What PC for GTL?

[Static man]

Hi,

Currently I've a Mac, but I'm thinking of getting a PC to play GTL (and maybe do the odd thing I can't do on the Mac).

What is the recommended PC spec for this task please?

Does anyone, by any chance, know somewhere reliable that sells/specializes in such PCs?

I assume a laptop is no go; it'd be nice not to need another big box - but whatever.

[_dobbo_]

There are plenty of laptops out there that will easily play GTL. The thing with GTL (and most other driving games) is that to get the full fun from them you really need a steering wheel and pedals.

Recommended spec for GTL is:

2GHz or higher processor
1GB or more RAM
Direct X 9 compatible GFX card with 256MB memory
Direct X 9 compatible sound card

Pretty much any new PC will match these specs. You can go crazy and spend loads on the latest and greatest graphics card, or you can spend less and sacrifice some graphics quality, but still enjoy all the gameplay.

[MarkK]

Static man said:

Hi, Currently I've a Mac, but I'm thinking of getting a PC to play GTL (and maybe do the odd thing I can't do on the Mac). What is the recommended PC spec for this task please? Does anyone, by any chance, know somewhere reliable that sells/specializes in such PCs? I assume a laptop is no go; it'd be nice not to need another big box - but whatever.

I have an AMD64 3000+ Venice overclocked at 2.2Mhz
1Gb RAM
ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb

Never had a problem with FPS.

Could pick this litle lot up for around £200 and get the other bits to build one yourself. Cheaper, fun and you get exactly what you require plus the satisfaction of knowing you built it yourself.

[Static man]

OK, thanks. I've the DFPro. Does GTL have a clutch? If so what do you use for the extra peddle?

So what would be the cost/benefit analysis of some graphics cards? i.e. how much for good, excellent and the best results?

I don't fancy building stuff though - I've a Mac remember - we don't know anything or want to know what's under the hood.

[Digby]

MarkK said:

I have an AMD64 3000+ Venice overclocked at 2.2Mhz 1Gb RAM ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb Never had a problem with FPS.

To be fair though, you will probably be running that on the default graphical settings the game selects for you.
Also you don't mention the resolution or all the various other tweaks you can adjust.
For example, having 20+ cars in a race compared to say 8 or 10 can make a fast machine suddenly take on the apperance of a ZX Spectrum : p .
I have owned a few 9700/9800 Pros and they would fall over and die at the settings i currently use even though i am not running on the absolute max settings with my X800 XT.

This game looks fine on low resolutions and lower detail settings, crank it up to a 1280+ res, add some FSAA and ANISO filtering and slap all the in game settings on max however and it is in a different league.

So, to the original poster, you need to ask yourself how fussy you are with your games in terms of balance between the look and speed before making a purchase.
If you buy a 9800 pro powered 2 gig machine for example and expect it to look and run like a higher ended PC you will be disappointed.
I am happy to mess with graphical options for quite a while before i settle down to play with a game.
I like to get the best out of my hardware and that takes time by testing out the various configs etc.
If however you are not bothered about making such games look more realistic and FSAA/ANISO and various other grahical tweaks mean nothing to you, you will still enjoy this fine game on a lower spec machine.

I am currently running a P4 2.8@3.2 800fsb cpu
2 gig of decent speed ram
An ATi X800 XT 16 pipe 256 meg
Asus P4C800E Deluxe motherboard.

This is a relatively old machine now in terms of what is available, but it plays most of my things just fine and i am fussy with how they look.

So, as dobbo mentioned, decide what you prefer, a slightly worse looking game but still a game that is a hoot to play, or all the bells and whistles.

