 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / October 2004Can EQ run on laptop ??
Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it could run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it comes to computers :) Intel? Celeron? Processor (2.40GHz) 512MB 266MHz DDR RAM 32MB DDR XGI? VolariT XP5 AGP 4X Graphics or this 64MB nVidia? GeForce FX Go5200 Graphics Card > Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it could > run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or this > 64MB nVidia® GeForce FX Go5200 Graphics Card Definitely the latter GeForce card.  Signaturenino Jeril, 68 Bard, Venril Sathir >> Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it could >> run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Definitely the latter GeForce card. I agree. I believe 64MB is the minimum for EQ anyway SignatureTo reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net >>> Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it >>> could run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I agree. I believe 64MB is the minimum for EQ anyway My laptop: Toshiba Satellite 5105-S607 P4M (not Celeron) 1.7GHz 512MB SDRAM (not DDR) 32MB nVidia GeForce4 440 Go It's been several months since I played EQ on it (less than six, I would say), but the last time I did it still handled it pretty well. I did have to turn down the quality a bit and I chose to turn off some of the Luclin models, but it really handled it pretty well. I would strongly encourage you to choose the nVidia graphics though. Also, I don't know if I would recommend a Celeron processor. As always, the more memory, the better. ;) SignatureRumble "The floggings will continue until morale improves." -- Blackbeard >>>> Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it >>>> could run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I don't know if I would recommend a Celeron processor. As always, the more > memory, the better. ;) So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium then (I know nothing about them)? >>>>>Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it >>>>>could run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium then (I > know nothing about them)? Yes. To give a specific case, my AMD 1.4 Ghz machine outperforms the Celeron 2ghz in everything but raw artifical processor tests. >>>>> Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if >>>>> it could run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium then > (I know nothing about them)? I would have to defer to others on the details, but my understanding is that the Celeron fails to perform as well as the Pentium with regard to gaming and multimedia processing by a substantial margin. SignatureRumble "The floggings will continue until morale improves." -- Blackbeard >> So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium then >> (I know nothing about them)? > > I would have to defer to others on the details, but my understanding is > that the Celeron fails to perform as well as the Pentium with regard to > gaming and multimedia processing by a substantial margin. You get what you pay for. Yes, the Pentium 4 is better, but the Celeron is still good value for money, especially in a laptop where you'll probably pay a lot more for a similar model with a P4 CPU. My old Celeron 1.5 GHz laptop plays EQ ok. Signaturenino Jeril, 68 Bard, Venril Sathir > You get what you pay for. Yes, the Pentium 4 is better, but the Celeron is > still good value for money, especially in a laptop where you'll probably > pay a lot more for a similar model with a P4 CPU. Personally I'd recommend a laptop with an AMD processor for gaming though. Signaturenino Jeril, 68 Bard, Venril Sathir >So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium then (I >know nothing about them)? Yes. That's like comparing a cheap v4 engine to a v8 in the same truck chassis. On the outside both could do the same but the one with v8 can work harder. Celeron is a cheaper version of Pentium series. If you pit 2GHz Celeron and 2GHz P4, they will seems to be the same with word processor and web surfing but for complex stuff like 3D games, Celeron will be chugging behind Pentium. SignatureTo reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net > >So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium then (I > >know nothing about them)? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > processor and web surfing but for complex stuff like 3D games, Celeron > will be chugging behind Pentium. Heh. Even with a word processor or web surfing you'll notice the celeron chugging. Perfectly usable mind you. But noticably chugging behind a P4. I haven't had much experience with the P4M or whatever its called though. How does that stand up? >> >So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium >> >then (I know nothing about them)? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I haven't had much experience with the P4M or whatever its called > though. How does that stand up? The P4M (not to be confused with the Centrino, with which I have not experience) is a nice mobile version of the typical desktop P4 with facilities to throttle back the processing power when operating on battery power. I didn't see much difference between my P4M 1.7GHz and my P4 1.8GHz desktop as far as gaming performance goes. Of course, the much stronger video card in my desktop made it my obvious choice when at home. SignatureRumble "The floggings will continue until morale improves." -- Blackbeard > >> >So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium > >> >then (I know nothing about them)? