CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 MB: Intel DG41RQ RAM: 2 GB DDR2 800mhz kingston Video: Point of View GeForce 9500GT. Sound: on board. Monitor: 17" CRT
I know its a really shitty one, but ive got it more than a year ago for like $350 dollars total, so i tought it was a good deal. I can run SC2 in medium settings at 60+ FPS (FPS capped manually at 60, and shadows off and shaders on low)
My goal its to be able to run it at the lowest settings posible, at 800 x 600 and get 40+ FPS, I really dont care about how it looks, or how cool the graphics are, all I want in a game is the gameplay, I dont want to have a uncomfortable and laggy gameplay.
I know my specs are for sure in the minimum requirements given, but I want to know if its worth it for me to buy it, taking into consideration that I have only $95 and the game + 2 months game time its $90, so any kind of upgrade to my PC its not possible.
Thx in advance for anyhelp possible
BTW: this is the blizzard beta profile dunno might help some Operating System: Windows 2.5.1.2600 (Service Pack 3) CPU Type: Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz CPU Speed: 2.95 GHz System Memory: 1.99 GB Video Card Model: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT Video Card Driver: nv4_disp.dll Desktop Resolution: 1280x1024 Hard Disk Size: 203.58 GB Hard Disk Free Space: 115.72 GB (57%) Download Speed: 127.66 kB/s (1 mbps)
EDIT: since i was probably getting a new computer, I just went ahead and buy the game anyways. So people can have some idea about it:
I run it on every graphic setting low/off in 1024x768. Game runs perfectly in small spaces (50-80 FPS) In outdoors it varies depending on the amount of players/NPC (15-35 FPS to 25-45 FPS)
It was exactly what i wanted/expected out of my 9500gt. So if you have a card with similar specs, then you know what to expect.
Edit: I just looked at your Graphics card again, and it MAY NOT cut it. Needs 512 and yours seems to be 256 or 512. Pretty much simple as that. Wait till somneone more savvy comes along
On December 27 2011 02:41 isleyofthenorth wrote: totally off topic. but it will run kotor+kotor2. two much better games, sorry had to get that out :D
on topic, you internet connection should handle it no problem
His processor should be perfectly fine as well his ram lol. Graphics card seems to be the bottleneck at the moment. Internet connection looks extremely low, maybe even too low. might be just me.
Thanks to all who didnt say what i dont need, upgrade your PC. Now, all I want to know if its worth it for me to buy it. I am completly fine running it at the most caveman/low settings ever, as long as i have 40 or so FPS, u know, that the game runs smooth. I know my graphics card its old and not top end class, but according to most sites ive look trhough it should be AS good as the 7800gt which is in the minimum reqs in the website
@Puph My GPU is 9500gt with 1gb ram not 256mb but it is DDR2 i think or DDR3 ill have to check that
Your card is roughly equivalent to the 7800gt card recommended in the minimum specs. So the game will run. Smoothly? Probably not. I have a computer with the same graphics card and trying to run BC2 on lowest at 1024x768 does not work for me, way too choppy (and it has the same gpu requirements). Could have been a cpu bottleneck though... only had a C2D oced to 2.9gHz too, and there were a lot of particle physics in that game.
On December 27 2011 04:37 MadJack wrote: @Puph My GPU is 9500gt with 1gb ram not 256mb but it is DDR2 i think or DDR3 ill have to check that
The 1GB versions are actually worse than the 512mb versions for some applications because the memory bus is too small to access all of the memory very quickly. Just as a point of interest, more is not always better!
@Rollin I know more ram doesnt mean its a better card, not that noob and i know my card its barely as strong or lil less than the 7800gt, but I always tought (and most likely been accurate about it) that minimum requirements are suppoused to be smooth on the lowest requirements. 4ex what I mean is my laptop Its much below SC2 requirements, but it still can run it, thing is at like 15-20 FPS when above 50 supply, which its bad to enjoy the game obviusly, but if u have the minimum requirements u can play the game at the lowest settings smoothly.
I guess im probably waiting for that guy that has a slightly better card than mine to tell me how smooth or how bad hes running the game, so i make my decision about buying it. Again, my goal is to run the game at 800x600 on lowest setting posible giving 40 fps or so.
On December 27 2011 04:51 Rollin wrote: Your card is roughly equivalent to the 7800gt card recommended in the minimum specs. So the game will run. Smoothly? Probably not. I have a computer with the same graphics card and trying to run BC2 on lowest at 1024x768 does not work for me, way too choppy (and it has the same gpu requirements). Could have been a cpu bottleneck though... only had a C2D oced to 2.9gHz too, and there were a lot of particle physics in that game.
