Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote: > > Here is a prime example. Where did you arrive at 1.8GB of shared RAM. > This is silly. Silly? I admit to being off by .1 gig; it is actually only 1.7 gig as confirmed by the specs for the HD4600 on the Intel website. All integrated graphics use shared memory and that is the primary reason gamers detest them. But why do you say this number is "silly" when it is clearly the amount of memory the graphics chipset will attempt to use while playing a game with so much 3d rendering and special lighting effects? Sure you can set it for less, but then you can't play the game at a good 60fps on even the lowest settings. As I have previously specified, the lowest settings are not acceptable, nor are the medium settings. I want high or ultra settings only. > > You didn't read my post. I explained all of this in detail. No, you did not. You blustered about tweaking the system and idiots who keep cruft and malware on their computers. You complained about background processes and running more than one app, things that I fully intend to do, as if it was a criminal activity. You made absolutely no explanation of how to make the computer able to run the game on less than minimum specs. You gave no indication of how those minimum specs were to be rendered insignificant. You suggested nothing that could effect the system performance substantially enough to account for a deficit of at least 2 gig of ram, and actually more because I don't like medium settings. I have observed people trying to play a game on a computer with less than minimum specs. It sometimes works, if 10fps and jerky screen refreshes are the way you want to play. Other times the game refuses to even start. > > This is funny. Clearly you didn't read my reply that covered this. Or > it was simply too far over your head, who knows. Please read it. If > that is not sufficient, do I need to show you a gamer's badge or > something. ROFL. > > This discussion has become pathetic... What is pathetic about pointing out that you are sadly ignorant about the actual requirements for a gaming computer? You don't play WoW. You obviously don't play any other graphically intense game, either. It reminds me of the difference between theory and practice. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. You know so much about this topic you can't pull your head out of the data long enough to look at a real person playing a real game on an ordinary computer and see what works and what doesn't. If I had a wimpy underpowered graphics card and was trying to get it to play a game for which it did not meet the specs I would be interested in your advice. But I am building/buying a new computer; why should I deliberately choose hardware that isn't expected to do what I know I want to do? That makes no sense when I can get hardware that is expected to do what I want to do. > > The problem here Catherine is that my technical understanding of the > subject matter, including hardware, operating systems, games, the 3D > rendering pipeline, etc, etc is ~75,000 on a 100,000 scale. Your > understanding is maybe 100 on this scale. There's nothing wrong with > that. There is something wrong with the fact that you seem unwilling to > learn and apply the obtained knowledge. The problem here is that you think I ought to value your expert advice on getting less ram than I obviously need when your advice is based on the way you think a computer ought to be set up and used rather than the way I intend to set up and use it. > > When you read the box requirements you fail to realize they are not > strictly for the game code. Those requirements take into account that > most people have the Windows Indexing service and other performance > killers turned on all the time, run real time A/V software and don't > know how to turn it off when running a game, likewise for automatic > updates for Windows, SUN Java, the various dozen Adobe products, and one > and on and on. Oh, those dastardly folk, using their computers the way they want instead of the way you think they should! How dare they! </sarcasm> > > Note the box GPU DRAM capacity requirements don't state screen > resolution. There is a massive difference in VRAM requirements, both > frame and texture buffer space, between say 1366x768 and 1920x1080. In > this entire thread I don't recall you ever stating your screen > resolution. It has a direct influence on the amount of GPU horsepower > and GPU VRAM you actually need to achieve a desired frame rate. Oh, well. This is logical. I run 2560x1440 on my Mac, but will be dropping to 1920x1080 on my Debian box until I get a new monitor later. > > The sole reason for my participation in this thread has been to educate > you with expert level information, in order to save you money and still > achieve your goals. > > Instead of digesting the information I've given you, using it to your > advantage, and saying thank you, all you have done is argue with the > expert factual information I've presented. > > It's quite funny to see someone of your knowledge level tell me I'm > wrong by quoting the cardboard box as your evidence, while I'm > demonstrating how the transistors and everything else work to get to a > realistic set of requirements... This is the crux of the matter. Your requirements are not realistic for how I want to use my computer. You may be able to happily exist on your minimal memory, ruthlessly eliminating background processes and OS features. I do not choose to do that. Your expert knowledge is worthless to me, because it requires me to alter the basic way I use my computer. In fact, it is worse than useless, because some poor sap might follow your advice and then wonder why they have performance issues with their brand new computer. > > > It doesn't matter as you already bought your system. But I find it > interesting that you will be running integrated graphics for the time > being, after you stated this is wholly inadequate. > > I also find it interesting that not once did you mention that you may > try your old 6970 in the new box, before plunking down unnecessary cash > on yet another high end video card. Yes, I will be running the integrated graphics for a few weeks while I adapt to the new box. It is only temporary. The 6970 is in my iMac, and will remain there. Note that even with 2 gig of dedicated video memory I am not able to play WoW on all high settings with the 6970. Cg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/641d7c03-7779-438f-a26d-28e922505...@gmail.com