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > power. I didn't see much difference between my P4M 1.7GHz and my P4 1.8GHz > desktop as far as gaming performance goes. When you say 'facilities' does that mean when its on battery power it throttles processing power? or does that mean the user *can* throttle power back if he wants. Also, w/ respect to Centrino... the dell site for example lists some laptops as P4M 1.6GHz optional Intel CentrinoTM Mobile Technology. How exactly is it 'optional'? Is it part of the CPU or not? Is there a P4M without Centrino? And which is better? (or which is better for what?) And I mean for 'real' not the 'hype'. I'd like to pick up a new laptop, but the cpu options are baffling. Heh... although there is like an 75% chance I'm going to go with an Apple Powerbook anyway. > > >> >So can I assume the Celeron processor is inferior to the pentium > > >> >then (I know nothing about them)? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Heh... although there is like an 75% chance I'm going to go with an > Apple Powerbook anyway. "Centrino" (as far as I can tell) is a total package designed for on-the-road business use. It uses a special lower power consumption CPU (and much lower clock speeds from what I've seen), includes wireless network, and I'm sure some other things. If you want to play games on a laptop, you do *not* want a centrino laptop. It isn't an "add on" option I don't think, but rather an alternative CPU configuration option. > "Centrino" (as far as I can tell) is a total package designed for > on-the-road business use. It uses a special lower power consumption CPU > (and much lower clock speeds from what I've seen), includes wireless > network, and I'm sure some other things. A laptop labeled as Centrino has a Pentium M processor. Pentium M processors are nice. They're roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 that is 1 GHz faster. Example: A Pentium M running at 1.6 GHz is roughly the equivalent of a Pentium 4 processor running at 2.6 GHz. Don't be fooled into thinking Pentium M's and Pentium 4's can be compared by their clock speed. > If you want to play games on a laptop, you do *not* want a centrino laptop. > It isn't an "add on" option I don't think, but rather an alternative > CPU configuration option. Pentium M's run cooler than Pentium 4's, so they put off a lot less heat when running demanding games like EverQuest. Most people purchasing a laptop, including EverQuest players who intend to play EverQuest on their laptop, should prefer the Pentium M-based laptops over the Pentium 4-based laptops, as a general rule. > > "Centrino" (as far as I can tell) is a total package designed for > > on-the-road business use. It uses a special lower power consumption CPU [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > EverQuest on their laptop, should prefer the Pentium M-based laptops > over the Pentium 4-based laptops, as a general rule. That doesn't quite add up. The most 'deluxe' laptops still sport P4s; which argues against P4M based CPUs being preferable. > That doesn't quite add up. > > The most 'deluxe' laptops still sport P4s; which argues against P4M > based CPUs being preferable. With all due respect to Intel, the current generation of Pentium 4's stink. They chose to let marketing make some engineering choices for them. As a result, they pumped up the GHz in order to sell new CPUs to people who still believe in the "MHz Myth" (which I guess you could now call the "GHz Myth"). That's the reason Intel's main competitors, the IBM PowerPC and AMD Athlon 64, perform much better than Pentium 4's at similar clock speeds. Intel and AMD chose a smarter engineering path: don't chase high clock speeds just to sell CPUs. The Pentium M is different -- smarter -- technology than the Pentium 4. While the current generation of Pentium 4's have terrible heat problems, the Pentium M runs reasonly cool. That is important to most laptop users. The Pentium M also uses much less power. That is also important to most laptop users. If you're buying a laptop for games, games, games, and oh yes, some applications, and you insist on a laptop form factor, then sure, one of those "desktop replacement"-style laptops may be a good choice for you, and those are based on Pentium 4's. But for most people, the Pentium M is easily the far superior choice. They perform much better than their clock speed would lead most uninformed people to believe, and they're properly designed for the laptop form factor. johndoe@example.com wrote in news:417dbac0$0$1327$a1866201 @newsreader.visi.com: >> That doesn't quite add up. >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > uninformed people to believe, and they're properly designed for the > laptop form factor. No question, if you are buying a laptop for portability, and the ability to use it while it is not plugged into a power outlet, go for the M. If you are buying it strictly to play games, and expect it to always be plugged into a power outlet, go with the 4. I'm not quite sure why you'd pay the extra cost of a laptop in a case like that, unless maybe you have very limited space, or like to go over to friends houses to play alongside them or something. