24 réponses à ce sujet

[Elodin]

OS:Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Processor: Pentium® Daul-Core CPU E5300
Memory: 6144MB RAM
Graphics Chip: Intel® 4 Series Express Chipset Family

Not to sure if its my graphics card that needs to be replaced to run this game in medium/high graphic settings. I just have no idea. Any help would be appreciated please.

[RaenImrahl]

Yup... your instincts are right... it's that Intel chip. It's not really designed for advanced 3D gaming. Only Nvidia and ATi chipsets are supported by the game, and the minimum specs imply a discrete graphics card, not an on-board chip. There's a roundup of recent discussions linked to my thread. In it there's at least one that talks about graphic cards.

[Elodin]

Sigh.. so now i need to go out and buy a $350 graphics card?

[RaenImrahl]

Elodin wrote...

Sigh.. so now i need to go out and buy a $350 graphics card?

No, not at all.  In fact, buying a super-fast, top-of-the-line video card might be a mistake in your case.  You're running a Core Duo processor at about 2.6GHz.  It's a fine chip, but it will be a bottleneck for any 3D game set at super-high grpahics.  This is especially true for Dragon Age, which is very CPU intensive.  A low to mid-grade card should do you nicely.  You can probably find one for $50 - $60... maybe less.

That's depending on a few things.  First you need to find out if you have a card expansion slot... either AGP or PCI-E.  Check with the documentation that came with your PC or with your manufacturer.  You'll also need to make sure your computer's power supply meets the graphic card manufacturer's specs... if, for example, you have a business machine with a 300W power supply, it may not be worth it.

Whether you choose an Nvidia card or an ATI card is up to you... others on this site could advise you better.  I use Nvidia cards because that's my confort zone... but a low- to -midrange ATI card may offer better performance.

Edit--  BTW:  all of this is assuming you're running a desktop PC and not a laptop, of course. 

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 21 février 2011 - 03:55 .

[SSV Enterprise]

As RaenImrahl said, by no means do you need to spend $350 on a graphics card. You can easily get one with sufficient performance for Dragon Age for under $100. Before you buy anything, make that it fits into your computer. If you have a thin computer, you'll need to buy a card that is "Low-Profile". In order for a regular card to fit your computer needs to be wider than 6 inches.

Here's what I would recommend: Radeon HD 5670 ($80). It gives good performance and low power consumption. If you want to save a bit of money, you can get a Radeon HD 5570. ($65) Understand, though, that you are giving up a significant bit of performance to save $15. Any lower will be too weak to play Dragon Age well.

I recommend you buy online. Graphics cards bought at electronics stores can cost $50 more than you would pay online. Back before Christmas, I bought a Radeon HD 5670 from Newegg.com for $85. A couple weeks later, I popped into Best Buy (an electronics store) to see what their prices were. The only Radeon HD 5670 they had was $150! So yeah, buy online. If you want to find your own deal, here are the key words and numbers you should look for:

Radeon HD 5670
Radeon HD 5570
Radeon HD 4670
Geforce GT 440
Geforce GT 240

The fourth(Radeon)/third(Geforce) digit denotes generation of graphics cards, the third(Radeon)/second(Geforce) denotes the ranking of the card relative to its generation. AVOID anything named Radeon HD 5470, 4570, 4350, or Geforce GT 430, 220, or 210. They are too weak to be worth buying. Also avoid anything in the Radeon HD 3000, 2000, X1000, X000, or 9000 series, and anything in the Geforce 9000, 8000, 7000, 6000, or FX 5000 series. They are too old to be worth buying.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 23 février 2011 - 08:55 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Given that PCIe video predated the Core generation by a couple of years (2004 vs 2006, or maybe 2005 vs 2007, can't immediately recall), only a few Core systems would have AGP, and those would have started their lives as Pentium P4 Prescott machines (very rare to see that socket, s775, matched to AGP), it's doubtful the OP author has AGP.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 21 février 2011 - 02:28 .

