Should I be able to play Mario Galaxy at 1080 with no lag with these specs?

Irrelevant_pelican · 10-12-2015, 05:37 AM #1

i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50 GHz (8 CPUs) ~3.5GHz

16384 MB Ram

Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit

GTX 770 GPU

The game starts to lag pretty badly when I do anything but native resolution. I was hoping to play the game in HD. I'm looking to get new computer parts soon anyway, what should I focus on to upgrade?

Irrelevant_pelican · 10-12-2015, 05:46 AM #2

Thank you for the suggestions. I've never done over clocking before, I think I'll probably avoid that if I can, I'm not the best with computers haha. If I don't do any over clocking do you still recommend the same new parts?

Nintonito · 10-12-2015, 06:03 AM #3

Eh if he plays games I'd still get 16Gb. New games coming out are using upwards of 5-6Gb and less memory pressure is better.

Irrelevant_pelican · 10-12-2015, 06:25 AM #4

Awesome, thank you for the suggestions! Smile

Nintonito · 10-12-2015, 08:09 AM #5

(10-12-2015, 06:09 AM)admin89 Wrote: i fail to see any new game can use that much memory like you said unless you have alot of programs run on background and you use high res texture
my system doesn't use more than 4GB when gaming

I've been playing ark survival evolved and Witcher 3 and ARK consumes 5.1 Gb on low settings while Witcher uses 4Gb by itself. And many other current gen games have the same behavior.

**AnyOldName3** · 10-12-2015, 08:19 AM #6

While Battlefront claims it wants 16, it actually uses around 4, so it doesn't run great if you have 4 and an OS, but leaves space on eight. However, Todd Howard seemed pretty sure that Fallout 4 will use 8 on its own, and Bethesda games should often be given more than they ask to allow room for mods.

DatKid20 · 10-12-2015, 08:26 AM #7

(10-12-2015, 08:19 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: While Battlefront claims it wants 16, it actually uses around 4, so it doesn't run great if you have 4 and an OS, but leaves space on eight. However, Todd Howard seemed pretty sure that Fallout 4 will use 8 on its own, and Bethesda games should often be given more than they ask to allow room for mods.

With Battlefield + programs open in the back I was using about 6-7GB

piccolo289 · (This post was last modified: 10-12-2015, 11:28 AM by piccolo289.)

im p sure star wars battlefront reccomends 16 gb of ram.

Next time ill read the full thread, thanks

**AnyOldName3** · 10-12-2015, 11:46 PM #9

There are quite a number of games coming out that have over the top CPU and RAM recommendations. Whether it's because the developers haven't done the necessary testing to find the actual lower bound for the settings and framerate they recommend, or because they've been bribed by Microsoft or Sony to make console-equivalent PCs look artificially expensive is another debate, but if things like Battlefront aren't saturating their rated minimum requirement even when their recommended one is available it's better to look at benchmarks.

AzaIndustries · (This post was last modified: 10-13-2015, 12:37 PM by AzaIndustries.)

Is this thread a joke?

O.o

AnyOldName3 is right, recommended specs are wildly inaccurate these days.
Also they do have to compensate for the horrible mess that is the average users PC these day, I'm talking auto starting spyware/malware/DRM. And lots of other stuff especially now that people are moving to windows 10. It has so many settings that should be off by default turned on that interfere with regular operations, but most people won't see them.

In my experience if you run an optimised and well maintained system you can be pretty far under recommended spec sometimes and still max games out at 1080. But it's always a game by game case.

16gb RAM lol, sure you can buy that if you want. It's completely unnecessary, for any gaming.It's mostly recommended to handle all that background crap I mentioned earlier + the game.

I'm building a new system to lan with a 6600k but I still run an 2500k, 660ti, 8gb system that maxes out everything but the top 1% of games at 1080p 60fps, but I usually run at 1440p.
In the rare case a game doesn’t max out you usually only have to turn down AA or AO a bit.

But if you are going to build a new system, I wouldn't recommend a 6700 over a 6600. HT support just isn't there for gaming and isn't going to be for a while. Devs also can't be bothered to do the extra work to support it atm.

But you can "future proof" if you want, which I don't understand. You build a system for 30% more money and it only gains a year max on it's longevity. I did the whole top tier build things in my early PC days and I've found I can save money if I build better bang for buck to high range PCs more often rather than bleeding edge PCs over a longer time.

I feel like I could talk about this topic for ages, another benefit is the older systems can be re-purposed AND their aren’t the inefficient top tier specs so they don't use as much power or produce as much heat as the usually yet to be optimised top stuff.

EDIT: OPs spec's should be able to play Mario Galaxy at 1080p 60fps easily.
I have a G3258 @ 3.9ghz with a R7250 that runs it at 1080p 50-55FPS (frustratingly close to that golden 60fps).
Every other Wii game I've played on it works at 30/60fps 1080 perfectly fine.

In hindsight I would have got a slightly larger case than the Antec ISK-300 and put a slightly larger GPU, (can only fit LP/SS atm). I might get a second hand 2500k or something so I can can get Mario Galaxy running perfectly eventually. I couldn't resist the small form factor of the book mitx size.
If only they made it 10mm wider to fit a dual slot LP card... they could have hit gold with that case.