My PC specs are:
Windows XP Home
Intel core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33 GHz
4 gigs of ram
ATI Radeon HD 5450
Modifié par travis152, 11 mai 2010 - 05:19 .
Would I be able to run Dragon Age?
Débuté par
travis152
, mai 11 2010 05:18
#1
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 05:18
travis152
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Hello, I would like to know if I would be able to run Dragon age on my PC? I'm not really that good with computers so thats why I need help. I already know I have enough Hard drive space though. Also what setting I would be able to run it on if I can (low, medium, high)?
My PC specs are:
Windows XP Home
Intel core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33 GHz
4 gigs of ram
ATI Radeon HD 5450
My PC specs are:
Windows XP Home
Intel core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33 GHz
4 gigs of ram
ATI Radeon HD 5450
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 05:37
wolfwarp
-
- Members
- 307 messages
travis152 wrote...
Hello, I would like to know if I would be able to run Dragon age on my PC? I'm not really that good with computers so thats why I need help. I already know I have enough Hard drive space though. Also what setting I would be able to run it on if I can (low, medium, high)?
My PC specs are:
Windows XP Home
Intel core2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33 GHz
4 gigs of ram
ATI Radeon HD 5450
Your setup should be OK, though the CPU is a bit slower than the recommended 2.4 GHz.
Whatever you do, please stay away from patch 1.03. Use patch 1.02 instead.
#3
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 09:18
travis152
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Thank you! 
, I've wanted to play this game so much. Thanks for the tip by the way.
, I've wanted to play this game so much. Thanks for the tip by the way.
#4
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 10:34
Zepplin_Rules
-
- Members
- 81 messages
Avoid Awakenings as well since it auto installs 1.03.
#5
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 10:35
Gorath Alpha
-
- Members
- 10 605 messages
An HD 5450, the same as ANY other "400" other than the latest Geforces, is for business, not for games; you simply cannot expect it to handle the game nicely at medium resolutions, since it cannot do so, is not supposed to do so.
If you cansider 1024 by 768 pixels "OK", you aren't nearly as critical about game play as I am. This game, like many others, was advertised with a "Pie in the Sky" promise for its minimum video and minimum CPU. This CPU is, in fact, fine, sine the core speed required for a C2D is very low. However, the video card is below the PRACTICAL minimum.
www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php
The ATI Radeon HD 5000s, even your bottom end one, are a big step upward from anything that was available when the game's requiements were named, and should all be able to play the game. You just shouldn't EXPECT much from such an inexpensive part as that one.
If you cansider 1024 by 768 pixels "OK", you aren't nearly as critical about game play as I am. This game, like many others, was advertised with a "Pie in the Sky" promise for its minimum video and minimum CPU. This CPU is, in fact, fine, sine the core speed required for a C2D is very low. However, the video card is below the PRACTICAL minimum.
www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php
The ATI Radeon HD 5000s, even your bottom end one, are a big step upward from anything that was available when the game's requiements were named, and should all be able to play the game. You just shouldn't EXPECT much from such an inexpensive part as that one.
#6
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 10:53
travis152
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Ok oh well 
, I suppose I'll at least try to see if it will work (it'll be a while before I get the game). The reason I have that card though is because my computer has a slim case so most cards won't actually fit into it.
, I suppose I'll at least try to see if it will work (it'll be a while before I get the game). The reason I have that card though is because my computer has a slim case so most cards won't actually fit into it.
Modifié par travis152, 11 mai 2010 - 10:54 .
#7
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 10:54
Levi28001
-
- Members
- 536 messages
Overclock your processor a little if you want too.. It's running at stock speeds I see.
However, it doesn't matter because right now that graphics card is bottlenecking your system .
It will struggle at anything above 1024x768 as gorath said, anything above and your getting 20fps miniums= bad.
http://www.hardwarec...-review-10.html
It's time for video card update
However, it doesn't matter because right now that graphics card is bottlenecking your system .
It will struggle at anything above 1024x768 as gorath said, anything above and your getting 20fps miniums= bad.
http://www.hardwarec...-review-10.html
It's time for video card update
#8
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 10:55
travis152
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Well I have limited options because of the slim case.
#9
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 11:06
Levi28001
-
- Members
- 536 messages
Nividia= Gt 240 is small..
http://www.newegg.co...1-354-_-Product
The only thing smaller in 200series is 220gt, and I would not use it for gaming..
I don't keep up with ATI, so I can't make suggestions there.
http://www.newegg.co...1-354-_-Product
The only thing smaller in 200series is 220gt, and I would not use it for gaming..
I don't keep up with ATI, so I can't make suggestions there.
#10
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 11:08
Gorath Alpha
-
- Members
- 10 605 messages
TTBOMK, there are MANY better video choices than that one offered in the half-height form. Perhaps a little more variety from ATI and its business partners. However, you won't get into the High Level ranks, that is true.
I'll take a quick look and edit what I find in here, and I will use Newegg whether you are in North America or not, and whether USD is your currency or not.
There were two HD 5670s, and that is a strong Mid-range card, although not quite as good of a vaklue in frames per dollar as the much less expensive HD 4670. This one is $92 in USD:
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx
There are also quite a few HD 5570 cards in Low Profile sizes, but that card isn't as good of a value as the 5670.
