Systems Requirements Lab is garbage. I was able 2 play everything it said i couldnt.

DevilMayCry3
Oblivion
Fear
etc...

Garbage..
it says my video card has 32megs but it also has 490 shared which equates to like 527

 

Heck even windows says 527 video memory..

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz 4.9 2.7
Determined by lowest subscore

Memory (RAM) 1.50 GB 4.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce Go 7200 3.3
Gaming graphics 527 MB Total available graphics memory 2.7
Primary hard disk 9GB Free (50GB Total) 4.5

 

You can play Oblivion with a GF Go 7200? What settings do you use? Have you tried going into a city?

 

A friend of mine wasn't able tp play anything it said he could He had 512mb worth of ram and a 7100 nvidia graphics card, it said he could run bf2!

 

playing is not equal to PLAYING! check the resolution, details, frames per second and yeah try going into a rich city scene hehe you will see what difference it makes!

 

I definately see him struggling playing oblivion but maybe if he got the OLDBLIVION tool, it should run fine.

 

It's not perfect.
It does its best at telling you if your system meets the minimum requirements for a game. It goes by the official system requirements for a game and what hardware it detects in your computer.
It's just a guide to give you an idea of how your system scores.
Note that you can still play some games even if you don't meet the requirements. I knew a guy who played WoW and his computer didn't meet the minimum requirement.

And you can play Oblivion? Go in a city and tell me your FPS.

 

oblivion required 128 video ram minimum ive got over 500.. thats why i can play it, it thought i only had 32.

 

System requirements lab is designed to be a guide to possible things that may be under powered or not supported for certain games. You need to read what the requirements and look at your own system to make your own determination whether a game will run. It could be something as simple as directx isn't up to date and it will say you can't run a game properly.

 

The GeForce Go 7200 in HP notebooks only has 32MB Dedicated VRAM. It can share up to 96MB from the system ram via TurboCache. Vista displays Texture Memory or something. Not the Video Memory.

I think thats why System Req Lab said you can't play it. I too can run Oblivion on my Compaq, but can I play it? nooo.

 

Knife is right, that's the dedicated amount shown...the "real" amount of video memory if you will. The rest is just an amount that Troublecache takes from main memory, and will not help with your gaming as it has to share the FSB with the CPU. Oblivion is a pretty intense game graphically, and although your CPU is up to the task, your GPU is a serious bottleneck. On low settings, you may get away with 10fps in the city.

 

I agree, the actual video memory is what really the gpu depends on... Which makes me wonder why turbo cache would even allocate 500+, or even 192 mb of system resources for the go 7200. Because now you're just allocating resources for no apparent reason, since the go 7200 is a pretty low-end video card already, and an extra 100 mb of cached memory won't make a bit of difference. Maybe if they limit it to 128 mb, it would be more efficient?

Either way, I'm curious to see what you quantify as "playable" settings when you run oblivion on a go 7200.

 

Whatever "Bro".

We all know Systems Lab isn't always perfect.

But I highly doubt your "$989 HP" can really, honestly, and amazingly play Oblivion at the settings its supposed to be: High.

Bet you wish you had that "obselete" Alienware Chaz wrote about, huh?

And this sums it up:

 

hahaha! i agree......!!!!!! though i did find the thread where he called his laptop "mighty Super" kinda funny.
but to be back on topic....the Go7200 is a pretty weak card..it wont matter even if it had 572MB of DEDICATED Ram instead of just turbocache, the GPU is too weak to use all of that memory....the most it can effectively use is probably around +-64MB......and speaking of oblivion...even my graphics card has trouble playing it at Low~Med~MedHigh settings, so there is no wayyyyy that a go 7200 can play oblivion in a way so you can really "enjoy" it

 

Wow, if a go 7200 can run oblivion then my Graphics card is can run that new DX10 game far..... whatever.

 

Yeah but mine shares 490 thanks to some driver from laptopvideo2go website..

 

No i don't, im not dumb enough to spend that much on a briefcase.
I could of gotten a 15" asus notebook for less than that but i like hp and i needed something small.. Dell looks tacky to me..
And the go 7200 can play oblivion there are several people on cnet forums saying this too. u just need better drivers and lots of ram.

 

yeah...but 400mb of that is probably just wasted allocation due to your gpu type.

 

also why is my rep 0?

 

Keep your responses to yourself bud if your not gonna back them up with proof, or unless you work for nvidia i doubt you know whats really going on in the innards of the gpu seeing as your clearing don't have it.

 

Thats not possible. The GeForce Go 7200 was designed to share a MAX of 96MB. If you're reading 490MB off of Vista's Rating Panel, then that is NOT the VIDEO MEMORY. It is the TEXTURE MEMORY. When we go "256MB GeForce/Radeon _______ " it means it has 256MB of Video Ram, Dedicated or not. You can't change the amount of video ram max you can allocate from system memory by just changing a few drivers. Your hardware has to support it along with your BIOS.

