Graphics card for Second Life

I'm in the market for a new laptop, and specifically want one as capable as possible for Second Life which I spend most of the day on (business and social). I'm not a graphics expert, and looking for advice on what types of features in a notebook card are going to help SL and what aren't.

I could of course just splash on a notebook with hot graphics, but I don't want to (a) overspend (b) buy something that'll overheat and (c) lose battery life unnecessarily. I'm sure a lot of games use and need graphics features that Second Life doesn't and can't (as I'm told it's relatively old graphically).

Can anyone specifically recommend what to look for for SL? Will more dedicated video memory (e.g. 512M vs 256M) always help, even for SL? Other things to look out for in my notebook/card choice for SL?

I want to emphasise that I do specifically want a notebook that will run SL as fast and as well as possible, and last as long as possible. I just don't want to overkill. I don't play other games.

If anyone wants to go further and recommend a specific current model notebook for SL from personal experience, that'd be great too. I'm after a 15"/17" with high resolution screen. Thanks.

 

I've never played SL, so I don't talk by experience. But a quick google search gave this for recommended system requirements:

So anything like that and above will do well.

Check this link to know if a specific GPU is above or below those.

 

I would get a HP Envy with ATI 5850 those are really cheap gaming laptops and they look nice

 

You mean the Envy 17? That has terrible battery life, is expensive, and tends to have heat problems.

OP, you have put out some limits that are hard to find a notebook that fits them all. I would recommend the Asus N61JQ or N71JQ, Dell Studio XPS 16, or the Alienware M15x. They have decently performing cards that should be above the requirements, and the CPU's in them are extremely good.

The strangest thing is that I can't imagine what you would need to use second life for in terms of business. I always thought it was a program developed for the sole purpose of socialization, so I never bothered joining.

 

They are really really cheap though, half the price of the Asus G73 or any Alienware. Cheapest gaming laptops here.

If you howeveer dont like HP Envy he could get Acer Aspire 7745G 17,3 which is just as cheap and offers 5850 as well

 

I don't think that $1400 is half of $1600.

I would recommend the G73-RBBX09 from Bestbuy, but it unfortunately has pretty poor battery life, considering that it's a 17" with a 5870 and quad core i7. It would also be overkill for OP's needs, and doesn't look very professional.

 

Well here in Norway the Envy 17 is 10.000 NOK and the G73 is 21.000 NOK

This game will need a powerful GPU to run it well according to recommended specs

 

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm really wanting to convince myself to buy an MBP 15" with the 330m chip (probably 256M, I assume with SL 512M won't help an awful lot). I'm a Windows users now, but to switch would be helpful for other reasons.

Avoiding all Windows/Mac partisan comments and overpriced hardware debates, are the suggested Asus, Alienware etc. likely to be heaps better in terms of graphics performance?

Oh and CZX58 Shadow, yes SL is mainly socialising, but an awful lot of people want to buy land and make their avatars look nice. I believe that the "SL economy" is the size of some smaller countries

 

Yes the asus or the alienware or whatever are all way better performing than the MBP, and at considerably less cost.

 

You can also get a job in second life. I had a job that payed around 2500 linden dollars(SL currency) per hour. Since you can sell linden dollars for cold hard US cash that equaled out to about $9/hour, which wasn't bad for playing a video game. I stopped playing SL awhile ago though

 

For SL, you want a solid GPU. For Nvidia, look for 130/230/330 or higher. For ATI, 4600/5600 or better. Older ATI cards had problems with SecondLife but the current cards/drivers appear to be OK (OpenGL issues).

SL itself can use up to 512 MB of graphic memory, but having more won't hurt. I would try not to have less. A typical SecondLife sim will have more textures than a video game, since most of the content is user-generated, so there is far less recycling of textures. Most cards capable of running SL now come with at least 512 MB, but the type of memory and the memory interface are more important than the amount. For Nvidai, the GTX versions usually have 256-bit memory buses, while GTS have 128. So the GTX will be faster with the same type of memory.

The CPU is less important: anything Core 2 or i5/i7 will more than handle SL. With the current viewer, you can enable "run multiple threads" in the debug menu to use multi-core CPUs, but it still uses two cores at best. Having more cores will allow running other programs in the background of running multiple windows of SL without slowing down.

A 7200 RPM HDD will speed up loading, since SL uses the hard drive to cache textures and inventory. I would not use an SSD for SL, as it uses a lot of read/write cycles for cache.

