|
|
|
To those with 9600s, how the hell do you run it on ultra?! There was a guy on the front page with a slighty faster cpu (100 mhz), and i got ddr2 instead of ddr3 (but that doesnt make much of a diff), and i can only run it on med decently. My drivers are up to date and my comp is fine, so what gives? Ill post up the exact specs after, not at home
|
On October 05 2010 11:07 da_head wrote:
To those with 9600s, how the hell do you run it on ultra?! There was a guy on the front page with a slighty faster cpu (100 mhz), and i got ddr2 instead of ddr3 (but that doesnt make much of a diff), and i can only run it on med decently. My drivers are up to date and my comp is fine, so what gives? Ill post up the exact specs after, not at home
resolution
|
Sorry to tell you but these are budget computers which are more for people who do office works and internet browsing mostly. They will run SC2, but you will have to play the game at medium or lower graphic settings which will look like warcraft 3 than SC2.
|
On October 05 2010 11:49 keynest wrote:Sorry to tell you but these are budget computers which are more for people who do office works and internet browsing mostly. They will run SC2, but you will have to play the game at medium or lower graphic settings which will look like warcraft 3 than SC2.
Uh, you're not even going to run the game at medium on those computers. The first one is way under minimum requirements for the graphics (Nvidia 6150 SE, which was a low-end integrated part about 4 generations ago). The second one would struggle on low at best with the integrated ATI HD 4200 graphics, which was a low-end integrated part from ATI's last generation.
For those prices, you can get something that will play the game great on medium, but those computers don't have the graphics capability for it.
|
On October 05 2010 11:37 KOFgokuon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 11:07 da_head wrote:
To those with 9600s, how the hell do you run it on ultra?! There was a guy on the front page with a slighty faster cpu (100 mhz), and i got ddr2 instead of ddr3 (but that doesnt make much of a diff), and i can only run it on med decently. My drivers are up to date and my comp is fine, so what gives? Ill post up the exact specs after, not at home resolution
so you're saying the people who are able to run it on ultra are using very low res? im using pretty low myself, its 1200 x 800 cuz its a 15inch laptop screen...
they cant be running it much lower than that can they?
|
On October 06 2010 01:02 da_head wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 11:37 KOFgokuon wrote:On October 05 2010 11:07 da_head wrote:
To those with 9600s, how the hell do you run it on ultra?! There was a guy on the front page with a slighty faster cpu (100 mhz), and i got ddr2 instead of ddr3 (but that doesnt make much of a diff), and i can only run it on med decently. My drivers are up to date and my comp is fine, so what gives? Ill post up the exact specs after, not at home resolution so you're saying the people who are able to run it on ultra are using very low res? im using pretty low myself, its 1200 x 800 cuz its a 15inch laptop screen... they cant be running it much lower than that can they?
9600 GT is roughly comparable to a GT 240. See here, though note that their testing conditions are more stressful than most real game situations. It's a combination of low resolution and low fps.
The 9600M GT (laptop version) is actually more like a desktop 9500 GT, which is very much worse than the desktop 9600 GT.
|
On October 06 2010 01:31 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:02 da_head wrote:On October 05 2010 11:37 KOFgokuon wrote:On October 05 2010 11:07 da_head wrote:
To those with 9600s, how the hell do you run it on ultra?! There was a guy on the front page with a slighty faster cpu (100 mhz), and i got ddr2 instead of ddr3 (but that doesnt make much of a diff), and i can only run it on med decently. My drivers are up to date and my comp is fine, so what gives? Ill post up the exact specs after, not at home resolution so you're saying the people who are able to run it on ultra are using very low res? im using pretty low myself, its 1200 x 800 cuz its a 15inch laptop screen... they cant be running it much lower than that can they? 9600 GT is roughly comparable to a GT 240. See here, though note that their testing conditions are more stressful than most real game situations. It's a combination of low resolution and low fps. The 9600M GT (laptop version) is actually more like a desktop 9500 GT, which is very much worse than the desktop 9600 GT.
wtf a mobile version of the same card is much worse? that's gay...
well that's besides the point. the guy i was referring to on the front page also had a laptop with a 9600m gt.
|
My ATI 4850 runs the game on Ultra fine with an I7 CPU, above 30 FPS in any decent or big game.
|
CPU: Intel Core2Duo E6600 2.4GHz OC'd to 3.2GHz
Board: EVGA nForce 680i SLI
GPU: EVGA NVidia 8800 GTS 640 MB
RAM: 8GB 854MHz DDR2
Resolution: 1440x900
Settings: High (FPS: >45)
|
So anyone else with any ideas? (regarding my 9600)
|
updated graphics card list if anybody still uses this thing
|
|
|
hi guys - i have a "Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family", and various websites claim this means that i can't play SC2? even though this has 1.7 GB video ram, and i only need 128 mb?
|
CPU- i7 960 @ 4.2ghz
Mobo- Asus P6X58D Premium
RAM- 12gb 1800 ripjaw
PSU- Cant remember make but 1500w
GPU- 4gb 5970 toxic @950 mhz and 2gb 5870 toxic @950mhz in trifire
HD- 2 x 1tb in raid, and 1 120gb vertex 2 ssd
case- obsidian 800d,
Everything on ultra, 2560 x 1600, 180+ fps (ie pointless lol, run with vsync anyway)
|
On November 05 2010 13:47 jtp118 wrote:
hi guys - i have a "Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family", and various websites claim this means that i can't play SC2? even though this has 1.7 GB video ram, and i only need 128 mb?
