Medieval Total War II on x3100

Has anybody tried to play this game (or the new exp. for it) with an intel x3100? If so, what results and did you use the latest beta driver?

 

come on, someone knows

 

ummmmmmmmmm

 

I think it can play it on at least low settings. The game is pretty cpu-intensive so you should worry more about that.

 

I have this game so I'll try it on my Thinkpad.

I really don't expect much though until the new drivers come out of alpha/beta.

 

I tried it already, even with the low settings, the performance pretty bog down. Though I think it might be the current X3100 driver thats the problem originated, maybe the next driver can fix some issue.

 

Exactly what driver are you using?

 

I'm guessing he used vista 15.4.4/3

 

In XP it should be playable on low settings and res, depending on your CPU of course. It might be nearly unplayable on Vista though, as those drivers are not yet as advanced as the XP ones.

 

Anybody tested this game with 14.31.1 on XP?

 

Was working fine on pretty high settings with Sempron3100+ and GF6600 128MB at 1280x1024 so the X3100 should do well, it'd about a 6200?

Of course M2 plays nice at 10FPS for me, but I'm pretty on the extreme for low FPS so you might need more

 

I played Rome: Total War with medium sized units and low settings on an Intel GMA 900 and got about 10-20 FPS, which is playable for an RTS.

The X3100 is many times more powerful, so I don't see why it wouldn't be able to handle Medieval 2 on lower settings and low unit count on XP. Windows Vista absolutely kills the performance of integrated cards.

 

Your opinions on what you think the x3100 is capable of dont really help me. Also, I don't consider anything under 20 fps 'playable.'

 

Really? Most people do for RTS', as the 20fps gives smooth playback in those types of games.

Also, no need to be nasty, they were just trying to help. If you don't like their opinions, simply don't listen too them.

 

If you are averaging 20fps then the game you are playing is probably prone to fps spikes. 20fps usually means its pushing your hardware to the limit. When things get hectic on the screen your fps drops to an unplayable rate. no TRUE gamer is satisfied with anything less than 25fps for a rts.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure you were asking for our opinions. If you don't want them, try the game yourself and stop crying?

Ok Mr. Hypocrite spewing useless personal opinions.

Hahahahah "TRUE gamer" using an x3100. Hahahahaha

 

Its a fact. for MOST games, if you are averaging 20fps, your hardware is being pushed to its limits. If your hardware is being pushed to its limits you are going to experience choppiness.

My point about the "true gamer" was a 'little' exaggeration. I thought it was evident. Guess not. regardless, I think MOST gamers would not be satisfied an average frame rate of anything under 25fps for the reasons already stated.

 

Anyways... performance on XP is around 15 to 25ish on low settings. Vista definitely kills it, even with low setting, FPS is 12-17 fps. Also low resolution helps. Medieval II is CPU extensive, but graphic counts as second.

 

Your hardware is being pushed to the limits simply by trying to play that game on an x3100. As long as the min's not below 10fps or so, there won't be much choppiness.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH LOLOL!ol!!!!!!

btw, thank you starscream.

 

Again, useless personal opinions. I personally thinkg that you're going to experience "choppiness" unless you're averaging a constant 60 FPS. However chopiness doesn't affect real time strategies nearly as much as it does other games.

I was actually mocking you for calling yourself a "TRUE gamer" while using an x3100 to game. (notice the CAPITAL letters in true )

 

As long as you have a 'stable' frame rate, anything above 30fps is going to be smooth. You won't notice the choppiness.

For modern RTS games, such as supreme commander, and average of 20fps just won't suffice. Modern RTS games are subject to massive slowdown when there is a lot going on.

Also, I never said i am a TRUE gamer Because I have an x3100. Your reply suggests that you cannot achieve 30+ fps in any games with the x3100, or that you are not a TRUE gamer unless you play the latest games, most of which the x3100 cannot play.

I said the others' opinions didnt help, because they weren't based on good information or they were pure speculation.

A statement like " Was working fine on pretty high settings with Sempron3100+ and GF6600 128MB at 1280x1024 so the X3100 should do well, it'd about a 6200? Of course M2 plays nice at 10FPS for me, but I'm pretty on the extreme for low FPS so you might need more," is mere speculation, not an opinion that I can rely on.

I am not going to consider the opinion of someone who claims " as long as the min is not below 10fps it wont be choppy" as reliable.

Starscream HAS provided me with information that is helpful. THANK YOU VERY MUCH

 

What? Learn some english first??

Rofl what effect does someone's personal opinions on "chopiness" have on the FPS you could achieve with a particular card? If we give you a specific number of frames you could achieve on a certain game with a certain card, decide for yourself if you think it's "playable"

 

Learn some logic.

the statement: " Also, I never said i am a TRUE gamer Because I have an x3100. Your reply suggests that you cannot achieve 30+ fps in any games with the x3100, or that you are not a TRUE gamer unless you play the latest games, most of which the x3100 cannot play."

Is an implication based on statements that YOU made.

This was a response to your statement: I was actually mocking you for calling yourself a "TRUE gamer" while using an x3100 to game.

And your statement was a response to me saying: " no TRUE gamer is satisfied with anything less than 25fps for a rts."

I made it clear after that post that I was exaggerating. Even if i wasnt, your inferences are not valid because i never said i was a true gamer. You may infer that I think I am a "true gamer" because I am making statements about what an acceptable fps is (even though i made it clear i was exaggerating), but your your statement implies you cannot be a true gamer if you are using an x3100 chip.

someone's opinion on choppiness may not be relevant to his or her knowledge of the performance capabilities of a certain graphics card (however experience suggests that it probably is). What I said is that I would not consider that person's opinion as reliable. Someone who thinks games are 'playable' simply because the minimum fps does not go under 10fps probably shouldn't be giving out advice to others on what games are playable. I would feel sorry for someone that relied on his information and bought a certain graphics card only to find out the card performs horribly by most gamers' standards.

 

I assume you're talking about me here. I was merely pointing out that while yes, an average of 20fps may not be playable if you have extreme slowdowns (which has been known to happen, for example in AOE3 while on software shaders), an average of 20fps where the min is at least 10fps is not necessarily choppy, and can be perfectly playable. Just saying what the "average" is really isn't too helpful, the min fps and the average gives a much better description of how the game plays.

 

Take Rome:Total War (2004), at the time it can easily kill any integrated graphic cards. But most RTS are CPU extensive, rather than heavily focus on graphic. The X3100, may still be a weak graphic card, but still hits on Rome's performance like Godzilla v. Mothra. On XP, at med. setting, 1024 x 768, FPS goes 15-25ish. On Vista, it still holds well, same settings, FPS clock at 13-21ish. Even when the game dips at a low 11FPS, rarely unless you have a VERY large numbers of men on the field, the game still runs extremely smoothing. So even with the X3100, you can still recreate a debate between Latin and Greeks without any choke up.