72 réponses à ce sujet

[Vorandeer]

That still doesn't explain why I can run recent games at medium to high graphics, but I can't run ME 1 at lowest. It scans my system to set my settings and tells me to bump particles to highest. I turned everything to lowest and it still screws up. It runs most of my games better than my desktop with a nvidia 8800.

Edit: Im running test on the card through system requirements lab (Not sure how reliable they are, then again, its telling me that i am unable to play games i just stopped playing.), and its telling me that I have over required shaders, that i have 1.7 gb vram, and that i have the required Hardware T&L as well as 3d capability. It seems like its not a bad chip/card thing, and I dont understand why it isnt running.

Modifié par Vorandeer, 31 juillet 2010 - 06:50 .

[SSV Enterprise]

You may think you're getting good performance out of your Intel GMA, but if you installed the program Fraps and used it to check the framerate in your games, I'd bet good money that it hovers around or below 20 FPS, which is considered well below standard.



As for why Mass Effect doesn't play while those games do, I don't know. Regardless of performance, if those games can run on your computer Mass Effect should as well.

[Vorandeer]

 Im not saying good performance by a number, im saying good performance where my eyes do not notice a lag time, or failure of lip sync. I ran Starcraft II on high all, but i noticed just the slightest lip sync failure so i went to medium. That being said, your right, it should run at at least lowest...

[Gorath Alpha]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

If it's Intel, then, sorry, but "SLAP"!

(Screen shots mean absolutely nothing, of course.)   Starcraft II has very low, year 2005 entry requirements; it's nowhere close to being in in the same graphics class as the far more typical modern 3D games, and it doesn't share game engines (UT3+). 

System Requirements Lab is wrong about as often as they are correct, but the majority of Intel's crap does still suffer without hardware Transform and Lighting, a feature that goes back to year 2000 for the proper pair of game- engineered graohics companies. 

It's a total waste of the forum's time and spece arguing about a nothing graphics device produced by a nothing graphics company.  It doesn't do the job.  It isn't supposed to do it.  Pretending otherwise is crap, same as the device itself is. 

[Jimmie_Rox]

Could be a driver issue, my laptop won't run mass effect because of an issue with the audio drivers even though it copes fine, if an fps of around 40 can be described as fine, with games such as cod4. It doesn't bother me, there is a work around but it's quite complex and I could never be bothered since it runs just fine on my desktop and my laptop is used primarily for on the go word processing, web browsing and playing low spec games like EVE, KoTOR, Civ3 and CS when I'm not at my desktop.

[Fredvdp]

Vorandeer wrote...

Im using the same graphics chip as far as i can tell, and if it isnt for gaming, I'll be slapped. I've been running DA: O + Redesigned with all the tabs set to "High" with no problem. I run Starcraft II Wings of Liberty on Medium graphics and textures, so i dont really get why the Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator HD won't run ME 1.

I can get screenshots if you don't believe it.

I believe it can look good in a screenshot. I'm more inteersted in the framerate. Back when I had insanely low standards I could enjoy games that ran on an Intel 82845G in slow motion.

Vorandeer wrote...

Edit: Im running test on the card
through system requirements lab (Not sure how reliable they are, then
again, its telling me that i am unable to play games i just stopped
playing.), and its telling me that I have over required shaders, that i
have 1.7 gb vram, and that i have the required Hardware T&L as well
as 3d capability. It seems like its not a bad chip/card thing, and I
dont understand why it isnt running.

SRL is unreliable because it ignores some things like the graphics card's clockspeeds. The 1.7 GB RAM is shared memory and that's not a good thing. It is a very bad chip and Mass effect won't run because Intel doesn't design their video hardware for gaming. StarCraft II is made by Blizzard who have made lots of games to run on entry level hardware to attract more players.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 31 juillet 2010 - 11:25 .

[Vorandeer]

Eh, I can keep playing this game on my desktop, it just bugs me that I have to. Your responding to Starcraft two, which has lower graphics but I've also played Call of Duty Four high on this thing, and that is comparable to this game (else the computer we just replaced wouldnt have ran either). Its possible it could be the sound as well, but I play other Bioware RPGs on this computer, set to highest (Which it is rendering, i set it up in stages to see the difference), so i cant see why this little HD chip wont run it. Especially when the game itself auto sets the graphics options to higher than low.

If I ran Mass Effect 1 on an old 6600 smoothly, I ought to be able to run it on this.

Modifié par Vorandeer, 31 juillet 2010 - 05:05 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is an old game, slightly older than the PC version of Mass Effect, and it has lower system requirements than Mass Effect. Also, COD4 was developed for PC along with its PS3 and 360 versions, while the PC version of Mass Effect was developed after the 360 version by a developer other than BioWare (Demiurge Studios), which can cause compatibility problems. Running COD4 is no guarantee that ME will run. (also, a GeForce 6600 actually meets the official minimum requirements for COD4- but not ME)



And running on an old nVidia (or ATi) graphics card does not mean the game will run on the latest Intel integrated graphics chip. Even if the hardware is more advanced, Intel's driver support has an always will be crappy.

[Jimmie_Rox]

NewMessageN00b wrote...



On a side note, there's been this other user who experienced ME specific slowdown. It's most probably is the drivers making ME think it has no graphics to run on at all. Maybe try disabling Aero or something? Might save some processing or conflicts.

