15 réponses à ce sujet

[jul02ias]

Please help.  Would like to purchase DAO, however have a laptop... and not sure if it meets min specs... specifically the graphics card..
------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 12/8/2009, 22:59:10
       Machine name: JULIA-PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1 (6001.vistasp1_gdr.090805-0102)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: LENOVO
       System Model: INVALID
               BIOS: Ver 1.00PARTTBL
          Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU     T5750  @ 2.00GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.0GHz
             Memory: 2046MB RAM
          Page File: 2507MB used, 1819MB available
        Windows Dir: C:\\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6001.18000 32bit Unicode
------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
      Display Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 2: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 3: No problems found.
          Input Tab: No problems found.
--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D:    0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw:  0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay:  0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow:  0/6 (retail)
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
        Card name: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600
     Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
        Chip type: ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x9581)
         DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
       Device Key: Enum\\PCI\\VEN_1002&DEV_9581&SUBSYS_3C2D17AA&REV_00
   Display Memory: 1268 MB
 Dedicated Memory: 501 MB
    Shared Memory: 767 MB
     Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (59Hz)
          Monitor: Generic PnP Monitor

[OneBadAssMother]

Dunno about the laptop architecture, but it should run. I'm running it on this as a desktop.

-----------------
System Information
------------------
Operating System: Windows Vista™ Business (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1 Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: ASUSTeK Computer INC.
System Model: A7N8X-E
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Athlon™ XP 2400+, ~2.0GHz
Memory: 1534MB RAM
Page File: 801MB used, 4527MB available
DirectX Version: DirectX 10
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: Radeon X1950 Pro
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Chip type: ATI Radeon Graphics Processor AGP (0x7280)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Display Memory: 639 MB
Dedicated Memory: 255 MB
Shared Memory: 383 MB
Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)

FAR INFERIOR to your specs. Slowdowns yes, but considering it runs better then Mass Effect on my very outdated machine. All I can say is, don't let the specs scare you from buying this game.

Modifié par OneBadAssMother, 08 décembre 2009 - 07:13 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Yes, the video card is above the minimum by a nice margin. You do have a hugely inappropriately sized level of background processes running: "Page File: 2507MB used, 1819MB available" means you have a ton of programs all potentially causing interference. I strive for no more than one fifth part that much in XP, and less than half that in Vista.



Gorath

-

[jul02ias]

how do i reduce the background processes. is it all the startup programs..

[OneBadAssMother]

Firstly, enter 'msconfig' into ur start menu search bar. If you don't have it, download the utility. This should allow you to choose what programs you wish started up. Try to minimise it.



Go CTRL-SHIFT-ESC, then go to the services tab, switch off what you don't need. I suggest a guide to this, you can google it if you want. Some of those services are essential but not most. Then go to the processes tab and do the same.



Since my computer is far inferior to others, I learnt how to focus my system resources on the game. However considering how much better ur computer is compared to mine, I would suggest just testing out the framerate/loading times first before you start playing around with resources.

[Gorath Alpha]

jul02ias wrote...

how do i reduce the background processes. is it all the startup programs..

You have an an excess of startups, yes, and the MSCONFIG is the route to changing those, as is using the Clean Boot start up to establish a baseline (refer to the appropriate Microsoft guide page for your version of Windows about the Clean Boot). 

The best guide I've seen to what was needed and what was not, is a WindowsXP web site operated by Black Viper; if he added Vista to it after his sabbatical, I don't recall (he shut down his web site for a couple of years), apparently without surrenbdering his URL license.

www.blackviper.com/

Gorath
-

[zacrobmer]

The HD 2600 should run it, on lower settings however but should be somewhat playable. I installed DAO on my wifes laptop which has a HD 3200 mobility and was barely playable on medium settings and the native resolution of 1280x800. However that laptop has a craptastic AMD Turion X2 RM-72, Your Core2 will probably make a differance given DAO's apparent CPU dependency.

[Gorath Alpha]

zacrobmer wrote...

The HD 2600 should run it, on lower settings however but should be somewhat playable. I installed DAO on my wifes laptop which has a HD 3200 mobility and was barely playable on medium settings and the native resolution of 1280x800. However that laptop has a craptastic AMD Turion X2 RM-72, Your Core2 will probably make a differance given DAO's apparent CPU dependency.

The fact is that far too many people fail to consider that the numbers in video device names are not all in a single ladder.  There are four separate ladders, in fact.  The n100 / n200 / n300 trio are all onboard chips and those progress up the generational ladder at the very bottim end; none of them has ever even reached the (current) Low Quality business graphics level.  An HD 3200 is at the very top of its own extremely short little ladder. 

Next is those business class parts, with the n400, n500 performance numbering in the names.  They are too slow and too limited for games, but are superior to onboard chips.  As time passes, and the new generations arrive, the Low End does move, but much more slowly than the High End does.  That 3200 IGP does equal the four year old Low End cards (7300 GT, X1300 Pro), and surpasses the five year old Low End (X300, 6200 A -- you will also note the "n200" / "n300" there.  IGPs weren't anywhere close to Low End four years ago). 

A mainline Gaming card has an "n600" and a Medium sized ladder.  These cards do improve somewhat more each generational "year" than is true for Low End Cards;  some years there are also "n700" cards that sit up near the border between Medium and High End.  

The tallest ladder belongs to the High End cards, which can leap up several rungs at a time some years.  They have an "n800" performance code in their names, or in the case of the Geforce 200s, a GTX60, GTX75, GTX80, etc. 

I think that covers it.  Meanwhile, your HD 3200 IGP (CHIP) is closely related to an HD 2400, just slower and stuck with ordinary RAM, not VRAM.  It's nowhere close to the performance of the HD 2600 Mainline CARD, which is still able to manage MEDIUM settings.. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

(I know that is the desktop version; GPU Review has never added any HD 2000 mobile cards to that database.)  Looking at the other part of the comparison, not to a CHIP, but to the more sensible choice for a minimum that the stupid X1550 foolishly named as an official minimum, the 2600 Pro handily pulls out in fron of the X1650 Pro:

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

The closest desktop card I have in my spares / leftovers drawers here is an X1600 Pro, and I know it was able to run right behind the Geforce 7600 GT in Oblivion, because it had nmore shader hardware, even if it was slower when shader codes were more lightly included.  I'm not really interested in a pissing contest, but I've found the game just doesn't push video cards nearly as hard as games such as ME, NWN2, and The Witcher will do. 

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 08 décembre 2009 - 11:53 .

[Yard Waste]

Windows Vista Minimum Specifications

• OS: Windows Vista with SP1
• CPU: Intel Core 2 (or equivalent) running at 1.6Ghz or greater
• AMD X2 (or equivalent) running at 2.2GHZ or greater
• RAM: 1.5 GB or more
• Video: ATI Radeon X1550 256MB or greater
• NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB or greater
• DVD ROM (Physical copy)
• 20 GB HD space

Modifié par Yard Waste, 08 décembre 2009 - 11:04 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Yard Waste wrote...

Windows Vista Minimum Specifications
[list][*]Video: ATI Radeon X1550 256MB or greater
[*]NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB or greater

Everyone discussing this game's requirements should be certain that they understand that Bioware did a poor job naming and testing the minimum cards 

An X1550 is only an X1300, not even an X1300 Pro, and not particularly close to being a Medium, Gaming class, card, not at all.  Looking at the Geforce 7600 GT,  and assuming that one was accurately named, the correct match to it falls in between the X1650 Pro, and the X1650 XT. 

Gorath
-

[Titius.Vibius]

Give a straight answer in reference to your machines guys. To the OP, no your system will not be able to run it properly and you won't enjoy it at all in low resolution. Guys you seemed to forget that in the end it gets really ugly and somewhat overwhelming, the mobs are incredible so with a system like the OP's it would be very difficult, it will turn into a slideshow with all the effects and scripts playing at the same time.

