Spread the love! TechSpot Tech Gift Shortlist 2017

Gaming computer power


Is this graphics card enough?

  1. Graphics Card is PERFECT (for my use)

  2. Graphics Card is adequate- kind of

  3. This card is garbage. It is not even enough to run FSX on Mid-high settings

Multiple votes are allowed.
By techguy50 · 15 replies
Apr 4, 2010
  1. Hey guys, I need help choosing a computer!!!!

    I want a Mid-level gaming computer, that is under $840 dollars (before tax)
    I dont want this computer to have a "alienware computer" like design.

    Important: I do NOT want to build my own computer, I want to stick with well-known brands (Hp,Dell,Lenovo,Toshiba,etc.) No Sony, Samsung, and whatever. I also want intel not Amd.
    My main concern is the Graphics card.
    USES: Mostly playing games like Flight Simulator X, along with regular comfortable use. So I want it to not have weird compatibility issues.
    I want to run Flight Sim. on Ultra High quality or like high, on mid resolution.
    REMEMBER: My main concern is the Graphics card.
    Anyway, these are the specs I came up with.

    Also, I have the option of a GeForce G310, and a GeForce GT 220. I am almost sure that GTS 240 is better, but just comment to make me sure.
    MAKE AND MODEL: Dell Studio XPS 8100
    OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
    CPU/Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-650 processor(4MB Cache, 3.20GHz)
    RAM/Memory: 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz - 4 DIMMs
    Graphics Card: nVidia GeForce GTS240 1024MB GDDR3
    Hard Drive: 500GB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
    Disk drive or whatever its called: 16X DVD+/-RW Drive

    Guys, I cannot afford to upgrade another dollar. Please, keep in mind that I will not be like playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 on maximum settings while downloading a large file from the internet. This is my maximum budget. I would like to stick with a Quad Core CPU. AND I want it to be a Core i CPU.

    Please help me.
  2. techguy50

    techguy50 TS Rookie Topic Starter

    Ok guys... I got one answer to my poll. They say it is adequate for my needs. Is this correct?
  3. gobbybobby

    gobbybobby TS Guru Posts: 551   +9

    Flight Simulator X, is 2004? (, never played it) So the card you got should do it easy. (I am person on poll)
  4. techguy50

    techguy50 TS Rookie Topic Starter

    NO- it is FSX not FS2004 GRRR

    No- flight simulator x is the sequel. And I mean you can just tell from the size of the game itself. The Flight Simulator 2004 Century of flight (the old one) is only like 2.5 Gigabytes. The new one Flight Simulator 10 (in ROMAN NUMERALS X!) takes like 15 Gigabytes... huge.

    please- just respond. Is the video card good enough. Do you really know what you are talking about? I am not trying to be rude. I am just kindof confused and looking for pro help...
  5. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,448   +145

    You already posted a thread on this...the answer hasn't changed much and that is that the GTS 240 is not a particularly powerful card.

    You have a rather large amount of restrictions...like intel core i quad only...no samsung or sony (do they even make computers? Isn't your DVD drive a sony?)...IDK just seems a little counter productive.

    Just as a note, it won't really take 15 gb.
    Also, if your forced to a GTS 240 or something similar, just stick with the cheaper 512mb version if possible.

    Oh and we did mention that it was more of a CPU dependant game? No matter, the i650 is decent, i750 would be a better choice, again if possible, they tend to have very limited options.

    EDIT: Heh, you voted on your own poll.
  6. Relic

    Relic TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,379   +16

    As I said in the previous thread the GTS 240 appears to be a rebranded 9800 GT for OEMs. I didn't find benchmarks to help out but it should suit your needs. FSX also appears to be more CPU intensive so I'd say you are ok. However if you haven't already check out what other flight sim gamers use to give yourself a better idea of how your system will perform (settings/resolution & Windows 7).
  7. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    I second Relics post. It is hugely CPU intense. there are folks with OC i7's and GTX 295's that are managing 30 fps. it will run smooth at 25-30 fps. turning up the detail to ultra takes a heavy bite, but its from the cpu...its a very strange game in that I cant figure out why they would code a game to run that way.
    here is an illustrative bench from Toms http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i5-gaming,review-31673-10.html
  8. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 3,482   +44

    This is true, I own flight simX and I can get no higher than 35fps on max graphics with my old 22" samsung. Not even gonna bark about my 30." Its probably why I stopped playing it.
  9. gobbybobby

    gobbybobby TS Guru Posts: 551   +9

    wow did not know it was such a heavy game. I may buy it just to have a look. I got an AMD 9550 Quad core 2.2Ghz, 4 gig ram, Vista Ultimate 32bit, nVidia GTS 250. Its 2 year old build now. I may upgrade end of year.
  10. techguy50

    techguy50 TS Rookie Topic Starter

    like your advice

    Ok, so pretty much it COULD run at like 28 FPS.

    I mean, if you want to know the reason why I need a new computer-
    just read the next line- it is like pathetic:

    Well... I have an old Acer computer (that crashes) with a single core pentium processor, intel video accelerator, something like 512 megabytes of (very slow) ram, and what else can I pile up to that junk-box??!??

    On top of it, I want to play FSX- laughable- right???

    So that is why I am getting a new computer. LOL

    so pretty much, it is possible that it is enough. I mean I used to play FS 2004 (the old lame version) at like 18 FPS on that old acer and not really mind too much. \
    I was kind of playing without realizing lag too much.

    28 FPS seems really good. If that is what I will get, that is like a luxury for me.
  11. techguy50

    techguy50 TS Rookie Topic Starter

    Thanks for the link...

    they probably coded like that for noobs like me- who have lame GPUs but very decent CPUs
    Also, what I meant by mid resolution is like 1280x1024. I guess that means low- haha

    please say- will this be far different?!?!
  12. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,448   +145

    No its just stupid, graphics card are much better suited for this. Thats why their called graphics cards??

    Of course, you could just turn down your settings if you want higher FPS.
  13. Relic

    Relic TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,379   +16

    Yes that is a low resolution and usually the lowest tested on in most benchmarks today. And you should be fine with it considering they tested on high resolutions with ultra high settings. You might not be able to run ultra high with both AA and AF on, but should get decently close with 1280x1024. And that PC is a HUGE upgrade over your current one and you will notice an increase in everything.
  14. techguy50

    techguy50 TS Rookie Topic Starter

    I agree

    I agree with you. But I mean, you gotta consider- how would a game like that play on a ATI Radeon HD 5450 on high settings with a so-and-so computer. I often browse technical performace videos of computers on youtube, and when people say their specs, it is often like this.

    Can someone help me find why my computer is lagging in Crysis? The specs seem really good! :
    Intel Core i7-960
    3 GB DDR3 RAM
    nVidia GeForce 9400 GT (uhhhh- really- its lagging???)

    and a few other specs- but you saw the video card- simple garbage

    Oh- and you wont believe what I figured out today.

    The GTS 240 I chose doesn't have an HDMI port.

    what a bummer. but thats ok- its my only choice...
  15. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

  16. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 3,448   +145

    Yeah if you pick the right one (ie, the ones that come with the HDMI), it will be fine.

    Oh and the people with ridiculously imbalanced systems are just foolish, its much more efficient to let the parallel processing of a graphics card handle the graphics...they in fact have a huge potential processing advantage over CPU's. Besides, most games usually are GPU based.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...