Whether or not it can play Oblivion is not the point. The point is forcing yourself to stare at a 3FPS game :]

 

well clearly i know more than you think...but that's not saying much, is it? Anyway, whether or not you did find a way to increase the turbo cache and add an additional 490mb, I have some of evidence that it probably useless anyway, I was just lazy. Here's one: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTExMiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

"... If however you have 1 GB of system RAM or more then 256 MB of that RAM can be used for the video card for a combined 512 MB total framebuffer space. Obviously framebuffer sizes this big will be useless for this low-end video card, in fact 256 MB even seems a bit much, but there you go."

and this is a nx7300 gs, which is rated above your card. The fact is, your card is used for rigs with low amounts of system resources, so the optimal configurations are really around 128-258 mb of turbo cacheing. Anything over that is pretty useless, since the card is not optimized to instantaneously make use of the memory anyway (on a different note, it does matter on some higher end cards, such as the 7800 series when dealing strictly with straight up v-ram and not turbo-blah shared memory: http://www.pureoverclock.com/article33.html). Now, the good thing about your...um..'configuration' is that turbo cache, If i remember correctly, is dynamic, so the allocation of system memory isn't specifically 490mb...rather, it will adjust how much it needs per graphic operation.

So...good news...it doesn't hurt to have 490mb allocated. It's just useless. Yay!


But I'm sure some mods and techies who are more knowledgeable than I will shine some light on this matter...because I no way claim to be any expert on the subject.

 

Because someone evidently rewarded you for your posts. I for one have a fairly low tolerance for someone who comes onto a board badmouthing and arguing with those who are more knowledgeable. There are 13 y/os on this forum with more knowledge (and more class). Just because you read the first chapter of the textbook, don’t think you know the whole course. A little advice, ask a question then sit listen and learn.

I am not saying this antagonize, I hope you hangout and become a part of the community. Just relax a little and remember, even though you are in a room alone looking at a screen you are still talking to a real person.

 

EDITED BY MODERATOR DUE TO FOUL AND OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE

 

Alright everyone...
For references, check out the GPU Guide if you want to read up on a video card.

This thread almost got real ugly really quickly, so I appreciate everyone's efforts to keep this thread civil.

If someone posts a video of a 7200 card playing Oblivion with decent settings and then I'll retract my next statement...

The 7200 card is too weak to play Oblivion at decent settings, and most likely very few new games will work well either. It is a low end card that was meant for those who really do not need extra graphics power to play games. It's meant for casual users who want to watch DVDs, play older games, and in general not hardcore gaming with current titles. Some may work, some may not, but don't expect too much from the 7200.

 

LoL.

Well, I know for a fact that the 7200 can play Oblivion like crap (excuse my french). I borrowed Oblivion from my friend to see how it'll run on my X1400, and let me tell you, it wasn't pretty. Constant lagging, poor response time, and etc, and this is on lowest setting too. Now, seeing how my X1400 is a step up from urs, I'll have to say that u should quite ur BS.

And btw, Systems Requirements Lab isn't garbage. It's actually a very good reference for those who know very little about computers.

 

Well, System Requirements Lab isn't too garbage-y in my opinion . I find they're a pretty good way for the average user to find out if he/she can run a game properly.

But System Requirements Lab sometimes confuses me a bit too. They say the only reason I can't play Command & Conquer 3 with recommended settings is because I don't have Windows Vista.

 

i was waiting to try oblivion in my X1400.. thanks buddy.. u saved my time..

 

Oblivion doesnt play like that on an x1400. The x1400 should handle medium settings fine as long as you keep the resolution around 1024x768.

 

There was a guy that owned an M1210 with the 7400 card (about the same), and he did okay with medium settings on 1280x800. About 15-25fps, which is definitely okay with Oblivion.

I'll try to find that thread.

Got it: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=75832

 

?
Well, I was playing it on low res (I think it was 1280x800, or something like that), and it was only giving somewhere around 5-15 fps on medium setting, 15-20 on low. Either way, it was pretty bad. I notice a lot of that low fps lag and stuff, and the game didn't look half as great as it could (I saw it run on a 7900GS and it was beautiful). So yeah, i don't think u should opt for oblivion if u are getting barely 20fps on low res; a game needs to be at least 30fps for it to be playable.

btw, i think that Nvidia cards does better on oblivion than ATi, so that might make a difference.

 

Actually ATI Cards have the edge in oblivion.

 

I'll take ur word on it.

Anyways, check this out: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&model1=593&model2=532&chart=204

According to this, the X1300 and the 7300 (Desktop GPU, and a step down from the X1400 and 7400) could only play oblivion at about 15fps or less.

 

Actually i think it could run decent with the aid of an app called oldblivion that someone mentioned earlier, hearing people even running it on a low to mid range geforce 5 series card in the oldblivion forums, seems rather cool, but i really dont need to try it. I am definately not the most knowledgable guy here, but without that app id say forget it, but why not just get the app?



Cant we all just get along? P.S. Dont forget to tweak oblivion.ini, it will help

 

I've proven that Toms thing wrong 3 times on 3 different graphics cards. I match their graphic settings on my graphics cards, and I'm using computers less powerful than theirs. My fps is 10-15fps higher than what they said it would be.

 

Prolly 'cause they have to be conservative on thier estimates. It is better to have someone get a game that they said couldn't run than have someone go buy a game that Toms said would work an then it doesn't. Keep in mind they are just estimates. oh, and they also have to account for people that run a lot more overheard than you probably run.

 

Still, in the case of the test on my GeForce 6800, my computer was VASTLY inferior to theirs. I was running an Athlon XP 1400 OC-ed to 2ghz and 1GB of PC133 RAM. I dont care how clean my system is, their FX 60 with 2GB of RAM should have mopped the floor with mine. Seems very strange.

 

They had it on max detail, which is probably the diff between ur results and there's.

 

I said I matched their detail settings. In other words, maxed out the game.