Eventhough its a SFF card, it wont fit, because the card is pci-e x16, and my comps slot is pci-e x1, and i cant even open up the end of the slot on the board like people have done in the past to make space because theres transistors and shit in the way which will foul the card, so have now ordered a 1x - 16x harness adaptor, that way i can move it over one space so it misses everything and fits in.
Quite annoying, especially if you look at my board, just below the 1x slot highlighted in yellow, theres a load of silver connections where it looks like a pci-e x16 socket can go, maybe on a different model or something.
Keep in mind, that your graphics performance with an x1 riser cable isn't going to set the world on fire because of the bandwidth, though I'm not sure is HD5450 fast enough to reach the limit.
It'll work, but those risers are really only meant for applications when you're just stacking a whole bunch of GPU's and running them for compute rather than anything graphically taxing. You might even be better off using your integrated graphics in the end.
i see what you mean, but with the onboard only having 128mb memory, and no WDDM driver thus no aero, a card with 4 times the memory should be a bit better, i hope, not expecting the world obviously, but if it will be somewhere on a par with the agp 8x nvidia fx5500 and radeon hd2600 cards i used to run on my old comp, which were both 512 cards.
Plus, according to google, pci e 1x has double the bandwidth speed than agp 8x does, also, my old comp was a p4 2.53 ghz with 1gb ram, this is, still a p4, but the 2.8ghz one, and has 3gb ram, plus SATA drives, it should deffo be an improvement on my old setup, which could handle between 50 and 60 FPS with a full grid with aa/af all on about half way, altho not on t1, serious bottlenecks there, but lack of ram, the slower CPU and old IDE drives didnt help there.
You should have gone. I saw them in Amsterdam in December and it was without doubt the best night of my entire life! Also, they are breaking up so not really any more chances to see them
Well, Tomb Raider 2&3 on PS1 was "way" better than this one.
Too overdone and too intense violence imo, this doesn't have anything to do with the real "Tomb Raider" - Less puzzles, too easy gameplay (I played on hard), too short story...
Games are getting so bad in contrast with the real and first parts of those games, you are just paying for graphics, that's it.
It isn't that satisfying as I thought.
+1. I've played Tomb Raider on PS1 and I liked a lot because of its elements when you had to use your brain to make a step forward. Nowadays, developers go on the easiest, commercial way. It's pretty awkward to hear that mate, knowing the fact this product is released by one of the biggest and greatest developing group Square Enix, known as Final Fantasy developers, as well. Well, touching Final Fantasy, I should say PS1 FFVIII, then PS2 FF and FF X-2 was total awesomeness meanwhile a bit more commercial FF XII was ok, but really not the same as FF and X-2 and completely different, I should say, meanwhile former two ones were identical. Well, yeah... X-2 was a continuation of X, but still I am talkin' not about the game itself. I know a lot of examples when the first releases just pwn the ass to the newer (newest) ones. Take Medal of Honor Frontline for PS2 and take Medal of Honor Rising Sun as the next one - a total contrast and later game titles just did not exceed Frontline.
Since I was soooooo annoyed lately from performance drops of my old laptop and I still don't have own place to put a big PC box,I wasted some money on this one...