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 68 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 32 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 29 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons > > That doesn't quite add up. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to people who still believe in the "MHz Myth" (which I guess you could > now call the "GHz Myth"). Not quite. Myth or no myth: bottom line the processors are still competing favorably in benchmarks. Granted its against cpus with lower clock speed, but so what? We can only compare with what is on the market today, and if that means a P4 3.6 gets compared with a PPC 2.0 so be it. > That's the reason Intel's main competitors, the IBM PowerPC and AMD > Athlon 64, perform much better than Pentium 4's at similar clock > speeds. Intel and AMD chose a smarter engineering path: don't chase > high clock speeds just to sell CPUs. It doesn't matter to the customer whether or not the cpu's perform better at 'similiar' clock speeds. What matters is whether or not the cpu's perform better at similiar price points for the average consumer. And for the 'enthusiast consumer' what matters is 'what is the fastest cpu on the marget today'. Intel has performed well on both fronts. AMD has typically provided slightly better performance for the dollar, although intel has been competitive. Intel has usually had the fastest cpu. (IBMs PPC is a great processor, but its a lot more complicated to discuss because of the entirely different culture of the more upscale Apple marketing and branding strategy. Granted, in a laptop, the lower clockspeed tends to play out favourably in terms of power consumption. Which is why an AMD or PPC based laptop may be a better buy. > The Pentium M is different -- smarter -- technology than the Pentium > 4. While the current generation of Pentium 4's have terrible heat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Pentium M also uses much less power. That is also important to > most laptop users. If the M were such a strictly superior processor. Same performance + less heat + less power then I would expect there to be a demand for them in desktops. They aren't the fastest for the dollar, and they aren't the fastest overall. They may very well be 'more' suitable for office apps on laptops than a p4, but that suitability is earned by lower power consumption not better performance. Thus you get lower power consumption and lower performance. > If you're buying a laptop for games, games, games, and oh yes, some > applications, and you insist on a laptop form factor, then sure, one > of those "desktop replacement"-style laptops may be a good choice for > you, and those are based on Pentium 4's. > > But for most people, the Pentium M is easily the far superior choice. Hard to say. If you plan on using it for apps, apps, and apps, oh... and EQ once in a while... it will still fail to meet your needs, by the sounds of things. People either need to strike EQ of the list of things they plan to do, or strike having a pile of extra battery life of the list of things they want. Its a tradeoff, for most people its a tradeoff. The M only makes sense as a far superior choice if all you want is browser, email, plus office. > They perform much better than their clock speed would lead most > uninformed people to believe, But alas much better than their clock speed would lead most people to beleive is still not actually that *fast* ... they aren't as fast as the P4s that are availble today. (Nobody actually cares that they are faster than the P4s of two years ago despite being rated at the same GHz.) > and they're properly designed for the > laptop form factor. True enough. Unfortunately they appear to be being bundled with the Centrino technology which takes the less power less performance mantra even further and leaves the platform decidely unsuitable for games. (At least that is the impression I'm getting.) Ah well, like I said, I'm leaning towards an apple powerbook. There's no need to fear that I've been duped by the ghz myth. (And no illusion that I'll be playing EQ on it either... but that's not why i want a laptop.) >> "Centrino" (as far as I can tell) is a total package designed for >> on-the-road business use. It uses a special lower power consumption [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Pentium 4 processor running at 2.6 GHz. Don't be fooled into thinking > Pentium M's and Pentium 4's can be compared by their clock speed. It looks like they've kind of muddied the water a bit since I purchased my laptop a couple of years ago. At that time, you either bought a P4 or a P4M. The P4 may have had a slight performance advantage, but not a lot. Now they seem to have merged the P4M into their Centrino mobile technology (R). You can read more about the differences here: http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/processors/index.htm? iid=ipp_home+note_processor& SignatureRumble "The floggings will continue until morale