What computers do the average users have for Guildwars?

P4 3.0g HT
Intel 865PE 800mhz fsb
1024mb Kingston RAM
BFG nvidia 6800 oc
Soundblaster Audigy2
260gb HD
550watt PS

Not the top pf the line but i think it will work for the most part =)

The Pentium 4 (NetBurst Architecture) competed with the XP line of AMDs. They didn't introduce a new core to compete properly with the AMD64, but the fact that it still does pretty good shows a lot. First, they aren't that much cheaper, the XP line is the only "cheap" line, but Pentium 4 Northwood's compete extremely competetively for price/performance against them, so that's not an excuse.They are more efficient per clock, but the Intel does more clock cycles, obviously. Or what you mean is AMD processors do far more IPC and have a heavy number of instruction sets, which definitely aids them in gaming performance. Having more IPC is something that the average computer user doesn't notice. It depends on what you do with a computer that accounts for the biggest difference between the two. Unless you game, the Pentium 4 3.0GHz will help the average computer person more than it's equivilant Socket 939 AMD64 3200+, because of it's higher clock speed and HT.

Hmm... Someone said it right...
Thanks SSE4

What can I say, I work for the people. If you ever feel obligated to learn more, don't hesitate to ask.

Without the bias, I agree completely with what is quoted. It depends on what you do with a computer. You have to remember AMD was an Intel clone for a long time, when they went their own route (sort of), there was confusion as to which is faster. The answer, as with nVidia and ATI, is DEPENDS. Not the diaper, it really depends on what instance and where. It's like asking if parallel is better than serial, depends on application.

Lansing Kai Don

Can you specify who you work for? I can say I work for AMD & Intel, that is not true. Let's face it, people lie. And right off the bat I think your lying, cuz everyone online is a computer or software engineer IRL. I'm not afraid to admit I don't know everything, and also I can tell you who I work for, and what department, and even give you the number to call me at (or email address).

Lansing Kai Don

Definitely. AMD (As most don't realize it) has built itself up on a series of failures and shortcomings, but what they have made now is an excellent processor worthy of mention. It has definitely changed Intels policy on the future make of its processors. Intel simply went for climbing MHz because they were stopped with the Pentium III architecture. But they made it less efficient in order to do so, and thus the "MHz Myth" was born. Some people simply use the benchmarks as a sole determining factor, but the truth of the matter is that it makes very ignorant "followers" of AMD, because they don't even really understand enough of their own processor. Don't get me wrong, AMD processors are extremely good processors, and due to their efficiency will top an older Pentium 4 easily in benchmarks and real-time application, but it doesn't mean the Pentium 4 has absolutely no use, it's actually quite the opposite.

I don't technically work "for the people," and I don't work for any computer-related company like AMD or Intel. I'm simply an enthusiast. I just love computers, and dedicate a fair bit of my time learning about them, although I intend on becoming a computer engineer.

With that enthusiasm you'll make it. Just don't come across as a know it all. Next semester I will be starting my Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering after receiving my Computer Engineering Degree with a Minor in Mathematics and Computer Science at Wichita State. I'm assuming your young then. It's funny that you know AMD had shortcomings and failings... but they weren't as bad as Intel's. I don't know if you'd read about the early days MMX fiasco, and the floating point arithmetic problem. Then there was the lawsuit against AMD (which made them divert away from cloning intels), basically what AMD did ( for those that don't know) in the early days of processors was take Intel's design and reverse it and call it their own and sell it cheaper. Ownage. At the PII stage after the PI MMX architecture was already cloned, it nearly killed AMD when the lawsuit came. The court ruled in favor of Pentium and AMD had to find a way to make its own processors. But then there was Pentium who tried to slap a trademark on a number lol, so that noone could use the number w/o permission from them

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. Also an avid computer fan and fellow researcher

EDIT: I'm a computer engineer at Engenio Technologies (used to be LSI Logic and they mostly deal with large-scale data storage). PM me if you want my email and/or dept, I'm not going to post it.

Unfortunately I don't mean to come off like I know it all, but certainly the way I "talk" (Or type rather) makes it seem like I'm completely sure of what I say. Sometimes I just say it because that's what I think I know through research, but if I'm proven wrong then I will, of course, accept my mistakes. Nobody knows everything, but I at least know a fair bit in consideration to some. I remember that Intel has also had some shortcomings as well, and they both have their faults, both now and in history. I'm not aware of some of the older mishaps between the two, I just know that until the Athlon XP line, AMD has pretty much been a "budget" alternative in comparison to Intel. Most of the time they were just underperformers in most respects. And Intel has made a lot of mistakes (Like it's current direction, which it seems to be quickly changing) and I'm sure there are plenty others I don't know about.