Looking at Radeons from the prior year (ATI has a six month lead on nVIDIA in their Mainline and Value line video card levels from the Fall of 2009), Newegg no longer is carrying the Low Profile versions of the HD 4670 cards, although they have a good selection of HD 4650s, including this one for $55, with a rebate down to $45:
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx
I have not found much from any nVIDIA partners for Low Profile, as I anticipated would be the case, and it's more expensive, which I also could have predicted (this GT240 is comparable to the year-old HD 4670, there isn't any Geforce to match to the HD 5670, making this a poorer value) :
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx
That is a GT240 for $99.
Gorath
-
I'll take a quick look and edit what I find in here, and I will use Newegg whether you are in North America or not, and whether USD is your currency or not.
There were two HD 5670s, and that is a strong Mid-range card, although not quite as good of a vaklue in frames per dollar as the much less expensive HD 4670. This one is $92 in USD:
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx
There are also quite a few HD 5570 cards in Low Profile sizes, but that card isn't as good of a value as the 5670.
Looking at Radeons from the prior year (ATI has a six month lead on nVIDIA in their Mainline and Value line video card levels from the Fall of 2009), Newegg no longer is carrying the Low Profile versions of the HD 4670 cards, although they have a good selection of HD 4650s, including this one for $55, with a rebate down to $45:
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx
I have not found much from any nVIDIA partners for Low Profile, as I anticipated would be the case, and it's more expensive, which I also could have predicted (this GT240 is comparable to the year-old HD 4670, there isn't any Geforce to match to the HD 5670, making this a poorer value) :
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx
That is a GT240 for $99.
Gorath
-
Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 11 mai 2010 - 05:40 .
#11
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 11:10
travis152
-
- Members
- 6 messages
No don't worry about it, It's alright. I'll look around later. Anyway Thanks for the help everyone
Edit : Oh ok thanks, I'll consider them. If worse comes to worse I'll just get the game for Xbox 360, I wanted it on PC though because I heard it was better.
Edit : Oh ok thanks, I'll consider them. If worse comes to worse I'll just get the game for Xbox 360, I wanted it on PC though because I heard it was better.
Modifié par travis152, 11 mai 2010 - 11:27 .
#12
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 05:41
Gorath Alpha
-
- Members
- 10 605 messages
You may prefer the HD 4650 to the other two I had included (I added it to that answer so they'll all be together).
G
G
#13
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 08:22
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 788 messages
Gorath Alpha wrote...
If you cansider 1024 by 768 pixels "OK", you aren't nearly as critical about game play as I am.
I didn't see any great advantage in going to the higher resolutions. If anything, I find the interface slightly small at those levels.
#14
Posté 12 mai 2010 - 07:03
MingWolf
-
- Members
- 857 messages
The Radeon 5450 can run 1024x768 with sliders all the way up minus anti-aliasing, which should be turned off. In such a case, you can move up the resolutions if so desired and maintain playable framerates if you are willing to cut some graphics down. Trust me on this.
For a slimline case, the best choice of video card is the Radeon HD 5570 (plays this game on max), which carries the same performance of last year's HD 4670, or a hair faster, according to benchmarks and is more power conservative than an HD 4650. The 5570 costs a bit more, however. The HD 4650 is good only if you are on a very tight budget, for you won't achieve much other than the ability to play this game at slightly higher resolutions.
As for resolution, I tend to agree with AlanC9. However, with Dragon Age, the lower your resolution, the less you can stretch your quickbar, the place where you can cue up spells, feats, and so on. It -may- be advantageous to have something a little bit higher, but personally, I think the 5450 is fine for the purposes of this game. You'll get more value from this game, with that card, than you would with a console.
For a slimline case, the best choice of video card is the Radeon HD 5570 (plays this game on max), which carries the same performance of last year's HD 4670, or a hair faster, according to benchmarks and is more power conservative than an HD 4650. The 5570 costs a bit more, however. The HD 4650 is good only if you are on a very tight budget, for you won't achieve much other than the ability to play this game at slightly higher resolutions.
As for resolution, I tend to agree with AlanC9. However, with Dragon Age, the lower your resolution, the less you can stretch your quickbar, the place where you can cue up spells, feats, and so on. It -may- be advantageous to have something a little bit higher, but personally, I think the 5450 is fine for the purposes of this game. You'll get more value from this game, with that card, than you would with a console.
Modifié par MingWolf, 12 mai 2010 - 07:09 .
#15
Posté 12 mai 2010 - 07:34
travis152
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Thanks for the info Mingwolf, I hope your right 
. I don't mind if the resolution is all the way down, I've got the character creator on that setting and it looks fine (I know it's not the same as the game but still). I've actually rented the game on 360 before and one of the main reasons I wanted the game on PC was because of quickbar on PC, where as on the console there's only about 6 quick spots.
. I don't mind if the resolution is all the way down, I've got the character creator on that setting and it looks fine (I know it's not the same as the game but still). I've actually rented the game on 360 before and one of the main reasons I wanted the game on PC was because of quickbar on PC, where as on the console there's only about 6 quick spots.
