Laptop performing worse than expected with regards to gaming

I've looked around the forums here already, as well as done some Google searching, but I still have some questions. While I spend a decent amount of time playing computer games (usually in burst, then I lay off for awhile, but that's beside the point) I'm still rather ignorant on many of the more advanced aspects of PCs and PC gaming, which may be part of my problem.

I recently got an HP Livestrong l2000 laptop. Here are the specs, if I leave anything out let me know and I'll try my best to find it.

AMD Turion 64 ML-37 (2.0 GHz/1MB L2 Cache)
ATI Radeon Xpress 200m w/productivity ports
2x512MB DDR SDRAM
80 GB 5400 RPM HD
14.0 WXGA BrightView Widescreen (1280x768)

Because of my video card, I really only have 896 MB of ram free. I'm thinking I might go ahead and upgrade to 2 GB soon.
While I am, overall, happy with the laptop, it seems like its performance isn't as good as it should be when it comes to games. Now, I'm not expecting to turn the graphics all the way up on anything (except BF 1942) but I think I should be able to do a little more than I can.

I installed the Battlefield 2 demo, and was getting about 15 or 16 FPS at 800 x 600 with all settings at their lowest, and the view scale at 59 %. I installed Omega drivers, and now I'm getting a whopping 19-20 fps. I installed Oblivion and it was so choppy as to be unplayable. I've seen people with similar systems claiming to run both games just fine.

I installed Far Cry, which has lower minimum specs, and am running very poorly on minimum settings. My desktop, an Emachines with an Athlon 2200+ (1.8 GHz), 512 MB ram, and a GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8x runs it better.

Dawn of War, which has higher minimum specs, runs fine with all graphic settings maxed out and corpses staying onscreen for a while. Although I've only played single player skirmish so far.

Battlefield Vietnam is also disappointing. With 800 x 600 resolution and all graphic options down, I was getting about 25-35 FPS online. I'll try single player later and see how that's doing, but if I remember it wasn't really any better.

I could be wrong, as I've already stated my understanding of the more advanced aspects of PCs and gaming is rather limited, but shouldn't exceeding the minimum specs for a game allow you to run it decently at minimum settings? If anyone can help me out, or point me towards a solution it would be greatly appreciated. Or just tell me if I'm wrong about this.

EDIT: Halo also runs worse than on my (less powerful) desktop.

 

The 200m is not a strong performer when it comes to games, at least not when compared to current middle/high-end videoboards. The performance you are reporting for your card sounds about typical. Read through the different threads in this forum, there's one long thread in here somewhere regarding gaming on a 200m. Also read the video card performance "sticky" at the top of this forum, that should give you an idea of what to expect also.

 

the issue is with your video card. it's not made for gaming. the amount of ram available for your system (or snatched by the video card) is immaterial. the issue is the the core of your gpu is not made for converting 3d quickly which means you will have less than stellar gaming performance.

i wouldn't waste any $ on RAM if it's only to improve your gaming performance because it won't.

 

Hmm, okay. As I said, I was under the impression it would do a little better though. I mean, I far exceed the requirements for BF Vietnam, yet get a framerate that drops below 30, even with minimum settings.

 

System requirements are very misleading. They tend to promote the idea that the more memory a graphcis card has the better it is, which is far, far from the truth. For example, that 128mb ATI Radeon 200m is worse (lot worse) than a 64mb GeForce 4 Ti. The memory on a graphics card only paints part of the story, you need to understand about memory interface, pixel pipelines and vertex shaders to get an idea of how powerful a card really is.

As others have said, the Radeon 200 was not designed for gaming, adding more memory won't make a difference. It jsut doesn't have the graphics horsepower to play any of the latest games. Quake 3 engine titles you should be ok with (Jedi Knight, Solider of Fortune, Elite Force etc).

