Is my PC any good?

[TeamDerka]

My operating system is Windows 7 Home Premium Edition 64 bit
I have 8 gigs of RAM
My CPU is an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz
I have over 650 gigs of space (actually the local disk has a 698.6 gig size)
Video Card Memory is 3.76 GB and it is apart of the Intel 4 Series Express Chipset Family

Bottomline, are those requirements good enough to play both Mass Effect's, Fallout 3 or even Bioshock if I wanted to play them? (Bioshock's demo lagged on me along with the sound disappearing but i'm not sure if I need to adjust settings)

 

[Frostmourne]

No, the CPU is slow and a bottleneck and the GPU is junk. You will never play any games on it. Here is an example of the system I built:

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/46227-excellent-gaming-performance-7-a.html

Only thing on it are benchmarks, games and drivers, along with the associated copy protection apps. No PDF reader nothing else. Minimizes compatibility problems and maximises performance.

 

[ZaLiTH]

Bottomline, are those requirements good enough to play both Mass Effect's, Fallout 3 or even Bioshock if I wanted to play them? (Bioshock's demo lagged on me along with the sound disappearing but i'm not sure if I need to adjust settings)

As it stands now, not quite... You have a nice amount of RAM (although I can't tell from your post whether it's decent memory or not), but while running onboard graphics you'll be severely restricted.

What I'd suggest is to download a system analysis program (CPU-z will do for this: link), then check to see what motherboard you have and whether it can take a PCI-e (PCI Express) graphics card or not. If it can, then not all hope is lost.

If you get confused with what to look for with CPU-z; run it, take screen shots of the CPU, Mainboard and Memory tabs and then post them here in this thread, if I don't get to it first, then somebody will be able to tell you more about your hardware.

 

[thefabe]

Your cpu is fine but you should as suggested on the above post check into getting a better graphics card. My q6600 running at 2.8 with a GTX 260 superclocked PCI-e card runs every game at high quality.Fabe

 

[manchot]

No, the CPU is slow and a bottleneck and the GPU is junk. You will never play any games on it.

wtf lololol

 

[Fumz]

I know, it just sounds wrong, but he's not far off the mark. It's not so much the cpu, but the graphics chip that's killing him. Basically, everything's got to be played, if it plays, at 800x600, with all settings set to low of off... in that context, it's really not worth playing games at all.

Laptop graphics controllers — Game playability on Microsoft Windows Vista*

 

[RST101]

Just upgrade your gfx chip and that system will be fine for running any game.

 

[baron75mk2]

No, the CPU is slow and a bottleneck and the GPU is junk. You will never play any games on it. Here is an example of the system I built:

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/46227-excellent-gaming-performance-7-a.html

Only thing on it are benchmarks, games and drivers, along with the associated copy protection apps. No PDF reader nothing else. Minimizes compatibility problems and maximises performance.

funny you say his CPU is to slow yet he has a core 2 quad at 2.5ghz - just checked your spec & yours is 2.8ghz not a big difference there m8 ill agree he needs to obtain a proper graphics card solution but as for telling him he will never play anything on his rig that's complete nonsense all he needs is a decent graphics card i can play bioshock at the absolute max settings & resolution (60fps) & my CPU is not as good as his (mine is 2.4ghz amd phenom quad core & his is 2.5ghz core 2 quad - better than mine) & yes your custom rig is very very nice but no one needs that much of a rig just to be able to play mid spec games like bioshock etc the guy just wanted some general advice not someone to completely insult all of his PC equipment - just remember not everyone is as lucky to have such a nice rig as you - just don't let it go to your head

 

[Wishmaster]

Just get a proper graphics Card, and disable the built-in Onboard ones and you'll be ok.

Even something like a HD4850 will be good


Something to keep in mind is the Power Supply. If its a pre-built PC, it likely has a weak one, just barely capable of running what it has. (or at least most pre-built are like this)

So, youd have a choice of getting a graphics card that pulls all its power from the PCI slot --- (such as a HD4650)
this will get you started cheap, less that $70 im guessing,
& should be OK as long as you are playign at low resolutions (1440x900 for ex.) or smaller, but you will not be able to play with settings on high.
It will just get you by ..

best way for gaming:
getting a bit better PSU (dependign what you have now), and go with a 4850 or larger GPU and youll be able to turn up some of the visuals and play smoother.

 

[AstaLaVista]

No, the CPU is slow and a bottleneck and the GPU is junk. You will never play any games on it. Here is an example of the system I built:

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/46227-excellent-gaming-performance-7-a.html

Only thing on it are benchmarks, games and drivers, along with the associated copy protection apps. No PDF reader nothing else. Minimizes compatibility problems and maximises performance.

WOW, way to put your system up while putting someone else down.

No, the CPU is slow and a bottleneck and the GPU is junk. You will never play any games on it.

wtf lololol

My sentiments exactly!


TeamDerka, I may have read your post wrong but it appears that you are trying to say that you have an onboard video card but you also have another one with 3.76GB of Ram, if that is so... can you give us the Brand Name and model? Also, is your sound onboard or dedicated sound card?

I am with the majority here when they say that all you may need is a good video card, your cpu is more than capable and with the newer games (or most anyways) being Console Ports, changinto or upgradng from your cpu to an i7 is just a waste of money in my book.

Good Luck

 

[pparks1]

As others have said and I agree with, get yourself a better video card and I believe your issues will mostly go away.

A quad core Q8300 is likely not going to be too much of an issue. While there are faster chips and new architectures like Core i7 and Core i5...I don't think this is where your issue lies.

