befit from a Quad Core or an AMD Phenom you can get a Quad core set up for around £500

commodore 64?

its a P4 3.2 with HT I have a Pentium D 2.9

1 GB ram 3 Gig Ram

500 GB Hard Drive 160 HD

256MB graphics card 128mb

Would i really benefit from say a Intel Core 2 Quad at like 2.6 with 3GB ram??? or a amd?

Don't buy AMD, I have checked several pc websites and their performance and future-proofness stats are only 60% of Intel's. If you notice AMD follow Intel with "comparative" chips but an AMD 2600 usually means it is a 1.8-2.0Ghz not like intel who tell you upfront

Like graphics cards,... I would take ATI over nVidia

get something from ATI since nvidia currently is not competing on price/performance.

Does your PC spec match the system requirements on the box?

If so then there should be no problem.

Don't buy AMD, I have checked several pc websites and their performance and future-proofness stats are only 60% of Intel's. If you notice AMD follow Intel with "comparative" chips but an AMD 2600 usually means it is a 1.8-2.0Ghz not like intel who tell you upfront

Like graphics cards,... I would take ATI over nVidia

Does your PC spec match the system requirements on the box?

If so then there should be no problem.

Disagree with you im a fan of AMD i currently run FM on an AMD Athlon X2 5200+ 2.6GHz have never had any problems with it and runs FM 10 with ease ive had this pc for around 3 years and have never needed to upgrade it or do anything since i built it.

I just bought a laptop after my old laptop broke. On my old laptop i could play in 3D but it was incredibly slow and jerky. So when i went into PC World the next day to look at a couple of laptops, i then asked them about what i needed and i am more than happy with my new laptop. Just ask them in there and say you need to use it for casual gaming (if you say gaming they could try flogging you a top of the range system which may be overpriced and much more than you actually need). I'm not saying you have to buy it from there but then you'll have a better idea of what to look for.

P.S I also have an AMD dual core processor which in comparison to similarly priced systems is great value for money compared to the intel processors

Disagree with you im a fan of AMD i currently run FM on an AMD Athlon X2 5200+ 2.6GHz have never had any problems with it and runs FM 10 with ease ive had this pc for around 3 years and have never needed to upgrade it or do anything since i built it.

Didn't say there was anything fundamentally wrong with AMD, just that most PC websites and PC builders prefer Intel.

When i said future proof I meant 5-8 years. As i said i have pentium D which was Intels knee jerk interim reaction to the failure of Pentium 4. but it is still performing 3 years later.

AMD Athlon X2 5200+ 2.6GHz ie: X2 "5200" = 2.6 G AMD like to name their processors to sound better although it is dual core, intel say Core2 Duo 2.6G

AMD never hide what the lock speed is it also mentioned plus AMD where the 1st to do away with the need for a Northbridge chip on the motherboard

When i said future proof I meant 5-8 years.

5-8 years is seriously obsolete isn't it? I dont think i've ever had a pc for any longer than 3 years and I think thats stretching things a bit.

whats he trying to say an AMD wont last 5 years? i could happy leave my comouter anouther 3 or 4 years and it will still play the latest games the only thing that will need changing is the graphics card

And theres a reason why your AMD is cheaper.

It's why Linux is cheaper than Windows.

But explains nothing as to why MACs are more expensive. lol

And theres a reason why your AMD is cheaper.

It's why Linux is cheaper than Windows.

But explains nothing as to why MACs are more expensive. lol

Disagree with you about the comment about Linux it actually has a purpose if it wasnt for Linux most of the internet would be doomed as they would have to use Windows as a server.

The reason AMD's are cheaper is the fact the bosses arent gready buggers

Reckon quad cores aren't value for money though. especially when it seems like you won't be using it for anything.

My i7 920 OC with 6 gigs of RAM blows FM out the water, good thing I got liquid cooling!

You are right if you are buying a PC for FM and normal use only, if you are serious about all types of gaming then spend the extra, I have not touched a games console apart from my wifes Wii for a long time. I am an all out PC gamer and UGC maker so I need the extra power from my PC.

You do need to fit the specs to your buget and your requirements, its a tricky thing to balance.

Plus I dont think you can really compare windows and Linux in most situations, they are very different animals!

And theres a reason why your AMD is cheaper.

It's why Linux is cheaper than Windows.

But explains nothing as to why MACs are more expensive. lol

AMD/Intel compared to windows/Linux is a poor analogy.

The reason people pay more for MACs is because of the marketing - they THINK they are getting a better deal. People buy Intel over AMD for exactly the same reason.

In both cases they are mugs.

Don't buy AMD, I have checked several pc websites and their performance and future-proofness stats are only 60% of Intel's. If you notice AMD follow Intel with "comparative" chips but an AMD 2600 usually means it is a 1.8-2.0Ghz not like intel who tell you upfront

I dont know what pc sites you checked and i have no idea what future-proof stats is even supposed to mean, but the reality is that AMD is perfectly competitive in every segment except in the ultra high end where the intels I7 processor is the only choice. Neither AMD nor intel use mhz in the processor names any more. Intel used to do it in the P4 era but ever since the core architecture they just use some arbitrarily selected number (i.e. Q6600, i7 920). The reason why AMD had such a naming scheme was that even though their processors were faster than intels they ran at lower mhz and since people are dumb they think that a higher mhz means more speed. IMO it was a good marketing move by amd at the time. Anyway..thats all in the past and no one uses those kind of names anymore.

So basically what im saying is just go ahead and buy an amd based machine. For the same amount of money you can build a better machine than using intels processors.

Regarding future proofness (is this even a word?) im sure most of us know that there is no such thing when it comes to computers. The moment you buy it something better is available