On December 27 2011 04:37 MadJack wrote: @Puph My GPU is 9500gt with 1gb ram not 256mb but it is DDR2 i think or DDR3 ill have to check that
The 1GB versions are actually worse than the 512mb versions for some applications because the memory bus is too small to access all of the memory very quickly. Just as a point of interest, more is not always better!
i ran into that trap. felt like a retard when I found out :/
I would recommend using canyourunit.com. Itll tell you if you meet the minimum or recommended requirements. If you do not meet either then I wouldnt recommend trying to play it. Your computer might boot up the game but it's not gonna run any where near how it should.
Your specs might have enough power to run certain parts of the games where there are very few players / visual effects, but it will be unplayable in any place where there are lots of players, or explosion effects. If you manage to launch the game and pass the starting area, I am afraid you won't be able to do anything in capital cities.
I remember trying to play Age of Conan with my old PC back in the days, it was barely powerful enough to level up to 12 but I felt like it could be enough. Then I entered the capital city and discovered that the FPS counter could show SPF (seconds per frame) in some circumstances...
I should've clarified requirements/recommended. Either way, the term "requirement" is one of those things that varies from game to game. We know full well a Pentium IV is not going to provide a good experience with SC2, so I don't even know why they listed that as a requirement. So I'm going by the "recommended" which really should be the requirement.
SC2: Dual Core 2.4Ghz 2GB 8800 GTX or HD 3870
SWTOR: Dual Core 2.0Ghz 2GB nVidia 7800 or ATI X1800
I know a couple of friends who play it on Sandy Bridge + Integrated graphics just fine. Intel E7500 runs at 2.93Ghz + 9500 GT shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I have no idea how you think it's going to get 10 FPS on that hardware.
On December 31 2011 13:09 jacosajh wrote: I should've clarified requirements/recommended. Either way, the term "requirement" is one of those things that varies from game to game. We know full well a Pentium IV is not going to provide a good experience with SC2, so I don't even know why they listed that as a requirement. So I'm going by the "recommended" which really should be the requirement.
SC2: Dual Core 2.4Ghz 2GB 8800 GTX or HD 3870
SWTOR: Dual Core 2.0Ghz 2GB nVidia 7800 or ATI X1800
I know a couple of friends who play it on Sandy Bridge + Integrated graphics just fine. Intel E7500 runs at 2.93Ghz + 9500 GT shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I have no idea how you think it's going to get 10 FPS on that hardware.
Hm, well recommended isn't for low though afaik. I was running decently on low with my super old AMD 64 4000+ singlecore processor. I also think 8800 GTX is way overkill for low as well so.
Also I don't believe those would be accurate for a second, maybe for absolute min requirements but there's no way 7800 is going to run the game decently.
The last friend I saw playing was playing on Medium @ 1080p with an i5 2500 + IGP. I actually thought the i5 2500 had HD 3000, but upon double-checking it's only got HD 2000.
It could've been low/medium. And I didn't stick around long enough to see how it did throughout the game, but it seemed pretty smooth wherever he was playing.
I was talking about playing SWTOR with an i5 2400 + Integrated Graphics.
If i5 2400 + IGP isn't too far from E7500 + 9500GT, it should provide a similar experience. You can overclock an E7500 fairly well to bring it closer too.
i tried playin swtor with the i5-2500k integrated graphics, everything low, shaders low, shadows off, i get maybe 9fps average with 13 or so in outdoor areas, than tried playing on my 4650 which is a few years old while waiting for my current gpu to arrive, and it only gets 15-25 fps (indoors and outdoors respectively) on same settings
I don't know how valid this is or if I'm missing something:
Also just texted my friend and he replied: I play on mostly low but some medium. No shadows. At 1920x1080. Frames drop a bit in busy spots but its ok. Maybe just need to drop res. i5 2500
Of course, an i5 2500k much more beastly and the i5 2500 even than the E7500. But I don't think SWTOR is as CPU intensive as SC2. It looks to be somewhat, but an E7500, if not an overclocked one, should be ok.
But I guess it depends on what you consider to be acceptable to you. 45-50 FPS on League of Legends is completely unacceptable to me.
This still isn't something I'd play the game with. And seeing as your friend is using integrated graphics maybe he doesn't notice the frame difference and thinks 15 fps is acceptable, my younger sister does at least. Either way to me a constant 60 fps is quite necessary and yeah it's pretty annoying if I'd drop to a slideshow every time I enter a town in a mmorpg
First of all, I can play SC2 on high/ultra with my laptop. but I lag on SWTOR. I'm anywhere between 30 and 100 fps.. it's a VERY CPU intensive game. I have an i7 740qm (1.8ghz TB 2.6 ghz) which is pretty bad compared to a desktop processor..So if you have a good processor you should be fine. My graphics card is one of the best for laptop i have a Radeon Mobility 5870 and even with that I have some lag..my processor is bottlenecking... so just aim for a good processor you will be alright.
