Question about "can you run it"

I have the laptop HP DV6T. The Specs are:
• 2nd generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2430M Processor (2.4 GHz, 3MB L3 Cache) Turbo Boost to 3.0 GHz
• 1GB Radeon(TM) HD 6770M GDDR5 Graphics [HDMI, VGA]
• FREE UPGRADE to 8GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 750GB 5400 rpm Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
• 15.6" Full HD HP Anti-glare LED (1920 x 1080)


Now when I tried the site "can you run it," it says that my laptop can't play Batman Arkham City, Battlefield 3, etc. Someone told me that I will be able to play these games. Is this test inaccurate?

Here's the screenshot of it.

 

to be honnest can you run it is total pants. when it first came out it was almost accurate but as computers got faster and more powerfull it just gives false positives.

just for example my spec below gave a pass for battlefield 3 but a fail for modern warfare 3 but i can play both perfectly.

the first step is to check the games minimum spec against your spec. then ask on here for the best settings to set your graphics.

 

yeah second that.

 

The screenshot shows, that the site has detected Intel HD Graphics on Your system, not the 6770M, hence the result. It has also detected Your webcam instead of a sound card. I wouldn't trust the site at all.

 

Like already said, the site got old quite fast. Back in 2007 it was accurate enough for laptops.

 

i would say, just install the game and see whether it runs or not. I dont rely on these kinda tests, they always give bad results. If you really wanna know, see the recommended specs given by the game itself.

 

That HP machine has switchable graphics, and thst caused the program to misread your specs.
A AMD Radeon HD 6770m will run it.

 

Try this one:

YouGamers - System Requirements

 

For some reaseon the YouGamers test recognized the Radeon 6770M. This switchable graphics is a pain in the .

 

thats as bad as it was the opposite of can you run it and said i failed for battlefield 3. strange how ive been playing it since beta released and then full version without any problems at all.

 

You can avoid these problems by familiarizing yourself with the components. I've never once used one of these sites because I know where my system lies relative to the specs cited in system requirements.

 

Also many websites like notebookcheck have comprehensive benchmarks of new games... would trust that over that site you posted.

 

But their benchmarks are very laptop specific, not all the times it is easy to extrapolate the results.

 

Everything's fine now. I have to turn my switchable graphics to manual settings.

 

I would take the game benchmarks with a grain of salt, especially the ones from Notebookcheck.net

 

Personally, I'd rather do my homework first - installing the game to see whether it runs or not involves buying the game. If I'm in doubt about whether or not it will run, I might want to give buying it a pass for now, you know?

And no, I don't consider torrenting a cracked copy a legitimate second option.

 

This is the exact reason I'm asking in here.

 

I know it's a pain the butt to download a game, but if you're actually going to buy it, and there's no demo available, why is that so wrong?

Would you buy $60 worth of bread without checking if you're allergic to it first?

On another note, you can compare Unigen Heaven and other scores with people who can play the game. And, worst case, almost all games can be played with the settings turned down.

 

Maybe if we were in the 90s I'd agree with you... but today there are tons of sites (proffesionals and amateurs) that review all games, as well as multiple sites with video or performance reviews that I find it unbelievable that such reasons are still portrayed today.

 

It's wrong because it's illegal. Let's not get into some ridiculous moral debate about piracy here.