They're right. At best you would get single digit fps at lowest graphics settings whenever anything interesting is going on in the screen.
Video card RAM is just the place where temporary data, textures, screens, etc. are stored. What is more important is the number of actual computational and rendering units the graphics chip has. The Intel 4 series chipset (Intel GMA 4500) does not have enough compute power to draw all the stuff on the screen at playable frame rates even on lowest settings. It's a low-power solution not intended for 3D gaming.
For the record, integrated graphics like you have actually don't have their own dedicated video RAM. They share the actual system memory (your normal RAM sticks), which reduces performance. The 1.7 GB quoted is how much system memory it's allowed to use for itself.
|
On November 06 2010 03:56 Myrmidon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 13:47 jtp118 wrote:
hi guys - i have a "Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family", and various websites claim this means that i can't play SC2? even though this has 1.7 GB video ram, and i only need 128 mb?
They're right. At best you would get single digit fps at lowest graphics settings whenever anything interesting is going on in the screen. Video card RAM is just the place where temporary data, textures, screens, etc. are stored. What is more important is the number of actual computational and rendering units the graphics chip has. The Intel 4 series chipset (Intel GMA 4500) does not have enough compute power to draw all the stuff on the screen at playable frame rates even on lowest settings. It's a low-power solution not intended for 3D gaming. For the record, integrated graphics like you have actually don't have their own dedicated video RAM. They share the actual system memory (your normal RAM sticks), which reduces performance. The 1.7 GB quoted is how much system memory it's allowed to use for itself.
wow, that is rough. i have a laptop and hence it wouldn't be so easy to just install a video card ... are there any cheap video cards that can somehow be attached via USB or something? lol, i'm guessing not ...
|
On November 06 2010 09:36 jtp118 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 03:56 Myrmidon wrote:On November 05 2010 13:47 jtp118 wrote:
hi guys - i have a "Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family", and various websites claim this means that i can't play SC2? even though this has 1.7 GB video ram, and i only need 128 mb?
They're right. At best you would get single digit fps at lowest graphics settings whenever anything interesting is going on in the screen. Video card RAM is just the place where temporary data, textures, screens, etc. are stored. What is more important is the number of actual computational and rendering units the graphics chip has. The Intel 4 series chipset (Intel GMA 4500) does not have enough compute power to draw all the stuff on the screen at playable frame rates even on lowest settings. It's a low-power solution not intended for 3D gaming. For the record, integrated graphics like you have actually don't have their own dedicated video RAM. They share the actual system memory (your normal RAM sticks), which reduces performance. The 1.7 GB quoted is how much system memory it's allowed to use for itself. wow, that is rough. i have a laptop and hence it wouldn't be so easy to just install a video card ... are there any cheap video cards that can somehow be attached via USB or something? lol, i'm guessing not ...
Yeah, you wouldn't be able to add a video card to a laptop's motherboard because there's probably no space or interface for one.
There exist external solutions (e.g. this), but they would set you back a couple hundred dollars. Also they can only output to an external monitor, I think. You need an ExpressCard interface, and even they don't have the transfer speeds to do justice to anything but maybe a lowest-end graphics card. You could run something more powerful out of one of them, but you would lose a lot of performance because of the interface's speed. USB 2.0 definitely isn't fast enough. USB 3.0 is 10 times faster than USB 2.0, and it still would still limit any modern card.
|
On November 06 2010 10:20 Myrmidon wrote:Yeah, you wouldn't be able to add a video card to a laptop's motherboard because there's probably no space or interface for one. There exist external solutions (e.g. this), but they would set you back a couple hundred dollars. Also they can only output to an external monitor, I think. You need an ExpressCard interface, and even they don't have the transfer speeds to do justice to anything but maybe a lowest-end graphics card. You could run something more powerful out of one of them, but you would lose a lot of performance because of the interface's speed. USB 2.0 definitely isn't fast enough. USB 3.0 is 10 times faster than USB 2.0, and it still would still limit any modern card.
haha, that is hilariously bad news ... sigh. i played SC1, years and years ago, and was really looking forward to playing SC2, but i guess it's not meant to be. thanks very much for your help, in any event
|
Hey all,
I have a 3 year old HP and want to update my video card for less than 100 bucks and play on low or medium settings relatively smoothly
my stats:
Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 (2.4 ghz)
3 GB RAM
currently using Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3100
the game barely plays on my computer. is there anyway i can get a better performing card that will make game play more enjoyable (less laggy) on my 300 watt power supply. or do i need to upgrade my power supply and video card?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
