724 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorath Alpha]

Dragonsword18 wrote...

libby29 wrote...

Graphic Card: Mobile Intel® GM45 Express Chipset with integrated 3D graphics, featuring Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD (Intel® GMA 4500MHD) with up to 1759 MB of Intel® Dynamic Video Memory Technology

should run but i`m not sure about grapic card... but i suppose that should be ok

Don't be silly.  There is no "CARD".  Intel has never made a viable 3D card, ever.  They tried once, a decade ago, failed, and now they just produce crap onboard chips that are worthless for high intensity 3D gaming.

Gorath
-

[milanus]

I have
AMD Phenom II X4 950 (3,2 Ghz)
3x2GB DDR2 800
Leadtek GF 8800 GTS 640 MB
Running on Win 7 64bit and the game runs very fine (cca 50 fps). All settings to max., 1680x1050, 8xAA.

[Sigard5000]

how about if you meet or surpass the min reqs but you have an ATI 4350 card (not integrated)? game should run even if not on the highest settings correct?

[Gorath Alpha]

Sigard5000 wrote...

how about if you meet or surpass the min reqs but you have an ATI 4350 card (not integrated)? game should run even if not on the highest settings correct?

Technically, that video card cannot meet the minimum.  Factually, video cards are responsible for over half of the perceived performance of games.  It isn't the settings you should worry about, it's the FRAME RATE.  Visual image settings from low to high actually have a very small impact on the animation speed, but screen resolution has a truly HUGE effect.  

A low end card of that poor sort probably needs to be running at 1024 by 768 pixels, or the wide screen equivalent in pixel count. 

Gorath
-

[Sigard5000]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Sigard5000 wrote...

how about if you meet or surpass the min reqs but you have an ATI 4350 card (not integrated)? game should run even if not on the highest settings correct?

Technically, that video card cannot meet the minimum.  Factually, video cards are responsible for over half of the perceived performance of games.  It isn't the settings you should worry about, it's the FRAME RATE.  Visual image settings from low to high actually have a very small impact on the animation speed, but screen resolution has a truly HUGE effect.  

A low end card of that poor sort probably needs to be running at 1024 by 768 pixels, or the wide screen equivalent in pixel count. 

Gorath
-

So I probably should not waste money on the game until I can get my hands on another card?

[Gorath Alpha]

Sigard5000 wrote...

So I probably should not waste money on the game until I can get my hands on another card?

That depends on whether you want to wait.  The low end of medium resolutions / high end of low resolutions is actually the default for a lot of LCD display panels.

I have a 17" LCD display that has a max resolution (also its default) of 1280 by 1024, which is in the middle of medium, and mine is not very attractive when set to 1024 by 768, but I have been told that many flat displays are better than mine at running these reduced resolutions. 

Gorath
-

[Xarahaze]

TO get perfect amazing quality visuals that look like jaw dropping high def movie incredible, I use:



•Gigabyte GA EX58-UD5 motherboad (BIOS f5)

•Intel® X58 + ICH10R Chipset socket LGA1366 with QPI 6.4 GT/s

•Intel Core i7 940 @2.93 GHZ 4 Core (8 w/HT) &Turbo Boost CPU (no OC currently)

•Gelid Silent Spirit QUAD Copper PIPE with raised radiator cooling sink and fan

•6GB (2GBx3) XMS-3 DDR3 (in Tri-Channel) TR3X6G1333C9 @9-9-9-24 at 1333mhz

•Sapphire Radeon HD 4870x2 (2GB) GDDR5 GPU card- Catalyst 9.8 drivers

•Antec True Power TRIO 650 watt TP3 PSU (not a case include junker)+ The Thermaltake Power Express 250 watt VGA Card Power Booster (Mounts in 5.25" (DVD-CD) Drive bay)

•Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATA 3.0 GB/s 650 GB-System Drive

•Seagate Barracude ES SATA 750 GB Storage Drive

•Cooling-(2) 120mm red LED antec intake-(1) 140mm Top Exhaust (1)120mm rear exhast(1) TRILIGHT side VGA intake cooler,PSU 3 speed fan & cooler hub controlls all system fans (all antec 3 speed) with VGA PSU having Exhaust fan.

