Can I run it question
CaptnRussia
Join Date: 2012-10-30 Member: 164462Members
Join Date: 2012-10-30 Member: 164462Members
in Off-Topic
Ok so having gone to the Can I run it site several times for game I have always gotten a fail message for a game even though everthing passes. In this I mea I fail to meet or even exceed the minimum requirements because my laptop has an Intel Hd family graphics card. So if I did pass am I in the clear even thought the site says no. Any help on the matter would be appreciated.
Comments
But the above comment is sort of ignoring something. People with high end cards don't play on low. I play on maximum settings and 1080p, got no issues. GTX670 with overclocked 1100t to 4.1ghz and I'm running at 60fps.
Also NS2 is more dependent on the CPU, so if you don't post that part of the specs we can't make this educated guess worth anything...
Generally, it's possible to play old games with it and sometimes even relatively new games on absolutely lowest settings, but it is certainly not something you should try to do serious gaming with. Why does that site tell you nothing at all runs with it? No idea. Most likely because 99% of games have slightly more powerful cards stated as their minimum requirements and because only recently the CPU-integrated GPUs gained a lot of power so they can actually run stuff.
Also NS2 is more dependent on the CPU, so if you don't post that part of the specs we can't make this educated guess worth anything...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Out of curiosity - is there an actual confirmation about this? I just can't currently imagine how FPS game could get CPU dependent unless the code is not optimized well enough. Mostly this because the client side stuff that I've seen so far doesn't seem like there's that much requests going on to the CPU.
And this is just a question of curiosity - not saying it is impossible as my knowledge isn't that great... but I've studied CPU bottlenecks for one specific game up to a great detail where everyone is having them with even best consumer level CPU's in terms of FLOPS from 2 cores. Though it wasn't lack of optimization, just a hard reality.
And to above poster.. all notebook GPU's are not cards but chips and many of them don't have too much of their own memory because of the size limitations. Especially in chips that are integrated to CPU. But most usual issues with laptop GPU's are that their bus is just way too low, vram is not GDDR5 class and generally they get way too hot when stressed. It's not really that important whenever vram is GPU's own vram or not, it's rather that the vram in question is DDR3 at best, which would probably bottleneck more modern cards when it comes to speed of calculations.
That sounds very opportunistic, my laptop has intel HD and it can't even run CS 1.6 above 30fps all the time.
<!--quoteo(post=2045411:date=Dec 14 2012, 02:52 AM:name=Functional)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Functional @ Dec 14 2012, 02:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Out of curiosity - is there an actual confirmation about this? I just can't currently imagine how FPS game could get CPU dependent unless the code is not optimized well enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Almost all PC exclusives are CPU dependant. UE3 and Source are extremely CPU dependant, can't run games from either engine at 120fps constant without an i-series CPU or equivalent.
This sounds more like you're making guesses that it's CPU that is necking them. Your CPU might be holding your GPU down, for example. Only way to spot a CPU bottleneck for gamers is to run the game, point your screen straight into a wall (so that anything affecting your GPU is reduced to a crawl) and just have combat in the background. If your FPS stays stable (give or take a couple FPS), then you don't have a CPU bottleneck. (Not ALWAYS that simple, but I could say that 99% of the times, this is how you can test it.)
Believe me or don't, but I've studied the subject & CPU's widely and you'd have to have a lot more calculations on the background than just a few bullets flying around and grenades exploding. In this particular game which I mentioned, one combat round can easily house a few hundred of guns firing constantly and the bullets are real-time with actual physics eg. different guns have different velocity, their impact will also affect the target object velocity. Some of the weaponry might be tracking weaponry and they have their own hit-boxes & armor & structure rating which is calculated very much like the objects armor and structure rating. And the calculations there aren't simple as "x bullet hits for y amount of damage and out of that z modifier takes out certain amount of damage". Explaining the system would take me a post that is longer than essay.
The amount of calculations that one bullet goes through is dramatically higher than the amount of calculations a normal FPS game bullet would go through. And when you can literally have thousands of projectiles & missiles flying around, it kind of stacks up. Sure, there are movement and some other stuff that takes it's own calculations. But it doesn't add up dramatically.
I explained all this to prove a point that FPS games aren't really that heavy, especially when complex or badly optimized AI is not involved, on client-side processors. And I wanted to know whenever someone could actually confirm that NS2 is actually processor intensive because I'd love to run some experiments on the game in that case. Me and bunch of other people are researching constantly on the subject ever since our interest arose from the aforementioned game. We still know only a few CPU intensive games and they're all in the same genre. Not FPS.
Our point with all this is to inform gamers that they should NOT buy unnecessary hardware for their computers. We already are quite sad that there are people buying 8-core processors with 2.2ghz clocks & FLOPS and then complain in these certain games, how it's not working. Without really understanding how processors calculate things and why it's really hard to implement a game that would utilize more than 2 cores. Windows only distributes the calculations to every assigned core (more or less evenly), thus lot of people get the false assumption that games actually take advantage of more than 3 cores (3 because lot of folks run background programs with games, so they aren't taking away the 2-core cap).