It's most appalling when you see an "AMD fan" talk about Intel copying AMD. I try and at least spread around a "balanced" opinion regarding the two. It's competition, but it doesn't mean one or the other is for "n00bs".

Intel's recent mistake was:
Itanium (ouch.. investing that much time & hundreds of millions in a processor noone can afford, and underperforms)

AMD's recent mistake was:
AMD-Mobile (there just isn't a market for an AMD mobile processor, unless they did the same as the P4-M and just used the cream of the crop, that money can be invested more wisely.. has anyone seen a mobile AMD used in a major retailer?)

I like the way Intel is going with their processor's actually, serial has proven to be faster in many applications (but I don't know how they will manage with size constraints... shudders on the EMF calculations). But if anyone can do it, its Intel. Oh, and something I believe I saw somewher in public so I know I can divulge it, Intel is putting a good sum of money in Fibor Optics (the ultimate processor, no heat, therefore no limit on speed). Problem is the interpreting still is in electrical signals (I guess they haven't figured out how to teach light multiplication tables joke, has nothing to do with the problem)

Lansing Kai Don

Oh the Itanium! Was that the processor that was mainly for 64 bit but sucks really badly at 32 bit? Not sure everything about it, but I did here it was a piece of junk. I think the Itanium 2 is supposed to be extremely good (Especially at floating-point calculations, or at least so I've heard)

Haha I think I had heard something some time ago about them talking about using fibre optics for processors. It would be amazing, we can't deny that. Also have you heard about AMDs "Turion"? The one they bragged so much about? It turns out it's just a revamped (Weakened and dumbed down) Socket 754 AMD64 desktop processor with advanced "level 3 deep sleep" capabailities, like a makeshift SpeedStep. I was hoping it would be a "Pentium M killer" like they had bragged. Personally, that's a big mistake. They can't compete with Centrino with something like that, but they can trick the public into getting it solely on the "64 bit ready" campaign.

That's the problem, whoever said Intel contains 75% of the market share is wrong. They actually have over 90% of the market share. This makes it where AMD literally can't make a mistake in the publics eye. Oh, they can make little ones, but not like Itanium (basically they can't spoil their visage). That's why you probably didn't hear much about it, AMD has a knack of not opening their mouths till their sure of what they got. Yeh, Itanium was a complete disaster, many articles will give you the clean and cut (remember that the Itanium was supposed to be the holy grail, don't put too much stock in the Itanium 2.. but anything would probably be an improvement).

Lansing Kai Don

Actually I'm pretty sure they've been losing a bit. Last I heard they went from 80-something and dropped a few tenths of a percent. That was in December 2004 sometime I believe. I saw 75%+ so that I'm not caught "wrong" in consideration to any market they may have lost, which to me seems doubtful but believe me, AMD people can get really touchy on that subject, because they don't like to believe Intel is the controller of the market. I'd like to say I'm confident in what I know, but not all AMD fanatics use the slightest bit of logic in their arguments. AMD is slowly gaining. It's important for them to keep extremely competetive against Intel. What's interesting though is that Intel is changing its current market strategy with a bunch of newer processor lines. I'm most interested in Yonah, Presler, and Cedar Mill than anything it has lined up at the moment, although Smithfield is amazing at multitasking with two Hyper-Threaded cores. The Toledo is also looking excellent. I'm going to have to look up some more information on AMDs future processors, I've been slipping as of late.

It's difficult for me to say how things really are, because as you probably know, the second you speak out against AMD you're instantly branded a "Intel fanboy". It goes the other way as well, but Intel users aren't nearly as bad for it.

Intel users aren't nearly as bad for it, because Intel controls a larger marketshare - and the share AMD controls (likely) consists mostly of gamers, not major corporations and the like.
People that work at major corporations (and aren't gamers) won't go on forums like these and start calling everyone a noob for using AMD's, a portion of the online gamers (unfortunately) will.

On forums like these it seems like AMD controls a vast marketshare, because amongst gamers - the AMD processors are popular (virtually all gamers I know in real-life have AMD processors in their rigs).
That's not the case when it comes to actual companies, where you'll be hard-pressed to find any AMD processors.

Definitely. I use Intel processors for servers. The majority of the market aren't people who play games a lot, but they're more like the kind of people who go and buy a Dell or other company in which Intel has a strict relationship with. It doesn't have to mean they don't ever play games, but it's not the central reason they build/buy a computer. Anyone with gaming in mind will make an AMD so they get the highest framerates on the highest settings.