•Antec 300 Mid Tower Case

•Vista Home Premium SP2- Direct X 11

•Fed the machine a decent amount of cash



Game Settings-

Max visual details

8x anti-aliasing

Frame Buffer effects on

V-sync on

1920x1200 on Dell ultrsharp flat panel LCD (max res.my monitor will support-card would go higher)

always around 50-60+ FPS, no hitches or stutters.



Once I worked the bugs out with patches and what not, truly amazing DAO is best when played on a high powered rig,even though I would enjoy it however I could its GREAT. But of course the cinema quality graphics and effects are part of its greatness so...

[Amorality]

Can my laptop run DA:O? (low-settings would be acceptable to be honest)



*AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-60 - 2GHz

*3GB DDR2 - 667 MHz

*GeForce 8400M G - 128MB

[Amorality]

spellNotFoundException wrote...
Hey Amorality,

it is actually good to see someone with "lower" end specs on the topic. Most of the posts up to a couple pages back I have read are well into the "can play" range and doesn't help. I did run into 1 "lower end" and it didn't help me much.

Anyway, to "answer" you:

I have dual core 2 at a low end 1.4 ghz which is lower than your just by GHz rating
I have 2 GB ram which is lower than yours
I have 8600 M which is the only thing higher than yours

From what I have read, this game is more CPU than Gfx Card but that depends on how much AA and what screensize.

I have tested the game at 800x600 windowed and my full resolution as a 1280x800 fullscreen
with AA off or at lower levels, x2-x4, and graphics full, I was able to run around the origins story stage with little latency- nothing at all really.... it obviously became problematic on x8 on both types of screen choice.

Basically I believe I can play the game on default settings (around high to medium for detail and texture) at full screen and if not i would reduce to 800x600 window mode. No AA or AAx2 at max IMO.

keep in mind the other maps are supposidly a lot bigger i was told, and a lot more crowded perhaps?

Hope this comparison helps a little

Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply spellNotFoundException!

To be honest, typing up the system specs of my lap-radiator wasn't the most pleasant task after browsing some of the earlier posts I can tell you...

Anyway, I have to say I'm extremely pleased that it should be possible to play DA:O on potentially medium settings, especially after only being able to play WoW on this slow piece of...err fine laptop, it was getting rather stale.

I do plan on playing it on the highest resolution possible however, but I couldn't really care less about AA on or off to be honest, so that should be off the whole time.

I also ran the System Requirements Lab test and unfortunately it did say I failed the Minimum Requirements for this game, so I'm still not 100% on buying it, although your specs are reassuring. Perhaps more votes of confidence and I'll be able to pick it up and use my Xbox version as a tea-coaster. 

Thanks again!

[Bfler]

CTD 2,4 Ghz, 8800GTS 640 MB, 4GB RAM, Vista



1280x1024, 2xAA, every other graphical setting on highest value -> game runs smooth, also in larger battles (current memory leak not considered)

[Gorath Alpha]

spellNotFoundException wrote...

But just keep in mind, I never tested it past running around the origin stage for that character. You will have to keep in mind the larger NPC amounts, battles and maps later on where spells and effects may go flying left and right etc. and that is when details and screen-size may force you to adjust more. I don't want to put your hopes too high just based on my little evaluation.

An 8600 has DOUBLE the performance of an 8400, so you have seriously misled the other newby who also didn't try to look up any benchmark.  When both the CPU and the GPU are below minimum, the first rule of 3D gaming is that HALF and more of perceived performance is strictly the GPU.  Even the officially named 6600 GT is going to be much more of a problem than an 8600.  The key to video card names is the performance code, and "n600" is where the Mainline Gaming cards are. 

n100, n200, n300, at least since the Geforce 8000 generation, and Radeon HD 2000 generation, are merely onboard chips (bad), while n400, n500 are business graphics only, hardly any better than the onboard chips. 

Gorath
-

[Solica]

The game runs flawlessly on my desktop (which is pretty beefy, Phenom II + HD4870) but since I'll be travelling soon, I also tried it on my little cute notebook. And it kinda works. 4GB ram, single core Sempron and integrated graphics M780G. 1280 X 800. No AA, but kinda hi graphics settings, since I like that. The major reason it works is of course that it's a pause-game. I think I'll be fine with this over my christmas/newyearseve vacation.