 

Hmm, well that's very disappointing. Is there any way I could get better performance in a game like Battlefield Vietnam? I really like that game, but wish it would run a little better.
Another question, would using recovery discs to get my laptop back to "factory condition" do anything about the crappy software and games that come pre-loaded? I didn't get an actual Windows XP disc (although one review of this model on this site says the author got one.)

EDIT: I'm quite sure I've seen a few posts here and elsewhere where people with similar rigs claim to play Oblivion and BF 2 just fine. I'm pretty sure they had the same video card. I'll look again when I get the chance.

 

Originally posted by pkerry12 in http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=18477&page=6

"Hi I have Compaq Presario V2402AU and Battlefield 2 works so good and fast and I have it up to medium settings at 1024x 768 res, was shocked on how smooth it was.

My laptop spec

- AMD Turion 64 (1.8ghz) 1mb cache, 800mhz FSB CPU
- 2gb DDR RAM
- 60 gb Hard drive
- ATI Radeon Xpress 200M PCI Express 128mb Video card
- Dual Layer DVD burner
- 14" WXGA LCD screen
- 54g Wireless Network
- 3 USB 2.0 ports
- VGA port and Svideo port
- 6 in 1 card reader
- Firewire

and Runing Windows XP Pro x64 Edition."

That's one of the things that made me think I should be able to run it at low settings at least.

 

At a guess, that person had the Radeon 200 with dedicated memory, rather than just shared memory. RAdeon 200m with dedicated perform quite a bit better than the shared memory equivalent.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=26318

Or you can have a read through that thread, lot of users opinons in there.

 

Hmm, okay. Is the difference really enough to go from poor performance at low settings to good performance at medium settings and a higher resolution? Or is any of that from the extra RAM?

EDIT: Yeah, that thread is one of the things that got me thinking I should be running games better.

waffler said
"To answer your questions, HL2 runs fine on my shared 200m, 800*600 with all settings on high (except for AA/AS, I keep those turned off)"

and dadash said
"I have 128MB shared memory...
I havent tried BS2 yet but all the previous BF's run at 35fps 1024 middles settings.
COD2 runs between 15~40fps 1024 lowest settings. I expect BF2 to be the same."

and according to his sig 'HP Pavilion ze2366, Turion64 ML32 1.8 Ghz, 1.25GB DDR RAM, 80GB HDD, X200M 128MB IGP, 15" Bright View Screen, LG Dual Layer DVD+-RW, W-Lan, Firewire, 6in1 card reader, etc... '

EDIT AGAIN: dadash also said "Old Games should all work fine @1024, middle settings.
X200M is about the same as a Geforce 4 in terms of gaming power." So, I'm getting some mixed messages here.

 

Oops, just saw this thread. I posted in the other one. You WILL see a noticable performance from adding 2 gigs of ram, I assure you. In some games more than others (bf2). I would definitely add the ram, but don't expect it to be anything amazing, it still isn't a gaming rig

 

Radeon 200 is nowhere near the same as a GF4 in terms of performance. GeForce 4 MX possibly, but not Ti.

GF4Ti - 4 pixel pipes, 2 vertex, 128bit memory
R200m - 2 pixel pipes, 2 vertex, 128/32bit memory

THe R200m has DX9 support, which the GF4Ti does not, but since the R200 is not fast enough to take advantage of Pixel Shader 2 it doesn't make up any ground. I've just seen dadash's posts and it doesn't seem that he knows what he is talking about. (GF4Ti is Dx8.1, not DX7. And just because the R200m has DX9 support does not give it any more power)

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=1316317#post1316317

 

Well, I'm willing to purchase new RAM if it means I could play BF 2, even at lower resolution/settings and get a decent frame rate. But would the extra RAM make a difference in games like BF Vietnam?

EDIT: I downloaded 3dMArk2001. It says that my GPU has 256 MB total. I have 1024 MB RAM, but it reads as 894. So doesn't that mean my GPU has 128 MB dedicated as well as the 128 MB shared?

 

I've downloaded and run that 3DMark05 program that I've seen talk of. I got a score of 520, which is not good, I believe.