[Moondoggie]

RaenImrahl wrote...

No, not at all.  In fact, buying a super-fast, top-of-the-line video card might be a mistake in your case.  You're running a Core Duo processor at about 2.6GHz.  It's a fine chip, but it will be a bottleneck for any 3D game set at super-high grpahics.

I was reading an interesting article in a magazine recently that were testing just how much of a bottleneck certain CPU's like that would be. There is of course a cut off point where it becomes a bottleneck of course but they found that graphic perfornence does not change much between a mid range duel core CPU and a high range Quad core. The GPU is now so involved with the process of gaming graphics that a decent enough GPU can take a ton of stress off the CPU to the point that in gaming terms a decent GPU is far more important and likely to be the bottleneck of a gaming system.

[Moondoggie]

Oh and i throw my hat in with the HD5670 reccomendation having tested it on dragon age myself. You get settings at very high and 8x AA at 1280 x 1024 and it doesn't require extra power so it's good if your PSU is nothing special or if you are a beginer because it installs easily and you don't have to make sure you have the right cable and all that.

Of course if you know about GPU's or have somebody to install it for you then the HD5770 is a much better choice that will give good performence at higher resolutions.

Modifié par Moondoggie, 21 février 2011 - 11:39 .

[SSV Enterprise]

You would be right about most action games, Moondoggie, but Dragon Age in particular is quite processor-heavy. One website ran bemchmarks and found that quad-core processors granted as much as a 75% performance boost over dual core of the same brand and generation in Dragon Age.

[RaenImrahl]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

You would be right about most action games, Moondoggie, but Dragon Age in particular is quite processor-heavy. One website ran bemchmarks and found that quad-core processors granted as much as a 75% performance boost over dual core of the same brand and generation in Dragon Age.

Yes, I was speaking specifically about DA.  I have hopes that DA2 will address some of the clunkiness... I am prepping an older, pieced-together-from-junk PC to see how well the DA2 demo will run on it.

[Moondoggie]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

You would be right about most action games, Moondoggie, but Dragon Age in particular is quite processor-heavy. One website ran bemchmarks and found that quad-core processors granted as much as a 75% performance boost over dual core of the same brand and generation in Dragon Age.

I'll be especially interested if anything has been done by the developers in DA2 that changes the ammount of CPU grunt the game demands. DAO has at times very unusual CPU useage. That said i'd be interested in looking at more Dragon Age Origins specific benchmarks. I'm sure there is a sweet spot somewhere where the CPU gives a decent boost in performence although i don't envision much of a boost if say a duel core and quad core were both running with a HD5870 then the CPU adding to that would be neglegible even if it's a relitively entry level CPU it'd still do well.,

The only real experience i had was  playing Dragon Age Origins playing it on a single core machine and moving it to a duel core the difference was about 5fps but with a better graphics card it offered a boost of around 35fps.

Not to say that a decent CPU is not important of course it is but when it comes to gaming people need to work out their priorities or they just end up wasting money on things they don't actually need because they are impressed by big numbers.

[RaenImrahl]

Moondoggie wrote...

I'll be especially interested if anything has been done by the developers in DA2 that changes the ammount of CPU grunt the game demands. DAO has at times very unusual CPU useage. That said i'd be interested in looking at more Dragon Age Origins specific benchmarks. I'm sure there is a sweet spot somewhere where the CPU gives a decent boost in performence although i don't envision much of a boost if say a duel core and quad core were both running with a HD5870 then the CPU adding to that would be neglegible even if it's a relitively entry level CPU it'd still do well.,

I don't entire believe the headline, but here are the benchmark's I consulted before buying the game back in July 2010-- http://www.pcgamesha...cores/Practice/  It seems to be a combination of processor generation (how old is it) and clock speed more than the multiplicity of cores.  For example, I think based on this article and what I've seen on this board, a triple core processor isn't all that much of an advantage is it has a relatively low clockspeed.

