20 réponses à ce sujet

[crixomix]

Lets start with my specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 @ 2.2GHZ (2 CPUs)
Memory 2046MB RAM
Page file 868MB used, 3078MB free
DirectX 9.0c
Nvidea GeForce 8600GT (256MB each) SLI x2. I have 2 of these in my computer.

Here's my issue. I can basically only play on the lowest settings without lag. The only setting I have up is the resolution (1280x1024) and medium texture resolution. If I go any higher, I get extreme lag. This seems EXTREMELY unreasonable to me, as most games I can play on medium to high with no lag. This game doesn't look as good as it should for my graphics.

In addition, if I set my AA to anything higher than 2x, the game just automatically crashes. I know I don't have the best system in the world, but there's no reason I shouldn't be able to at least put some stuff to medium or high. Any ideas?

EDIT: It's 256MB on each graphics, not 128 as I previously posted

Modifié par crixomix, 11 novembre 2009 - 11:22 .

[Kushite]

No clue I'm currently suffering from the same dilemma.

[Gorath Alpha]

This message had been dead and buried for a month.  Why open its grave?  Surely something more recent was also included among the hits for the Search? 

The fact is that the Geforce drivers and this particular card are having more problems than just about any other card anyone sells, other than the Radeon HD 3870, perhaps.  The only known answer is to keep trying different nVIDIA drivers. and monitor the GPU temperatures. 

P. S.  Minor nit to pick at, had to do it.  In computer terms, LAG is rather strictly limited to transmission delay over a long connection link, as seen in MMOs, fairly often.  When you have a single player game, there is no transmission anywhere, and technically, no "Lag".  But don't worry about that unless you want to polish your pocket protector a little bit (improving your Computer Geek standings).

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 14 décembre 2009 - 06:43 .

[JironGhrad]

Is your gpu setup the same Ku****e? If it's the same as the OP, then the answer is that you'll gain a small margin of performance from the SLI vs an 8600GT by itself but you're still hampered by the limited 256mb of on-board RAM which is actually inferior (in terms of how high you can set things) to a single 512mb card as SLI does not double up the RAM. For more information see here on SLI.

[Kushite]

I have 1gb ram..which is actually less than whats recommended to be running windows 7 on my system. I'm currently about to head out to best buy and ask for their recommendation whether I need more ram or a new graphics card.

[JironGhrad]

I'd suggest more RAM first. To run optimally you need at least 3GB in Vista/Win 7. You'll get a better deal on RAM and a Video card at Newegg.

[Kushite]

really can you help me find one?
I've checked the dragonage.bioware website to view the system requirements, but surprisingly there isn't a listing for Windows 7.

Modifié par Kushite, 14 décembre 2009 - 09:56 .

[Gorath Alpha]

This one's very good: www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx

Vista and Windows 7 are such close cousins, you can almost always treat a Vista requirement as equal to a Win 7 requirement.

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 14 décembre 2009 - 10:02 .

[Kushite]

True, the card appears to be able to do the job but will it crash? It has bad reviews for the most on there.

I'll swing by best buy in a bit to compare to whatever they have price and performance wise, but thanks.

Modifié par Kushite, 14 décembre 2009 - 10:14 .

[Kushite]

I've just enabled triple buffer and its seems to have improved the slow frame rate a bit, though still noticeable.

Modifié par Kushite, 14 décembre 2009 - 10:13 .

[JironGhrad]

The GPU Gorath recommended is excellent... XFX has a rather strange (double lifetime?) but excellent warranty and the 5750 is a series 5 gaming "pro" model. I'd been looking at doing a new build rather than spending any more on this one and that was the GPU I used for price comparisons (current rig is AGP) of the old vs new.

[Gorath Alpha]

Ku****e wrote...

True, the card appears to be able to do the job but will it crash? It has bad reviews for the most on there.

I'll swing by best buy in a bit to compare to whatever they have price and performance wise, but thanks.

When it comes to video cards, all of the Best Buy pricing that I have ever seen amounted to "WORST" buy!  Hugely overpriced, except on very special sales deals. 

Here's a 4770 instead: www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx

G

[Titius.Vibius]

As a word of advice, games are not the same even if they seem to appear to have the same minimum and high recommended settings. We all found that on DAO. Now for your question, why does it lag? The simplest answer is your resolution. I found that 8600 GT and its brethren 9500 GT are best played on 1024x768 without AA, its doable on 1152x864 without AA but above those resolutions you need to tone down the graphics and disable frame buffer effects.

I have a 9500 GT 1024 in my office and I play DAO without any problems using 1152x864, it hasn't turned into a slideshow yet so I can safely say this is the recommended resolution for 8600/9500 GT.

Modifié par Titius.Vibius, 15 décembre 2009 - 12:32 .

[Kushite]

Yes Titus I just purchased and installed a Galaxy GeForce 9500 GT 1gb 128bit. It costed $79.99 and worth it. So far I'm able to play at max graphic settings with zero frame freezing "lag" . Thanks both for all your advice, now I can enjoy the game without further annoyances.

[Kushite]

Oh I've also found a free software called Game Booster which helps improve game performance, if anyone else has this issue and are looking for other options before upgrading graphics cards.

Modifié par Kushite, 15 décembre 2009 - 12:56 .

[Gorath Alpha]

AFAIK, the 9500 GT is simply another name for the very same 8600 GT (which is the card that the OP complained about to begin this message thread.  By chiming in, and never offering contrary data, that's what we had to accept as what you ALSO had trouble with.  nVIDIA stopped releasing new low end and middle rank cards two years ago, and just renamed them every year instead. The 9500 GT is now a GT230, I believe.

Shall we see which is which?

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

The shader clock was bumped a lot.  Most everything else remained the same.  And only now, you admit that you apparently had ignored the game's Minimum Requirements and still wanted to complain.

GPU Review didn't have anything on the G 210 and GT 230 yet, when I originally replied here.  The G 210 is worse than their onboard Chipset video chips, and should be ignored by game players.  The GT 230 is an OEM-only card, based on the GT 220, with raised specs so it's a bit better.  It fits into the same class as the old 8500 GT and 9500 GT, borderline quality, between business and Mainline gaming. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 31 janvier 2011 - 05:14 .

[Kushite]

Well I believe the other has been discontinued replaced with the one I have now. I haven't tried the previous so I can comment if they are the same. To be honest this is the first for me in purchasing a graphics card but I believe its a good decision. What do you normally look for when upgrading?

[Gorath Alpha]

[quote][quote]Ku****e wrote...

 I haven't tried the
previous so I can comment if they are the same. To be honest this is
the first for me in purchasing a graphics card but I believe its a good
decision. What do you normally look for when upgrading?[/quote]Video cards, other than the Geforce 200s, have an internal performance marker in their names.  Normally, an n100 or n200 (and many n300s) will be a mere onboard video chip, buried inside of one or the other of the mainboard's chipset ASICs.  A few n300s, all n400s, and most n500s are for business graphics, and are intended for charts, graphs, presentations, and spreadsheets (2D). 

Mainline Gaming cards have the n600 marker (HD 4650, HD 4670, Geforce 9600), and Hogh End deluxe gaming cards have an "n800" marker.  nVIDIA's 200s are a jumble, but most of them are really very old by now, and hardly worth a thought, compared to the far better and far newer Radeon cards (only the 250, 260, and up are worth looking at for High End shopping).

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 15 décembre 2009 - 08:00 .

[Kushite]

Actually the minimum requirements were and still aren't listed for windows 7 on the game site so I was in right to post here.

Modifié par Kushite, 15 décembre 2009 - 02:02 .

[JironGhrad]

Draetor wrote...

I've just enabled triple buffer and its seems to have improved the slow frame rate a bit, though still noticeable.

Whoa, slow down on the purchase for a minute. If you felt a difference enbaling Triple Buffering, then you probably have V-Sync on. Triple Buffering ONLY affects V-Sync, and it's always a good thing. The issue here may be that V-Sync is capping your system's frames, and your system needs all the performance it can get.

Disable V-Sync and Triple Buffering in your video control properties AND in the game's configuration utility. Launch the game and test. You might want to download Fraps as well and run it while playing to test your fps and see if there is really an issue.

By all means, go ahead and upgrade your video card/RAM, but just warning you that you might havea setting adjusted causing this behaviour in your eyes. V-Sync is a setting of preference for some. If you disable it, you will get as fast a fps as you possibly can, but some screen tearing (mostly during cinematics). With V-Sync on, you get a reduction in fps, capped fps to monitor, but nos creen tearing.

That's true but it only affects the GPU's that can capably exceed 60 FPS (which is the standard refresh for LCDs). Enabling V-sync on a system only getting 30 FPS won't help (and may actually hurt if it tries to "force refresh" by loading the same images twice to get the frames up.) I've seen that doubling of frames and things get VERY jerky.