I would say no, i have a laptop with i7 q (something) quad core, 4 gigs of ram and a geforce 310 m and its BARELY running it, because im so used to playing on my desktop i consider it unplayable. Lowest possible settings i get like 20 or so frames nad in fights probably 15.
my graphics card is 512 as well... so if your running a 256 i highly doubt it.
Also i know that my gfx card on my laptop is the one bottlenecking the whole game, but i would say that more than likely the same thing would happen to yoou, ESPECIALLY because you only have 2 gigs of ram as well.
That being said i have 2 desktops that run the game very smooth.
1 is an i7 2700k with 8 gigs of ram and an HD 6950 and 120 gig SSD and an H60 for liquid cooling.
The other is a couple years older and is running q6700 quad core proccesor at 2.67 ghz, with a gtx 260 and a 4 gigs of ram , it runs the game on medium to high settings as well.
Honestly this game doesnt require much but your system seems to have alot of parts that are 5+ years old, your computer is at the end of its lifetime, i would suggest buying 4 gigs of ram (it will cost you like 30 bucks) and a 100 dollar graphics card. Your looking at maybe 150 dollars and you will beable to play alot of games at reasonable settings again and most importantly you will beable to play SW TOR.
I havent had this much fun in a MMO ever, invest in your computer so you can experience the gaame properly, even if it does run, it wont run very well.
Also just texted my friend and he replied: I play on mostly low but some medium. No shadows. At 1920x1080. Frames drop a bit in busy spots but its ok. Maybe just need to drop res. i5 2500
Of course, an i5 2500k much more beastly and the i5 2500 even than the E7500. But I don't think SWTOR is as CPU intensive as SC2. It looks to be somewhat, but an E7500, if not an overclocked one, should be ok.
But I guess it depends on what you consider to be acceptable to you. 45-50 FPS on League of Legends is completely unacceptable to me.
Man i dont understand, im retty sure that a geforce 310m is better than Intel intergrated 3000, and my game does not run that well on my laptop....
Maybe i should consider reformatting my laptop or something.......
My laptop had 4 gigs of ram and a i7 q(something... it runs at 2.87 per core)
I still think it's important to note the difference between playing decently in an empty area and playing decently in a crowded space with a lot of stuff going on. I don't know about the game, but let's say 20 person raids with endless mobs... How would they handle that? Those are the ones where it's important to not have any fps lag, no one really cares when leveling because you don't need to do much there.
Meeting minimum requirements does mean you can play it,b ut not very well.
That website is absolutely terrible. It looks at your graphics card's memory, and pretty much nothing else. It also says Intel HD 3000 is worse than every dedicated graphics ever because it thinks it has no memory.
On January 01 2012 05:35 Shikyo wrote: meeting the minimum requirements means that it starts without error message... So those aren't really too useful
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly, there are games where it's like that, but I can also start up most recent games without crashing using a Pentium IV with integrated graphics. Minimum requirements are easily playable unless there are additional circumstances (i.e., situations with different game modes, multiple people, etc.). At the very least, recommended requirements aren't the minimum to play; they're usually what you need to get solid framerates on Medium-High settings. It takes more than looking at a list to see if you can play a game.
I read somewhere that the old republic only supports single cpu, there are alot of games that only run off of 1 or 2 of the proccesors but that definitely explains why its not running well on my i7 laptop.
ALSO!!! they are coming out with a fix for the graphics, the graphics settings apparently arent working properly at the moment which is why you notice little to no difference between low settings and high.
When i reformatted my computer i noticed this, all my settings went to default low (not because of my computer , im running an i7 2700k, 8 gigs of ram, hd 6950) but i hadnt noticed because the game looked well.... the same as it always did. Although it looked slightly better when i changed the settings to high the difference wasnt that noticeable.
On January 01 2012 07:49 Arnstein wrote: You should be fine. The most important thing is that you don't have an ATI card, because they suck on SWTOR
On which ATI cards does the game run poorly on? I'm playing on a 5750 and it runs perfectly fine.
I have i5, 8gb ram, 7200rpm HD and 5770 1gb and it doesn't run smooth at all. During christmas I've been playing on my dads 2gb ram, dual core 5400rpm HD with some old Nvidia card(it's as old as the rest of the specs), and it runs smooth as hell. (except on Taris, but that was a bug that is fixed now)
EPT
![[image loading]](http://pcper.com/images/reviews/1057/igp-sc2-1680.jpg)
