Proof That X200m Can Handle F.e.a.r Well!!!

Hey i have a Laptop with the X200M and i have proof that it can play FEAR on 800x600 at med Levels at framerates between 25-35fps average. I have the lighting effects, special effects and other eye candy options turned up and the game is extremely playable and smooth even during the most fast paced fire fights. I recorded a video using "Fraps" to proove it but this site wont allow me to upload it as its 32mb in size.
Can anyone tell me of any options to show this video for viewing as id be happy to show it?.. I wont be able to compress it small enough for this site.

Iv included some pics taken during the firefights so u can see that it is not running at min levels..

 

yay, that means my X1600 256mb should be able to max out F.E.A.R. Multiplayer.

 

You could use print screen.....

 

My X1400 looks a lot better. I would not consider 25-35 FPS very playable.. I think that 40-50 is the lowest I can handle.

 

I now call my self out on this one!

I can tell the difference now.

 

Are you crazy? I can definitly tell a huge diference between 25 and 120. On counter strike source I get 110 FPS and when I turn up all the settings to max I get 30.. lemme tell you, it looks a lot worse with 25.

My eyes can see the diference.. I am not sure what facts your statement is based off of.. but I know my eyes know the diference. If it's not my eyes then I just know the diference.

 

der, der, right....

 

You could just be standing still therefore it requires no graphic power whatsoever and when you move around it freezes or becomes slow. Im not saying your doing this but notebooks arent that great for gaming unless you spend some big bucks.

 

Compaw, I dissagree. The E1705 with the 7900GS can play it on high settings, and it's a cheap laptop.

 

that isn't with shadows, right?

 

upload your video to youtube.com and just show us all so.

 

That's an out and out lie. I'd love to know what source you cite.

I can tell you from personal experience, and this isn't just me fooling myself, that I can at least tell the difference. I have to, I work in video.

While I disagree that a shooter needs to be 40fps or higher to be playable, I can tell you there's a noticeable difference between, for example, 24fps and 30fps.

 

Yep, maybe on the TV when everything is rendered... but on FPS 25 is low. 40FPS + is okay ! fishy your just like that cheeseman dude w/ his 7300 512MB running bf2 at high 1024x768... you sound fishy

 

Hmm, unless you get 2 gigs probably not, or if you crank the resolution way down. I can't play at full graphics settings with my 7900gs (**** near close though). But anyway, ha, thats awesome that you can play fear on an x200. That little card does surprise me at times.

 

If you play the game at 800x600, then why are the pictures 640x480? Did you downsize them, and if so, why? Besides, an 800x600 picture shrunk down to 640x480 is gonna look better, so this wouldn't exactly be the best way to tell the power. The game may look good to you, and I'm glad you're happy with it. That's really all that matters. But why do you have to pretend that the X200M is a good gaming card? It's not. If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. And 25-35 fps is decent, but I prefer to have a little more. I disagree that the human eye can only see 25 fps. I would be okay if you said 30, cause that's what most console games shoot for and they look fine. But that's about it. But hey, I'm running F.E.A.R. at max settings with Soft Shadows at 1440x900 getting over 30 fps at all times, so I'm .

 

You should be able to play the game at max settings, you'll just have to choose between having AA or Soft Shadows. But that really doesn't matter cause you can only have one or the other going at a time anyway. But the 7900GS should be able to run F.E.A.R. at max with 1 gig. Patch it for widescreen and set it at a little higher res and cut off AA and you'll be a very happy camper. But if you didn't reformat the E1705 when you got it, that would make a difference too.

 

I reformatted, and I believe it all comes down to the amount of ram. BF2 can EASILY use 1.5 gigs of ram (if I had it) if I had it on high texture settings. All I did was crank the textures down to medium, and I have it on 4x AA and soft shadows set to medium and I get like 50 frames per second while running around (I never really look when I'm in a fire fight at what sort of fps im getting, ha, never have time, always getting my head blow off or something). You are probably right about FEAR though, when I had FEAR installed I had just bought my E1705 and was all excited to use it, so I didn't reformat but just cleaned out all the bloatware. I actually COULD play at high settings but only got like 15 frames per second most of the time and I just couldnt take that and tweeked some of the lighting and everything smoothed out. I didn't realize there was a widescreen patch either, I will have to look into that (it would be nice to play fear at my native res of 1920x1200. Anyway I have reformated since then and just haven't installed fear.