That number 90% plus actually came from this year. That's total marketshare including laptops, companies, all processors sold (not produced). Intel=Ownage. Like Microsoft, where Intel sighs, we all fall down. Before my current AMD 3200+ XP system, I had a P4 1.7 Ghz, and so far that has outperformed the AMD (with SDRAM instead of DDR and a Geforce FX5200, I got better marks on 3dMark with that system).. but to be fair there was 1 GB of RAM in it, so I purchase another 512 stick, and going to dual channel a lil earlier than anticipated (I need to know if this system is literally running slower like it behaves). I'll let you know next week when I get the stick in. Then I'll stick the Radeon 9800 Pro in the old system and try to find the source of the bottleneck.

Lansing Kai Don

Oh I think mine was based solely on desktop processors in comparison to others. It's always difficult to tell with those benchmarks and whatnot. That P4 looks like a Willamette, but that's just a guess. I use a 9800 Pro in my 3.0GHz Prescott. You'll have to keep me posted on the computer, it'd be interesting to find out what makes it score so high, because that just seems weird.

My Computer is:
Windows 98 SE (I can't let go!!!)
AMD Athlon XP2100+ w/ CoolerMaster Aero @ 4115RPM. This thing runs real hot even with it.
ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe
ATI Radeon 9200 SE 128MB
384MB DDR
Onboard Soundstorm/Dolby Digital
Generic 50X XD-Rom
LG 16x DVD-ROM/ 52x24x52 CD-RW
DSL 3Mbit/768.

My Brothers Very Similar Computer:
Windows 98 SE
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ O/Ced Same Cooling unit
ASUS A7N8X-E
ATI Radeon 9100 128MB
512MB DDR
Onboard Soundstorm/Dolby Digital
LG 52X CD-ROM
Same Internet.

They even have the same case and monitor
Networked Together of course. Not Incredibly impressive, but I generally don't play computer games so they get the job done quickly for other tasks.

AMD athlon 64 3300+
radeon 9800 pro
1gig of ram
160gb hard drive
Basics only

I have no idea what the difference between mobos are i just started playing computer games a year ago and haven't had to really learn anything about comps till i started playing newer games, hl2 css WoW GW other new shooters.

Amd 3200+ Xp
160g Hard Drive
1g Ram
Ati Radeon 9200
Dvd+/- Rw

Blah Blah Blah (you Guys Can Fill In The Rest)

I'll be playing on:

AMD 64 3700+
DFI LanParty nF3 250gb UT
1Gb DDR400
RX800XT VIVO Platinum
120GB 7200RPM HDD

two machines:

Primary:
AMD XP 3200+ (OC @ 2.8GHz) CPU
MSI KT6 Delta MOBO
512 MB Kingston Value RAM *EDIT* Added another stick...1Gig!!!
MSI nVidia fx 5600 video adapter<-----this is no more...donated to a buddy
x2 80g SATA Seagate Barracuda RAID 0
switching to 1 gig RAM and a 6600GT card this weekend...woohoo.
*EDIT* "switched to the new card!!! OMG! ...was blind and now can see...

Secondary:
Intel P4 2.8 GHz
Toshiba built sys (mobo, ummm...dunno)
512 RAM
ATI 9000 mobility video adapter
40g HD
braand new!

I don't understand it either. It actually scored a 2100 3dMark's, this new system scored 2036 (I'm being completely honest here). But then again the first test was done on 2003, and the last on 2005 (was there a different algorithm used?). And it was a Williamette I believe. I'll post my progress, the RAM should be in Monday.

Lansing Kai Don

I wrote this while I was half asleep so dont expect no errors
I have a pentium 3, 863Mhz processor with 384 mb of ram and a geforce 4 with mmx 8, 64mb of ram graphics card(dont feel like remembering full name). I was just wondering if Guild Wars will run half way decent in which situations. The game seems different I mean I used to play ragnarok and it would lag because of all the people so I'm wondering if someone could give me an idea as to how the game will run on my system.

Hee hee, the new machine. Forgive any mistakes as it is quite late...

