Computer spec tread?

[Goretzu]

4 GB is easily reached, SWTOR itself around 2.5 GB is not out of the question. Essential windows features quickly use roughly 700 MB minimum as well. Skype uses about 100 MB, Teampseak uses about 50 MB. My AntiVirus uses about 100 MB. iTunes uses about 150 MB. Etcetera. Filling up the max allocated memory goes rapidly. Especially if a single open tab of the SWTOR forums in the background eats up another 120 MB, and several other tabs are open simultaneously for me.

 

Memory is there to be used, not to be saved on imo. As cheap as memory comes, there's no reason to be preservative there. And no, if you JUST use SWTOR and have pretty much nothing opened beyond that, you may not get a performance boost. However, if like many of use you have several VoIP applications running, a browser opened with several tabs, antivirus suite, a music player, etc? Then chances are very high you'll be needing more than your 4 GB.

 

Yup, if you run loads of other programmes (especially if some of which are bloatware) then yes you'll need more, but not on a healthy clean windows install and just running SWTOR.

 

Although you'd likely gain more SWTOR performance by simply building another low-end PC to run your other programs on in the first place.

 

Yes, they should, but we have to compensate for it for now with more ram and I've heard there are some outside programs which can fix the issue as well.

 

Yeah it certainly should be fixed.

[Fornix]

Yup, if you run loads of other programmes (especially if some of which are bloatware) then yes you'll need more, but not on a healthy clean windows install and just running SWTOR.

 

Although you'd likely gain more SWTOR performance by simply building another low-end PC to run your other programs on in the first place.

 

I've dealt with that in the past, however, personally I don't think it's convenient. So rather I tend to work with an excess of hardware resources in one, rather than focussing on two.

 

Especially considering as to how asides from the GPU, all hardware is capable of running a wide range of things as once anyway.

 

Multi-core CPU's have plenty of room to go for a wide range of applications. It's very hard to reach a 100% load these days, always room to spare. In terms of memory I have sufficient as well with 16GB, room for upgrade to 32GB if ever desired; however thus far my maximum usage has been around 8GB.

 

The GPU however, although for most games recieving the heaviest load, is also the one which does practically nothing in other applications.

 

The last which could form an issue is disk access, however my frequently played games are ran from their own SSD. As such, they do not conflict with other applications either.

 

As such, I have no performance difference between running with additional applications on versus off. Whilst maintaining the ease of working on a single computer, rather than dealing with 2.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Fornix

[DiabloDoom]

Especially considering as to how asides from the GPU, all hardware is capable of running a wide range of things as once anyway.

 

His gfx card is far better than his processor, what you on about.

[Fornix]

His gfx card is far better than his processor, what you on about.

 

??? I was not referring to his gfx card there ???

[DiabloDoom]

??? I was not referring to his gfx card there ???

 

What did you mean by GPU then?

[eldefail]

If I do upgrade my CPU what should I get? I don't want to spend more then $1000.

 

I have done some searching. Looked @ this:

Dell xps8500

http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/product/detail.jsp?skuId=6877726&pid=1218810050386

 

You can build an entirely new rig for under $1000.

[L-RANDLE]

You can build an entirely new rig for under $1000.

 

^^^^

Part of the problem buying branded systems is that they intentionally throttle them down and limit the amount of scalability.. I built my rig for $800 last year and it will blow any XPS in the 900 price range out the water, even though its a year old.

 

Things to consider:

SSD

GTX 5 series or better

Intel over AMD CPU

Discreet GPU(no onboard)

 

I am more than sure your current system has some bloat to it. Maybe just a wipe of windows and an upgrade to a SSD drive to run the system/game might be enough if you don't want to buy/build a new system.

Edited January 14, 2013 by L-RANDLE

[L-RANDLE]

Also think about this..