 

I hope you are not comparing 7900 with x200

 

This is a common misconception, yes human beings see at an AVERAGE of 25fps (some more, and some less)

But, tv's and movies makes sense to our brains at 24fps (which is the standard rate for movies) because there is a motion blur. That blur conveys the movement to our mind as well, it's sorta complicated to explain, but simply enough the fact that motion blur doesn't in fact exist in games we play nowadays means that you need a much higher FPS than movies.

Someone reffered to prerendered images, that too is false. Watch a Final fantasy FMV at 25fps, and be dissapointed! It's the lack of motion blur in video games and such which causes that stuttering.

 

Hmm what an ugly display in here. a guy tells how excited he is about him being able to play F.E.A.R with his 200m and most of You do nothing but complain and dump him.

I don't really think he do this to annoy You. I think he do it because most discussions as well as a huge thread about x200 cards ability seems important in here. Here he shows happiness about the card and want to share the info with others with x200 cards so that they might wanna try out F.E.A.R.

He offered pictures and a video. The graphics seems ok but nothing stunning so why would he lie? Just to impress? why the heck would he want that? what will he gain from that?

I look forward to see that movie mr. Fish ^^ so up it to YouTube

 

Fellas... I assure you i am not lying.. I am in work at the moment but when i get home i will upload the video onto Youtube and uz can see for yourslef how it looks. I will remind you that when i was recording with Fraps the Fps suffered and the average went down by about 6-10 fps.. but you will see from the video that the game looks smooth EVEN THOUGH this does not represent the way the game plays when i play it without recording..

 

The human eye does not see in "frames" but in tests its been proven that it can detect changes in framerates past 100FPS.

 

Thank you...I thought it was 40fps, but I may be wrong. I have always hated those people who claim they see a difference in 40fps and 80fps. I remeber playing ut2004 at 30-60fps on my 200m averatec and then playing on my desktop getting almost 300fps(not a typo, I almost hit 300 on a stock x1300 pciX card) and not having any difference at all in gamepaly or eye candy.

 

"The Human Eye Can't Notice Anything Above 25fps" is just an age old debate in forums about framrates. i think he was being sarcastic

 

Fishy, I totally believe you, and the pictures do speak for themselves. F.E.A.R. is an amazing game, and being able to play it at all is an accomplishment. My previous computer had a Mobility Radeon 7500... 32MB. I was running Call of Duty on medium settings and I was happy. The graphics were nearly as good as my PS2 (though the PS2 has obviously better lighting effects). But as far as textures and animation, I was a happy camper, as are you. Then I got my M90 and played F.E.A.R. for the first time. Please understand that I'm not trying to detract from your enjoyment. But it's hard for people to play games on a 7900GS or an x1600 and then say that they look good on an X200M. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, it was not my intention.

 

RE: the eye and 24 FPS

It is not a misconception; it is simply [edited by moderator]. USAF tests indicated that the eye is capable of upwards of 150. God knows where people get that idea from. When I watch movies in theatres, I can see the flickering of the screen and it gives me a headache until I adjust to it.

 

wow,that's kinda wonderful that X200 can play fear with 30+fps because my X1400 played COD2 at 1280x800 with max sett and only get 30fps
I really like to see how X200 perform against OBLIVION

 

This phenomenon is also known as persistence of vision--your eyes see stuff after its gone, and the new image looks like its replacing it smoothly. A physics teacher of mine did a neato demonstration to prove it. he took a lightbulb attached to a battery (DC current) and spun it in a circle by the wire. We all saw a large loop of light, because of persistence of vision. Then he took the same cord/bulb combo and plugged it into the wall (AC) and we saw basically a circular dotted line. So back to the video game world, haha... if you think about it when we play a video game we're seeing the AC light bulb. the objects in each frame move from one place to another in a jittery motion, almost like they teleport from one spot to another. in tv or a rendered whatever, though, we see the in-between spots, too, which would be like the DC blub. That probably made no sense because its 1:30 am and i'm tired, but i hope it may have clarified a teeny bit...

 

Ahhh I love these threads! Go X200m! I've just finished Far Cry (for the 4th time), first time on the X200m, and was amazed how darn good it looked. Good to know FEAR is playable too.

Then, of course, I'll get it for my Xbox 360 and play it "the way it's meant to be played" :d ...but it's good to know you can entertain yourself on the go with such a low-end graphics solution.

