Re: Building computer

[Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>]

On 9/30/2013 4:32 PM, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> 
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> 
>> No, no.  Context is important here.  The OP stated she needed more than
>> 4GB of RAM.  I stated that WOW on Wine shouldn't even require 2GB, but
>> for argument's sake, if it did need 2GB, then all of her other stuff
>> would easily fit in the remaining 2GB.
>>
>> I stated previously that I've never played WOW, nor WOW on Wine.  So I
>> can't just fire it up and look at top to see what it uses.  I had some
>> friends that were playing WOW back when it first came out, almost 10
>> years ago.  They were playing on Win XP machines with 256MB RAM and
>> GeForce 4 MX cards with 32MB VRAM.  Obviously the game has evolved since
>> then, but no game increases in processing complexity/load by a factor of
>> 10x in its lifetime.
> 
> And you would be WRONG, as I stated previously. 

Catherine, saying this twice, in CAPS this time, isn't going to make the
statement true.

You simply do not have the technical knowledge and understanding to
speak intelligently on this subject.  Quoting requirements from the side
of the box as you do below demonstrates this with aplomb.

Despite my efforts to educate you, are you unable or unwilling to be
educated.

> Bear in mind you were wanting me 
> to get 4 gig of ram, *of which 1.8 would be shared with the integrated video as video
> ram*. 

Here is a prime example.  Where did you arrive at 1.8GB of shared RAM.
This is silly.

> That leaves me with barely enough ram to meet the minimum spec with no 
> other apps running, and leaves me well below the recommended amount of ram, 
> even with no other apps running. I clearly indicated I would be running a browser, 
> a chat client, and a ventrilo client as well as WoW all at the same time, and that the 
> graphics settings the minimum specs allow are unacceptable. 

You didn't read my post.  I explained all of this in detail.

> You may be a hardware
> whiz, but you are no gamer and seem unable to comprehend that gaming is the most 
> hardware demanding use of a computer.

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...

> From the Blizzard website:  https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/world-of-warcraft-system-requirements

[snipped pasted requirements]

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.

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.

For people such as myself, we know how to tweak and tune the system to
dramatically lower the box requirements because we strip out or disable
all of the non essential junk that is preinstalled by the PC vendor, or
during a Windows installation on a DIY machine, etc, etc.

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.

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...

A favorite saying of a dear friend of mine is very applicable here:

"People convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

You are unwilling to comprehend, because you're unable to.

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.

-- 
Stan