Originally, I had an Athlon X2 6000+ running at 3.0GHz and an Nvidia 9500GT GPU.  I got maybe 20 - 25 fps at 1680x1050.  When I swapped out the video card for a GTS450 (and once I fixed the resulting "spikey graphcis problem") I got to around 35 fps... but the game would still pause frequently-- better word "freeze".  It would be like that for a moment, usually at the start of combat, and then it would resume.

Putting in a new CPU (Phenom II X4 @ 3.4GHz)... much improved stability and improved frame rate, about 43fps average at 1680X1050 and full in-game graphics settings... plus a little enhanced AA through the Control Panel.

FInally, going to a dual-SLI GTS450 config has given 60fps at 1920X1080 with no issues (other than I found my old wireless optical mouse didn't like the higher res, so I swapped it for the laser mouse I had on my notebook).

Moondoggie wrote...
The only real experience i had was  playing Dragon Age Origins playing it on a single core machine and moving it to a duel core the difference was about 5fps but with a better graphics card it offered a boost of around 35fps.

Not to say that a decent CPU is not important of course it is but when it comes to gaming people need to work out their priorities or they just end up wasting money on things they don't actually need because they are impressed by big numbers.

I can't agree more with that last statement, which is one reason (the other being finances) why I built up my system incrementally.   I think as far as the original poster is concerned, they have two choices... get lower middle class graphcis card for now, or get something faster and more desirable should they wish to upgrade their system in the future.

EDIT:  I should add that, as many including Gorath have pointed out, running a tidy OS helps alot, especially where DA is concerned.  While you can plow through other games with enough hardware chutzpah, DA doesn't like it.  

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 21 février 2011 - 08:35 .

[Moondoggie]

RaenImrahl wrote...

I don't entire believe the headline, but here are the benchmark's I consulted before buying the game back in July 2010-- http://www.pcgamesha...cores/Practice/  It seems to be a combination of processor generation (how old is it) and clock speed more than the multiplicity of cores.  For example, I think based on this article and what I've seen on this board, a triple core processor isn't all that much of an advantage is it has a relatively low clockspeed.


EDIT:  I should add that, as many including Gorath have pointed out, running a tidy OS helps alot, especially where DA is concerned.  While you can plow through other games with enough hardware chutzpah, DA doesn't like it.  

The benchmarks provide some interesting results however i noticed they used different RAM on several systems ranging from higher speeds to DDR2 or DDR3 RAM so it's not really a fair test even if they did use the same GPU at least.

Clock speed is more important than cores but i think most people are still just impressed by core number and they want this i7's with 6 cores or whatever it is now. Bit of a waste of money methinks.

Back to the OP i think with a mid range GPU they'll be able to play the game just fine they don't seem like the type of enthusiast gamer who wants to be able to max out the game on a huge screen so they probably won't need something capable at massive resolutions. That said i'm not sure they mentioned what resolution their screen is so it's hard to say what they need.

[Elodin]

So i found a graphics card that i got for christmas a while back and never got the chance to use it. Its a NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT. Haha have no idea if thats a decent graphics card or not. Should i try installing?

[GithCheater]

http://social.biowar...58/index/575571

According to the above link, the 8500 GT is just below minimum.  Not sure about the 8500.

[Gorath Alpha]

When it was still brand new, the 8500 GT had exactly one thing it needed to beat, and that was the price of the Radeon 2600 Pro, which cost much less to produce than the Geforce 8600 GT had done.  It was closer to the terrible 8400 GS than to the 8600, but very cheap to produce (I suspect it was created by using rejected 8600s, which only had recovery value for their rare mineral contents otherwise). 

http://www.gpureview...1=514&card2=513

According to that, I guessed wrong there (new edit about a half hours or so later).

That was four years ago, and back then it was barely on the borderline area between basement level and gaming level. 