C.

 

Good to see a fellow x200m gamer out there

I will definetly check out my F.E.A.R. on this machine and see how it runs on mine.

 

fear is not playable with x200m ,less than 15 fps in 800*600 low
with my system (pm 1.73 1gb x200 m 128 share) but bf2 and NFS MW run very fine

 

freeman i see the specs of your machine description as 128meg shared? What about the dedicated ones with no shared? Would think it would be a boost.

 

Yes Vaath, the X200M which has no shared video memory is significantly faster. Configurared with 1 GB of DDR and a fast processor, I think you will be able to play games as BF2 and FEAR.

Charlie

 

Just to remind people.. i am in the process of uploading the Video of FEAR playing on my x200 onto Youtube. I had a little free time last night and tried uploading it but for some reason Youtube wouldnt accept it as it was an unsupported video format.
And i have to also inform people that games like FEAR will not be playable on a Laptop with the shared x200 using 333Mhz RAM. The shared X200 relies heavily on the speed of the RAM on a laptop and mine only performs well as i have 1.2gs of 533Mhz Pc4200 RAM..

 

Which is a good bit slower than dual channel DDR 3200

 

i will send the benchmark of FEAR performance test( PM 1.73 1gb ddr2 533 x200m only share hdd 80 5400 )

 

Just to let you know, It does work! F.E.A.R does work with the x200m! I have a x200m on my notebook and I saw this forum and decided to download the F.E.A.R demo. The game works very smooth on low settings for my computer. I think you could play it on Med. Settings because you have 1.5GB of ram and my computer only has 512mb = p (Needs a big ram upgrade) . Now I just have to somehow test out Oblivion. Does anyone have thoughts by how that will run on my computer?(I am getting 1.5GB of ram and oblivion on my B-day Next month)

_____________________________________________________
Toshiba Satellite a135-s2276
Dual Core Processor
512mb RAM
ATI Radeon x200m 128mb
80Gb Hard Drive

 

Install the Oldblivion mod and it should be plenty playable. It's playable on my Go 6150 with Oldblivion.

 

Let me put it this way, my X1400 (A LOT BETTER THAN 200m) can run oblivion in the Imperial City durring the day at 30 Fps. You, .5 fps maybe. Just a guess. I know my friends integraded go 6150 had his framerate (the 6150 is simalar to the 200m) and it was a constant 1 fps and when he went inside, it was a 4. So you will probobly be waisting your money.

 

My x200m has no dedicated and even it can handle FEAR on 800*600 on lowest ok...ish.

Better at WoW though.

 

WoW takes nothing to run though.... You can have a graphics card from 10 years ago and still run it.

 

No, it can't... WoW requires a 32 MB 3D video card with Hardware T&L or better. Geforce 256 was one of the first with Hardware T&L, and was introduced in 1999. But still, that's some very old piece of hardware

 

Yea... my old ancient TNT2 thats on my 7 year old Vaio Tower wont support it (but then again I did upgrade it to a 9600 Pro a long time ago).

 

i had one of those... played War3 on it.

Anyways, props to the OP for running F.E.A.R. at playable FPS. It's a good game (that also killed my old computer).

 

That is great! I am very impressed with the results you get out of that card. Thanks for the screenshots!

 

I'll actually like to see a movie of the game in action... I'm still very skeptical of how well it will play...

 

Yeah, I totally agree with you, post a video (preferably a full notebook shot and not a video capture) in order to see actual gameplay on notebook).

Not that we don't trust you, but at least on my previous notebook (an HP Pavilion ZV6130US with 1.2 gig ram) with a X200M 128 integrated left too much to be desired, even old games lacked in performance. Don't get me wrong, the X200 is a nice entry level card that plays "some" yesteryears' games at marginal framerates.

I used to play HALO at 640x480 at playable speeds. Also Dreamfall The Longest Journey was playable with low details and Area 51 also with low settings was playable, but when I tried to play Doom III or F.E.A.R. and GRAW, it's speeds where unbearable to say the least even at lowest resolutions and lowest settings.

 

I tried Fear on my X200, it did work, and ran smoothly at 25-40fps, but only at lowest settings and resolution of 800x600. I fail to see how its possible to run it at medium settings at all....I can barely run it at medium with my Go7400 which tramples all over the x200.

 

Hmmm, impressive results.

 

awesome maybe integrated are making a come back