We are in the ME-2 Tech Discussion forum, and the Mobile X1400 is basically a desktop X1300, with improved efficiency to use less current and creat less waste heat. You "shouldn't" have been able to use that card without really dropping the screen resolution a lot to keep the frame rates high enough to allow the game's environmental interaction system to keep working.
Compared to the official X1600 Pro minimum (which is truly not a normal minimum), your card practically lies in the road, a flattened tortoise.
www.gpureview.com/show_cards.phpSince they are from the same generation, all five of the key measurements match up, and the X1400 trails badly on two of them, at only 29% and 34% of the X1600 Pro's performance. It gets closer on the other three at 86, 88, and 86%. I'm not doubting that you personally found the game enjoyable in spite of the limitations, but given the exposure here to all kinds of readers, I want to be sure everyone knows how individual gamers' feelings about what is good enough is extremely variable.
Personally, I have already tested the official minimum (Radeon) card, and it wasn't up to the standard that is usually applied for what a "minimum" card should be able to do. Typically, developers aim their specifications at the very common medium screen resolution, and intend for a minimum card to still run in the 30-35 FPS range at 1280 by 1024 pixels, with the image quality settings on Low. The same cards usually can be reset to still hold good frame rates at 1024 by 768 pixels, and a mix of Medium and Low settings, or even better image quality, if set to 800 by 600 pixels.
I didn't think that the results on my X1600 Pro met the standard (I was getting 20 to 25 FPS myself with that card) that I consider to be usual.
Nevertheless, I am very pleased to see that my recommendation to try the Omega Drivers worked for you. I hope you chose to make a donation to help defray the costs of keeping the website running.
Gorath