AMD Athlon 64 3200+
BFG Geforce 6800 OC
1 Gig of DDR PC 3200 400mhz RAM
Good ol' 500 watt power supply to keep it running
5 fans to keep it cooled
160 Gig Hard Drive
DVD-R and CD-RW whose particular speeds I forget at the moment
Temperature monitors on the CPU and Harddrive
I forget the exact make of the motherboard, but it's nForce3 250GB with a built in hardware firewall

I can play UT2k4 at full tilt with all of the settings up and no stuttering whatsoever. I'm in heaven

2005 gives significantly lower scores than 2003.
You should test both in the same version of 3D Mark ;p

OS: Windows XP Professional SP2
Processor: AMD Athlon XP 3000+
Motherboard: Asus A7N8X Deluxe
RAM: 1GB DDR
Graphics: nVidia Geforce FX 5600 256MB
HDDs: 200GB SATA Seagate Barracuda, 160GB IDE Hitachi, 30GB IDE Western Digital
Disc Drives: DVD 48X-Read, DVD-RW 40X-Read 24X-Write (16X-DVD Write)
4 Fans

I want to get a 64bit AMD but I need to update my motherboard for that... and that'll be another year before I can do that the xp 3000+ has done me well though!

Intel P4 Prescott 3EGHz HT, 800MHz FSB, 1MB Cache
Intel Desktop Board D865GBF
GeIL 1GB DDR400 PC3200 Dual Channel RAM
Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9600 AGP 8X 256MB DDR
SoundMAX Onboard Audio
120GB Western Digital Hard Drive
ZBoard Gaming Keyboard
Logitech Optical Mouse
Windows XP Professional SP2

Just got the graphics card. Was using the onboard Intel Extreme Graphics II, but the game started crashing last BWE with graphics errors. It worked fine for the January and February BWE's. Wanted a new graphics card anyway, though.

Quoted for truth - it's like comparing Quake 1 and Quake 3.
3DMark 2001 and 3DMark 2005 are definatly not the same program and the scores are not comparable. Run them both on both rigs and compare...


rig
AMD64 2800+ [zalman alcu 7000 with smart-fan 700-1800rpm]
ASUS K8V se Deluxe
512MB Kingston Ram (waiting for another stick)
ATI Radeon 9800 pro [artic cooler VGA cooler rev. 3 on low]
Seagate Baracuda IV 60GB (suspended, want to replace with 250+GB DM10)
Samsung Spinpoint 80GB (suspended, want to replace with 74GB Raptor)
Antec 3700 AMB [no fan grills, stock 120mm fan @ 5V]
21" Eizo CRT & 17" Nokia CRT

It will run, I just can't tell you how well. I believe if you keep the settings low, you should be alright. And thanks guys for the info on 3dMark, I will download the 05 on the other PC and run it and let you know of the results. I'm in college, so I kinda live wherever I fall asleep. It may be a bit before I have access to the other computer. Girlfriend is using it, Dad's using another, I've got my laptop, server station at home and the PC I just built at my grandparents. Their all in different locations (that ways wherever I go I always have the purr of a computer to fall asleep to ).

Lansing Kai Don

It's no doubt I'm going to be running game at lowest settings plus for my birthday I'm asking for upgrade to 512mb of ram thats the max mine can hold and this summer getting a job to get a good computer this one is 5 years old or so.

I just ordered this :

http://www.alienware.com/product_det...de=SKU-DEFAULT

With different options af course

MMmm..

Processor: Athlon64 3400
RAM: 1 GB DDR 400
Video: GeForce 6800 128mb
HDD: WD 72 GB Raptor, 15k RPM
Sound: SB Audigy
Monitor: 21.3" Samsung 213t [LCD] (I wish GW somehow used dual monitors )
Internet: ADSL 7 meg down/1.5 meg up

Sadly, Im on a dell with a few updrades. (** Did not come with PC)

Dell Dimension 2400 Mobo (No AGP slot... Grrr)
Intel Pent 4 2.66 GHz
**768 MBs of RAM (Added 512 MBs )
**nVIDIA GeForce FX 5500

After adding a 512 stick and that video card, there was a enormous diffrence in playing UT2004 online with dial-up. I went from not being able to move, shoot, or even spectate without lag, to being able to do everything on UT2004 online. I do lag when I shoot a little, though. Even when I play online, I can use medium - max setting on most servers.
I went from "your PC might slid through the cracks on the specs", to "Your PC will run GW fine". A little bit of RAM and a video card can go a long way.

just finish my internal upgrade

p4 prescott 3.0gig with HT, 800MHz FSB, 1MB Cache
intel 865 chip set
1 gig ddr 400 dual layer ram
nvidia 6800 128mb
5.1 dolby surround

running on 2.5mps cable

Okay maybe I missed something? NO AGP? Is it old or just lacking?

