If possibly can someone send me a temporary fixer that I can use until I get a new graphics card.
When I play DOA. It lags.
Débuté par
MChivalry
, févr. 07 2010 12:38
#1
Posté 07 février 2010 - 12:38
MChivalry
-
- Members
- 4 messages
I know I don't have the correct video card but I know that everything else is suffiecent. I have GeForce 6150 SE Graphic Card and have AMD Fusion and I can't play on Medium or Low settings. Perhaps it's just my video card. I was thinking of getting GeForce 9500 GT but it's $80+ and will take time. FYI I don't have a job and I'm still in HS.
If possibly can someone send me a temporary fixer that I can use until I get a new graphics card.
If possibly can someone send me a temporary fixer that I can use until I get a new graphics card.
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 07 février 2010 - 12:42
MChivalry
-
- Members
- 4 messages
FYI I can still play. Just in case you misunderstood "I can't play on Medium or Low settings". I can it's just the lag is really bad, it looks like their in slow motion.
#3
Posté 07 février 2010 - 12:49
Gorath Alpha
-
- Members
- 10 605 messages
That is exactly how it's SUPPOSED to look, at the very best, on that bad of an onboard video chip!
Video: ATI Radeon X850 256MB or greater (either this is wrong)
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB or greater (or this one is wrong)
DVD ROM (Physical copy)
20 GB HD space
(Note: IMO, the two video cards above should be the Radeon X800 Pro, and the Geforce 6800 GS, at least)
I stand by this opinion, stated in another thread's discussions.
An ATI chipset with the 3200 or 4200 chip can probably manage 10-12 FPS at the popular 1280 by 1024 medium screen resolution, perhaps more when facing a blank wall. (You will have to interpolate for wide screen displays to reach a similar pixel count. An inexpensive HD 4350, Low End GPU intended for business, is the one that may outperform an IGP somewhat, getting into the 18-20 FPS range, but since those cost only about $7 to $10 less than a decent Mainline card when it's on sale, why waste the money?
P. S. We are currently discussing the buried silicon inside one of the chipset ASICs on the mainboard. Roughly a year from now, the first of ATI's combined CPUs plus GPUs will be ready for engineering samples to be produced. Right now, Intel has already moved a copy of one of their admittedly terrible IGPs onto the package with a couple of their latest processors. This improved their chip almost to the kind of performance that a current ATI or nVIDIA video chip offers.
Intel cancelled their original project to combine a full-power GPU with one of their CPUs, however, they have other, similar developments beyond that first, failed version. There is a world of difference between what we see now as IGPs versus what is coming fairly soon as combined CPU + GPU hardware.
Gorath
-
Video: ATI Radeon X850 256MB or greater (either this is wrong)
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB or greater (or this one is wrong)
DVD ROM (Physical copy)
20 GB HD space
(Note: IMO, the two video cards above should be the Radeon X800 Pro, and the Geforce 6800 GS, at least)
I stand by this opinion, stated in another thread's discussions.
There are onboard video chips from ATI that have all of the required functions and have overlapped into where the Business Graphics low end was four years ago (HD 2400 GPU), but don't reach today's Low End, nor the game's practical minimums. AFAIK, nVIDIA hasn't gotten that far with an onboard chip, which leaves Intel somewhere outside of the left field fence.Gorath Alpha wrote...
Sorry. That statement is a definite oxymoron. Either you do not have an IGP, as those are defined, or the game played quite poorly previously! There is no IGP, NONE at all, that will play any recently released 3D game, even as leniently graphical as DA: O is, "perfectly fine". That is an absolute fact.Mesgnk wrote...
... The graphics card in this laptop is indeed integrated and a bit on the older end of the spectrum, however, less than 12 hours ago it was running this game perfectly fine.
.
The (Practical, as opposed to official) minimum is either an X800 Pro (XP) or an X1650 (Vista / Windows 7), for ATI, and a Geforce 6800 Vanilla (XP), or 7600 GT (Vista). The officially published Radeons are wrong. There is no onboard chip ever made that can match any of those, nor even the idiotic too-low versions (6600 GT, X1550) in the official requirements.
Now, if we agree that you enjoy playing games in severely reduced imagery, at herky-jerky animation speeds, what you have, besides an unsupported tinker toy system (assuming you were corect, that the laptop only has IGP), is corrupted files in your Direct3D (here, assuming you have installed Dx9, as required by the game, after the Win7), or in the video driver files, or in the game.
An ATI chipset with the 3200 or 4200 chip can probably manage 10-12 FPS at the popular 1280 by 1024 medium screen resolution, perhaps more when facing a blank wall. (You will have to interpolate for wide screen displays to reach a similar pixel count. An inexpensive HD 4350, Low End GPU intended for business, is the one that may outperform an IGP somewhat, getting into the 18-20 FPS range, but since those cost only about $7 to $10 less than a decent Mainline card when it's on sale, why waste the money?
P. S. We are currently discussing the buried silicon inside one of the chipset ASICs on the mainboard. Roughly a year from now, the first of ATI's combined CPUs plus GPUs will be ready for engineering samples to be produced. Right now, Intel has already moved a copy of one of their admittedly terrible IGPs onto the package with a couple of their latest processors. This improved their chip almost to the kind of performance that a current ATI or nVIDIA video chip offers.
Intel cancelled their original project to combine a full-power GPU with one of their CPUs, however, they have other, similar developments beyond that first, failed version. There is a world of difference between what we see now as IGPs versus what is coming fairly soon as combined CPU + GPU hardware.
Gorath
-
Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 07 février 2010 - 02:25 .
