Is My Laptop Good Enough To Handle A Game?

[pfoster23681]

Sega, for the cool kids.

What if you got both? Is that just greedy? NBA Jam on the megadrive was awesome!

[Hendrix]

Anyone remember that god awful F1 game for Mega Drive?

[Hannah Shucksmith]

What if you got both? Is that just greedy? NBA Jam on the megadrive was awesome!

We had both, won the N64 on the radio after my mum did a Woody Woodpecker impression.

Sega was still the best.

[Hendrix]

Sega was still the best.

NOE!

You lie, it was far from the best - in-fact I can think of many others that were far better!

Dreamcast anyone..

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

The dreamcast was way ahead of its time, a truly brilliant bit of kit.

[Krisboats]

@Krisboats - I know his GFX is integrated, I was just trying to make a suggestion,

I'm not trying to convince him to go and waste money on the game, all I'm saying is that he shouldn't be expecting to run it at the max specs but he could probably run it anyway.

I mean jesus I'm still using a 1.8GHz, 1 GB Ram, Integrated GFx laptop to play HL-2 and Stalker SoC, yes I've reduced the res and AA and it runs fine, now I'm not saying it's breaking the graphical bank here, it isn't always pretty but it's playable.

I know that COD4, Crysis is more intense to run than HL-2 and Stalker SoC but it's all relative, if my crappy laptop can run those I'm sure his could play COD4, my laptop is nearly 5 years old now as it is anyway.

But the source engine wasn't graphically intensive even when it was first released, and that was also 5 years ago. Games today have much more going on yet integrated graphics chipsets haven't really evolved at all. He doesn't have hardware powerful enough to play it, end of.

And I was running a BFG 8800GTX OC2, it had 768mb memory, it was a master stroke for PC gaming!

I used to run Crysis and Farcry2 maxed out at 1680*1050 and on High at 1920*1080.

Why bother going for ultra settings when the game looks acceptable anyway?

The BFG 8800GTX OC2 is possibly one of the best, most groundbreaking cards ever made, most new nvidia cards from the 8, 9 and 200 generations are no more than a rejigged G80 core with an opptimised die process and slight increases to the number of processing elements in each sub-system. Unlike the move from 7 to 8 series where we moved off fixed function pipelines to a unified shader architecture. G80 was a huge leap from anything that went before and it could be awhile until we see that again.

I mean it's basically been re-released as a flagship model anyway the GTS250 is almost exactly the same, for such an old card the fact that they are replicating it and re-releasing it just shows how innovative it is.

Yeah it was unique and dominated the market for a while, but that was partially down to financial worries by AMD too. I wouldn't say they're re-badging it because it was awesome, more because they can milk money out of people purely for slightly more impressive sounding numbers without having to splash out a tonne in R&D. The new GT2** series cards are very different to the 8*** series anyway. There's always going to be something to push things forward in huge steps. The voodoo cards were the same back in the day and the ATI 9800's were the same. Given that the cycles seem to repeat every few years and alternate between companies it seems due for ATI to release their new range in time for DX11. You might not have to wait very long at all

I'm saying is that now atleast it seems like hardware is catching up with the software, we can now play games like Crysis at decent res/ fps ok without having to spend too much money.

Hardware has actually overtaken what game devs can throw at us now anyway

Do you even know what your trying to say any more or are you just trying to reel out as much crap as you can, regardless of whether it contradicts itself or not?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...-v1.21,752.html

I wouldn't say cheap, given that 2 £300 cards get 24fps

[Sirius]

But the source engine wasn't graphically intensive even when it was first released, and that was also 5 years ago. Games today have much more going on yet integrated graphics chipsets haven't really evolved at all. He doesn't have hardware powerful enough to play it, end of.

Yeah it was unique and dominated the market for a while, but that was partially down to financial worries by AMD too. I wouldn't say they're re-badging it because it was awesome, more because they can milk money out of people purely for slightly more impressive sounding numbers without having to splash out a tonne in R&D. The new GT2** series cards are very different to the 8*** series anyway. There's always going to be something to push things forward in huge steps. The voodoo cards were the same back in the day and the ATI 9800's were the same. Given that the cycles seem to repeat every few years and alternate between companies it seems due for ATI to release their new range in time for DX11. You might not have to wait very long at all

Do you even know what your trying to say any more or are you just trying to reel out as much crap as you can, regardless of whether it contradicts itself or not?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...-v1.21,752.html

I wouldn't say cheap, given that 2 £300 cards get 24fps

Well firstly I was Overclocking my system to drain every ounce of performance out of it that I could, I was running an E7300 at 4.2GHz because I was water cooling it, 4GB ram at 1333MHz, and my 8800GTX OC2 were clocked aswell as the VRMs on my MoBo.

