Will the alienware alpha play PS2? http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-alpha/pd I am getting the 3rd option. [the one with intel i5] i am not all that smart when it comes to hardware. Thanks in advanced.
I would say that it will play the game but I have concerns. It seems to be an attempt at a PC/console hybrid which would work well for some titles but PS2 is a 1st person shooter so you will need a mouse/keyboard. You cannot be effective in this game with a controller. The i5 will be fine as will the memory. The description is vague about the GPU, saying only that it is a Maxwell chip - the Maxwell chips are very good so I would guess that would be fine. How are you intending to use your machine? As a gaming rig in the front room for example?
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...e-can-i-run-it-upgrade-advice-threads.170564/ Read that and i wouldnt recommend alienware anything. Especially that one. Its already outdated.
It will run it if the CPU is a quad-core i5, make sure its not some mobile chip. It doesn't mention the GPU but if its maxwell architecture then it would be either the GTX 750 or 750Ti. Unless the small form factor only allows it to fit a mobile GPU in which case it would be the 800m series, as for that anything under a GTX 860m would probably not run this game really well. I have a 750Ti with a dual-core G3258 OC to 4.2ghz and I run the game on high at 30 fps in big battles and 60+fps everywhere else. So assuming that the i5 is a quad-core you ll get similar or better performance than my rig.
Mobile GPU's are really underestimated. I have an i7-3610QM @2.3GHz and a 2GB 660M with 8GB of ram... I play on the lowest settings and get around 70FPS in small fights, and around 40 in large ones...
Lemme guess, you have a Lenovo Y580. I used to have that laptop, and that was the computer I played this game on when it launched 2 years ago. And according to what your saying, you seem to be getting worse performance than what I was getting when the game launched... just proves how much worse the game's optimization is getting. Anyway, when the game launched with that laptop I was running the game on high settings and getting 40+fps all the time even in the biggest battles. Although bear in mind I had the 1366x768 resolution model, not the 1080p one. I did not underestimate mobile GPUs, I told the OP anything under a GTX 860M would probably not run the game that well, 860m is equivalent to your 660m so I know your GPU can run it fine.
The recommended RAM for PS2 is 16 GB, 8 GB will do, but that's the minimum required, also why don't you ask a friend to assemble a PC for your? you can have 32 GB of RAM and forget about it for a long while, also put a good video card MoBo and CPU for about the same price; trade marks charge more just because they are trade marks. I'd recommend a AMD CPU, AMD Radeon graphics card, and AMD RAM a MoBo with AMD Chiptset would be a nice set. http://www.amd.com/en-us/products
Er, what? Pretty much all wrong. The recommended is 8GB, not 16. 16GB is future proofing or if you're using memory intensive applications other than gaming. 32GB is overkill unless you're doing a ramdisk. AMD CPUs are capable on absolutely top end stuff, but the vast majority will lose to an Intel CPU in the majority of games (better in multi-core applications though). AMD motherboards and ram are no better or worse than any other ones so why you would recommend them I don't know. The only thing relevant there is the AMD GPU, which are comparable or better than Nividia in some aspects and worse in others. Maybe there's some aspects of the AMD GPUs which tempt you. Buy AMD. Maybe you have a G-Sync monitor. In that scenario, you'd need to have some screws loose to go with AMD. Basically either you're an AMD fanboy who can't make objective decisions based on budgets and requirements or AMD are paying you.
CPU - Central Processing unit, in this case, the i5-4590T. Handles shadows and the framework for the game. GPU - Graphics Processing Unit, handles the 3D models, trigonometry, special effects, textures, and the like. RAM - Random Access Memory. The game uses memory to easily store and retrieve data. OS - Operating System, Windows 8.1. This is personal preference. Hard Drive - 1TB, so around 1000 Gigabytes. Which means if Planetside 2 is 15GB then you can install it 66 times over. My Opinion: CPU - This is a meh. You will have to turn shadows on low or completely off. Render distance will also need to be turned down. This game is heavily CPU intensive and depends on it steadily. My 6th build uses the i7-4770k and that is around 2x more powerful than this chip. In large battles at max settings I can get as low as 40-50 fps. GPU - According to online benchmarks it should run fairly well assuming you don't have a 4k monitor. Ex: A 1680x1050 pixel monitor. That is 1764000 pixels, the GPU has to work harder than a monitor running at 1280x720p. RAM - Do not let anyone tell you that more RAM = more performance. Anything less than 8GB you will see an increase in performance if you upgrade, but anything more is meaningless unless you want to have 3249 tabs in google chrome open while running sixteen games of Minecraft at once. OS - Personal preference, personally I don't hate it or like it. Hard Drive - Sufficient, a good size. Know that this is a console type thing to put in your living room. It comes with its own UI as well as Windows 8.1. All in all I think it is a decent starter PC. I would recommend you instead try and find a desktop with a more powerful CPU as more and more games are utilizing it to a higher degree. Tip: NEVER buy out of haste, research, research, research. You don't want to buy something and find out later it can barely run the game you were hoping for.
Wait it has a T? That means its one of their dirty "laptop style desktops". I cant browse their site on mobile lol. Its got a 750 or some other mobile GPU probably. That things garbage. I just configured an awesome PC with a 970 for under $1000 for a friend and built another for about $850. The guy buying the Alienware definitely needs to read my guide and the updates before he buys.
It will run it but you need to turn settings down. Unless you need the small form factor however, you're paying a premium which seems pointless.
