Notebook Gaming Question (HD2400)?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Owyns
Owyns

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 Owyns
Member since 2008 • 78 Posts

First it's great to meet you all here, tryied to help alot at some topics, hope am helpful to you.

If we look to my question I am asking you for a notebook which one has these specifications:

CPU: AMD Athlon X2 - 1.81GHz

RAM: 2GB DDR2-667MHz

GPU: ATi Mobility Radeon HD2400 - 128MB ( But shared about 824MB)

HDD: WD-160GB SATA 5400RPM

And the question is what I play Warcraft 3 Frozen of Throne v1.21 edition. At the game I have a very low FPS rate, it's about 20-30 but often goes under 10FPS.

But at my friends notebook who one has an ATI Mobility Radeon X1300 (128MB) runs the game as well at 60FPS. (BTF-My notebook sepcifications are better than his one (1GB-RAM, 1.7GHz Core2Duo 2xxx.)

So my question is where is the problem that I run the game at lower FPS rate and he runs better.

Avatar image for Kiwi_1
Kiwi_1

2963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Kiwi_1
Member since 2003 • 2963 Posts

(Edited -- sorry for a too-quick, possibly flippant, comment.) "Simple. An X1300 is at least TWICE as good a device, because it has 128 Bit memory, instead of super cheap 64 Bit memory."

That was somewhat of an exaggeration, written after almost no cogitation. The better memory system is certainly an advantage, however, the HD 2*** series did undergo a serious upgrade of efficiency, so instead of trailing the X1300 by a 50 % performance figure, it's likely to actually run between 30 and 40 % behind, if benchmarks for both exist together somewhere.

Avatar image for yoyo462001
yoyo462001

7535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#3 yoyo462001
Member since 2005 • 7535 Posts
first of all hes got the better CPU, but its mainly due to the the 64 bit interface of the HD2400 you have. the X1300 were a decent line of GPU's both mobile and desktop version from using it they could do decent in games where you would write it off.
Avatar image for Owyns
Owyns

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 Owyns
Member since 2008 • 78 Posts

Simple. An X1300 is at least TWICE as good a device, because it has 128 Bit memory, instead of super cheap 64 Bit memory. Kiwi_1
first of all hes got the better CPU, but its mainly due to the the 64 bit interface of the HD2400 you have. the X1300 were a decent line of GPU's both mobile and desktop version from using it they could do decent in games where you would write it off.yoyo462001

So this is the only problem?

What just my one is 64Bit and his one is 128Bit?

Confused :S

At my computer I have an Nvidia GeForce 7300LE 512MB and 64Bit so there the FPS is about 60 Rate?

Avatar image for Kiwi_1
Kiwi_1

2963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Kiwi_1
Member since 2003 • 2963 Posts

Toms Hardware has VGA benchmarks for most video cards, although they do not typically test the utter junk such as the two you chose to saddle yourself with (I haven't looked for them there lately, so it could've changed). Elsewhere on this page is a discussion of Assassins Creed, which won't run at all well on an X1300, (my estimate at high resolution is 6 FPS max) but it will sorta run. That game would look almost like a snail with most any 64 Bit video device, surely (I'd name 4 FPS as the high resolution max, IMO).

I will admit to making an exaggeration in the initial off the cuff comment above, to your opening query, about twice the performance, since the overall architecture of the HD 2*** included improvements, such that the 2400 overcomes a respectable part of its deficit, and should sit roughly 30-40 % below the X1300, about where that X1300 in turn sits below a Radeon 9800 Pro.

Avatar image for Owyns
Owyns

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 Owyns
Member since 2008 • 78 Posts

Toms Hardware has VGA benchmarks for most video cards, although they do not typically test the utter junk such as the two you chose to saddle yourself with (I haven't looked for them there lately, so it could've changed). Elsewhere on this page is a discussion of Assassins Creed, which won't run at all well on an X1300, (my estimate at high resolution is 6 FPS max) but it will sorta run. That game would look almost like a snail with most any 64 Bit video device, surely (I'd name 4 FPS as the high resolution max, IMO).

I will admit to making an exaggeration in the initial off the cuff comment above, to your opening query, about twice the performance, since the overall architecture of the HD 2*** included improvements, such that the 2400 overcomes a respectable part of its deficit, and should sit roughly 30-40 % below the X1300, about where that X1300 in turn sits below a Radeon 9800 Pro.

Kiwi_1

More clear. :) Thanks.

But is there any driver fix, or patch that will help a bit for this reason?

Avatar image for Kiwi_1
Kiwi_1

2963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Kiwi_1
Member since 2003 • 2963 Posts

A couple of young people I know (knew) liked that game, but that family moved, and we lost contact. I've played some SF games that were strategy-oriented (Homeworld, Starcraft, etc.), but wasn't attracted to the Warcraft series. As a result, if there is any Mod Community creating performance mods, I am unaware of it.

One of the games I've played through several times, with different Avatars, is Oblivion, which is now two years old, and although when it was new, its hardware requirements were considered steep, is now more accessible because of a broad array of mods that attempt to reduce the load on lower quality hardware, without as steep of a hit on the Image Quality as the Extra Low Settings in Bethesda's original patch.

Were I you, and liked that game, I'd start some 'Net searches using either Google or Yahoo, to determine one way or another if there are such mods for this particular game.