>> Edited by Digby on Saturday 18th March 17:59

[MarkK]

Digby said:

MarkK said: I have an AMD64 3000+ Venice overclocked at 2.2Mhz 1Gb RAM ATI Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb Never had a problem with FPS. To be fair though, you will probably be running that on the default graphical settings the game selects for you. Also you don't mention the resolution or all the various other tweaks you can adjust. For example, having 20+ cars in a race compared to say 8 or 10 can make a fast machine suddenly take on the apperance of a ZX Spectrum : p . I have owned a few 9700/9800 Pros and they would fall over and die at the settings i currently use even though i am not running on the absolute max settings with my X800 XT. This game looks fine on low resolutions and lower detail settings, crank it up to a 1280+ res, add some FSAA and ANISO filtering and slap all the in game settings on max however and it is in a different league. So, to the original poster, you need to ask yourself how fussy you are with your games in terms of balance between the look and speed before making a purchase. If you buy a 9800 pro powered 2 gig machine for example and expect it to look and run like a higher ended PC you will be disappointed. I am happy to mess with graphical options for quite a while before i settle down to play with a game. I like to get the best out of my hardware and that takes time by testing out the various configs etc. If however you are not bothered about making such games look more realistic and FSAA/ANISO and various other grahical tweaks mean nothing to you, you will still enjoy this fine game on a lower spec machine. I am currently running a P4 2.8@3.2 800fsb cpu 2 gig of decent speed ram An ATi X800 XT 16 pipe 256 meg Asus P4C800E Deluxe motherboard. This is a relatively old machine now in terms of what is available, but it plays most of my things just fine and i am fussy with how they look. So, as dobbo mentioned, decide what you prefer, a slightly worse looking game but still a game that is a hoot to play, or all the bells and whistles. >> Edited by Digby on Saturday 18th March 17:59

I usually run 1280x1024, Full Video detail, AA and AF switched off, Mirrors, Trees, etc... and it is as smooth as you like and looks really nice. I play online with around 16 people usually in the GTL league with no FPS problems.

As an experiment I put all the AA and AF to 4x, kept the video settings on full and ticked all the none 256Mb options (except swaying trees) and I was still getting around 25 FPS which although I wouldn't use was still perfectly playable with 20 cars.

So basically if you reckon you'll need AA and AF with all the options then yes I agree you may need an expensive rig but if you are happy with decent visuals and want to concentrate on the actual racing then I stand by what I say.

If I was going to build a machine similar to mine this is what you would probably get (with a different GFX card though as a 128Mb 9800Pro is £120 from scan!);

NF3 motherboard £50
AMD64 Venice 3000+ £90
512Mb ATI AGP 450/533Mhz £85
1Gb DDR £90

Comes to less than £350 and you just need to get case, keyboard, monitor etc... and you're away.

Pick and choose your bits and you could get an even better spec for a similar price - i.e. you could go for an Nforce4 PCI-Express setup which wouldn't be much more expensive. Certainly wouldn't need any more than this for GTL though.

[Static man]

Digby said:

So, as dobbo mentioned, decide what you prefer, a slightly worse looking game but still a game that is a hoot to play, or all the bells and whistles.

Well, yeah, thanks. That's what I'm trying to find out - what the cost and spec *is* of a bells and whistles machine...

[_dobbo_]

I've got a Mesh SLI machine, when new it made my head hurt how fast it was, but that was 18 months ago. Still awesome, with lots of upgrade potential.

Starting at 1099 going up to 2499, these will blow you away

[Holst]

Im running an X800xtpe and a A64mobile 3200 @ 3ghz with 3gb of ram.

This is way more than the game requires to run at 1280x1024 with the graphics turned up.

My dads PC which is (I think) athlonxp 3200 @ 2.8gig with a radeon9800pro (overclocked)
This PC plays GTL pretty good on standard graphics setting.

Although it looks prettyer on my PC, as far as enjoying the game or being competitive online goes the systems are very similar.

I would spend some extra money on a better graphics card if you can afford it, as it will give you a much longer lasting system. Although a 9800 is ok for most games today, its not going to give you much futureproofing.

[Rob P]

Running a 3.2Ghz duel core Intel, 1 GB RAM, 7800GTX 256mb graphics...works a treat on GTL. Never had any problem with slowdown or anything. My system came it at around £850 4 months ago so similar now would be nearer £700 I guess?

GTL is graphics hungry compared to other games in my experience. Its the game that gives my set-up the most work to do...I'm comparing with other games such as GTR and Battlefield 2.

