Hp laptop runs the game without any lag!!

[Sof_m9]

I transfered all my sims games to my new Hp laptop, it has 6 GB of Ram and it plays the game and all its expansion packs so smoothly! It seems like a different game to me! Before, I played it on Acer laptop with 4 GB and it lagged so much, the sims just stood there as if Free will was off and it wasn't. Now they all move around on and interact with each other on their own, etc. so I can finally experience Sims 3 in full. :D Just wanted to share! :)

[itsamariokart]

Niiiice :)

I know how you feel. My old Windows laptop hated The Sims 3 and it would be painful to play. My Mac is fine with it :) I can't play with the graphics to the max but it's much smoother :)

[morphius1]

Hp here, too. No lag.

[PunkyBreester]

I have an HP, too. I only have good experiences with HPs, especially considering the horror stories I've heard from other people about other companies *cough Dell cough*.

My game lags a tad, but considering that I have 4GB of CC and something like 120 mods, I think its understandable ;) I was so amazed once I finally figured out the right graphics settings to use, and everything looked so great and without any lag (before the CC bloat obviously), and even the load times were nothing. I almost cried :lol:

[rainysister]

I transfered all my sims games to my new Hp laptop, it has 6 GB of Ram and it plays the game and all its expansion packs so smoothly! It seems like a different game to me! Before, I played it on Acer laptop with 4 GB and it lagged so much, the sims just stood there as if Free will was off and it wasn't. Now they all move around on and interact with each other on their own, etc. so I can finally experience Sims 3 in full. :D Just wanted to share! :)

HP and no lag here either! Even though I have a lot of CC. Load times and saving doesn't take forever either. I love my HP :lovestruc

[DigitalSympathies]

My boyfriend has an HP 2000 (I think that's what they're called) and it has terrible lag. It can't play anything, not even Minecraft. So I don't see what everyone's on about. o_o" I have a couple desktops that are over half a decade to a decade old with no lag on any game, though.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Brand really ain't gonna matter much (besides some relatively minor things like case design providing better airflow). It's the specs that count - so whether you have an HP, Acer, Dell, Asus, Lenovo, or whatever, it's what under the hood that counts, not the logo.

[HystericalParoxysm]

HarVee - This discussion is about performance, not resale value.

[cameranutz2]

Agree, many people do prefer their brand names. But, people will buy what they want and need even if there is no logo or brand associated with it that they know or have used before.

I have an HP PC and an Acer laptop, neither of which I bought based on the brand. It was based on what is "under the hood" as HP put it that was the deciding factor and I have never used either brand before.

If ya pulled the logo off either machine, I'd still buy it if it met my needs.

[Belzader]

Comparing two brands with each other, makes no real comparesment unless they have the same or similar specs, it's like comparing a race car with family car.
Also there is a huge diffrence between 4GB & 6GB in RAM, so no wonder that the new computer perform better.
Like HystericalParoxysm & cameranutz2 said brand doesn't matter OP could have bought a Dell or Acer with similar specs and the diffrence would have been the same.

[Alliteration]

That's great. Be careful though, HP's laptops have a nasty habit of frying themselves 'cause they're not built with particularly great ways of dealing with heat. My games worked with mine, it just got very, very hot.

Now I'm playing with a heatsink that's half the size of the rest of the computer, and it's wonderful.

[eskie227]

The brand does count too.

Example would be; If you were to take a Ferrari, strip the badges off of the vehicle and try to resell the vehicle, hardly anybody would be interested in it because it's not technically a Ferrari anymore. It's nothing more than a mere hunk of metal in many peoples eyes now.

But it still goes 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds.

[PunkyBreester]

The only reason brand matters to me is the reputation. Not in the way that HarVee related to Ferraris, but because brand has a lot to do with the reliability of the machine, common problems (just as Alliteration said, HPs are notorious for high temps, but its easily solved with a cooling pad), and the kind of customer service you're going to get. Of course, you'll hear people with opinions all across the spectrum about different brands, but going off of the majority of stories I've heard/read and my own personal experience, I don't have any reason to deviate from my pattern of buying HPs.

[GnatGoSplat]

Car analogy doesn't make sense, neither from a performance standpoint nor resale value. Every car company has its own engines, there's some sharing in some cases, but not much, so there are huge variables in performance.
Computers, on the other hand, are going to use processors by either Intel or AMD. Chipsets are the same way, also either Intel or AMD (and formerly Nvidia, though they are getting out of the chipset biz).

Basically, they are all the same, and performance differences between computers of the same processor and chipset are negligible at best. The only reason brand really matters is support and a good warranty. You will actually get better quality spec components in a DIY PC, as you can choose components from higher tier brands like Gigabyte, ASUS, MSI, etc. Brand-name PCs like HP and Dell almost always use Foxconn to manufacture their components.

Resale value also doesn't matter. Unless it's got an Apple logo on it, it's not going to be worth hardly diddly squat in 5yrs when you upgrade to a new one (despite the fact that Macs are also largely manufactured by Foxconn).

[hannahmh87]

Oh how I would love to be able to afford a new laptop or PC!

My game runs ok, but lags every once in a while, I would love to go back to a smooth lag free game, maybe one day :( :P

[DigitalSympathies]

I really don't get this entire discussion, I was like "okay, they're discussing HP computers . . . but wait, the ones I've used aren't that great? What?" and then I was like "Well why aren't people posting specs? Brand doesn't matter, it's the specs that do." and THEN I was like *reads* "Oh. Hmm. That's an unfortunate turn in the discussion. SIGH. More arguing."

[whiterider]

Well shit, just so long as it's not an HP laptop with a Dell battery, things could always be worse (and warmer).

I have now managed to drag out that old dead donkey three times so far today, I'm not sure whether to be proud or ashamed.