3-4 GB RAM should be sufficient, unless you run a lot of other apps or want to open multiple windows at the same time.

I have an Asus G51 with a Core 2 quad (2 GHz), a GTX 260m, 4 GB RAM, and a pair of drives (64 GB SSD/320 GB HDD). I can comfortably run two SL windows on ultra settings using Kirsten's viewer (full shadows enabled) along with Firefox and iTunes without anything dragging. The viewer is installed on my SSD, but the cache files are on the HDD.

I would recommend the Asus G series as the best value for SL right now. Clevo/Sager and Alienware have better hardware available, but they also cost more. The Mac would run SL just fine at high-ultra settings, but not as well as Windows options that cost less.

Whatever you get, also get a good laptop cooler to go with it.

 

CZX58 Shadow, I'm looking at your list of suggested systems above, and wondering why you picked those specific ones out. Is this for graphics price/performance? I noticed the Asus N61JQ makes some strong claims about audio quality (components, not speakers) and this interests me too - if this isn't all hype?

 

You could also look at the GX640 and GE600 from MSI. They both offer good performance for their price, at least in the US and Canada.

 

Doing what?

 

Of the four CZX58 Shadow listed, the M15x is the only one I would seriously consider for SecondLife. The two N series use the DDR3 versions of the 5730 graphics card. the Dell Studio model has a 4670. In the same price range, you can get a G60 with an i7 and a GTS 360m or a G72 with a GTX 260m. The GX640 tijo mentioned also looks good.

Take a look at Newegg and you can find a good selection that have stronger GPUs.

 

The gx640 is prob the best for your cash. Best value at least.

 

Well people in second life make stores by creating their own items in the world via creation tools. They sell these in a store they created or bought from another player. Just like any real store they need sales reps, ect. There's many more types of jobs as well. Second life is an actual job for some people. Many people create things and use that as their sole income

 

Thanks tijo, KimoT, Retto. OK, so I assume the general advice it to pick a Class 1 card from this page? Problem is I'm in the UK, and the MSI's and some of the others don't look readily available at first glance, I'll have to dig. Are any of these going to be nearly as portable (size and weight) as say an MacBook Pro 15"?

Edit: as an example, the only "gaming" laptops listed at Scan for the UK are the G51J and the G60JX is listed as "coming soon". Both have screen resolutions way lower than I need. The MSI GX460 I can't see from a UK stockist at first look (and anyway, the review here says it's pretty loud, which I really don't want).

I'm a bit clueless here, but I guess I need to know if Second Life can really take advantage of a Class 1 card - if not a laptop with a class 2 would be much easier to buy here and smaller and quieter, I'm guessing.

 

Yes, if you stick to the Class 1 cards, you should be fine. Unfortunately you will have to make a decision about which is more important to you: portability or performance.

I think most of the laptops we have recommended fall into the 7-10 pound range. Battery life is 1.5-2 hours for most of these models as well. The Studio XPS 16 or the Asus N61 are closer to 6 pounds, but performance is lower than the heavier models. Compare that to 5.6 pounds for a MacBook Pro 15" model. Really it depends on your size, the type of bag you carry, and how mobile you are if a kilo will make a difference. I find that a 7 pound G51 in a vertical messenger bag is easy to carry, but for some people it is too heavy.

 

Whoops, I got my threads confused. You don't know I'm in the UK! My "what laptop should I buy" needs summary is here.

 

Thanks. I knew that people sold stuff, but I didn't realise it stretched to hiring others on an hourly rate to do with it.

 

Unfortunately, most of Asus's G series laptops have overheating problems. OP specifically mentioned that he didn't want that.

The reason I picked those specific laptops is because they are cheap for the performance you get, except for the M15x, to a point. They are also not overkill, and they look fairly professional, except for the M15x.

The Asus models and the XPS 16 (yes, I meant the one with the 5730, not the 4670) have cards that are better than the considered MBP 15, for a cheaper price. However, I suppose Asus is out of the running anyway because of the low resolution panels.

 

Don't know about overheating on the G51...mine doesn't. I'll agree that any are better than the MacBook, and the Studio XPS seems closest to the OPs specs for a compromise between performance and weight.

 

damn I did not realize Second Life needed some graphics horsepower... I've only seen it in The Office lol... didn't look that demanding.

