***CAN MY NOTEBOOK RUN IT?*** Read before posting ***All X vs Y Graphics Card comparisons here ***Read before posting***

I wasn't sure if there were multiple configs, and I was a little busy at the time. Sue me.

 

How will I fair on the others?

 

I'm not sure on the others since they were released recently and are much more demanding than the games I mentioned earlier. Then again you have one of the 2 top single GPU combinations in the market today so I'd imagine high settings at least.

 

I can at least tell you you'll max out every setting in TF2 and probably still get 70+ FPS at 1080p.

 

Hey guys having some difficulty finding straight answers

which rig would be better for games?

M17xr1 cpu:q9000
GPU: 2x gtx280m
ram:4 gigs 1333mhz
hd: 1tb x2 500gb
orrrrr

m17xr2 cpu: i7 820qm
gpu: crossfire ati 4870's
ram:4 gigs 1333mhz
hd:640 gigs

hd's are the same speed 7k rpm

actually got the m17x r1 the other day but its been crashing like hell with numerous other problems so sending back

would appreciate some help guys dnt think the m17xr1 is really as good as what i wanted, hoping the r2 will b worth getting over it as its not too much more money lol

 

The R2. Not by much, mind you, but at least the CPU is noticeably better.

 

q9000 is supposed to bottleneck 2 280ms
...least i heard it was lol

im confused notebook checker says the 280ms are better but a lot of ppl disagree :S i dont want to sacrifice my fps by downgrading cards, im expecting the better cpu to make a differance during games ....do i know what im talking about? probably not please advise! lol

 

I wasn't sure where else to post this so I'll write it here instead of creating a new thread. Does any one notice SC2 slowing down on certain maps when running on a system with a 5650? On medium shader settings it runs smoothly for the most part for me, but when playing on Metropolis, the framerate takes a huge dip when viewing the upper portion of the map where you can see the huge city below. The game runs smoothly everywhere else on the map. Setting the shaders to low fixes this but it won't look as nice. Is it possible that it could be a driver issue?

 

Hi all

will my acer aspire 5530 run civilization 5.

I have trouble making it run it, but the specs should be ok... i'm thus trying to find out what is going on. I am no tech so need a little help.

CPU: Mobile DualCore AMD Turion X2 RM-70, 2000 MHz (10 x 200)
(motherboard chipset: AMD M780, AMD K11)

GPU: ATI Radeon HD 3200 Graphics (700 MB)

RAM: 2 blogs of:
DIMM1: Samsung M4 70T5663QZ3-CE6 2 GB DDR2-667 DDR2 SDRAM (5-5-5-15 @ 333 MHz) (4-4-4-12 @ 266 MHz) (3-3-3-9 @ 200 MHz)

Display (resolution): 1280x800 vga

 

Your GPU does not meet the minimum requirements.

Radeon 2600 XT >> Radeon 3200

 

Hi Bob
Thanks for the reply

uhhh i thought 3200 was better!

Could i buy a external usb GPU ? or something?

 

Unfortunately, just because the number is higher, it doesn't mean that the GPU is more powerful.


In this case, the 3200 is a very entry-level GPU, right below the Nvidia 8400m GS in performance.

The 2600 is a generation older, but it is now a mid-level GPU, right below the Nvidia 8600m GT in performance.


So there's a pretty big performance gap between the minimum specs for Civ V and what your laptop has.

 

Except for the current-gen Intel GMA, which is about on par with it.

 

Using this automated script to 'benchmark' Crysis Warhead, I average over 30 on medium, but under 20 on gamer at 900p. With a little bit of overclocking, I make over 20 on gamer at 900p. Dropping the resolution down to 1280x768 nets me 5+ fps on gamer settings.

That said, I can actually play the game on 'gamer' settings at 900p with a slight overclock just fine (medium without OC). I think the scripted benchmark runs slower than actual gameplay.

1080p is asking too much of the 5730, unless you're playing on low (med w/ overclock).

I'm not sure how to get a FPS reading during actual play, but I just picked up the game yesterday, so I'm still playing around with the settings.

 

Will my sig rig run Fallout: New Vegas at a respectable lever? I'm able to play Fallout 3 at 1600x900 on high settings.

AMD Turion II Ultra Dual Core Mobile M600 @ 2.4GHz
4 gig's DDR2-800 ram
500 gig Seagate HDD 16mb Cache 7200RPM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1024 meg DDR3
Windows 7 Home Premium 64

 

I dont see why not because as far as i know the newer game runs on the same engine.

 

Thanks guys, that is good news indeed. I'm really looking forward to Fallout: New Vegas and this makes me happy.

 

hi!

specs

amd turion x2 tl-60 (2Gz)
2Gb DDR2 (667)
ATI mobility hd 2600 (gddr2)
1280x800

game
Star Wars: force unleashed

thanx

 

The minimum specs call for a HD 2900 desktop card, which is WAY faster than the 2600 laptop one. The minimum CPU is a 2.4GHz Athlon x2, which you also don't meet. That said, you may still be able to play in the lowest detail settings, but it may not run at all. I wouldn't spend money on it with your chances though.