 

You basically could retro fit your old system:

 

New MB: $75

New CPU: $200(Core i5)

New GPU: $325( GTX 580 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814187125&nm_mc=OTC-Shopping&cm_mmc=OTC-Shopping-_-Video+Cards-_-Sparkle+Computer-_-14187125 )

 

Hi-jack the memory/HD/case/optical from your old system and reload windows/swtor.

 

 

Voila; kills that XPS you linked from Best Buy and save you almost $100.

[eldefail]

So I just wanted to recap what some others are already saying. Download CCleaner, SuperAntiSpyware or some other malware remover, and consider a PC tune up utility.

 

http://www.techsupportalert.com/ has some good suggestions for freeware that should help you scrub your computer. You might also consider reading the guide at http://www.tweakhound.com/windows7/tweaking/index.html and see if you can get some nonessential services from loading and hogging your ram. Worst case scenario, if you have your Windows 7 CD key try a fresh install. Your key should be on a sticker somewhere on your case if you purchased a pre-built system, otherwise it'll be in the case the install disk came in.

 

Update all your drivers, especially your CPU, GPU, and Motherboard.

 

Run Windows Update repeatedly until all updates are installed.

 

The problem is probably mostly bloatware like spyware, malware, unnecessary services, etc sucking up all your RAM. It's my understanding swtor has a memory leak issue that has not been entirely resolved yet, and that might be a lot of your troubles there.

 

And one more thing regarding game performance. Some time ago swtor's antialiasing setting was all messed up. It didn't work, and still ate all the resources it would have used had it worked properly and then some. Consider disablling the in-game AA and enabling FXAA or other AA settings in your GPU's settings.

 

Also, I built my current rig for around $850. To be fair one of my harddrives and 4 gb of my ram is from an older rig I built a few years ago, so there's some money I saved, but the whole thing would not have cost me even your $1000 budget.

 

23 inch 1080p monitor

Intel Core i5 2500k, not overclocked

GeForce 550 ti 448 core, not overclocked

10 gb ddr3 ram (I accidentally ordered 6 gb ram cause I'm a derp so now I have 10 )

Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H motherboard

CM Storm gaming mouse (those crazy keybinds, can never get enough)

 

I spent all in all about $800 on these parts last year from Newegg. If I'd been a little more choosy and patient I probably could have saved a lot of money.

 

If you decide to upgrade your PC, consider working with somebody local who builds computers for a living. You'd be surprised, they can help you choose the parts you need AND put it together for $50 or so, and you'd save literally hundreds of dollars over buying a pre-built rig from Dell or other manufacturers.

[L-RANDLE]

23 inch 1080p monitor

Intel Core i5 2500k, not overclocked

GeForce 550 ti 448 core, not overclocked

10 gb ddr3 ram (I accidentally ordered 6 gb ram cause I'm a derp so now I have 10 )

Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H motherboard

 

LOL..... So you are almost running the same system I am... I am a tech reseller though so I got better $$ than Newegg...

 

i5 2500k

GTX 560Ti

60GB SSD(system/programs)

16GB RAM

GIGABYTE GA-Z77-D3H MoBo

 

 

I run this game at max settings and rarely have lag.. And when I do it is more likely my connection rather than my rig..

[eldefail]

Haha twinsies.

 

I actually typo'd my GPU. It's the 560 ti 448 core.

 

But yeah, OP should totally build a bright shiny new rig and save about $500. I'm also at max settings, FPS seems to hover around 70 but I never seem to dip below 60. World of Warcraft runs at 100+ FPS at ultra settings (with some tweaked past ultra) if I don't throttle it.

Edited January 14, 2013 by eldefail

[Fornix]

What did you mean by GPU then?

 

Simply meant speaking in general, GPU's are more often used up 100% by games as with most modern games they're primarily GPU bound. Whilst non-game applications in most cases use very little of the other resources and can be outdone by additional cores or a bigger memory pool. Of course there are a few exceptions, don't try running video editing software actively in the background for example; but standard things such as VoIP apps, browsers, etc are no longer required to be an issue.