 

It depends on how good you want it to look...the old browser before they enabled reflections and atmospheric effects was fairly lightweight. But to get the full graphics, you need a high-end laptop or a mid-range desktop.

 

This is all helpful advice, thanks. So is the Dell Studio XPS going to knock the socks of the latest MBP graphically on SL?

I admit it looks prettier than most Dells - on paper. I'm scared of the fact that most Dells don't look half as nice and feel tacky when unpacked though, too.

 

It's a bit better spec on the GPU, but not that much. You might want to read through the Studio XPS discussions here to see if there are any issues.

 

Not by too much. You may want to watch out on throttling issues though. Go and have a look in the Dell and XPS subforum,see what you think. There are plenty of other similarly specced laptops out there for relatively the same price.

The MSI is actually a damn good notebook for the price you get it at. I'd just be afraid of it looking too tacky, if you know what I mean.

 

SL is actually more demanding than most games. My company does a lot of work in there so Im often in it and I find that its still pretty slow to draw etc even on corporate internet and the Alienware laptop in my sig. Of course you can always turn the draw distance right down which helps.

A

 

Arabella, could you give me your FPS figures on SL (control-shift-1) with your M15X? Would be very helpful. On an emptyish sim, Mid/High/Ultra?

And how loud are the fans?

Thanks!

 

With pleasure:

Empty sim (not homestead):

Mid: range 18-30 depending on movement
High: range 12-18
Ultra: Consistently less than 15, min was about 8

GPU fan was spinning up, CPU fan silent

A

 

Thanks Arabella - gosh how strange. I'm getting something around those figures (or a little less) from a 3 year old 8600M. I'm hoping that means yours is displaying more and prettier (and therefore I will get the same too!) but I naively expected 40-50 FPS figures.

 

They seem low...I don't usually check my FPS if everything looks smooth, but I'll see what I'm getting and post.

 

Should have mentioned that Im not running the default viewer - Im using Kirtsen's with shadows enabled and a few other graphical tweaks.

A

 

That makes sense...shadows and global illumination in Kirsten's viewer use a lot of resources. It will also depend on screen resolution. He's some numbers I just ran:

Emerald Beta 2270
Freebie Island
Low: 36-42
Mid: 32-38
High: 18-23
Ultra 13-15
Fort Serenity Ranch
Low: 35-46
Mid: 30-42
High: 28-37
Ultra: 22-32

Kirsten's 20(29)
Freebie Island
Low: 27-35
Mid: 25-32
High: 17-27
Ultra 15-21
Fort Serenity Ranch
Low: 40-49
Mid: 32-41
High: 28-36
Ultra: 25-32

Linden Labs Viewer 2.1 Beta
Freebie Island
Low: 31-40
Mid: 23-32
High: 21-28
Ultra 13-19
Fort Serenity Ranch
Low: 36-43
Mid: 32-39
High: 28-33
Ultra: 20-24

These were all run at full screen on a 1920x1080 monitor. CPU is a 2.0 GHz Core 2 quad, 4 GB RAM, and Nvidia GTX 260m. The GPU is the underclocked version that Asus ships on the G51. I did not have "Enable Multiple Threads" checked on all of the tests for Emerald and Kirsten's, but I re-ran some and got the same results.

I chose Freebie Island as it usually crowded and has a lot of textures on the walls. Fort Serenity Ranch is a fairly open sim with few buildings and not much traffic, but does have a waterfall that is fairly detailed.

Normally I run a slightly smaller window (leaving my sidebar uncovered) with Kristen's and lots of eyecandy (shadows enabled, global illumination, etc.). I don't often use AA. I also tend to run my CPU at 2.4 GHz and bump the clocks on my GPU back up to the Nvidia specs.

 

I have never seen a computer (of any spec) play SL smoothly. I'm pretty sure the caching / loading of the textures just eats anything it gets.

My old 7950GTX gets the same frames as the 330m - I'm convinced the viewers are incredibly inefficient, graphically speaking.

In practice reducing the draw distance by around 50m has MORE impact than spending a lot of money on an upgrade. i.e. you can get two very different systems running SL exactly the same by just varying the draw-distance, as draw distance affects the number of textures it loads, and ergo the very peculiar kind of strain this game adds.

In summary, I really don't think it matters. Buy the laptop you want (for other reasons) and then just set SL to max graphics, and adjust the draw distance till the framerate is playable to you.

