Sombre Posted April 11, 2010 Computer runs Dawn of War 2, fine. Dragon Age, fine. High quailty TF2, fine. Original mass effect? Barely makes it. Whats up with the engine on that thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murdoc Posted April 11, 2010 Computer runs Dawn of War 2, fine. Dragon Age, fine. High quailty TF2, fine. Original mass effect? Barely makes it. Whats up with the engine on that thing. It was like a first gen Unreal 3, probably even pre-GoW(since I think they mentioned they made so many changes I have to imagine they never upgraded when epic gave devs the good version after gow1 was released) May have something to do with it. Try GoW1 to see if it runs like crap too maybe? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted April 12, 2010 It was like a first gen Unreal 3, probably even pre-GoW(since I think they mentioned they made so many changes I have to imagine they never upgraded when epic gave devs the good version after gow1 was released) UE3 licensees receive constant updates to the engine, so they always have access to the latest UE tech. Of course merging your fork of the UE3 engine with the latest changes is cumbersome. And at some point you really have to stop because you need to get your game stable. Anyway, I don't know what the Bioware guys did, but some of their changes really screwed up stuff. Like ME2 having insane loading times on various dual-core CPUs (like mine). In ME1 I didn't have any issue afaik. Try disabling post processing effects to see if that makes any changes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kolzig Posted April 12, 2010 That is precisely the card I have, hope you enjoy it! Haven't tested a lot yet, but I did try Far Cry 2 and it runs perfectly on max details. I've got some problems getting Arkham Asylum started again, I think it's got something to do with the PhysX now that I changed the card from Nvidia to Ati. I tried changing the settings but the game refuses to start. Next ones I will test are Ghostbusters and Riddick. Also I got the Supreme Commander 2 demo from Steam that I will try out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kolzig Posted April 13, 2010 (edited) I found a weird possible solution to my General Protection Fault errors that I got with Steam's Supreme Commander 2 demo and Arkham Asylum. Apparently I would need to install the Nvidia PhysX driver to the computer even though I have an Ati GPU now. Have to try this when I get back home. EDIT: Holy crap, I stopped at home during my lunch break and actually installed the PhysX. Weirdly it actually worked! Arkham Asylum runs on max settings with 1650x1080 without problems. I unistalled Supreme Commander 2 demo already, but I bet it will work also as it uses PhysX too. Weird solution that Nvidia driver works with a Ati card, I doubt it actually uses the PhysX features, more so the game just needs the driver to start. Which is a bad decision in my opinion. Edited April 13, 2010 by Kolzig Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sully907 Posted April 13, 2010 if I were to buy this call of Cthulu game on direct 2 drive, would it run on Vista 64? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted April 13, 2010 Apparently I would need to install the Nvidia PhysX driver to the computer even though I have an Ati GPU now.Have to try this when I get back home. EDIT: Holy crap, I stopped at home during my lunch break and actually installed the PhysX. Weirdly it actually worked! Arkham Asylum runs on max settings with 1650x1080 without problems. I unistalled Supreme Commander 2 demo already, but I bet it will work also as it uses PhysX too. Weird solution that Nvidia driver works with a Ati card, I doubt it actually uses the PhysX features, more so the game just needs the driver to start. Which is a bad decision in my opinion. Common misconception. PhysX is not a driver. What you installed was the physics middleware runtime of PhysX. PhysX is a modular physics middleware that allows different computation backends. On the PC you have a (pure CPU) software backend (the default) and a CUDA/OpenCL backend which uses the nVidia GPGPU (i.e. hardware acceleration). Games that use PhysX always use physx, even if you don't have hardware acceleration. These games often have an option to enable even more physics simulation when you have the ability for hardware acceleration. Every feature of PhysX works with any computation backend, it's just that the pure CPU software implementation is seriously slow for various tasks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joflar Posted April 13, 2010 Does anyone visit Tech Report? They do a great monthly feature where they build four separate tiers of machines (economical, mid-range, high-range, godmode) and then explain their reasoning behind each part. Really cool site for those interested in starting from scratch: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18747/2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armchair General Posted April 13, 2010 Common misconception. PhysX is not a driver. What you installed was the physics middleware runtime of PhysX. PhysX is a modular