The original poster has an HP machine, p6240f...which has the Integrated Intel X4500 graphics chipset and it has access to about 4GB of shared system RAM.


The bigger problem the OP is going to run into, is that this machine has a built in 300Watt power supply unit. That type of power supply will NOT be sufficient to run any of the newer high end video cards.

I read some posts online from people who replaced their power supplies in that same HP model with the following Corsair PSU which is only $89 currently at NewEgg and it fit right in;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005&Tpk=CMPSU-650TX

 

[Wishmaster]

yea, the PSU will def. be a issue sadly.

Thats a excellent PSU. With plenty of power,and all most will ever need.
Unless your getting into Multiple (High END GPUS)

Depending what card he chooses and what buget, the 400W or 450 W Corsairs are good as well, 32-35A respectivlly.

the downside, they will limit you to the lower end-some mid range graphics card, but is another option if budget is a issue.

 

[sergiogarcia9]

No, the CPU is slow and a bottleneck and the GPU is junk. You will never play any games on it. Here is an example of the system I built:

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/46227-excellent-gaming-performance-7-a.html

Only thing on it are benchmarks, games and drivers, along with the associated copy protection apps. No PDF reader nothing else. Minimizes compatibility problems and maximises performance.

*says the guy with 256 mb onboard Graphics and nearly the same CPU*

Seriously his CPU is fine, and with a GT220 or something like that added, it should run some of the newer games.
But you can't expect it to run the newest games at the highest settings.

 

[pparks1]

*says the guy with 256 mb onboard Graphics and nearly the same CPU*

I'm pretty sure that his system specs before listed a Black Edition AMD Phenom II in a desktop computer. Perhaps he has changed his specs now to be his laptop specs instead. I don't know, but I could have sworn that he is an AMD fan and had AMD listed before.

 

[TeamDerka]

Older games like Republic Commando run like a beast (even better then Jedi Knight Jedi Academy), but Empire at War did lag slightly (and it was a Demo I played) unless I switched my graphics settings to a lower level.

 

[TeamDerka]

Also, I have an A/C Power Source and have 615.69 gigabytes of Space Left on the C:\ Drive

I tried the Bioshock demo with high settings but at 600X800 view and it still lags but not as much as before (sound still disappears though)

 

[Frostmourne]

*says the guy with 256 mb onboard Graphics and nearly the same CPU*

I'm pretty sure that his system specs before listed a Black Edition AMD Phenom II in a desktop computer. Perhaps he has changed his specs now to be his laptop specs instead. I don't know, but I could have sworn that he is an AMD fan and had AMD listed before.

The specs listed is my day to day laptop. The link has my gaming system with a Phenom II 550 @ 3.1GHz stock. It would be insanity to installs games with a 9300M GS chipset in a laptop.

The OP's CPU is a bottleneck - games need clock speed as much as cache and architecture.

 

[Wishmaster]

We need to look at the larger picture, and what the OP is asking about to properly answer his question accurately.

CPU speed itself isn't always the main thing. Intell are usually faster clock for clock than AMD, and AMD typically has more memory bandwidth.

Since memory bandwidth doesnt really help much in modern machines for gaming, it isnt a great deal of help when gaming.

For example, a Q8200 (which is slightly slower than the Ops (Q8300) VS a Phenom 2 550.
Look at these bench marks and you can see that, although the q8200 is clocked at 2.3 ghz, It does the same job, and often outperforms the AMD clocked at 3.1

Granted the Phenom will excell in certain areas ... but when it comes to gaming (which is what we are talking about here), number cruching and 3d rendering , the intell does just as well or better in many cases...

with the excpetion of source Games where the Phenom has the advantage.

Q8200 Vs PhenomII 550
Compare , Phenom II X2 550 Dual Core Processor

All CPUS Overall:
Charts, benchmarks 2009 Desktop CPU Charts (Update 1), 3DMark Vantage 1.0.2

In conclusion, a better graphics card and the OP will be able to play games without issue.
the CPU itself will not make a difference in this case, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU takes the majority of the load.

Certain tasks would benefit possibly from a CPU upgrade. but for gaming , its not needed.

 

[Frostmourne]

We need to look at the larger picture, and what the OP is asking about to properly answer his question accurately.

CPU speed itself isn't always the main thing. Intell are usually faster clock for clock than AMD, and AMD typically has more memory bandwidth.

Since memory bandwidth doesnt really help much in modern machines for gaming, it isnt a great deal of help when gaming.

For example, a Q8200 (which is slightly slower than the Ops (Q8300) VS a Phenom 2 550.
Look at these bench marks and you can see that, although the q8200 is clocked at 2.3 ghz, It does the same job, and often outperforms the AMD clocked at 3.1

Granted the Phenom will excell in certain areas ... but when it comes to gaming (which is what we are talking about here), number cruching and 3d rendering , the intell does just as well or better in many cases...

with the excpetion of source Games where the Phenom has the advantage.

Q8200 Vs PhenomII 550
Compare , Phenom II X2 550 Dual Core Processor

All CPUS Overall:
Charts, benchmarks 2009 Desktop CPU Charts (Update 1), 3DMark Vantage 1.0.2

In conclusion, a better graphics card and the OP will be able to play games without issue.
the CPU itself will not make a difference in this case, especially at higher resolutions where the GPU takes the majority of the load.

Certain tasks would benefit possibly from a CPU upgrade. but for gaming , its not needed.

This depends on the resolution - at 1920x1080 the GPU is more valid, but a quad still will not push the CPU properly - these tests were run at resolutions stressing the CPU - 720p, not 1080p.

 

[TeamDerka]

I was able to find even more of my system stats.