Going on the assumption that I always find 30+ playable (in a game you mostly just stand still in) I set my 7950GTX to 250m and my 330m to 500 .. both are way more than you need to draw a convincing horizon.

Just my $0.02

 

n.b.

I can even load a game on my Netbook using the above strategy. Granted, set to medium, the view distance is 16m , but it's kinda fun

Set to LOW I get playable frames at 64m. I really think if a netbook can even LOAD the game, anything else will chew it up. The same netbook can *just about* manage to play the infamous Half Life ... back from 1998

 

I can get smooth framerates at 248m draw distance with shadows and global illumination. Good computer+good network connection=good performance.

 

It's playable, sure ... but I get better FPS in Crysis set to high

There is something funky about SL .. that's all I'm saying

 

Sure. It's all of the user-generated content. More textures to make up a scene, and none of the textures or scripts are optimized.

 

Hi,

I found this very informative thread through Google and I would appreciate your advice. I'm about to purchase a notebook where occasionally I will run Second Life. "Occasionally" in my case means, to be able to use SL only from time to time when I'm not at home (where I can run it on Ultra settings from the PC). It also means that I don't need to use any Ultra Settings, shadows, global illumination or any huge draw distance etc, if this affects the FPS to a point that makes SL not playable on the laptop.

Given the comments of KimoT, philm94 and others, which are also my observations about SL, I'm seriously thinking if it's worth it to pay 1500-2000 Euros for a notebook just to use SL from time to time (all the rest applications I will use on that machine, will be the usual Office applications, browsing, e-mails etc -no games, no heavy 3D apps like Maya, Studio max, Blender, I have the PC for those).

So I'm between three Sony Vaios at the moment, the VPC-EC2M1E/WI (i3-350M 2.26 GHz, RAM: 4 GB, Monitor: 17.3 in, Res: 1600x900, Radeon HD 5650, 1GB VRAM), the VPC-F12E1E/H (i5-520M 2.40 GHz, RAM: 4 GB, Monitor: 16.4 in, Res: 1600x900, GeForce GT 330M, 1GB VRAM) and the VPC-F11M1E/H (i5-520M 2.4 GHz, RAM: 4 GB, Monitor: 16.4 in, Ανάλυση: 1920x1080, GeForce GT 330MGT 330M, 1GB VRAM). The last two are virtually the same, except of the higher FullHD resolution of the latter, and all three come with a price tag of 850-950 Euros.

Do you think any of those three are OK in order to use Second Life sufficiently on Middle or Low Graphics settings and a 64-128m distance, or should I look for something more powerful?

I'm also a little lost which one of those three to choose. The first one has a weaker i3-350M CPU but better Radeon 5650 GPU than the other ones (i5-520M 2.40 CPU but GeForce GT 330M GPU). And I'm not sure if SL is only GPU and not CPU-dependent as well.

KimoT, wrote that for SL the CPU is less important than the GPU but this is debatable regarding SL (at least from what I read on the official SL forums and Jira bug report tool). Also the "user-generated content" is only one part of the story that makes SL so slow in any system. There are some other equally important reasons for that behaviour, i.e., the continuous and "live" loading of the textures through the servers and not locally, pulling the image files using UDP (instead of HTTP), and most importantly the "spaghetti-code" (as the ex SL CTO used to call it) of the viewer/server.

 

In short, any of those will run it in highest detail settings at native resolution with all effects enabled. Tweak draw distance to keep the framerate acceptable based on where you are. 96m for a busy club, 300-400m for a largely open sim.

Be sure to check out the owners threads for the particular models (find them under the Sony section) as many users will be able to guide between the three.

Since you're in Europe I highly recommend one of the machines with the "pro-grade" screen if you're getting an F series, as the others can be a little weak in their viewing angles. Check out the F series owners thread for more details.

It may be worth you configuring a custom Vaio F with the better screen, but still save some money on a lower spec RAM and CPU spec if you want to save some money. Though, if you have the budget and it would be useful to you, the model in my Sig absolutely flies, and will beat desktop performance unless it's a very new desktop

 

Thanks for the lightning fast reply philm94. I'm sure that the VPCF12Z1E you own is much better but it also costs almost double than the three models I mentioned (1680 Euros instead of 850-950 Euros).