[ElementMK]

The only technical specs I've seen are RAM related. Remember, RAM is not everything! In fact, anything beyond 3 GB for TS3 is frivolous. TS3 is a 32-bit game, which means it cannot use more than 2-3 GB of RAM on its own. A nice graphics card and processor may be the things that are really improving your gameplay experience.

I'm willing to bet that your previous laptop didn't have a graphics card. I made the switch from processor-based graphics to a real graphics card a few years back, and that was a huge step up for playing TS3.

Also, if you really splurged, you may have a solid-state hard drive. I envy those who do. Solid-state hard drives make loading screens a thing of the past.

[Belzader]

The only technical specs I've seen are RAM related. Remember, RAM is not everything! In fact, anything beyond 3 GB for TS3 is frivolous. TS3 is a 32-bit game, which means it cannot use more than 2-3 GB of RAM on its own.
Yes, it can't use more then max 3GB, but if one have 64bit Windows (which most manufactures uses now, especially if computer have more then 4GB in RAM), it will have memory left to work with.
If one have 32bit i totally agree, as a 32bit OS can't use anything beyond max 3,75GB.

[DigitalSympathies]

The only technical specs I've seen are RAM related. Remember, RAM is not everything! In fact, anything beyond 3 GB for TS3 is frivolous. TS3 is a 32-bit game, which means it cannot use more than 2-3 GB of RAM on its own. A nice graphics card and processor may be the things that are really improving your gameplay experience.

So explain to me why I have two identical 64-bit computers, except there's one with 16 GB of RAM, and one with 3 GB . . . and the 16 GB one runs the game better?

There are tricks to get it to use more RAM, I forget the name of the actual procedure but it involves some risk. I've done it for all of my games with phenomenal results. :anime:

[ElementMK]

Yes, it can't use more then max 3GB, but if one have 64bit Windows (which most manufactures uses now, especially if computer have more then 4GB in RAM), it will have memory left to work with.
If one have 32bit i totally agree, as a 32bit OS can't use anything beyond max 3,75GB.This is true. If one is a fan of multitasking or just leaving programs open while playing, the extra RAM will obviously play a big role in keeping things operating smoothly. But like I said, it's fairly frivolous if all you're doing is playing the game.

So explain to me why I have two identical 64-bit computers, except there's one with 16 GB of RAM, and one with 3 GB . . . and the 16 GB one runs the game better?How am I supposed to know that? Your vague piece of anecdotal evidence doesn't tell me anything. Are they using integrated graphics? What background applications are running? Is the RAM DDR3 or DDR2? I'm offering advice and layman-style knowledge, not technical gospel. Windows 7 can take up (though not necessarily utilize) a gigabyte of RAM just sitting there. If you have background applications running when you start TS3, a desktop with 16 GB of RAM clearly has more room for applications to run free.

Also, it's generally recommended that you use 32-bit for 3 GB of RAM and under, and 64-bit for anything over 3 GB. 64-bit Windows is inefficient if you're still using enough RAM for 32-bit to handle.

[whiterider]

TS3 is large address aware (aka capable of using more than 3GB RAM) by default, without any user intervention, since quite a few patches ago. Not that that stops it occasionally exploding in a fiery ball of memory leak on my 6GB anyway.

And don't forget that ever since the demise of XP, the amount of system resources used by a Windows OS is not insignificant.

[ElementMK]

TS3 is large address aware (aka capable of using more than 3GB RAM) by default, without any user intervention, since quite a few patches ago. Not that that stops it occasionally exploding in a fiery ball of memory leak on my 6GB anyway.Yeah, patching in large address awareness sounds like a recipe for disaster in an already notoriously unstable game. I'm hoping future Sims games (and SimCity 5) have that baked in from the get-go.

And don't forget that ever since the demise of XP, the amount of system resources used by a Windows OS is not insignificant.It's funny how XP is now seen as this efficient old OS (in fact, I run TS3 on an XP partition), but at its release it was panned for being absolutely bloated. How times change. My first XP machine had less storage on the hard drive than my RAM has today.

[ocorreia]

My game started to lag a little recently (have base game + all the EP, including SHT) and I was wondering if I upgraded my RAM from 5 GB to 8 GB, whether it would make a real difference?

My laptop processor is an i5, 2.4 Ghz and have ATI HD 5650.

[whiterider]

Makes sense, though, Element Leaf - back when XP came out, 256MB was a perfectly respectable quantity of RAM, and I suspect XP's encroachment on that was noticeable. Technology changes, though, and nowadays XP is incredibly light, given that most people have at least eight times that amount of RAM :p .

[DigitalSympathies]

How am I supposed to know that? Your vague piece of anecdotal evidence doesn't tell me anything. Are they using integrated graphics? What background applications are running? Is the RAM DDR3 or DDR2? I'm offering advice and layman-style knowledge, not technical gospel. Windows 7 can take up (though not necessarily utilize) a gigabyte of RAM just sitting there. If you have background applications running when you start TS3, a desktop with 16 GB of RAM clearly has more room for applications to run free.

Also, it's generally recommended that you use 32-bit for 3 GB of RAM and under, and 64-bit for anything over 3 GB. 64-bit Windows is inefficient if you're still using enough RAM for 32-bit to handle.

Well, one should assume when I say identical I mean identical, down to the (just above overkill) graphics card. Background applications minus the tool I need to clock it running would defeat the purpose of getting a benchmark from both computers. It's DDR3 (I thought I said that, I must've not), and I've never seen either computer run at 1GB when idling - that's absurd. If you have it skimmed down and cut away the fat, it, from my observations of many computers, should only run a fraction of that when idle.

I believe I did something that enabled it to use more RAM, but that's just my memory. I can't tell you how to do it, because it was a long time ago, but it works for me and I'm happy with it.