Yeah, it's all complicated, so I want a real answer here to contribute to a good cause. The cause is to spread information to spare people from spending unnecessary cash for big giants that spread false information. Some people might seriously save a lot of cash to buy an expensive processor only to get hit by a reality that it wasn't ever that necessary.
Here's what NS2 does when running on max settings <a href="http://puu.sh/1srgW" target="_blank">http://puu.sh/1srgW</a>. keep in mind 15-20% is from steam mostly, but other apps as well.
Here's what's happening on the other screen <a href="http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/920120753268586669/CB2CF585C29AF56964F4FB3B9E3AA9A8978E66D7/" target="_blank">http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/92012075...3AA9A8978E66D7/</a>
I was not guessing. Source and UE3 need i5s or better to run their games at a good constant framerate without configs. That's the truth. The way that most fps games work, even with static geometry only in a map, any additional entities especially players have a large impact on CPU use even when they are in an area that is being occluded. Taking TF2 as an example, source uses area occlusion entities to not draw anything outside of the area given by the map maker which is why the map optimization in the TF2 is usually really good. Still, even in a big box shaped map, as soon as you have 32 people in a server even if they just stand there spawned in, there is no way to keep a good framerate on max settings because of my CPU, which is a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz. All this while my CPU use is at 99% and GPU at 5% and lower.
I don't exactly understand the phenomena where your CPU gets used to full extent, yet it doesn't affect much anything. I've seen this in some other games too, but haven't paid much attention, because it doesn't seem to matter.
Currently, I can tell you, despite that your processor is used up to 100% in case of dual core, 66% in 3 core, 50% in 4, 33% in 6 or 25% in 8 et cetera, your CPU does NOT seem to have much affect on the performance unless it's seriously old. That q6600 for example is fairly old processor - but I take it that you can run games with it pretty well. Along with your card, it's quite modest, but I doubt that you're having much issues, right?
I can confirm however, that NS2 is not the type of a game that is seriously using up your CPU for a good reason. Play Sword of the Stars 2, the biggest combat possible in there can involve over 10k projectiles with real physics at any given moment. Then you understand what I'm getting at.
Reason for the whole research is that we've seen now quite many games that are chugging up CPU's instead of GPU's and people don't seem to realize this and then they're all disappointed when their new GPU did not do the trick. We want reliable ways to diagnose your bottlenecks for any given game and share them around. It's also part of a bigger dream project, but that's not important.
Just going to say that stuff like CanYouRunIt is pretty pointless, it doesn't show much about your computers true performance in any given game. It often shoots over one way or another.
It's because the majority, something like 3/4 of the code is written in LUA, which is continually processing text in the background, which needs to be created, read, understood, cached, stored or deleted. It's not a very clever system as it can't store as much or run as quickly as existing code languages like C++ for example. That's what kills the heck out of our CPU's. The devs seemed to all have used Intel CPU's too as they didn't optimise anything for AMD. AMD CPUs seemed to get what I can only describe as buttf****** in terms of performance, meaning, no dev used it or didn't care about making for it.
Actually I run NS2 on an AMD non gaming laptop (By non gaming I mean it has elements of a gaming laptop but isn't a specific one like Alienware) Considering that it runs shockingly well.
My 1100t runs the game average of 30-35 fps. My i5 2500 at 50-60 average. This is with all settings on low. I understand my answer of performance there is arbitrary, however, yours is well outside the bounds of accurate. I'd say 30-35 is shockingly poor and 50-60 is poor with all settings on low. On Max settings, well, it's not worth discussing.
Overclocking voids my warranty and shortens the life span of the component that I paid over $200 for. I should not have to do something to play one game when all of my other games play fine, that's just bad advice
Only reason I got a 6-core processor was because I'm a music artist and the software benefits from 6-core processors.
And with proper cooling (Noctua NH-D14 is one of the cheapest air coolers from the lines of most effective ones), your processor can live a long life, even overclocked. The less you mess with vcore, the longer life it can have. My cooler COULD run my processor stable in high overclock with 1.6vcore, but that could result a dead processor in 2 weeks or 6 months or god knows when. Try not to go over 0.1 from your processor default vcore, and your processor shouldn't die shortly.
Of course, there is no guarantee that it wouldn't die super early despite you trying to be careful. But the chances aren't highest. Just be careful if you install a cooler like NH-D14.
I'd like to know though, what specific model your i5 is? There is big differences between them, you see.
<a href="http://puu.sh/1xbIb" target="_blank">http://puu.sh/1xbIb</a>
been running like this for 6 years about. Well I had 3-3.2ghz before but it still ran above 70c on any load and the vcore was only slightly lower. Although it kinda ######s when it's on 100% load for prime95 for an hour+ test, it's completely stable and has never errored once in the time that I've used it.
I did no such thing, but I shall move it back in any case :P
Also since I read it in the "NS2 General Discussion" forums and you didn't post about which game it was, I was under the impression it was indeed about NS2...