English

Waiua --

The game is old, so the total GPU power needed to play it is not large. I have an NVIDIA 730 (which is not anything near high end) and it does just fine.  The equivalent performance point seems to be an ATI r7 240. However, that grabs up to 75W.

However, a quick google reveals this conversation: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3434204/75w-gpu-pcie-25w-l imitation.html
which seems to suggest that you might be able to get away with it (and what limitations you might end up having.  Good luck.

I used to play on Radeon HD5450 and it was ok for me.

Meanwhile I bought two cards, which should fit. First run with them was succesful. There are a Radeon HD8570 and R7 250 for a Compaq Pro 6300 and 6005 SFF. Thanks for your information and help.

I have run Ryzom passably well on far more modest hardware, like a Pentium 4 with a Radeon 9600 Pro in it's AGP slot :D

Between those two, I would DEFINITELY use the R7 250. While the HD8570 is about equal to what Bittty runs, and thus more than good enough for Ryzom, I see no reason not to run the card that is 40-50% better since you already have it.

As for power consumption, that is going to be an issue with any AMD/Radeon card since AMD is not known for thermal efficiency. There's no getting around the fact that you will draw more power than Bittty's nVidia for the same performance, but it's easier to deal with that than it is to deal with bad drivers. For perspective, my GTX 1050Ti is listed at the same 75W maximum that the R7 250 is, while the GT 730 is about two-thirds that.

That said, the difference in wattage between those two cards is relatively small, and putting the same demands on a superior GPU will place it under a smaller percentage of load and thus reduce power consumption compared to the inferior one. Sure, the R7 can draw more power, but the only time it actually will is when you demand far, far more from it than the HD8570 could ever dream of providing.

I would recommend a 1050ti. You said full hd, and max settings which can be pretty demanding. I am not even sure if a 1050ti could handle 1080p with max settings. I have a 1070, and only get like 40-60fps on the highest settings4k. Though I do have forced aa and reshade 3.0. Lets see what i get at 1080, so at 1080 i get about 105, so a 1050ti should be able to hand around 50-70 at 1080 max settings. I dont see a 730 getting much more than like 15-20 fps at max settings at 1080.

I have to say that I get a lot better than 15-20 and I use pretty much max settings at 1920x1080. Usuall (when I bother to look) it's in the 40-55 range. That's on the Nvidia 730

Guess a 730 is half a 1070 gtx 8gb than. At 1080p, max settings with 8x nvida aa, high quality in the control panel, and max ryzom settings i only get 100, and that is using 100 percent of my gpu, and around 15 percent of my 4.5 ghz 6700k.

Its hard to believe you get that at max settings. I just bought a laptop 2500u ryzen with a vega 8, since shadow tech makes owning a high end gaming computer useless. Which is better than a 730 from what I see here, in 3d marks 11 it gets a score of 2375

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QoyNdfg0vI,

a ryzen 2500u vega 8 gets 3602,

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Our-first-Ryzen-5-2500U-benchmarks- are-in-and-Intel-has-every-reason-to-worry.266618.0. .

Which is just a rough comparison, but if I am not using my shadow, and use the laptop I get around 20-25 fps at 1080 max settings 8x aa, high quality radeon settings.

So In conclusion, I don't recommend buying any graphics card any more, if you have fast internet, because you can get a high end gaming computer for a low monthly fee, and they upgrade their systems.

The shadow cloud computer I use gets around 60-70 fps at max settings 8x aa, high quality at 4k resolution. Which in turn means I can get that on my laptop, making gaming computers useless.

Personally, I get the sort of framerates you get using a far lower percentage of my 1050Ti. But most of us either have 60hz monitors that make such high framerates irrelevant or are picky enough about gaming to already have nothing less than a GTX1070 in the first place and probably just traded twin-1080Tis-in-SLI for 2080Ti.

Some of us have issues with cloud computing. Exactly what those issues are varies from person to person, but many of those issues revolve around a not-always-top-notch connection to a remote system that is not under your control. At best, it adds latency; not so much an issue for Ryzom as for other games, but I would rather not add 50-500ms latency to my single-player games. We won't even get into the privacy issues except to say that, justifiably or not, they are a concern for many.

Then there is the monthly fee aspect; Shadow is not a charity. At $35/month, it would take less than a year for a modest gaming PC to pay for itself with the savings. A mere 5 months would cost more than a 1050Ti.

Also, it's only available in certain areas. VERY few, in fact. Ironically, you'd think that Microsoft's hometown (Redmond, WA) would be one of the areas with access to that technology, but it's not available in the state.

In short, Shadow may be worthwhile to those in a limited geographical area who insist on paying a premium to play on laptops or Macs that are inherently weak for gaming due to their lack of GPUs and who lose more than $35 in their sofa every month, but not for those that have a desktop PC built within the last 5 years or who even notice household expenses in their personal finances.