[QUOTE="darx55"][QUOTE="cluclap1"] Why are you such a nay-sayer?cluclap1a 6200 cannot run the game with no lag even at low at 800x600,even with a good cpu.bench the game and post some pics,but until then,i highly doubt someone is gong to fall for that.. I'll see what I can do, but these test take up too much of my time for me to BSing anyone, but I do encourage anyone with specs like these to atleast try a DEMO first, then you will see... Ok I found a video on youtube.com. Here is absolute proof that the game can run at these settings, the laptop it's running on in the vid has specs way worse than these. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wDQUJKIBos
cluclap1's forum posts
[QUOTE="cluclap1"][QUOTE="johnny27"]impossible u can nont get 60fps at any settings with that ur gpu is simply to weak.darx55Why are you such a nay-sayer? a 6200 cannot run the game with no lag even at low at 800x600,even with a good cpu.bench the game and post some pics,but until then,i highly doubt someone is gong to fall for that.. I'll see what I can do, but these test take up too much of my time for me to BSing anyone, but I do encourage anyone with specs like these to atleast try a DEMO first, then you will see...
impossible u can nont get 60fps at any settings with that ur gpu is simply to weak.johnny27Why are you such a nay-sayer?
high settings 15 fps?is this a joke?darx55No this is no joke, these are REAL results. I was extremely surprised because the game doesn't even support a 6200. Just goes to show that sometimes, system requirements aren't always telling the truth...
I recently upgraded to a new computer, so I decided to use my old one as a test computer. If you missed my last post for left for dead, I stated that the game ran a smooth 60fps, no BS. My main reason for testing is for those gamers on a budget who want to know if a game they want to play will run, and and how well will it, well, I'm going to help you out, I've tested a few games so far, and here are my results along with the specs for my system, if you don't see the game you want to play on this list, don't worry I'm just getting started...
System Specs:
Intel Celeron Core 2.2 ghz
2 gigs of ram
nVidia 6200 OC
Alright, now to the games
Of course as the title of the topic suggests:
CALL OF DUTY 4:
Running at 30-60 fps depending on the action taking place. During explosions, or fire, or more than 10-15 characters onscreen the fps drops to about 15-25 fps.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen Resolution - 640x480
Texture Quality - All fields texture fields were set to extra
Specular Lighting - on
Shadows - off
Aliasing - off (duh)
Everything else is either off or at low
LEFT 4 DEAD:
This game surprised me the most as it runs at a perfect 60 fps nearly throughout the entire game, if there are more than 25 characters onscreen the fps only drops about 10-15 fps.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen Resolution - 640x480 (although I also ran it at 1024x768, 640x480 yields about a 10-20 fps gain over this resolution.)
All graphics setting at low
Page file memory - low
Another interesting thing about the game is that lighting is disabled on my system and there is no way to turn it on, it just loads like that. I've tried it on my new system and lighting works, in fact the game runs a tad slower on my newer system and I'm running on core 2 duo. This test definitely proved to be the most interesting.
BIOSHOCK:
The game does run very well at averaging out at about 20-28 fps even though the card used is not supported at all. In the plane crash scene I was very surprised that the game ran at a perfect 30 fps.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen resolution - 640x480
All graphics settings are actually on high during the testing so if they were set to low, the game will probably run perfectly. Shadow maps were enabled as well.
GEARS OF WAR:
Now this game I got interesting results out of as well, it ran at best during fighting 45 fps, and during non action, a perfect 60 fps.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen resolution - 480x384, 640x480, and 800x600 resolutions all yielded the results above. 1024x768 and above? Haha, forget about it.
Post proccessing - Muted, and quality was on low.
Texture quality - High
Aliasing was disabled and couldn't be turned on anyway.
Unreal Tournament 3:
Ha, now this was a very, very surprising test. I actually tested Gears of War before I tested this, and since they run on the same engine, I wasn't expecting much, boy was I wrong. The game ran at a perfect 60 fps pretty much through the whole game. No BS.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen resolution - 640x480 and 800x600 I got pretty much the same results. 1024x768 was out of the question here as frame rate immediatly dropped 15 fps.
Screen render area - 100%
World Detail - high
Texture Quality - high
Everything else was on high.
I have more games to come later on today, if the game you would like to know about isn't listed, it will come trust me, or just ask me to test it out for you. I am testing Crysis right now so please I need feedback from you guys, comment and tell me what you think.
Ok I'm back with another lowend test to help some gamers with low-end PC's run the latest games, the moral of this system is that system requirements can stretch the truth, and systemrequirementslab.com can be WAY off. This time I tested Crysis, and the results, well, just take a look...
TEST SYSTEM SPECS:
Intel Celeron 2.2 GHZ
nVidia 6200 OC 256MB
2 gigs of factory ram
CRYSIS:
Ok, the game ran, well let's just say, amazingly well. Besides the cutscenes, the game ran at full speed, I don't know exactly what it is, I think 60fps, with a some slowdown on the cutscenes, and a few times during firefights.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen Resolution - 800x600, and 1024x768
Of course, all graphics settings were on low, at 800x600, the game ran at full speed. At 1024x768 with the same settings, the speed dropped by 30%-50%.
With all graphics settings on high, the game ran at a measly 15 fps, but it looked nice, yet with the crappy card, a lot of textures didn't show up, which I thought was very interesting. The texture on the rocks went away, and it gave the game this "unfinished" look.
No one interested?
Ok I'm back with another lowend test to help some gamers with low-end PC's run the latest games, the moral of this system is that system requirements can stretch the truth, and systemrequirementslab.com can be WAY off. This time I tested Crysis, and the results, well, just take a look...
TEST SYSTEM SPECS:
Intel Celeron 2.2 GHZ
nVidia 6200 OC 256MB
2 gigs of factory ram
CRYSIS:
Ok, the game ran, well let's just say, amazingly well. Besides the cutscenes, the game ran at full speed, I don't know exactly what it is, I think 60fps, with a some slowdown on the cutscenes, and a few times during firefights.
SETTINGS USED:
Screen Resolution - 800x600, and 1024x768
Of course, all graphics settings were on low, at 800x600, the game ran at full speed. At 1024x768 with the same settings, the speed dropped by 30%-50%.
With all graphics settings on high, the game ran at a measly 15 fps, but it looked nice, yet with the crappy card, a lot of textures didn't show up, which I thought was very interesting. The texture on the rocks went away, and it gave the game this "unfinished" look.
l4d running at smooth 60fps impossible perhaps staring at a wall when there r no zombies around johnny27That's exactly what I thought, something is in the code that turns hidden settings off on my older computer, on the newer one i notice that the AI is sharper and the physics and lighting are considerably better. In the game, there is no way to change these things.
Log in to comment