Edit: OK, I don't want to mislead anyone. I just saw that Toms hardware ranks my M780G three classes above 8400M and two classes above 8400GS. So 8400  probably doesn't run this game so well.

Modifié par Solica, 28 novembre 2009 - 02:59 .

[Gorath Alpha]

ATI / AMD chipsets have been leading the way in the onboard video arena, with nVIDIA half a lap behind, and no one else even on the same lap!   I think that the latest Xpress chip is based on the HD 3450 / 3470 pair, nothing really spectacular, but miles ahead of any 8400, laptop or desktop. 

This next comment is pure Tech and thus not really on-topic: within two years, ATI's combined CPU / GPU chips are going to turn the discrete video card market upside down, and put the greatest of graphics out at costs that will mean nVIDIA will stop selling end-user video, and stick to production (Quadro) cards, along with their hopes to compete in the market that the Cell processor also operates in some, the massively multi-processor super computer arena. 

Intel has similar combo plans, but based on a totally new graphical rendition system that they almost certainly will screw up two-three times before they get it right, adding a year for nVIDIA to sell to hardshell Intel fan-people who enjoy spending too much in order to be brand loyal.  After that, it will only be a matter of time before ATI and Intel put production graphics in their chipsets as well as the normal graphics. 

Gorath
-

[Sigard5000]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Sigard5000 wrote...

So I probably should not waste money on the game until I can get my hands on another card?

That depends on whether you want to wait.  The low end of medium resolutions / high end of low resolutions is actually the default for a lot of LCD display panels.

I have a 17" LCD display that has a max resolution (also its default) of 1280 by 1024, which is in the middle of medium, and mine is not very attractive when set to 1024 by 768, but I have been told that many flat displays are better than mine at running these reduced resolutions. 

Gorath
-

I dont even have an LCD display. I have an old CRT. I do not upgrade my gear once, twice or more a year like a lot of these people do. Heck I even have an OLD AT&T monitor that is over 10 years old and still works great!

[zeejay21]

I can run DA:O on my Bootcamped Windows Vista SP2 custom on 20" iMac 2.4Ghz Intel 2 Duo with only 128MB ATi Radeon 2400HD XT but with 4GB RAM.



I used windowed mode (I love windowed than full-screen) at 1024x768 (4:3), Graphics Detail: Medium, AA off, Texture Detail: High, Vertical Sync: On and Frame Buffer Effects: On. Before the 1.01b patch, I have graphical issues and it's gone after that. It's mostly fine but the screen went framey if too much particle effects is in motion.



It's doesn't bother me though. As long as it's playable that's all it matters.

[Latharion]

If it helps others decide if they can run it or not on lower end systems, here are the specs for my system and I can run the game with an acceptible frame rate.



CPU: Intel P4E 3.6Ghz prescott processor

MB: Asus P4C800E Deluxe

Memory: 2 Gigs of PC4200 DDR Dual Channel memory

HD: 2 Seagate 160 GB SATA hard drives in a RAID 0 configuration.

Video: Nvidia Geforce 7800GS AGP (running at 700 core and 680 memory clock timings)

Screen: Samsung SyncMaster 2343 running at 2048x1152

Sound: Creative Soundblaster Audigy2ZS Platinum Pro



I run the game with NO antialiasing (to maximize frame rate).

[Xarahaze]

The only real misleading thing in determining the frame rates & playability is what someone or more noted the amount of enemies characters are on screen at once. like the battle at redcliffes village undead where they pour out and I built my machine to be able to hold out under pressure points enable all things AA max and framerates never dip, but I think unfortunately you really have to test for your self or your best bet is to go for the recommended specs on the box or something not too much lower for an experience that is enjoyable. remember underpowered CPUs or GPUs even slow inadequite memory amounts won't only suffer in frame rate or poor visual quality they cause annoying hitching, stuttering and locks more often. This game is a little tempermental Iv'e read, and had to fix a few small issues for nice smooth play, but it is worth it. Its nice once you don't have to worry about problems and immerse in the story. All machines handle things different if yours is known to crap out on higher end graphics stuff then maybe upgrade before you buy DAO?? if possible or do as told above and test each level until you hit the sweet spot.

[not a name]

Yo, I've got an Acer Aspire 5542, can my pc run this?
AMD Turion 2.2GHz
ATI Radeon 4200 (some onboard graphics thing)
4gb ram

Cheers.