[PlayLoud]

They ought to have gone for DirectX 10 minimum, DirectX 11 preferably.

You would have eliminated far too many players if you made it DX10 required. DX9 was an obvious choice. I'm fine with a DX10/11 OPTION, but you can't disregard the masses still stuck on XP or DX9 hardware.

 

- CPU at least 2 cores (anything more will go unused by SWTOR, however it's hard to find less than 4 anywyas these days).

Actually, we have some benchmarks to show the game runs much better with 4 cores.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087-8.html

[Acks]

I can run this game max with over 50FPS at all times except in massive PvP but even then it stays around 15 - 30 during huge PvP battles.

 

Intel I7 3770 CPUS @ 3.40GHz 3.40GHz

64 bit windows 7 operating system

16gigs of RAM

Radeon 7880

[Goretzu]

I've dealt with that in the past, however, personally I don't think it's convenient. So rather I tend to work with an excess of hardware resources in one, rather than focussing on two.

 

Especially considering as to how asides from the GPU, all hardware is capable of running a wide range of things as once anyway.

 

Multi-core CPU's have plenty of room to go for a wide range of applications. It's very hard to reach a 100% load these days, always room to spare. In terms of memory I have sufficient as well with 16GB, room for upgrade to 32GB if ever desired; however thus far my maximum usage has been around 8GB.

 

The GPU however, although for most games recieving the heaviest load, is also the one which does practically nothing in other applications.

 

The last which could form an issue is disk access, however my frequently played games are ran from their own SSD. As such, they do not conflict with other applications either.

 

As such, I have no performance difference between running with additional applications on versus off. Whilst maintaining the ease of working on a single computer, rather than dealing with 2.

 

 

 

You'll never make one system more efficent than two systems performance-wise (power-wise perhaps), or more stable.

 

Certainly I wouldn't fill my gaming PC with a load of stuff like iTunes or other bloatware like that (well I wouldn't use iTune at all anyway, but if I did), unless I had no other choice (limited room/budget or whatever).

[Fornix]

You would have eliminated far too many players if you made it DX10 required. DX9 was an obvious choice. I'm fine with a DX10/11 OPTION, but you can't disregard the masses still stuck on XP or DX9 hardware.

 

Game developers ought to disregard them, as long as they do not, development is going to be stuck. That's why I personally think it's one of the best decisions EA has made to start developing primarily which the Frostbite 2.0 engine from now on, which has no DX9 support anymore. This will boost a sufficient amount of games into DX10+ only that more people will actually upgrade, meaning game quality can finally improve further and performance can raise.

 

The GeForce 7 series was the last DirectX 9.0c system from nVidia for one. The game will barely be playable on that anyway. So the only thing you remain with would be stubborn players not wishing to upgrade from Windows XP. And even Windows XP makes up for only about 10% in the Steam Hardware Survey, last year not being a lot higher (my recollection is around 16%).

 

By no way are those masses, those are just a few people who need the extra push in the right direction and upgrade.

 

 

Actually, we have some benchmarks to show the game runs much better with 4 cores.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087-8.html

 

Actually what that graph shows is that it does NOT.

 

i3 dual core HT performs pretty similar to i5 quad core. The only place where you see a performance boost in number of cores is AMD, but that's not so much per sé a core thing, but an AMD specific design choice. And part of the reason why AMD throws around with big number of cores, whereas Intel can manage to limit them, whilst maintaining similar or better performance on smaller tasks.

 

Hyperthreading technology allows Intel to run minimal tasks side by side, rather than sequentially. This smooths out performance. All what the graph shows is that AMD simply makes ineffective use of their cores in this case.

 

However, on the other hand dual core AMD systems are also just straight from the stoneage all together. The X2 is a '08 CPU which isn't even produced anymore. Their hex-core systems are already nearly 3 years old. People still running on Phenom II X2 cores is once more a desperate need to upgrade their systems as they're miles behind in terms of hardware.