The guy has a core i5 with plenty of ram so it's purely down to the gpu or the sound card and/or their drivers. My opinion? Unless you can manage to narrow the root of the problem down to a driver issue, which is unlikley or manage to fit some proper hardware in that laptop then you're screwed. That said my laptop only has a 8200M G in it, sure, the 8200 is a particularly feeble card, but it should, and in fact did run ME1 until the sound drivers conflict. But tbh that's why laptops suck for gaming unless you're willing to shell out several grand to get a desktop replacement that'll be out of date and next to usless in 2 years time.

[Jimmie_Rox]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

Good point. So you're the 3rd user now. 

P.S.
I'm still enjoying my 3 year old laptop.

Oh, I still love my laptop too, mine's just about to hit it's second birthday next month, still going strong. It does have a minor issue that I just can't understand, it hates video playback with a passion. Not HD or even 720p but just general low quality stuff like iPlayer downloads and youtube can develope frame rate lag at random intervals that last for a couple of minutes before it catches up with itself. Drives me crazy because I've tried everything to sort it but can't find a solution. Mind you it's been doing this since about a month after I got it, or that was when I first noticed it at least. Funny thing is it doesnt happen when I watch a .wmv or when I actually ask it to render stuff as long as I don't excede it's design specs.

[killerwolf49]

I'm tried to play ME1 (PC), but when I'v pressed play button MassEffect.exe crashes.

It says memory cannot be READ or something like that and there's numbers like 0x111a731d,0x00000000...



My operating system is microsoft windows 7 home premium and I use DirectX 10.0,

my processor are Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU T5870 @ 2.00GHz, display adapter NVIDIA GeForce Gt 220M and VRAM 1,00Gt...

PS: I have v1.00 of MassEffect.exe

PLEASE help, I haven't found solution for my problem yet...

[Gorath Alpha]

You have a bad DIMM, or the slot that one of the DIMMs is in has been damaged.  But even if you can move the DIMMs around, or replace one, in order to play this game, you should have a better video card.  The one you have only equals to the game's minimum, and while it should work, it cannot do so particularly well. 

A minimum should do one or the other of two things, both without falling below 25 FPS.  It should either run at low Image Qaulity settings and Medium Resolution, or at Medium Image Settings and Low resolutions.  You will enjoy the game much more with a Mainline Gaming card that allows Medium Settings at Medium resolutions while allowing at least 45 FPS. 

Due to the amateur nature of this web site's composition window, I can't see your comment unless I choose to quote you, so if that was a laptop, it cannot be upgraded for graphics. 

[Jimmie_Rox]

He has a mobile chipset so it must be a laptop. Therefore we can conclude that you've wasted your money if the fact it had a gpu in it conned you into thinking you were buying a gaming laptop. Besides, for a surprisingly cheap amount you could build yourself a semi decent desktop capable of running most games out there today.



As a rule of thumb, if a gpu has a M in it's name Techno Viking disaproves.

[Gorath Alpha]

The G.210 is more or less the discrete equivalent of an onboard chip. The 220, depending on how badly the producer cripples it, is much better than an IGP, but still just isn't any great shakes for games. Minimums never are - they are simply the least powerful that the developer wants to offer support for.

[killerwolf49]

I have old Windows xp professional (sp3) too, with AMD Athlon 64 x2 dualcore prosessor 4200 + and display adapter is Radeon x1550 series... So would this be better than "my" laptop?

PS: I have played ME1 on xp too, but it stops and crashes...ANY suggestions for this then?

[Gorath Alpha]

killerwolf49 wrote...

I have old Windows xp professional (sp3) too, with AMD Athlon 64 x2 dualcore prosessor 4200 + and display adapter is Radeon x1550 series... So would this be better than "my" laptop?
PS: I have played ME1 on xp too, but it stops and crashes...ANY suggestions for this then?

That old desktop is way below both the game and the laptop.  The desktop video card is pretty much the 2006 equivalent of the 220, without the benefit of generational (incremental) improvements from the past 4 1/2 years.  However, we are sidetracked here.  The laptop has a different problem other than having a relatively slow video card.  One of its SODIMMs (most laptops use those, rather than DIMMs) is returning a bad checksum or something, and must be fixed. 

www.helpwithpcs.com/upgrading/install-laptop-memory.htm

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 03 août 2010 - 05:12 .

[killerwolf49]

I'm sorry for my questions yesterday, because my laptop have 4,00Gt memory instead of 1,00Gt...

I visited in this website: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/ and they said that mass effect will run GREAT on my laptop...

I have still same prob when I try to start MassEffect.exe, which says something like this" order in address 0x111a731d pointed to memory in address 0x00000000. Memory can't be read.

[killerwolf49]

PS: I have DVD version of the game not steam :/

HELP NEEDED

[Kenrae]

Are you executing "Process Explorer" from Microsoft's Sysinternals? I remember having that problem and all I had to do was shut it down.



If you don't know what I'm talking about then don't worry because then you aren't executing it.

[killerwolf49]

I don't think I'm executing that process, but have someone suggestions which causes this problem?

Are in my computer some other that is must to be closed when I start the game???

[Gorath Alpha]

Asked and answered:

Gorath Alpha wrote...

You have a bad DIMM (that's desktop memory -- "SODIMM" for a laptop, or the slot that one of the memory modules is in has been damaged.

Gorath Alpha wrote...

. . . However, we are sidetracked here.  The laptop has a different problem other than having a relatively slow video card.  One of its SODIMMs (most laptops use those, rather than DIMMs) is returning a bad checksum or something, and must be fixed.

www.helpwithpcs.com/upgrading/install-laptop-memory.htm

Only after replacing the defective module does consideration of performance come into the picture.

Gorath