 

sup i was wondering if my sony vaio e could run these games on medium/high settings

COD 7:BLACK OPS,FIFA 11,SPORE and SIMS 3

4gb ram
core i5 2.40ghz
ati radeon 5650 1gb
500gb hard drive
blu-ray player
and full 1080p hd

Thanks

 

Spore, SIMS 3: High
FIFA: ???? Don't play sports games.
COD 7: best guess: low at 1080p. medium at 900p. high at 768p

 

for all those games , get a ATI 5850... if u look on dell.com , in their refurbished alienware laptops , u can get an M15x with core i5+ ATI 5850+ full HD screen... for $1000-1200 and play the games on high...

 

Or he could be happy with the laptop he already owns, and is capable of playing those games just fine (albeit not at the same graphics level). Not everybody needs/wants a pure gaming laptop. Besides, although not the best, the 5650 is still way better than most laptops.

 

you will be able to.. I can play it on low setting with my old ati radeon hd 3200 video card. And thats a dedicated graphics card. It will also depend on your processor speed as well. I think your good to go. try out the demo like I did

 

Medium everything? No, it won't run. Medium textures is doable, with almost everything else set near the bottom rung. 720p is the min resolution for SC2, iirc. My experience is stemming from an 8400gs desktop card (g86 16sp variant), which is (functionally) identical to an overclocked 310m. Also experience from the HD3410 on my DV2. It's playable on both GPU, but it just won't be as pretty as the gameplay videos online. My Intel GMA 4500MHD comes within spitting range in terms of performance to my HD3410, so that makes me rather sad...

HD3200 is an IGP (integrated). Though when it launched, it was nightmarishly powerful for an IGP. It still is rather decent, today. I think all AMD netbooks have a variant of this (named the HD4200 - the same thing).

 

how many time can you activate dead rising 2?

 

How do the two of those cards compare? I'm just curious.

 

8800 GTX is better.

Check out http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

 

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M - Notebookcheck.net Tech
NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX - Notebookcheck.net Tech

According to that the 8800 is stronger. Gets about 2500 more points in 3DMark06.

 

My old Sager had a 8800 gtx on it and was fine until it lasted then died after around 2 years use, now looking to get a G73 to replace it. But yes the 8800 does rank considerable higher then the 330 gt and is more comparable to the 360M gts

 

the 8800M GTX is way better than GT330M.. Personally , i'd get a G73JH or something with a ATI card which doesn't die like NVIDIA cards.

 

lol, my current situation, should have got the 2 year warranty with the 8800

 

The 330M will be half the speed.

 

Simply put 330gt will play games at medium and 8800gtx will play games at high, it's not always the case and dependant on the game, but it's the easiest explanation

 

more like 1/3 or 1/4,,, its epically crappier...

 

Here we go again.

 

The newer nvidia's shouldn't have any problems.

 

Just like the saying goes, if it aint broke dont fix it and nvidia has been broke alot! Go ati! lol

 

Actually, the 330m is about 60-70% of the speed of the 8800GTX, depending on the benchmark used . So yeah, the 8800 is better, but not by nearly as much as he's making it seem.

 

I wasn't sure is all. I knew that the 8800 was a faster card, but the question was : by how much. You have answered that for me. In terms of 13 inch laptops, however - the best you can get is a 330m GT or the 335 on the m11x. How much better is the 335 than the 330?

 

At high resolutions, i.e. 1680x1050 and above, I expect the 330M to pull less than half of what the 8800M GTX does.

Example:

330M: 15fps
8800M: 37fps+

330M: 25fps
8800M: 60fps

If someone with a 330M wants to step up for testing vs an 8800M, we can arrange that.

 

The m11x also only has a 1366x768 screen. With that resolution the 335m should be significantly faster than a 330m at 1600x900.

 

ya but who wants an M11x for gaming.. screen is so small that u need eagle eyes.

 

It sells relatively well for the small target audience, so there must be plenty of people who want it for just that...

 

How well can my rig run Civilization 5?

HP DV7T
CPU: Intel T6500 2.13 Ghz
Memory: 4 GB DDR2
GPU: ATI 1gb 4650 DDR3
HD: 500 gb 5400 rpm
OS: Windows 7 Home

Targeting High-ish settings, not necessarily max.


Thanks

 

You exceed the minimum requirements, but don't even come close to the recommended requirements (a quad core CPU, and desktop 4800 GPU), so I'm guessing you'll get medium at best.

 

Medium.. your CPU is too crap... a CPU upgrade and should get high..

 

I imagine the GT 330m AGP in the expensive Sony Vaio 13z (albeit not intended as a gaming machine) must then struggle with its 1080p screen?

 

If by "struggle", you mean "commit seppuku to escape the shame", then yes.

Gaming w/ GT 330M @ 1080p is flat out impossible.

 

Hey, I was wondering if I can run company of heroes on my laptop?

Lenovo U450P

CPU: Intel U4100 1.3 GHz
GPU: Mobile Intel Express 4 Series Chipset
RAM: 4 GB
Display: 1366 x 768 (I usually run games at lower resolutions)
OS: Windows 7 Home Edition
HDD: 252 GB + 30.2 GB