People like you is exactly the ones self-entitled to give "the right answer" when swimming in a sea of ignorance and should never post in forums, but unfortunately you all do. The recommendation isn't mine is from SOE staff, the ones developing the game, I read on a post about optimization of this game in which included what video cards were supported and of course the recommended hardware, so you'd be wrong on that, 16 GB is recommended so the loading of resources don't need much Hard Drive access, the game will easily take 8 GB, because of the huge textures and amount of them, if you jump through several regions and a couple of continents as is normal, so 16 GB will minimize impact on game loading, since this game is 14.6 GB and most of them are graphic resources for 4 quality settings, I play on Low and PS2 uses the whole 8GB and even more because the virtual memory (pagefile.sys) is used quite extensively, you can notice this after you get out of the game, the hardrive will still be in activity for a minute, Windows 7 doing some cleanup, and try to load for example SeaMonkey, sometimes I even have to reboot, to have a fast system again. Have you even seen how much free RAM you have on Task manager after playing the game for about 2 hrs? 32 GB will completely eliminate Hard Drive access after the firs read of files, you don't need a RAM Disk unless you need to run several times some application or game. AMD CPUs/APUs are equal if not better than Intel ones, and a bit better on the low end (Sempron), Intel CPUs have half of their cores are virtual cores, that causes a bottleneck on the trough put of data, making even the real cores slower, only the extreme editions, which are very expensive are suited for performance, but even then limited because of the same bottleneck of tis virtual cores. AMD APUs won a military contract to power the new F-22 imaging systems, since they are CPU+GPU, giving excellent performance at HD resolutions at I think 60+ FPS at very low energy consumption, something no Intel chip has ever done; military took a live or death decision for their pilots, so I would go with that. AMD GPUs, are no doubt 1 of the most power GPUs you can buy, Nvidia has desynched their model number and generational format to avoid easy comparison with AMD generation and models to avoid look less powerful, AMD GPUs don't have that problem, now Nvidia GPUs model are confusing, the highest number doesn't mean the fasted clock or amount of RAM on the Video Card, AMD GPUs are simple and straightforward. BTW, Tom's Hardware made a test putting adhesive tape on the PCI-E channels to manually select 1x, 2x 4x and 16x performance and AMD GPUs almost had not performance drop, Nvidia GPUs did dropped proportionally, and of course AMD nor Nviadia I think made their GPUs to operate that way, this indirectly proved who has the more efficient and adaptive design, so I'd go with this too. As an anecdote, I was chatting in a Red-Light.net IRC channel about GPUs their tests of FSO (FreeSpace 2 Open) and Intel GPUs where the "special" ones, I asked: "lol, like in ********?", they wrote: "yes, that would be the joke", so good luck with those. AMD doesn't do motherboards, they do the Chipset, and if you have a AMD and GPU/APU connected with AMD CHiptset simply is great performance, tested myself, I have a 7 year old video card with 1 GB DDR3-1333 that can play this game in Low settings, undervolted the GPU k10stat and overclocked the VC 7% and pretty much low heat great performance, I can complain. So pretty much you only know what people say, but magazines and online sites make the tests and AMD always win on price/performance and performance/energy ratios or for the most part, so Ain short AMD is better designed, cheaper, energy friendly and great performance, by fact check, Intel fanboys prefer Intel because AMD dropped the ball a long time ago and Intel created a fame of reliable so it grew popular, but Intel has paid AMD at least twice 1 Billion US dollars because it was caught trying to cheat AMD with untitrust practices, also a few years ago, AMD denounced that Intel was trying untitrust in Europe, paying huge mall chains to not sell AMD products, since they couldn't pull that off in USA, why is that? because they suck? yeah, that's why Intel copy AMD CPU features and dropped Pentium 3 development to get early designs of Pentium 4 to try to beat AMD Athlon after it whooped Pentium 3 *** in performance; good luck with Intel, fanboy. AMD does only microelectronics (chips) and they do it really well, AMD is like the Google of microelectronics, simply powerful.
SOE recommends 8GB ram 4GB ram is minimum requirement. http://i.imgur.com/jkvKjdh.jpg source: https://www.planetside2.com/faq
He was right to criticise you. You obviously don't know what you are talking about and have no real world experience yet are here suggesting people spend 100s of pounds on items that are useless to them.
Yeah Aldaris is correct and i really dont know why thst guy is bringing up the Pentium 3. AMDs CPUs and "APU's" arent even based on the same architrcture. Their APUs are more like Intels CPUs and although theyre designed to be lower end chips, they have better single threaded performance than their big CPUs do. Theyre both x86 but im talking about the two core per module architecture that their CPUs use. AMDs curren CPUs and GPUs are simply poor designs now and are terribly inefficient. The most RAM ive ever seen PS2 use is around 4GB with total memory utilization at 7.2GB and i have 16GB. Get 16GB if you dont have to cut corners to do so but 8 is usually enough for a gaming computer. Having 1TB of RAM wont eliminate hard drive access either. Thats not how it works with loading resources.
The right answer? No. There isn't necessarily a 'right' answer when it comes to buying a new computer. A better answer than you gave? Certainly.
Wrong, I have, you assume out of ignorance just because SOE changed their requirements, you don't know me so stop writing crap about me, I have probably way more XP than you on this and all I wrote was correct, if SOE change their expectations, still my perspective is better, and money spend in a well build computer is never wasted money, most games recommend 8 GB so that's the minimum recommendation now, in a few years will be obsolete, so it's not useless, so if you don't know what it's been writing here, just stop posting.
You don't have a clue what you're writing about n00b, get informed about what you don't understand and I'm pretty sure when the events I described were happening and I was reading about it, you were in diapers or less, keep writing crap about AMD.
