19 réponses à ce sujet

[zakkery]

I recently purchased and installed mass effect through steam. I fully downloaded it with no problem but
when i try to run it i get an error saying:



General protection fault!



History:GMatrix2D::Swap() Address=0x10d07b96 (filename not found)


I contacted steam support who told me to run the following installers:



...\\Steamapps\\common\\Mass Effect\\VC80_Redist\\vcredist_x86.exe



...\\Steamapps\\common\\Mass Effect\\DirectX\\DXSETUP.EXE

but this did not help either, the dxsetup.exe ran fine but when i run vcredist_x86.exe it gives an error saying a network resource is unavailable, vredit.msi.

I have no idea where to go from here so any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance.

System specs:
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.101209-1647)
Processor: Intel® Core™2 CPU          6420  @ 2.13GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 2048MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

Card name: ASUS EAH4650 series
Driver Name: ati2dvag.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6947 (English)

[Moondoggie]

I'm not sure what that gibberish for a driver version is but did you try downloading the latest Catalyst drivers? or at least a newer version than you have i have a feeling it's fairly old. It's all i can really suggest.

[Gorath Alpha]

That driver is over two years old, so it probably is at least partly to blame.

[Moondoggie]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

That driver is over two years old, so it probably is at least partly to blame.

I'm glad you could read it all i could see was a line of numbers. People really need to remember to put driver versions in the easy to understand form.

[majinsnake]

http://sites.amd.com...deon_xp-32.aspx

I assume your videocard is the 4650 HD ATI card made by Asus. It is recommended you install the actual video drivers, and not the ones made by the manufacturer. Depending on said driver/software. I own a Asus brand ATI card and they don't update the drivers enough.

[fatback169]

i have installed mass effect and everything was fine until i got an message when tried to lunch it¨
that said failed to compile global shader

video card:nivida geforce fx 5200
cpu: intel pentium 4

[fatback169]

i have installed mass effect and everything was fine until i got an message when tried to lunch it¨
that said failed to compile global shader

video card:nivida geforce fx 5200
cpu: intel pentium 4

[Bogsnot1]

Your video card is below spec.

Requirements:
Graphics: DirectX 9.0c compatible, ATI X1300 XT or greater (ATI X1300, X1300 Pro, X1600 Pro, Radeon 2600 HD, and HD 2400 are below minimum system requirements); NVidia GeForce 6800 or greater (7300, 7600 GS, 8500 are below minimum system requirements)

[fatback169]

aaa thanks

[fatback169]

aaaa thanks

[fatback169]

does it matter what cpu i have ?

[Gorath Alpha]

Of course. The system requirements wouldn't have a minimum named, were it to have been otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the FX video cards were produced some seven or eight years ago, and only for the "AGP" video bus, which was obsoleted six years ago. A PC that old and that obsolete is not worth the trouble of attempting to upgrade it, sorry.

[fatback169]

but can i just change the old video card into a new one by just an easy swtich in the pci socket

[Bogsnot1]

Here are the actual requirements. Make sure you meet or exceed them.

Supported OS: Microsoft Windows® XP with SP2 or Windows Vista*
Processor: Intel P4 2.4 Ghz or faster / AMD 2.0 Ghz
Memory: 1.0 GB RAM or more (2.0 GB for Vista)
Graphics: DirectX 9.0c compatible, ATI X1600 XT or greater (ATI X1300, X1300 Pro, X1600 Pro, Radeon 2600 HD, and HD 2400 are below minimum system requirements); NVidia GeForce 6800 or greater (7300, 7600 GS, 8500 are below minimum system requirements)
Hard Drive: 12.0 GB or more free hard drive space
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX®: 9.0c

[Gorath Alpha]

fatback169 wrote...

but can i just change the old video card into a new one by just an easy swtich in the pci socket

(Edited in) I had assumed that the FX graphics card was installed in an "AGP" type video bus slot, although now that I've thought about the matter, the cheapest, slowest, worst of the FXes, the 5200, was sold for the old "plain PCI" slot.  (It's different from a "socket" really.) 

The "plain PCI" bus predated AGP, dating back about 15-16 years ago, and for video, was replaced by AGP, roughly a dozen years ago.  However, AGP was a very complex and expensive way to improve video, and PCI-express replaced AGP half a dozen years ago now.  There's simply nothing available for plain PCI that is measureably better than the FXes were, given the extreme level of bottlenecking effect that the plain PCI bus will have on anything better than an FX. 

There are a few two and three year old design cards, such as the Radeon HD 4650, still sold for AGP, that were fair at gaming, even good at it two years ago, when matched to a good CPU, which then leaves the (potential) weakness of the central processor now in that ancient system bottlenecking even that (so far, we do not know what the CPU in that antique PC actually is) .  .  

