System Requirements?
- Thread starter rwil
- Start date
- Status
deanej
Deity
Then you try explaining how the graphics card for my W500 thinkpad, bought just last July, is completely useless when it comes to civ5's bells and whistles. Or how the video card for my desktop, bought in 2005, was unable to render the shaders on civ4's leaderheads properly.
@ deanej:
My radeon 9200 SE was capable of rendering these heads. r9550,r9800 and rx1950 too. Last one is from around 2005 (I think). Displaying and running things smooth are different things,I managed to run Borderlands on my AXP 2400+,but it wasn't playable.
Looking at w500,nice concept. Intel chip for display,ati one for gaming. It should run civ5. But radeon HD3650 is two years old card. Middle one at that. It's weaker,than my 5 years old x1950 Pro (but has two nice things I lack). Don't expect that baby to even fight with gf8600,which is considered as good for dx9 and too weak for dx10.
My radeon 9200 SE was capable of rendering these heads. r9550,r9800 and rx1950 too. Last one is from around 2005 (I think). Displaying and running things smooth are different things,I managed to run Borderlands on my AXP 2400+,but it wasn't playable.
Looking at w500,nice concept. Intel chip for display,ati one for gaming. It should run civ5. But radeon HD3650 is two years old card. Middle one at that. It's weaker,than my 5 years old x1950 Pro (but has two nice things I lack). Don't expect that baby to even fight with gf8600,which is considered as good for dx9 and too weak for dx10.
deanej
Deity
My Radeon 9250 was having shader issues with civ4. Looked like Hatshepsut, Frederick, etc. had severe skin problems.
My computer reports the card as an ATI Mobility FireGL V5700, not HD3650. In either case, I don't know anything about video cards other than the amount of video RAM, and I haven't seen them explained in terms I can understand anywhere.
My computer reports the card as an ATI Mobility FireGL V5700, not HD3650. In either case, I don't know anything about video cards other than the amount of video RAM, and I haven't seen them explained in terms I can understand anywhere.
MarkJohnson
King
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 605
Maybe I should clear this up better.
if a game supports DX11 it will also support DX10 and 10.1. These are all based on the same API and are just minor upgrade on the same engine.
DX9 uses a separate API and needs its own executable file to run the game. also, DX6, DX7, DX8, and DX9 all use the same API. So if your game supports DX6 it should run in a DX9 card just fine. But a DX9 game won't run a DX6 card.
Hope that clears it up.
-=Mark=-
MarkJohnson
King
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 605
That card has a 3650 which has only 160 shader processors and only supports DX9. You can't expect to get all the bells and whistles on a DX9 card, it just isn;t going to happen. also, that new laptop originally came out in 2008 so it was fairly old when you bought it. It may be upgradable though if it uses a mini PCI port and you can update to a DX10.1 or DX11 card to get more features. You can't expect a budget computer to have all the latest technology. You should expect to lose bells and whistles and with laptops you should expect even less as they are designed for business, not gaming. They are designed for low power, so parts have performance lowered to keep power consumption down. Laptop parts usually run at half power compared to their desktop counter part.
Sounds like a driver issue, or even a hardware issue. you have to remember there are also other programs running on your computer putting a load on your system causing performance loss. Try running task manager (ctrl+alt+del) and reporting how many processes are running. By default XP has around 21 processes running on a fresh install. if you have any malware at all, then it could kill performance real quick on a budget system.
The numbers you want to look at are the shader processors. like I said your 3650 has only 140sp, which is way higher than most integrated video have, which is usually around 8sp. If you had a 3870 (top of the line for that series) has 400sp, while a 4870 has 800sp, and the newest 5870 has 1600SP. so you can see the performance differences. These numbers are for ATI. Nvidia has a different way of doing their shader processors and have about a fourth as many of an equivalant ATI processor.
for example: An nvidia GTX260 has around 216 shader processors, while a HD 4870 has 800sp and the 4870 is a little more powerful on average.