[Jonfon_ire]

spellNotFoundException wrote...

Amorality wrote...

Can my laptop run DA:O? (low-settings would be acceptable to be honest)

*AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-60 - 2GHz
*3GB DDR2 - 667 MHz
*GeForce 8400M G - 128MB

Hey Amorality,

it is actually good to see someone with "lower" end specs on the topic. Most of the posts up to a couple pages back I have read are well into the "can play" range and doesn't help. I did run into 1 "lower end" and it didn't help me much.

Anyway, to "answer" you:

I have dual core 2 at a low end 1.4 ghz which is lower than your just by GHz rating
I have 2 GB ram which is lower than yours
I have 8600 M which is the only thing higher than yours

From what I have read, this game is more CPU than Gfx Card but that depends on how much AA and what screensize.

I have tested the game at 800x600 windowed and my full resolution as a 1280x800 fullscreen
with AA off or at lower levels, x2-x4, and graphics full, I was able to run around the origins story stage with little latency- nothing at all really.... it obviously became problematic on x8 on both types of screen choice.

Basically I believe I can play the game on default settings (around high to medium for detail and texture) at full screen and if not i would reduce to 800x600 window mode. No AA or AAx2 at max IMO.

keep in mind the other maps are supposidly a lot bigger i was told, and a lot more crowded perhaps?

Hope this comparison helps a little

My laptop is a Intel 1.8Ghz dual core (or maybe 1.6, can't remember offhand), 2Gb of RAM and a 128Mb 8400M and runs happily with low or mid graphics, AAx2 in 1024x600 full screen mode. In fact with AA off and in low graphics mode it runs in my native 1440x900 resolution quite well too.

At the moment for performance I'm running 1024x600 in low graphics (but high textures) with AAx2 and it runs nicely. Looks decent too, not mind-blowingly good or anything but still nice to look at. For nice areas with mostly chat missions I'll bump it up to medium detail for the nice lighting effects.

[Reggler]

For all low end system owners: I've got a rather outdated P4 2,6 GHz (yes, a single core), 1,5Gb ram and a geforce 7800 gs+ with 512mb.

I'm playing in 1650x1080, high textures, medium graphics, no AA and it runs absolutely fine. Haven't tested AA, but haven't missed it yet either.

[rpgplayer1]

For anyone interested, game works fine with low settings on ASUS X59SR laptop, using native 1280x800 resolution, high textures and frame buffer turned off.

That's Dual Core T3400 (2.1GHz), 3GB RAM and Radeon 3470 dedicated graphics (512MB VRAM).

If changed to medium, framerate is almost halved, so the main reason it works reasonably well is because low settings are pretty well optimized in this game.

Note, that when running, both CPU cores are 100% used, so exempt pretty weak graphics card, game would benefit from better processor too.

Modifié par rpgplayer1, 03 décembre 2009 - 11:26 .

[Gorath Alpha]

not a name wrote...

Yo, I've got an Acer Aspire 5542, can my pc run this?
AMD Turion 2.2GHz
ATI Radeon 4200 (some onboard graphics thing)
4gb ram

Cheers.

It isn't supposed to run on any onboard anything.  Those are all well below minimum.  ATI has had 200, 1100, 1200,  3100, and 3200 numbering for various onboard chips.  I hadn't heard of a 4200 so far.

Gorath
-

[Ghandorian]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Sigard5000 wrote...

how about if you meet or surpass the min reqs but you have an ATI 4350 card (not integrated)? game should run even if not on the highest settings correct?

Technically, that video card cannot meet the minimum.  Factually, video cards are responsible for over half of the perceived performance of games.  It isn't the settings you should worry about, it's the FRAME RATE.  Visual image settings from low to high actually have a very small impact on the animation speed, but screen resolution has a truly HUGE effect.  

A low end card of that poor sort probably needs to be running at 1024 by 768 pixels, or the wide screen equivalent in pixel count. 

Gorath

I must be missing something here. the recomended spec ati is a 3850. I run a 3870 and default setting is HI for it.  rez is above 1080 on a 24" monitor. This guys card should rocket through the game??

Modifié par Ghandorian, 03 décembre 2009 - 03:18 .