(Edited a day later: I was very surprised when I looked for an AGP interfaced Radeon HD 4670, and actually found one, an HIS, but the price was $125, and you can get various comparable branded HD 4670s for the PCIe bus for half of that.  HIS is a very good brand that normally is priced slightly higher than average, but is usually worth it.  In this case, it's probably just way overpriced, however.) 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:20 .

[fatback169]

Radeon HD4670 - 512mb
will this work ?

[Gorath Alpha]

I do not recall seeing any of those still available for AGP recently (at least not with the original GDDR3 VRAM attached), but it was a very good card for its cost (PCIe) two years ago. There is a $20 - $30 cost penalty for AGP instead of PCIe. Once again, the question remains open that when combined with an inadequate CPU, a large part of the potential gaming performance is stolen by the drag that we refer to as "bottlenecking".

The worse the CPU, the worse the loss of potential, of course.

(Edited eight hours later to add this) 

P. S.  I was very surprised to find this, but in this case the AGP penalty compared to PCIe is more like $60:

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:57 .

[fatback169]

i have acer aspire 5738 but i should run thiss game because it uses dircetx 11

[Gorath Alpha]

Dx11 has nothing at all to do with high performance; if anything, in the case of DA2, for instance, it slows that game down when selected. Laptops have far less overall capability for game playing than desktop PCs, no matter if new or not so new, although recent trends have been toward cheaper, less capable mobile computing systems as the average. 

A fairly recent laptop will probably be far better than the very elderly desktop you have told us about so far, but without a true gaming card included in it, it still won't work correctly. 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 07 juillet 2011 - 11:45 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Here are the actual requirements. Make sure you meet or exceed them.

Supported OS: Microsoft Windows® XP with SP2 or Windows Vista*
Processor: Intel P4 2.4 Ghz or faster / AMD 2.0 Ghz
Memory: 1.0 GB RAM or more (2.0 GB for Vista)
Graphics: DirectX 9.0c compatible, ATI X1600 XT or greater (ATI X1300, X1300 Pro, X1600 Pro, Radeon HD 2400, HD 3200, HD 3450, HD 3470, HD 4200, HD 4250, HD 4350, and HD 4550 are below minimum system requirements); NVidia GeForce 6800 or greater (205, 210, 310, 520, 7300, 7600 GS, 8400, 8500, 9100, 9200, 9300 are below minimum system requirements)
Hard Drive: 12.0 GB or more free hard drive space
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX®: 9.0c

Following ME-1's release several years ago, Intel, AMD, and nVIDIA kept on releasing unusable video devices, of which I will add the Geforces abd Radeons to the lists above, and set off with boldface highlighting).  If they named any of the HD 2600 cards as below requirements, they were wrong about that as well. 

Basically, if a card is both "600" and upward in performance numbering and newer than five years, it should work, with the Split 5 1/2 years ago falling in between the X1600 Pro and the somewhat faster X1600 XT, although the X1650 Pro should also work (it was almost the same as the X1600 XT).  The Geforce 7600 cards split between the GS and the GT, with the GS being a bit too slow, like the X1600 Pro, and the 7600 GT being faster, like the X1600 XT.  (AMD started using "50" where "Pro" used to be, and "70" where "XT" used to be, from the HD 3n00 and onward). 

The following year, you see the Geforce 8500 as too slow, but the Geforce 8600 GT is OK, and for the Radeons, the HD 2400 Pro is too slow (there was no 2400 XT), and the HD 2600 Pro is usable.  The Geforce 9600 GT was the last "old numbers" nVIDIA card, and for 1 1/2 generations, a new performance number system was used, but it was really all over the place.  Nevertheless, the Geforce GT 240 was good enough to match with the Radeon HD 4650, that year, while the GT 220 / 230 pair couldn't cut it, and the 210 wasn't anywhere in the same league.  

These days, if it says "GT"-something, it's not good enough any more, you need the "GTS" instead.  nVIDIA used their numbering differently, with the GT 440 being more or less of a "borderline" card, slightly slower than a Radeon HD 5570, but not as slow as a GT 430 (which was in fact slower than the GT 240), but very similar to it overall. 

Once you are at the "60" number for a Geforce, the GT200 and GTX400 performance code numbers track more closely, 260s and 460s being generally equivilant to the Radeon HD 57xx and HD 67xx cards.  Laptop naming and numbering is nowhere close to as easy to follow, if you think the above is easy. 

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 11 juillet 2011 - 09:54 .