physics middleware that allows different computation backends. On the PC you have a (pure CPU) software backend (the default) and a CUDA/OpenCL backend which uses the nVidia GPGPU (i.e. hardware acceleration). Games that use PhysX always use physx, even if you don't have hardware acceleration. These games often have an option to enable even more physics simulation when you have the ability for hardware acceleration. Every feature of PhysX works with any computation backend, it's just that the pure CPU software implementation is seriously slow for various tasks. I was just about to say that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kolzig Posted April 14, 2010 elmuerte, thanks for the very specific and good explanation. I had no idea about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted June 29, 2010 I don't mean to resurrect this thread as free tech advice, but I was hoping some thumbs could give me advice. I play games using Boot Camp on a Macbook Pro. The fact that this sucks, and some very bad luck with Mac machines (all three of my Macs have had major problems within two months of the standard 12 month warranty running out) I'll be getting a PC laptop early next year. I have to use laptops because I travel a lot. My big question is this: is it worth paying for quad-core processors over dual-core at the moment, assuming I will definitely get a laptop with a 1GB video card? Also, what about SSDs? If I got the computer sooner I couldn't afford it but maybe next year. Anyway, maybe this can start a chat about how useful quad-core processors are for games on the PC. I'd be grateful for your opinions guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 29, 2010 go for the quad, dual cores are barely worth the effort these days if possible use SSD as system disk and a second disk for most of the bulk data. SSD is quite a lot faster, but seriously expensive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted June 29, 2010 Thanks man. I think if I do wait until early next year, using the SSD as a system disk with an extra HD will make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kashwashwa Posted July 2, 2010 Why isn't everyone playing ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted August 23, 2010 I'm back, again, asking about dual cores and quad cores. El Muerte gave me good advice before (see above) but I have ONE MORE question I need to ask. I have to get a laptop for various reasons and the one that I want does not offer switchable graphics on the i7 model. Furthermore, the highest i5 (i5-520M) goes to 2.93GHz on turbo boost but the i7 that I can reasonably afford (i7-720QM) goes to 2.8GHz on turbo boost. The i7 would thus affect battery life pretty badly, which is not good for my professional life, but irresponsibly enough I just want to make sure I can play games on this thing for the duration that I own it (I'm guessing three years). The graphics card is the same thing on both models. So if I can't afford a slightly better i7, is there a point or should I just get an i5? I'm sure many Thumbs will be horrified at my lack of knowledge, but that higher overall number on the i5 is confusing me. Thanks again lads, I apologise to ask for help again but I can blame all of you for getting me back in front of my PC more than my consoles for the first time in years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patters Posted August 23, 2010 I'd always suggest getting a powerful desktop and a moderate laptop. http://www.notebookcheck.net/ is a good source for information if you need a laptop only. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted August 23, 2010 Cheers, thanks for the advice mate. I'm afraid I'm laptop only for the foreseeable future but I'll check out the site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patters Posted August 23, 2010 Cheers, thanks for the advice mate. I'm afraid I'm laptop only for the foreseeable future but I'll check out the site. Actually have you considered the M11X the i7 version is $1100, though only dual core. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted August 23, 2010 I did, when I thought I might swing the desktop+laptop arrangement. It seems like a great laptop but I really just need a bit more screen real estate, for various work reasons and general use than for games alone. I'm basically looking at getting a laptop in the next couple of months that I can bring into meetings and use for spreadsheets and everything but still rock out for the video games at home. I was just completely confused by the comparison in top turbo speeds, where the i5 seems faster but has half the L3 cache. I knew about pc specs in 1996, but now I am a baby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SGP Posted August 23, 2010 I can't imagine any reason to get more than an i5 to play games on. The video card is the bottleneck, not the processor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted August 23, 2010 I can't imagine any reason to get more than an i5 to play games on. The video card is the bottleneck, not the processor. Cheers, I appreciate the advice. I was mostly concerned about the