And as for the 'Catching up' and 'Overtaken' comments, Hardwaare has over taken some of the things that devs are throwing out nowadays, not every game will push a system like crysis and crysis isn't at the top of everyones list of games to play so... It doesn't contradict itself at all, I'm saying that modern hardware is up to the task of coping with most of the stuff that gets thrown out these days bar Crysis/Warhead but obviously games like crysis still need catching up to, if that makes sence to you?

And I've not been saying that he has the hardware to run it brilliantly, all I'm sayin is that he 'could probably' play it albeit not brilliantly.

And as for that Tomshardware graph, what does that prove exactly? Not everyones systems clock the same way nor run at the same spec, what they spec their machines to do when they run 3dMark etc is different to what someone else would run, same for gaming. All I know is that I used to be able to play Crisis at decent res and fps with my set-up.

I had an N64 and Sega Megadrive, sonic 3 and Knuckles rocked! especially if you got all the Super chaos emeralds and went Hyper!

Edited April 24, 2009 by Sirius

[Krisboats]

I'm just going to stand by my original reply i reckon....

Oh dear

[pfoster23681]

I do believe the waters have become slightly muddied as to the original question, so here it is plain and simple:

Yes, your Laptop with play the game, but you will have to reduce the settings to such an extent that you will not get the most out of the game. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be a waste of money.

Thats me done!

Please note that I am in no way getting at any other comments placed on this thread.

[Krisboats]

That's the thing though, he's already said it didn't pass the online test and given that they're compared to the requirements which are usually very untrue to whats actually needed to run it i don't reckon it'd be playable at all*.

*By playable i mean over 25fps minimum on lowest possible settings.

With regards to the original question... unfortunately that kind of laptop is very unlikely to be upgradeable in the graphics department, especially for just £50 or so. An xbox360 would be the cheapest option to you for playing COD4 as you should be able to pick up a second hand one now for around £80-90.

[pfoster23681]

That's the thing though, he's already said it didn't pass the online test and given that they're compared to the requirements which are usually very untrue to whats actually needed to run it i don't reckon it'd be playable at all*.

*By playable i mean over 25fps minimum on lowest possible settings.

With regards to the original question... unfortunately that kind of laptop is very unlikely to be upgradeable in the graphics department, especially for just £50 or so. An xbox360 would be the cheapest option to you for playing COD4 as you should be able to pick up a second hand one now for around £80-90.

My laptop didn't meet the minimum specs for NFS undercover, but i still played it, and it ran fine on the lower settings? Guidelines aren't the be all and end all.

[Krisboats]

I guess the only way is for him to try it and see.

http://files.filefront.com/Call+of+Duty+4+...;/fileinfo.html

There's the demo, see if your laptop can handle the thing and report back.

[forteh]

My lowly s939 A64x2 4400+ with 3 gig of pc3200 ddr and a geforce 9600gt runs just about any game out at the moment on max settings at 1600x1200.

As long as I can get a solid, reliable 40fps at 1600x1200 Im happy, no need for fsaa at that res imho.

No need to upgrade it for a while yet

[Sirius]

I guess the only way is for him to try it and see.

http://files.filefront.com/Call+of+Duty+4+...;/fileinfo.html

There's the demo, see if your laptop can handle the thing and report back.

I think thats the best option, lets see what happens here, Try fiddling with some of the settings when you play though, dont just install it and see what happens.

As I said earlier my laptop is really old and crap and I play alot of modern games on there. So I can see where your coming from on the NFS front pfoster23681

[Hendrix]

My Dell laptop is 2.4GHz, 2GB Ram, decent onboard graphics card.. can barely run LFS.

[Daborn Meister]

Downloading now

One day remaining

Shouldnt be that long.

I hope.

Will tell what happens when it finishes and i get a little play.

[Daborn Meister]

This is ridiculous,

Its done 430mb in nearly 3 hours,

And there is still another load to go,

Around 6 hours :|

[Hendrix]

How big is it?!

[Daborn Meister]

1.4gb,

I think i just have shit download speeds haha.

[Hendrix]

Eeek. I hope it works for you dude.

[Daborn Meister]

It better

Still not even half way!

I will make it work if it doesnt.

Somehow

[Daborn Meister]

Mum has just canceled download after 8 hours

:|

[Krisboats]

Mum has just canceled download after 8 hours

:|

Slap her!

[Tomm]

I know everyone has moved past this, but Goldeneye is still brilliant. I've played loads of FPS since I first had it on the N64 but every now and then I'll dig it out and have a play. It's still so much fun, especially on 4 player with a few friends. COD4 is the first game I've played since Goldeneye that comes close to having as much fun in split-screen mode, but I don't know if I'll still be playing that in 10 years' time. Probably not...