improves." -- Blackbeard > > "Centrino" (as far as I can tell) is a total package designed for > > on-the-road business use. It uses a special lower power consumption CPU [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Pentium 4 processor running at 2.6 GHz. Don't be fooled into thinking > Pentium M's and Pentium 4's can be compared by their clock speed. I wouldn't bet on that comparison. > > If you want to play games on a laptop, you do *not* want a centrino laptop. > > It isn't an "add on" option I don't think, but rather an alternative [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > EverQuest on their laptop, should prefer the Pentium M-based laptops > over the Pentium 4-based laptops, as a general rule. I'll repeat, with clarity. If you want to play games on a laptop, you do *not* want a centrino (Intel 855 integrated graphics) laptop. =) >> A laptop labeled as Centrino has a Pentium M processor. Pentium M >> processors are nice. They're roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I wouldn't bet on that comparison. It's reasonably accurate, certainly more than accurate enough for the audience that is most likely reading this thread of conversation. >> Pentium M's run cooler than Pentium 4's, so they put off a lot less >> heat when running demanding games like EverQuest. Most people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll repeat, with clarity. If you want to play games on a laptop, you do > *not* want a centrino (Intel 855 integrated graphics) laptop. =) Sorry, I wasn't clear. I only meant to compare Pentium M's to Pentium 4's. Yeah, integrated graphics typically suck. :) I'd search out a Pentium M-based laptop with decent graphics, and avoid the Pentium 4-based laptops which run hot and suck down lots of juice. >>> A laptop labeled as Centrino has a Pentium M processor. Pentium M >>> processors are nice. They're roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Pentium M-based laptop with decent graphics, and avoid the Pentium > 4-based laptops which run hot and suck down lots of juice. Just to clarify, however, the performance *would* be better on the P4 than the P4-M. The big downsides are like you said, power consumption and heat. Can you even get a P4-M anymore that isn't part of a Centrino system? SignatureRumble "The floggings will continue until morale improves." -- Blackbeard It'll run great on a Dell Inspiron 9100....if you want to call that a laptop. It's more like a portable desktop. lol > Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it > could run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or this > 64MB nVidia? GeForce FX Go5200 Graphics Card I would expect it to be more likely to play EQ with the GeForce card. Even so, you will have to keep the options cranked down I would expect. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 68 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 32 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 29 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons You may also want to get 1GB or RAM. With a P4 2.6Ghz and 512 RAM my laptop runs eq fine @ 800x600 all options turned down (32MB ATI Radeon card). The RAM will help a ton, especially since your CPU is a Celeron. > Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it could > run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or this > 64MB nVidia? GeForce FX Go5200 Graphics Card > Buying a laptop (various unrelated reasons) and was wondering if it could > run eq - any advice would be great as I have no idea when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or this > 64MB nVidia® GeForce FX Go5200 Graphics Card Ses, I have been playing on a 2 year old HP pavillion ze4100...1.8 celeron, 512mb ram, shared with the video card... I get lag in POK and bazaar, and I only bother running the new versions of the character models for races I play that have horses [i like the old models, so sue me=)], and horses but I think it will let me pick 20 models to use, and I have always run with my spells muted but I didnt lag out in dragon raids/ring wars from spellflash. Well thanks to all who replied, learnt a little bit more about these pc's after reading all this. Made a choice based on its a work and play machine that needs to be mobile, and obviously price is always a big issue specs. below Mobile Intel? P4 Processor 518 with HT (2.80 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB 64MB nVidia? GeForce FX Go5200 Graphics Card 512MB 333MHz DDR RAM It overstretched the budget a little but worth it I think Thanks again :) > Well thanks to all who replied, learnt a little bit more about these > pc's after reading all this. Made a choice based on its a work and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It overstretched the budget a little but worth it I think > Thanks again :) If the Go5200 is much like the FX5200 Ultra, then, expect to be somewhat dissapointed. It's still better than the other alternative you listed. If you keep some of your settings cranked down, you should find it to work just fine though. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 68 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 32 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 29 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.