laptop being decent in a year's time. It has to last at least two years. I see that Metro 2033 recommends a quad processor, but maybe it's not that well optimized? Maybe it's just for the 3D play, and I have zero interest in that anyway. Thanks though, I'll pay more attention to the graphics cards from now on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SGP Posted August 30, 2010 This thread at the SA forums has been incredibly helpful: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3241890 Those guys are all about best price for performance. It's worth reading though the summary posts in the beginning at least once before buying any new hardware Any beefy laptop will have battery life limitations, and be less and less portable. How important is it that you can game on the go? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted August 30, 2010 This thread at the SA forums has been incredibly helpful:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3241890 Those guys are all about best price for performance. It's worth reading though the summary posts in the beginning at least once before buying any new hardware Any beefy laptop will have battery life limitations, and be less and less portable. How important is it that you can game on the go? That's great, thanks for the link! My laptop will be my only PC. I basically play games on my laptop and on consoles. I'm not unrealistic, but my 2008 Macbook Pro running Win 7 on Boot Camp has held up surprisingly well. It's only starting to show its age now. I just want an i5 processor driven laptop with a graphics card that is half decent. The card on my current computer has 256megs attached and it soldiers on. I was looking at Dell Studio XPS laptops and HP Envy laptops. They satisfy the look-good-in-meeting requirement and they seem in good shape for my gaming needs. I'm thinking of getting the Envy 14, because it has decent battery life (for my needs) on the integrated graphics. The 15, though a nicer size for me, can't switch graphics, though it does have a better graphics card. My questions here have just reflected my confusion as to which build of these computers I should be aiming for. Thanks to you, I no longer feel a compulsion to upgrade to an i7. I know that Asus have laptops with Nvidia Optimus that would be great for me for less money, but I'm still inclined to save up and get an Envy. It probably sounds crazy as I could build a desktop and get a thin and light for travel with the money, but I do a lot of travelling between countries. If I get a job in London next year the desktop is not going to make the journey, the laptop will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patters Posted August 30, 2010 (edited) That's great, thanks for the link!My laptop will be my only PC. I basically play games on my laptop and on consoles. I'm not unrealistic, but my 2008 Macbook Pro running Win 7 on Boot Camp has held up surprisingly well. It's only starting to show its age now. I just want an i5 processor driven laptop with a graphics card that is half decent. The card on my current computer has 256megs attached and it soldiers on. I was looking at Dell Studio XPS laptops and HP Envy laptops. They satisfy the look-good-in-meeting requirement and they seem in good shape for my gaming needs. I'm thinking of getting the Envy 14, because it has decent battery life (for my needs) on the integrated graphics. The 15, though a nicer size for me, can't switch graphics, though it does have a better graphics card. My questions here have just reflected my confusion as to which build of these computers I should be aiming for. Thanks to you, I no longer feel a compulsion to upgrade to an i7. I know that Asus have laptops with Nvidia Optimus that would be great for me for less money, but I'm still inclined to save up and get an Envy. It probably sounds crazy as I could build a desktop and get a thin and light for travel with the money, but I do a lot of travelling between countries. If I get a job in London next year the desktop is not going to make the journey, the laptop will. Do you have a rough price? A guy who I play TF2 with was looking for a laptop and these were suggested: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152205 or 9741729 from http://www.bestbuy.com/ Edited August 30, 2010 by Patters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Irishjohn Posted August 30, 2010 Do you have a rough price?A guy who I play TF2 with was looking for a laprop and these were suggested: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152205 or 9741729 from http://www.bestbuy.com/ Cheers, the Envy 15 is coming in at that price, the Envy 14 a little more. Card on the 15 is a Radeon 5830, card on the 14 is a Radeon 5650. Price seems like a sweet spot for people like me who are willing to spend a bit more on a laptop. I spent over two grand on the Macbook I'm using but I'm done with Apple, their hardware has been hugely problematic, and especially with my interest in games there's not much reason to pay an extra 700 dollars for the class of laptop I want. Sorry, mini-rant over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites