Can I run it question

CaptnRussiaCaptnRussia Join Date: 2012-10-30 Member: 164462Members
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

  • SvenpaSvenpa Wait, what? Join Date: 2004-01-03 Member: 25012Members, Constellation
    I'll assume you mean NS2 and I can safely say you can not run it on a intel hd family graphics card laptop.
  • YMICrazyYMICrazy Join Date: 2012-11-02 Member: 165986Members
    Not a chance. You got people with high end cards complaining about performance.
  • FunctionalFunctional Join Date: 2012-12-13 Member: 174998Members
    You won't be able to run it. Though even if we had this dream scenario where your computer could run the game (alas, your game would boot and you could join games), it would be so slow that you have no chance to survive. I'm having moments where 60fps doesn't seem like it's enough.

    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.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    Intel HD chipset graphics are not that much better then valueware cards of thsi day an age. They can run 3D-apps, but are not really up for it.


    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...
  • CaptnRussiaCaptnRussia Join Date: 2012-10-30 Member: 164462Members
    I wasn't talking about NS2 hence why it was in the off topic section. I was speaking about Prince of Persia games and Assassin's Creed 1 and 2. When using the site can I run it I would be flagged for my graphics card even though it surpassed all expectations. For example Assassin's Creed requires 128mb of vram and I have 1.7 gig of vram but I was flagged for simply the graphics card, the Inteld HD famkily. My question was if I have a great amount more than what is needed would I be ok or am I still in the woods as it were.
  • KatsuyukiKatsuyuki Join Date: 2012-12-12 Member: 174934Members
    I think you posted in the wrong section then. This is General Discussion, not Off-Topic. As to whether or not you can run Assassin's Creed 1-2 or Prince of Persia... Probably, but on the absolute lowest settings and resolution. Intel HD graphics sub 4000 aren't all too great.
  • ObraxisObraxis Subnautica Animator & Generalist, NS2 Person Join Date: 2004-07-24 Member: 30071Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, WC 2013 - Supporter, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts
    You should be able to run games from 5-10 years ago fine on medium to low settings with possibly some stuttering. The latest games, not so much.
  • CaptnRussiaCaptnRussia Join Date: 2012-10-30 Member: 164462Members
    First it was posted in the off topic section but then Kouji San moved it here for some inexplicable reason. And thnaks for finally answering my question guys. Much appreciated.
  • DghelneshiDghelneshi Aims to surpass Fana in post edits. Join Date: 2011-11-01 Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
    You do not have 1.7GB of VRAM. <b>Technically, you do not have any VRAM at all.</b> It is not even a graphics <b>card</b>, it's a small part inside your CPU and uses part of your normal system RAM, which is incredibly slow compared to real graphics memory on a graphics card. VRAM also does not necessarily signify performance at all. It's just storage, not how fast you can change what is stored or calculate stuff with it.

    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.
  • FunctionalFunctional Join Date: 2012-12-13 Member: 174998Members
    edited December 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=2045107:date=Dec 13 2012, 01:37 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Dec 13 2012, 01:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Intel HD chipset graphics are not that much better then valueware cards of thsi day an age. They can run 3D-apps, but are not really up for it.


    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.
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    edited December 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=2045197:date=Dec 13 2012, 07:36 PM:name=Obraxis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Obraxis @ Dec 13 2012, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045197"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You should be able to run games from 5-10 years ago fine on medium to low settings with possibly some stuttering. The latest games, not so much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • FunctionalFunctional Join Date: 2012-12-13 Member: 174998Members
    edited December 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=2045418:date=Dec 14 2012, 12:08 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 14 2012, 12:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045418"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    edited December 2012
    NS2 is "CPU intensive" because it hardly uses multiple cores or even one core fully even when you need it too. It won't run well on any stock CPU unless it's one of NASA's supercomputers.

    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.
  • runnerrunner Join Date: 2012-11-26 Member: 173304Members
    NS2 is just hardware intensive because it's poorly designed.
  • FunctionalFunctional Join Date: 2012-12-13 Member: 174998Members
    Changing graphic sliders is also easy tipoff for whenever your CPU is neck or not. And in NS2, my 1100t (despite getting used full amount of 2 cores out of 6), did not impact on FPS when I changed to stock clocks.

    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.
  • runnerrunner Join Date: 2012-11-26 Member: 173304Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2045490:date=Dec 14 2012, 12:04 PM:name=Functional)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Functional @ Dec 14 2012, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    well the LUA code isn't ALL that bad, it still does scale with processing power, and 4.2ghz+ i5s do usually get the maximum framerate most of the time, so it does scale with processing power in some way. It would be a completely lost cause if it gave the same fps no matter what specs you ran on. Overclocking provides a huge boost too.
  • DwavenhobbleDwavenhobble Join Date: 2012-12-14 Member: 175044Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2045499:date=Dec 14 2012, 11:18 AM:name=runner)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (runner @ Dec 14 2012, 11:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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.
  • runnerrunner Join Date: 2012-11-26 Member: 173304Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2045520:date=Dec 14 2012, 12:47 PM:name=Dwavenhobble)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dwavenhobble @ Dec 14 2012, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045520"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
  • RadiocageRadiocage Join Date: 2002-09-30 Member: 1381Members
    Yeah, well, I run it on an i5 with a 6970 2GB GPU and I get ###### fps after this last patch. I can run FarCry 3 on high settings and get twice as much FPS as this game. This game looks nowhere near as good, too. They shouldn't have coded the game in Lua. I believe that is one of the reasons it's lost 85% of it's player numbers in the last month and a half.
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    edited December 2012
    You can run well with any i5 you just need to overclock. I can get 70/50/30 average early/mid/late game with a Q6600 at 3.4ghz. Sometimes dips below 15fps for whatever reason this patch though.
  • runnerrunner Join Date: 2012-11-26 Member: 173304Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2045532:date=Dec 14 2012, 01:07 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 14 2012, 01:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045532"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can run well with any i5 you just need to overclock. I can get 70/50/30 average late/mid/early game with a Q6600 at 3.4ghz.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    edited December 2012
    I know it sucks for warranty, but it's well worth it. My Q6600 has had 6 years in it and it's still going to be running for several more. I've been running it at 3ghz almost all the time since I got it at an average temperature of 70c. I don't think you need to have a CPU that lasts that long, it has far exceeded its use. That's why I buy Intel CPUs.
  • FunctionalFunctional Join Date: 2012-12-13 Member: 174998Members
    edited December 2012
    It's a problem in the code if the game performance has dropped. May also be a new compability issue... most i5's outperform my 1100t clocked at 4.1ghz for gaming.

    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.
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    edited December 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=2045561:date=Dec 14 2012, 08:35 AM:name=Functional)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Functional @ Dec 14 2012, 08:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045561"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    <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.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    edited December 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=2045247:date=Dec 14 2012, 01:24 AM:name=CaptnRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CaptnRussia @ Dec 14 2012, 01:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First it was posted in the off topic section but then Kouji San moved it here for some inexplicable reason. And thnaks for finally answering my question guys. Much appreciated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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...
  • CaptnRussiaCaptnRussia Join Date: 2012-10-30 Member: 164462Members
    Sorry Kouji San for falsely accusing you of moving this thread. I will be sure to be more specific in the future with my inquiries into computer gaming.
Sign In or Register to comment.