fido139
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 0
On the subject of HL2 gaming computers, and computers in general.
I build, tune and repair computers for over 10 years now as a side line. There is a lot of misconception out there about gaming power, or just plain power in computers. Being that I have had hands on so many hundreds of computers in my line of work, I see the performance differences first hand. People seem to think the faster the processor, the bigger the video card, AMD better then intel, the more RAM, adds up to a better gaming computer. While all these things are certainly a factor, it does not mean in the end you will have what you expect in terms of power for gaming. What it all really comes down to is a compatibility issue of hardware and drivers. Some pieces of hardware just do not play nice with others, no matter what the "ratings" are. You could find a 2.0 Ghz machine that will outperform a 3 Ghz machine if you look around, and not very long. Some of the quickest computers I have every seen are nothing special in terms of hardware/size/speed and value. For instance, I had two Dell computers in the last few months on my workbench that by looking at the specs was no big deal. The last one of them being a 2.53 Ghz P4, this is the quickest machine I have seen to date, for instance it boot from "power on" to Windows XP Desktop in 18 seconds. All tests I threw at it smoked. Ghz does not necessarily translate to speed and performance, its the right "combination". Same computers with like configurations will vary in performance as well.
For instance, all I use for HL2 is a crummy old home built P4 2.4 Ghz, VIA chipset, 512 RAM, a low end GeForce4 64 Mb graphics card and a 80 Gig WD drive. Performance, in my opinion, is as good as it gets. Sure, the "stutter" is there that most everyone else has reported, but otherwise all is smooth and clean.
Another misconception is Benchmarking. Things can look pretty on cleverly displayed graphs, but they do not translate directly into blazing performance. Where the rubber really meets the road is when your hand slides the mouse or the joystick. The only way to truly evaluate a machine is run it through the paces, first hand, and believe me, they vary greatly!
One way to really hop up a machine for performance is learn to turn off all the background processes that you dont need. There are plenty of them. When I get a new machine to install from the factory, the Windows memory footprint or "charge" is as high as about 180 Mb. When I go through the machine and turn off all uneeded processes, its down to around 109 Mb, this adds a lot of speed. There are many websites dedicated to tuning Windows for performance. Out of the box, it is a slug.
Now, I know I'll get flamed for this, but I think AMD is way over rated, and I can prove that by the computers that come across my work bench. Each unit, P4 or AMD has its strengths and weaknesses, but in the end its a wash. I have become biased toward intel over the years from personal experience with the both of them. By the way, I also have Macintosh (gag) experience.
One more thing, Clock speed does not translate directly to performance in this way: If you go from a 1Ghz to a 2 Ghz machine, you do NOT get double the speed and performance. What you get is roughly 50% increase in actual speed, and many times not even that, as shown above.
There is a lot more that can be said about all of this, but due to space and time constraints, this is "in a nutshell".
So before you run out and buy the big stuff, test drive a few machines personally. You can spend a lot of hard earned $$$ and only buy headaches.
Fido :smoking:
I build, tune and repair computers for over 10 years now as a side line. There is a lot of misconception out there about gaming power, or just plain power in computers. Being that I have had hands on so many hundreds of computers in my line of work, I see the performance differences first hand. People seem to think the faster the processor, the bigger the video card, AMD better then intel, the more RAM, adds up to a better gaming computer. While all these things are certainly a factor, it does not mean in the end you will have what you expect in terms of power for gaming. What it all really comes down to is a compatibility issue of hardware and drivers. Some pieces of hardware just do not play nice with others, no matter what the "ratings" are. You could find a 2.0 Ghz machine that will outperform a 3 Ghz machine if you look around, and not very long. Some of the quickest computers I have every seen are nothing special in terms of hardware/size/speed and value. For instance, I had two Dell computers in the last few months on my workbench that by looking at the specs was no big deal. The last one of them being a 2.53 Ghz P4, this is the quickest machine I have seen to date, for instance it boot from "power on" to Windows XP Desktop in 18 seconds. All tests I threw at it smoked. Ghz does not necessarily translate to speed and performance, its the right "combination". Same computers with like configurations will vary in performance as well.
For instance, all I use for HL2 is a crummy old home built P4 2.4 Ghz, VIA chipset, 512 RAM, a low end GeForce4 64 Mb graphics card and a 80 Gig WD drive. Performance, in my opinion, is as good as it gets. Sure, the "stutter" is there that most everyone else has reported, but otherwise all is smooth and clean.
Another misconception is Benchmarking. Things can look pretty on cleverly displayed graphs, but they do not translate directly into blazing performance. Where the rubber really meets the road is when your hand slides the mouse or the joystick. The only way to truly evaluate a machine is run it through the paces, first hand, and believe me, they vary greatly!
One way to really hop up a machine for performance is learn to turn off all the background processes that you dont need. There are plenty of them. When I get a new machine to install from the factory, the Windows memory footprint or "charge" is as high as about 180 Mb. When I go through the machine and turn off all uneeded processes, its down to around 109 Mb, this adds a lot of speed. There are many websites dedicated to tuning Windows for performance. Out of the box, it is a slug.
Now, I know I'll get flamed for this, but I think AMD is way over rated, and I can prove that by the computers that come across my work bench. Each unit, P4 or AMD has its strengths and weaknesses, but in the end its a wash. I have become biased toward intel over the years from personal experience with the both of them. By the way, I also have Macintosh (gag) experience.
One more thing, Clock speed does not translate directly to performance in this way: If you go from a 1Ghz to a 2 Ghz machine, you do NOT get double the speed and performance. What you get is roughly 50% increase in actual speed, and many times not even that, as shown above.
There is a lot more that can be said about all of this, but due to space and time constraints, this is "in a nutshell".
So before you run out and buy the big stuff, test drive a few machines personally. You can spend a lot of hard earned $$$ and only buy headaches.
Fido :smoking:
