32 réponses à ce sujet

[Ejak2021]

The rather long name of the thing is Mobile Intel® 4 Series Express Chipset Family.

Okay, I know I shouldn't expect to be gaming it up on a relatively cheap laptop ($300 at Wal*mart, but a really great value!  I'll probably be posting specs eventually, so you'll see.)  I also know Intel is the devil when it comes to this subject.  But, this thing has surprised me on multiple occasions.  I beat TES4 and FO3 with only a few lag issues on lower settings.  I beat DA:O with even fewer (the tree sliders in the video tab are set to low).   All three games are in 640 x 480 resolution.  Are ME and DA:O similar as far as technology is concerned?  Are they on the same engine?  Dragon Age is newer, but that may mean it's better optimized (what the realtionship between FO3 and Oblivion seems to be).

So, I got the game.  I had some trouble with the cinfiguration utility crashing--the patch fixed that.  I turned down the settings and tried to start the game--the picture of Shepard and some alien dudes standing in front of a planet pops up.  Then, when something else tries to load it crashes and gives me the "Mass Effect has stopped working" dialogue box and I click out of it and that's that.  It does that every time--from the exe and the launcher.  If my graphics chip is at fault, then shouldn't I not crash until I reach the actual game?  That's the other reason why I haven't given up on this yet.

If it comes down to it, I'll either return it or set it aside until I get a new desktop pc.  But, like I said, I've played some games I really didn't expect to on this lappy.  So, any ideas?

Modifié par Ejak2021, 08 janvier 2011 - 05:18 .

[Kloreep]

Ejak2021 wrote...

Are ME and DA:O similar as far as technology is concerned?

No, I'm afraid there's nothing you can do to make ME work on that chip. DAO uses Bioware's own in-house engine while the ME games use the Unreal 3 engine.

[Ejak2021]

Thanks for the quick reply.



Well, that's a shame. Any idea why it's crashing on startup like that instead of when I get into actual gameplay? Is there something special with the menu?

[Sunnie]

ME requires Direct3D hardware, the Intel chipset does not support D3D in any way. Trying to run the it, the game will crash because it can not find the compatible display hardware that's missing.

Don't expect to do more than play Solitaire on that.

[Ryzaki]

Uh...wrong. It runs (laggy as hell but it runs) on an intel x4500M



So if your card is stronger than that it'll run. Just make sure you have 3+ GBs of RAM

[amers1015]

I play it on an Intel chip just fine. No lag, no problems. My chip is just called 'Intel HD Graphics' under dxdiag.



So I'm gonna second Ryzaki here. It is certainly possible for the game to work with an Intel chip, it's just not supported.



Suggestion: Try downloading the 'Bring Down The Sky' DLC. For whatever reason I've read that some people suddenly have their game start working after getting it. *Shrug* Could work.

[Ejak2021]

I tried downloading BDtS and it didn't affect the situation. The problem probably isn't that my chip is from Intel, but that it wasn't made with gaming in mind at all. eMachines gave me a dual core processor and 3 gigs of RAM to go with it, though, so they should have known I'd try.

[Bogsnot1]

The minimum requirements for running the game are listed, and well known. If you couldnt pahy attention to them, theres not much anyone can do for you.

Intel have never made any video chipsets that could even be thought of as tolerable for gaming. Just because some people have been lucky in getting it working, doesntmean you will.

[Savormix]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Intel have never made any video chipsets that could even be thought of as tolerable for gaming. Just because some people have been lucky in getting it working, doesn't mean you will.

I have to agree. You may not be able to play some games, no matter how hard you try to make them work. That should be considered before buying such a notebook or a netbook.
If you want to play games, buy at least an entertainment class laptop.

[Ryzaki]

Savormix wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Intel have never made any video chipsets that could even be thought of as tolerable for gaming. Just because some people have been lucky in getting it working, doesn't mean you will.

I have to agree. You may not be able to play some games, no matter how hard you try to make them work. That should be considered before buying such a notebook or a netbook.
If you want to play games, buy at least an entertainment class laptop.

The bolded is extremely true. I adore my new gaming laptop. Portablity and high class gaming in a sexy package.

Of course it's not as good as a desktop but it's pretty damn close.

Though the price was a bit steep. (1200 USD) but I think it was worth it. It's the price you pay for gaming portability.

[Gorath Alpha]

Intel's chipset video chips have been produced in a wide variety lately, however, until about two, maybe three, years ago, all of them lacked several very basic functions that gaming CARDS began featuring ten years ago, after nVIDIA's first TNT cards arrived on the scene, such as including a Textures and Lighting unit internally. 

Even when the 3100X Chipset chip appeared, it took intel eighteen months or so to activate all its functions in drivers. 

When the "i" series of Intel C2Ds began to appear, they had an upgraded version of the very latest chipset chip riding along piggyback inside the processor's packaging, where it shared some of the large cache, and for the first time in all history was competitive with Chipset chips from real graphics engineers at AMD and nVIDIA.  That does not mean the i-CPUs can be used for gaming without truly HUGE compromises. 

With Sandy Bridge, most of the improvement has gone into the actual CPU side, where some 10-20% of added efficiency has been achieved.  However, instead of merely being a separate device riding along, the video support in Sandy Bridge is supposed to have been fully intgrated into CPU functioning, giving it new advantages it didn't have while piggy-backing. 

Again, this does *NOT* mean it is a game-capable option, unless the game settings are seriously crippled to allow it to be used.  According to Anand Tech's preview testing, it is as fast for some things as the Radeon HD 4200 / 4250 pair of Chipset video chips that formerly held the top rank among the onboard video crowd, and even matches AMD's least capable HD 5n00 real card (a poor card for certain), the 5450. 

The biggest news out of CES for game players is that Microsoft will support ARM, and that nVIDIA is building its own ARM processor, so it won't be left behind by AMD's Fusion (which blows past Sandy Bridge, with better battery life, less waste heat, and better video). 

Gorath

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 08 janvier 2011 - 09:26 .

[Fredvdp]

amers1015 wrote...

I play it on an Intel chip just fine. No lag, no problems. My chip is just called 'Intel HD Graphics' under dxdiag.

I'm curious, what's your resolutions and framerate? Is the Presidium playable?

[Moondoggie]

Ryzaki wrote...


The bolded is extremely true. I adore my new gaming laptop. Portablity and high class gaming in a sexy package.

Of course it's not as good as a desktop but it's pretty damn close.

Though the price was a bit steep. (1200 USD) but I think it was worth it. It's the price you pay for gaming portability.

Better you than me. Not sure i could buy into something that costs $1200 and delivers less punch than a desktop would on games. For $1200 you can build a very good desktop that would blow that gaming laptop away.

But i guess for some gaming on the move is an important thing. I'll never figure it out lol.

[Ryzaki]

Moondoggie wrote...

Better you than me. Not sure i could buy into something that costs $1200 and delivers less punch than a desktop would on games. For $1200 you can build a very good desktop that would blow that gaming laptop away.

But i guess for some gaming on the move is an important thing. I'll never figure it out lol.

Yeah when you're in a dorm room with a roommate that has random people over much of the time and the girl next door blasts music and screws with her boyfriend so loud you can hear everything you begni to appreciate being able to take your gaming down to the rec room where its nice and quiet.

That is very much worth 1200 to me.

Then of course there's the fact that lugging around a desktop is just very bothersome.

A great desktop that can blow the laptop away isn't worth squat if I can't enjoy myself while gaming.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 janvier 2011 - 10:46 .

[Moondoggie]

Ryzaki wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

Better you than me. Not sure i could buy into something that costs $1200 and delivers less punch than a desktop would on games. For $1200 you can build a very good desktop that would blow that gaming laptop away.

But i guess for some gaming on the move is an important thing. I'll never figure it out lol.

Yeah when you're in a dorm room with a roommate that has random people over much of the time and the girl next door blasts music and screws with her boyfriend so loud you can hear everything you begni to appreciate being able to take your gaming down to the rec room where its nice and quiet.

That is very much worth 1200 to me.

Then of course there's the fact that lugging around a desktop is just very bothersome.

A great desktop that can blow the laptop away isn't worth squat if I can't enjoy myself while gaming.

All those horrible University memories just came flooding back. Dorms with paper thin walls  did not help me get much sleep.

[Ryzaki]

Moondoggie wrote...

All those horrible University memories just came flooding back. Dorms with paper thin walls  did not help me get much sleep.

So by that I assume you understand why I was willing to shell out 1200 bucks? 

And yes dorms...particularly co-ed dorms are filled with bad memories.

And everyone wants to party when I have my damn finals. <_<

[Bogsnot1]

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah when you're in a dorm room with a roommate that has random people over much of the time and the girl next door blasts music and screws with her boyfriend so loud you can hear everything you begni to appreciate being able to take your gaming down to the rec room where its nice and quiet.

I'd be investing in a drill and pin-hole camera.

[Moondoggie]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

I'd be investing in a drill and pin-hole camera.

Sadly in my case the neighbour girl wasn't very attractive at all so imagining her doing stuff she did EVERY NIGHT was rarther unpleasent.

[Ryzaki]

Bogsnot1 wrote...
I'd be investing in a drill and pin-hole camera.

Ugh. I'm not a voyeur. Gross. It's bad enough hearing them.

[Savormix]

I have to point out that this thread is going off-topic.



Anyway, once you start using a laptop, you begin to appreciate that you can take it wherever you need it. Be it using it during practice lectures in uni or gaming/working during traveling (on holiday or whenever else you're not the driver).

[Moondoggie]

For work i use a notebook since it's convinient for me to take my work home with me but for gaming it'd never work. I can see some people especially students who would find gaming on a laptop handy though.

[Bogsnot1]

If thats the case, dont watch yourself, just "accidentally" broadcast it, American Pie style, across the dorm wifi. Name and shame is one of the best ways to get people to stop annoying behaviour.

[Gorath Alpha]

The social habits of rabbits and coeds is an inappropriate direction here. 

As pointed out, many laptop manufacturers buy the cheapest Intel Chipsets, which simply cannot play games with Pixel Shaders in them.  For $300, that is all that possibly could be offered.  Netbooks have been sold the same way, but that has been because Intel couldn't keep its battery drain rates under control for the Atom with anything better. 

Sandy Bridge isn't playing at the Netbook level, nor even the budget Notebook level at this time, but nVDIDA has a low- current version of its 9300 Chipset video chip named ION that Intel may want to make available at a competitive price matched to their Atom. 

ION isn't competing at the Fusion graphics quality level, however, and there is a Fusion for the budget laptop, with better battery life, and better graphics than the faster Atoms or the low-power Celerons.  When we have those in the stores, perhaps there will then *BE* a laptop at about that same price ($300) that can do a little bit of gaming, anyway. 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:49 .

[amers1015]

Fredvdp wrote...

amers1015 wrote...

I play it on an Intel chip just fine. No lag, no problems. My chip is just called 'Intel HD Graphics' under dxdiag.

I'm curious, what's your resolutions and framerate? Is the Presidium playable?

Keeping in mind that I'm an idiot, please tell me how to find that information out and I'll be happy to provide it. 

I highly doubt that the graphics are looking their best, but that's not something I care much about honestly.  I want to play the game, enjoy the story, and kill some geth bastards.  All of which I can do just fine with no lag or issues with my Intel chip. 

I don't have any problems in the Presidium or anywhere else.  I honestly can't think of one instance of lag or any other type of problem.  I played last night for about 5 hours and paid very close attention after this conversation and found nothing to gripe about.

I agree that the Intel chip isn't ideal, but it *can* work with games.  So far I've played ME1 & 2, DA:O and Awakenings with no issues, and my husband has played Sims 3 with no problems. 

Ideal?  No.  But doable?  Yep!

[Fredvdp]

amers1015 wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

amers1015 wrote...

I play it on an Intel chip just fine. No lag, no problems. My chip is just called 'Intel HD Graphics' under dxdiag.

I'm curious, what's your resolutions and framerate? Is the Presidium playable?

Keeping in mind that I'm an idiot, please tell me how to find that information out and I'll be happy to provide it. 

There's a program called Fraps you can download for free (Google it). It will display the amount of frames per second on screen. usually 30 or higher is acceptable.

I used to play Mass Effect 1 on unsupported hardware and got 22 frames per second (which is headache inducing). Now I hate anything lower than 40 but back then I had pretty low standards so it was acceptable to me.