If you want more bells and whistles, then you'll need more SP and a better API (DX11)
also, a DX10.1 is probably minimum for lots of bells and whistles. DX10.1 and higher have multi-threading in the GPU, so it can do more GPU tasks at once, while DX10 and older can only do one task at a time. so all DX11 games will have more things going on at once because of this.
-=Mark=-
deanej
Deity
That computer just had issues in general. I couldn't even get AV software to work until I changed the file system from FAT32 to NTFS. It's working much better now that I reformatted the hard drive and reinstalled Windows. The drivers used were the ones from Windows Update.
I must admit, I'm having a hard time thinking of a laptop that cost $1500 as a budget computer.
Well the once a month thing is certainly not true. And you can't expect developers to stop keeping up with technology just because you want to hang on to out-dated equipment. There's a theory called Moore's Law, made by a former IBM executive many years ago. He predicted that processors would double in power every 18 months, and so far his predictions have held true. So game companies are going to develop their products with that theory in mind, not cling to older technologies. When Civ 4 first came out, a lot of people had problems running it on their then current computers. But the generations that have been produced since then have no problems with it at all. The same will be true of Civ 5 as well. Some people will have to upgrade in order to play it, but later on it will run like a charm on the more powerful gear that will be available.
Your wish to hang on to components for 4 years is simply not realistic, you should be considering every 2 instead. Yes it sucks having to regularly spend money in order to keep up, but that's just the way it goes. I'm due for an upgrade myself, as my current system is about 2-3 years old now. That's just the price I have to pay in order to play computer games.
Why were you using FAT32 in the first place? That hasn't been used since Windows 98. XP and everything since uses the NTFS system as it's much more efficient. And don't rely just on Windows Update for your drivers, go to the manufacturers websites. Update doesn't necessarily handle all the drivers your system might need.
Arkangelus
Prince
Actually due to the consoles, we're in a huge slump PC wise. The money is in porting cross-platform titles, so there are very few that will perform beyond the Xbox 360 or PS3's capacities - I believe about roughly in line with a GeForce 7900, last I heard. I definatley know that plenty of people who bought the 8800 are finding that its still more than enough for everything current, and probably will continue to be well into next year. For the most part, finding a card that runs a single, sensibly sized monitor at max is really easy now. The latest ones can drive a SIX panel display at insanely high definition resolutions. If youre just looking to game on a basic monitor, even at 1080p, an £80ish card will have you set, and if you'd bought in on that aforementioned 8800 you'd have been riding the cutting edge for ages.
Well I'd have to disagree with that one. I have an 8800GT, and while it runs my games at reasonable settings I don't find it to be quite powerful enough for some of them. Mind you, I'm using a 24" monitor at 1920 X 1200 but I need to make a number of compromises with some of my more graphic intensive games, like Fallout and Oblivion. I'd have no problems at all cranking everything up with one of the more recent cards. It's certainly good enough for Civ though.
deanej
Deity
The computer was actually a Windows 98 box that was later upgraded to XP and had everything but the disc drives upgraded soon after. It was later discovered that XP and the hard drive did NOT get along so the data was ghosted onto a new drive. By now what was once one computer is now two (even the case had to be replaced as the new motherboard didn't fit), both of which have since been reformatted. It's no wonder the computer had issues, given that by the time it was reformatted the Windows install was eight years old.
I did attempt a driver update shortly after getting civ4; it made the game stop working. I don't really know how to update ATI drivers from their site anyways, as the only download I can find is for Catalyst Control.
Arkangelus
Prince
Thats funny, those were exactly the games I was thinking about! Also that Oblivion is from the same year as that card launched... we've definately not got any games that would push the current flag-bearers of the current generation like we had even 3 years ago.
Just to note - I personalyl have a 9800GT, essentially the same rebadged, and on Vista I couldnt run Fallout on 1380x768 at max, but now on Windows 7 it runs on highest at 1080p with no bother at all. I know that 7 supports DX11, even though the card doesnt, so wondered if maybe some of the DX11 processor/graphics card balancing stuff benefits me even though I dont get the graphical upgrades.