[thetruemackie]

I've got an Athlon 64 3500+ with 1GB of RAM and an ATI X800-XL and runs it flawlessly at 1280x1024 with 4x AA and max detail, it looks rather jolly on my 19in TFT

[Digby]

I think this is just a case of one mans meat.
I have seen people suggest "it runs great for me" only to see said game running and instantly know i could not stomach to play it in such a way.
There is no doubt that the higher the FPS you can get in games like GTL the more realistic they feel and the better they are to play.
Like i say, it depends how fussy you are.

As an example, i can run the settings on max for GTL on my rig, but i see a slight drop in performance.Others would probably wonder what the hell i was on about though, but i see it and i don't like it.
Hence i mess with the settings until i get the perfect balance.
I could never run without the mirrors for example so i allow for that setting to always be enabled.

I agree the 9800's are decent cards of course, but they don't compare to the later ATi or Nvidia cards and in GTL you need all the help you can get if you are that way enclined.
You can pick up second hand 9800's for 40 or 50 quid now, a basic X800 for under a ton, so i would probably go that route if it were me graphics card wise.
It really depends what you want to spend and whether you want to buy new or second hand.Many of the machines i have built have been from used parts.

It would be easy for me to say "it will cost you £1500" to build a monster machine and play GTL, but you may be happy enough to play it on one that cost £500, so it's hard to say really.
Spend what you can afford i guess is the right answer

[Static man]

Thanks all.

I suspect, Digby, I'd be like you, since I tend to get obsessed with 'issues' no
one else seems bothered by.

I posted the same question elsewhere, and the first couple of replies
suggested my ball-park estimation of ~£1200 (with no monitor) was extravagant. Lot of threads recommending build yer own
("it's not that difficult; just connect 5 or 6 items". Trouble is, when it doesn't work, it'll be much grief methinks.

If I understand you, you can't have to good a video card for GTL.

There are cheap gaming machines it seems, but some of the bits could be cheap.

More research needed...

[neil_cardiff]

Can I suggest you grab a copy of Custom PC - theres a very interesting aricle on how to build a killer gaming rig for only £400 (without monitor and OS).

I've been looking at for a base to build a machine around as it gave me some ideas.

I'd suggest you do the same before taking the plunge

Neil

>> Edited by neil_cardiff on Tuesday 21st March 18:20

[_dobbo_]

Static man said:

I suspect, Digby, I'd be like you, since I tend to get obsessed with 'issues' no one else seems bothered by.

You'd be surprised!

Building your own is fine, but I suspect it's a bit like upgrading your car. It's addictive and it NEVER stops.

My watercooling setup arrives tomorrow with water blocks for both GFX cards, the processor and the northbridge on the motherboard. I'll be going from 8 fans in the case to 2... and hope to have an near silent PC at the end of it. Now that's an issue most wouldn't be bothered by!

[D_Mike]

pfft water cooling, you need to try liquid N2 cooling. We rigged up a crappy bodge job and it didn't work very well.

[_dobbo_]

D_Mike said:

pfft water cooling, you need to try liquid N2 cooling. We rigged up a crappy bodge job and it didn't work very well.

You've almost sold the idea to me with that pitch Mike!

[UncleDave]

[FunkyNige]

neil_cardiff said:

Can I suggest you grab a copy of Custom PC - theres a very interesting aricle on how to build a killer gaming rig for only £400 (without monitor and OS).

Can you give a quick overview? I'm looking at upgrading and the CPU + graphics card are coming out at that much!

[Digby]

During my overclocking days (when it really made a difference - unlike now) i always wanted to try water cooling etc so ended up getting one of these Vapochill units years later.
In the end however i didn't actually use it as i simple couldn't be bothered.
Everything ran fine on the machines i had anyway so i'm not sure why i got it.
I guess it just reminded me of my early peltier days when you could scream certain 650 cpus to almost twice that amount etc.

The guy who bought it off of me seemed to like it though.
I would go water cooling now though purely for the quietness.