Case & Mobo: Shuttle SN25P (Socket 939), nForce 4.
Processor: AMD Athlon 64, 4000, Clawhammer.
RAM: 2Gb (2x1024Mb) GeIL PC3200.
GPU: ATI Radeon X850XT PE, 256Mb DDR3, PCI-E.
HDD: Western Digital Raptor, 74Gb, 10k-RPM, 8Mb Cache, SATA.
DVD: Pioneer DVR-109, 16x16, DVD+/-RW, Dual Layer.
Keyboard: ZBoard Gaming Keyboard.
Mouse: Logitech MX-1000.

LCD monitor with PVA matrix and declared responce time 25 ms? That means that responce time for a pixels with 50% brightness is no less than 50 ms for this kind of matrix and it's 100 ms+ for 25% brightness.
I'll never believe that someone can play games on that monitor.

Sadly, the computer is not old. It just didn't come with one . Ironicly, Im glad my computer isnt out of date

[B]IAM NEW HERE! DON'T WANNA SHOW OFF! BUT CONSIDERING THAT LOT'S OF PEOPLE HERE HAS GOT SOME 'BEASTS'...I WILL ITEMISE MY MACHINES.


I have Always built my own computers for the past 8 years,they never break down!

Nothin special as I always look for reliability/stability & of course: Value!


My MAIN PC SPEC RUNNING XP PRO IS:

DRAGON MIDI TOWER CASE ( CHEAP BUT SPACIOUS W' LCD TEMP PANEL)
-Q-TEC GOLD 550W PSU
-AMD Athlon XP-A, 2166 MHz (13 x 167) 3000+
-THERMALTAKE CPU QUIET FAN UPTO 3600
-Gigabyte GA-7VT600P-RZ(C) (5 PCI, 1 AGP, 3 DDR DIMM, Audio)
Chipset : VIA VT8377 Apollo KT600
-1024 MB SAMSUNG DDR DUAL CHANNEL
-ATI ALL-IN-WONDER 9000 256MB DDR AGP GRAPHICS CARD W/BREAKOUT CABLE FOR VIDEO EDITING ETC

-NEC 17 INCH FLAT SCREEN BLACK (2 YRS OLD BUT WORKING GREAT)

-2 X 120GB Hitachi Hard Drives 8MB Buffer
-16X DVD ROM TOSHIBA SD-M1802
-HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-4163B 16x Dual Layer DVD BURNER
-FLOPPY DISK
-2 PORT FIREWIRE PCI CARD

-SOUNDBLASTER LIVE 5.1 PCI CARD CONNECTED TO MY 5.1 CINEMA THEATRE SPEAKERS W/AMPLIFIER & SUBWOOFER.

-DELL BLACK USB KEYBOARD ( GOT IT FREE FROM CUSTOMER)
-MICROSOFT OPTICAL MOUSE
-FELLOWES JELLY BLUE MOUSE MAD .
- D-LINK WIRELESS DSL-G604T 54Mbs ADSL/ROUTER
- UPS *APC* BACK-UPS 500
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MY WORK/SERVER MACHINE RUNNING 2000 PRO
PIII DUAL MOTHERBOARD RIO3000- SDVIA
FUJITSU MYRICA RESCUED TOWER CASE
400W PSU
2 x PIII 1GHZ COPPERMINE CPU'S
1024 ECC SDRAM PC133MHZ MEMORY
NVIDIA QUADRO PRO 64MB DDR/DVI/ANALOGUE
2X 80GB HITACHI 8MB BUFFER IDE
16X DVD ROM TOSHIBA SD-M1802
MITSUMI CDRW 24X W/16MB BUFFER (YES,BOUGHT IT 3 YRS AGO THE SPECIAL VERSION W/16MB BUFFER BURN PROOF)
SOUNDBLASTER 5.1 LIVE SOUND CARD
BELKIN 10/100 NIC
NEC 15 INCH FLAT SCREEN BLACK (2 YRS OLD BUT WORKING GREAT)
LOGITEC ITOUCH KEYBOARD
LOGITEC OPTICAL MOUSE
D-LINK WIRELESS PCI 54MBS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TO FINISH:
HP LAPTOP RUNNING XP PRO
1.8GHZ CELERON
15'' TFT
512MB DDR PC 2100
30GB HDD
COMBO DRIVE (DVD 8X /CDRW 24x ETC)
D-LINK 54MBS PCMCIA WIRELESS CARD
ATI INTEGRATED GRAPHICS
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE MAIN PCS WERE BUILT WITH A FEW OLDER BITS AND NEWER UPGRADES!
and I can play most games w/ no problem as I tweak software

NOT BAD FOR A 'CHEAPSKATE' LIKE ME ! I am also a COMPTIA PC Engineer & MCSE qualified!