Regarding the "pro-grade" screen, yes I read that there is a big difference but is the "normal" screen so bad? I noticed in another thread that you used to have a Vaio with the normal screen.

I'm asking because a custom configuration is not possible on the Sony Vaio site of my country (Greece) but even if it was, I can't wait for a 30-day delivery since I need to get it soon.

If the "normal" screen is very bad, then I have to look elsewhere or for a more expensive pre-configured Vaio. Do you know how the "normal" or "pro-grade" Vaio screen compare to Acer or Dell notebooks?

 

I was able to run this game on my old dell studio 1535 with an ati hd 3450 mobility which is pretty weak with an C2D 2.1Ghz with fine framerates so Im guessing most laptops with dedicated graphics card will run this game fine.

 

I came to the "normal" screen from a 4 year old Dell m1710, and was very disappointed in the screen quality.

My thoughts on it are best summarised here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/6455815-post1680.html

The bleed is very, very noticable. Still, it might not bother you, I know it doesn't some people.

The next model down from my machine is around £1300 - still a lot more expensive but the only one pre-configured that is cheaper and has the better screen.

 

I usually recommend an Nvidia 230/330 or better or an ATI 4600/5600 or better, so you are OK there. I would not say that the CPU is unimportant, but far more SL users are limited by their GPU. I would get one of the models that you list with an i5. Screen resolution depends on your preference, but 1920x1080 looks amazing (but will also get lower framerates) and allow for a lot of material on the screen (like 2-page spreads in Word and Acrobat).

Torley Linden put up a page on the SecondLife wiki on selecting a computer that might be helpful.

 

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

@philm94: The back-light bleed on that screen really looks terrible, compared with all 4 previous notebooks of mine (all Dell). What surprises me, is not the different opinions of the people on the thread you've posted the photos, but the fact that the same F models I mention here, were tested on the Greek Version of PC World and they find both screens (1600x900 and 1920x1080) "excellent". Those guys, test with professional tools the screens for bleeding, brightness, contrast ratio and so on, so I really can't believe that they found *that* screen "excellent". Perhaps Sony uses now different screens for the same models?

@KimoT: The i5 with the 1920x1080 screen was also my first preference, since all my previous notebooks always had the highest available resolution monitors at the time. However, I a little hesitant now that I see that the "normal" F screen doesn't look very good. Also, I just notice that the E model with the weaker i3 CPU but better 5650 GPU, comes with a LED backlit panel which theoretically is better than the CCFL ones. So, given that a CPU is important for Second Life but not that important than the GPU, would you suggest, an i5/330M or an i3/5650 combination?

Or to make it easier for you (and me). Which from the following three notebooks, would you personally choose to run Second Life (no other games, and normal office apps?

- Vaio F11: i5-520M/ GeForce 330M/ 16.4", 1920x1080, CCFL/ 5400rpm HD
- Vaio F12: i5-520M/ GeForce 330M/ 16.4", 1600x900, CCFL/ 7200rpm HD
- Vaio EC2: i3-350M/ Radeon 5650/ 17.3", 1600x900, LED/ 5400rpm HD

Obviously, I would personally prefer a notebook with all the specifications marked in bold, but something like that is not available on the pre-configured Vaios on vaio.gr at least.

Decisions, decisions...

 

Amazing forum! I asked about SL in another thread about the new Asus U43JC-A1 14"/Core i5-450M/NV G310M 1GB GDDR3/4GB DDR3/640GB/USB 3.0/WiDi/Bamboo, it's such an amazing looking laptop and it has the i5... but the G310M didn't sound powerful enough. But for SL purposes would it work? I'm trying to find something small for presentations, the Alienware M11x keeps coming back into view but I really don't like the look of the M11x. I guess the ASUS N82JV-X1 is another possibility. With the Asus U43JC, how awful do you think the experience would be?

 

I'd think the 310 is a bit underpowered for SL, but will run it in low-medium in a pinch. The Alienware is the best small laptop for SL, but the appearance is not always what you want in meetings (but that never stops me from using my G51 instead of the Dell my office supplied when I go on road trips).

 

Based on budget requirements, probably the Vaio EC2: i3-350M/ Radeon 5650/ 17.3", 1600x900, LED/ 5400rpm HD.

Though, it has to be said, you'll be best served by touring some computer shops and comparing the screens in person. I have no idea as to the quality of the 1600x900 panels.