Also annoyingly, Bioshock 2 for some unknown reason takes up 100% of my CPU resources, on a quad core no less. It overheats the machine horribly to play it, I never had that problem back on Vista.
MarkJohnson
King
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 605
A reinstall always works for me, hunting down problems or trying to fix a virus that ends up crippling my performance anyway, I find it just easiest and quickest to reinstall Windows. But your FAT32 would give you the greater performance as NTFS has a lot of overhead, but better security.
Always do as already suggested, never use windows update to install drivers. they are usually horrible and very old. Go to the laptop's website and letest from there. I usually go to ATI's website for video drivers and download the latest stable version, which is 10.4, I think 10.5 should be out soon if not already released.
Is the game more playable now without the updates? how much better after updates?
I should of said a budget gaming laptop computer. for a desktop, you could get a much better rig for the same price.
Here's a good desktop replacement laptop(it is only DX10) $4370.00:
http://www.falcon-nw.com/
Here's a decent gaming laptop. (DX11): $1999.00
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&l=en&oc=DKDOQV1&cs=19&kc=9&X=9&Y=6
Here's a mid-level gaming desktop computer (DX11) @1299.00:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DPCWDX1&s=dhs
These 3 have roughly the same video, with the desktop with an dual 5770 video card with each one is as powerful as both the laptop cards, so it would be up to twice as powerful on video. The top one has a desktop processor and desktop memory in the laptop, which is even more powerful than the desktop listed.
so as you can see, you can spend twice as much for a laptop and still have half the performance as an equivalent desktop.
-=Mark=-
I don't see what the problem is. I just did a quick check for their drivers, through Google no less, and it seems pretty self-explanatory to me. It took me about a minute or two to find the appropriate driver for a Radeon card.
MarkJohnson
King
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 605
To get the latest drivers go to Lenovo's website and put in your model number (it needs more than Thinkpad W500) and it will take you to the right drivers. ATI's website even suggest going to their website for mobility drivers as they are often proprietary. Install all drivers from Lenovo's site as well.
The Rusty Gamer
Prince
Soo...how much better is an i5 from an i3? Anybody? Is it worth the extra bucks?
MarkJohnson
King
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 605
Google is your best friend.
but I'll give a rough answer.
i3 are dual core with hyper-threading without turbo boot plus IGP graphics.
i5 6xx series are dual core with hyper threading with turbo boost plus IGP graphics.
i5 the rest are quad core without hyper-threading with turbo-boost, no graphics.
There are other differences, but this are the major ones, but I'll let you google the rest.
-=Mark=-
From test I have seen w7 is simply faster,than Vista and XP. Vista is slowest.
I wonder how w2000 would fare,it was godsent in my p3 700 times.
Drivers and Radeons:
Ugly thing,Oblivion forces me to stick with manufacturer drivers,few versions behind ati's, because it was almost instant system restart in my case.
Why not AMD processors,may I ask? Cheaper and more reliable. No i7 equivalent though.
In Poland i3 is not that much cheaper,than PhenomIIx4 955 BE with 4 cores,unlocked multiplier (which means it's pIIx4 965
) . Quite fast at that,beats most,if not all intels for that price. Mobo can be also dirt cheap,as AMD doesn't like to introduce new CPU slot all the time.
I wonder how w2000 would fare,it was godsent in my p3 700 times.
Drivers and Radeons:
Ugly thing,Oblivion forces me to stick with manufacturer drivers,few versions behind ati's, because it was almost instant system restart in my case.
Why not AMD processors,may I ask? Cheaper and more reliable. No i7 equivalent though.
In Poland i3 is not that much cheaper,than PhenomIIx4 955 BE with 4 cores,unlocked multiplier (which means it's pIIx4 965
) . Quite fast at that,beats most,if not all intels for that price. Mobo can be also dirt cheap,as AMD doesn't like to introduce new CPU slot all the time.muxec
Prince
I previously thought that a post that contains mere smilies results in a warning...
Oh well.
- Status