For this game, it will get low settings, low resolutions, and low (relatively) animation rates, although one of our regulars had one when the game came out, and might pop in to provide first hand experience.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 22 février 2011 - 11:51 .

[Elodin]

See i don't understand. I also play Heroes of Newerth and i can run that game on high graphic settings all day, but when it comes to this game i cant? Whats the problem?

Modifié par Elodin, 22 février 2011 - 11:53 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Please.  Don't waste space or time with irrelevancies.  From a hardware-centric angle, ff it doesn't actually share the same game engine, it has no comparison value here.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 23 février 2011 - 04:04 .

[GithCheater]

Elodin -

Don't get offended, but Gorath occasionally has a low patience level for nubes, although I do not think Gorath has gotten too grumpy in the last few months.

Please read through the above link I provided (actually Gorath's topic), and it might help you get a little familiar with the need for separate gaming capable video cards. For example the previously mentioned link mentions how pixel shading capability (whatever that is) is needed for Dragon Age and how lower end video cards might not have this capability. Another Gorath topic (which I am too lazy to locate) mentions "RAM Scam", where a graphics card with 1 Gig of memory might be useless as it may be capable of only using 128 Meg.

The "generational ladder" link also mentions that the GeForce 240 is capable of running DAO, and I know that can be bought for less than $100. SSV Enterprise suggested several other inexpensive video cards in this very topic (hard lag) one day ago.

The following link might also be helpful as it rates game cards on DAO:

http://www.tomshardw...igins,2114.html

Modifié par GithCheater, 23 février 2011 - 03:49 .

[SSV Enterprise]

Elodin wrote...

So i found a graphics card that i got for christmas a while back and never got the chance to use it. Its a NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT. Haha have no idea if thats a decent graphics card or not. Should i try installing?

A GeForce 8500 GT will likely still have problems running the game, but it's definitely better than the Intel graphics chip your computer is running on now.  Go ahead and give it a try.

[Till Talis Mon-Sectaar]

I have GT240 1GB DDR3, not great, but i can run DA2 demo on high settings. I'm still a bit of a noob myself, but a GT240 512MB GDDR5 will set you back $80-90, but i'm sure somebody knows a better, cheaper card

[Moondoggie]

Till Talis Mon-Sectaar wrote...

I have GT240 1GB DDR3, not great, but i can run DA2 demo on high settings. I'm still a bit of a noob myself, but a GT240 512MB GDDR5 will set you back $80-90, but i'm sure somebody knows a better, cheaper card

The HD5670 512MB is cheaper and better than the GT240 512MB  but you have it's big brother the HD5770 which is a lot better and around the same price range.

[Elodin]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Elodin wrote...

So i found a graphics card that i got for christmas a while back and never got the chance to use it. Its a NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT. Haha have no idea if thats a decent graphics card or not. Should i try installing?

A GeForce 8500 GT will likely still have problems running the game, but it's definitely better than the Intel graphics chip your computer is running on now.  Go ahead and give it a try.

Ended up installing it to just see if any improvement came from it. Can still only run it in 800 x 600 Resolution. Bumped the graphics up to very high and texture detail to high and it made it a little better. The frame rate is still pretty crappy, freezes every once in a while and the graphics are pretty low-standard. Maybe i should just go out and buy a different one?



^^GithCheater- No offense taken at all, i am a noob when it comes to graphic cards! I have no idea what's a good graphics card and whats not. Anyways thank you for the information, I looked at those graphic cards on the list and i saw an ASUS one. Are those pretty good? Cause i have an ASUS Desktop.

Modifié par Elodin, 23 février 2011 - 01:28 .

[GithCheater]

Elodin -



As I am a semi-noob, I think that it would be a case of the blind leading the blind, as I have little more capability with video cards beyond posting links.



I have no experience with Asus video cards. Sorry.

[GithCheater]

Oops

Modifié par GithCheater, 24 février 2011 - 02:32 .