[Yard Waste]

Laptops with integrated graphics cards--good luck. POS---sorry, game on a decent desktop-- or get a gaming laptop- SOL-base on others replies

Modifié par Yard Waste, 08 décembre 2009 - 11:45 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Neither AnandTech nor Toms hardware, and other similar sites, include  laptop cards of any sort when benchmarking, probably for the same reason that developers do not try to offer official support: producers simply won't adhere to the standards that ATI and nVIDIA recommend with their Tech Manuals and Engineering Reference samples.

However, there is at least one web site specificially dedicated to benching the video hardware in laptops. I keep reading about it, but never clicked on any URL link, so it's not in any bookmark folder anywhere ("Favorites" to any suckers running Microsoft's Internet Exploder.)

I have a little free time right now. I don't know for certain that this one is it, but it looks fairly useful:

www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 09 décembre 2009 - 12:18 .

[zacrobmer]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

The fact is that far too many people fail to consider that the numbers in video device names are not all in a single ladder.  There are four separate ladders, in fact.  The n100 / n200 / n300 trio are all onboard chips and those progress up the generational ladder at the very bottim end; none of them has ever even reached the (current) Low Quality business graphics level.  An HD 3200 is at the very top of its own extremely short little ladder. 

Next is those business class parts, with the n400, n500 performance numbering in the names.  They are too slow and too limited for games, but are superior to onboard chips.  As time passes, and the new generations arrive, the Low End does move, but much more slowly than the High End does.  That 3200 IGP does equal the four year old Low End cards (7300 GT, X1300 Pro), and surpasses the five year old Low End (X300, 6200 A -- you will also note the "n200" / "n300" there.  IGPs weren't anywhere close to Low End four years ago). 

A mainline Gaming card has an "n600" and a Medium sized ladder.  These cards do improve somewhat more each generational "year" than is true for Low End Cards;  some years there are also "n700" cards that sit up near the border between Medium and High End.  

The tallest ladder belongs to the High End cards, which can leap up several rungs at a time some years.  They have an "n800" performance code in their names, or in the case of the Geforce 200s, a GTX60, GTX75, GTX80, etc. 

I think that covers it.  Meanwhile, your HD 3200 IGP (CHIP) is closely related to an HD 2400, just slower and stuck with ordinary RAM, not VRAM.  It's nowhere close to the performance of the HD 2600 Mainline CARD, which is still able to manage MEDIUM settings.. 

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

(I know that is the desktop version; GPU Review has never added any HD 2000 mobile cards to that database.)  Looking at the other part of the comparison, not to a CHIP, but to the more sensible choice for a minimum that the stupid X1550 foolishly named as an official minimum, the 2600 Pro handily pulls out in fron of the X1650 Pro:

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php

The closest desktop card I have in my spares / leftovers drawers here is an X1600 Pro, and I know it was able to run right behind the Geforce 7600 GT in Oblivion, because it had nmore shader hardware, even if it was slower when shader codes were more lightly included.  I'm not really interested in a pissing contest, but I've found the game just doesn't push video cards nearly as hard as games such as ME, NWN2, and The Witcher will do. 

Gorath
-

Damnit, typo the ATI card is a HD 3650.

I am actually well aware of ATI's moronic numbering convention it's on par with Nvidias. Keep in mind that the OP has a Mobility Radeon HD 2600. The HD 2600 is on par with the Nvidia 8600 M So I am going to to stick with the OP being able to play at a reasonable frame rate on low settings given the native resolution of their laptop, maybe medium with the post processes turned off, given the superior Core2.

[Soretooth]

Google Can You Run It?

Select Dragon Age: Origins from the menu

Scan

Read Pass/Fail info for the various hardware components it checks

[Gorath Alpha]

Please stop cluttering up various threads with references to a bad site like that one. Do you want to look like a paid shill for SR Labs?

That place is so erratic, inaccurate, and just plain wrong, that all they are good for (two things) is a laugh for the first, at their idiocies, and second, to get an easily printed list of the pertinent components in a given system, with which to write a query in a place where lnowledgable respondents may answer. Or else refer people to a dependable place, such as YouGamers, where their Game-o- meter is far better, far more accurate.

Gorath
-

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 10 décembre 2009 - 05:19 .