What will work with my spec

dario28

I got the following spec , but tried to play just cause 2 and it was really laggy.......will battlefield bad company run ok , I have Call of duty Modern Warfare and that works fine


Studio XPS 13 Intel Core 2 Duo P9600 (2.66GHz,1066MHz,6MB) Operating System English Genuine Windows 7 Professional (64 BIT) 1 £ 592.34
Studio XPS 13 Intel Core 2 Duo P9600 (2.66GHz,1066MHz,6MB)

500GB HD SATA (7, 200rpm)

DVD+/-RW (DVD & CD read and write) Slot Load Drive

Operating System English Genuine Windows 7 Professional (64 BIT)

Battery Primary 6-cell 56W/HR LI-ION

Memory 4096MB (2x2048) 1067MHz DDR3 Dual Channel

Grade 1 Scratch or Dent

Wireless European Dell Wireless 1515 (802.11n) Half Mini Card

Display 13.3in WXGA (1280x800) CCFL Display with TrueLife

Wireless Europe Dell Bluetooth 370 Card

Graphics 512MB nVidia GeForce 210M graphics card

marco_polo

Just Cause 2 has substantially high minimum requirements than MW2, the minimum GPU is a 8800 series nVidia or a 2600 series Radeon.

The 210M falls a long way short of either of these cards performance. Will abe the same story for BFBC2 as well I'm afraid.

dario28

Can ya recommend any older games that will run ok , on same style as COD ?

marco_polo

dario28 wrote: »

Can ya recommend any older games that will run ok , on same style as COD ?

There are actually quite a few even fairly recent game that are quite playable such as FEAR Left 4 Dead, Far Cry 2 even Crysis on low settings . This actually suggests that BFBC2 may actually be borderline playable at low settings @ 28-30 FPS. Is the native resolution of your laptop 1024x768? as that is the resolution in the article below.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-G-210M.17638.0.html

dario28

marco_polo wrote: »

There are actually quite a few even fairly recent game that are quite playable such as FEAR Left 4 Dead, Far Cry 2 even Crysis on low settings . This actually suggests that BFBC2 may actually be borderline playable at low settings @ 28-30 FPS. Is the native resolution of your laptop 1024x768? as that is the resolution in the article below.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-G-210M.17638.0.html

Thats not so bad now, few decent choices, nice one

yeah its 1024x768 , as a laptop for everything else im really happy with it

lmimmfn

Bad Company 2 will run like crap, mate tried it on a desktop with a dual core E6300 and an 8800GTS 320Mb gfx card, said it was awful. It needs a quad with the desctuctable environment etc.

Its requirements are a hell of a lot higher than MW2 because lets be honest theres nothing going on in MW2 that isint going on in CounterStrike except for some beefed up gfx. Its performance will be worse than Crysis when using a dualcore simply because Crysis doesnt use more than 2 cores whereas BC2 does.

BC2 is tougher on the hardware than Just Cause 2 even moreso because Just Cause 2 uses Nvidia physx runs on an nvidia gfx card whereas BC2's physics engine runs completely on the cpu.

For single player BC2 isint worth it( its nowhere near as good as SP in CoD4 or MW2 - which i though SP story was a bit rubbish anyway ), for online its excellent( definately nowhere near as good as Battlefield 2 though ), but for online you would definately need an average FPS of 40, otherwise you'll just be a target for everyone else and it will get frustrating very very quickly

Recent games that should run really well on that laptop would be any recent Capcom game, like Devil May Cry 4, Street Fighter 4 or Resident Evil 5, their engine is highly optimised on PC( because its ported from PC to console first, then the PC versions are released after the console ), but you may not like those games and you need a 360 pad or something to play them

TerrorFirmer

An important point that people are missing is that regardless of how intense or hardware friendly any modern games are, the 210M is basically, fairly poor when you bring gaming into the equation. If you don't mind playing games at fairly horrible settings then I think most games should actually be fine at the moment, but in terms of games running at decent settings at native res (1024x768 is not the native res of your laptop by the way), you'd really be looking at older games from 2004-2005ish....up to Modern Warfare original I think.

Not a laptop for gaming at all really, to be honest. Which is a shame because the rest of the specs are quite nice.

Overheal

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

An important point that people are missing is that regardless of how intense or hardware friendly any modern games are, the 210M is basically, fairly poor when you bring gaming into the equation. If you don't mind playing games at fairly horrible settings then I think most games should actually be fine at the moment, but in terms of games running at decent settings at native res (1024x768 is not the native res of your laptop by the way), you'd really be looking at older games from 2004-2005ish....up to Modern Warfare original I think.

Not a laptop for gaming at all really, to be honest. Which is a shame because the rest of the specs are quite nice.

Thats an enthusiast perspective perhaps? Even on the 8400M GS, you can shake Crysis on Entry level settings. No it's not the high fidelity monster my new machine is, but its playable. And the same applies to TF2 and a few others. Given the 210M is a fair bit ahead of the 8400 you should be alright running newer games. Firmer is correct though in saying you won't be pushing through Full Settings on anything recent+demanding. Easily would get Medium or High settings out of Starcraft 2, say.

TerrorFirmer

Overheal wrote: »

Thats an enthusiast perspective perhaps? Even on the 8400M GS, you can shake Crysis on Entry level settings. No it's not the high fidelity monster my new machine is, but its playable. And the same applies to TF2 and a few others. Given the 210M is a fair bit ahead of the 8400 you should be alright running newer games. Firmer is correct though in saying you won't be pushing through Full Settings on anything recent+demanding. Easily would get Medium or High settings out of Starcraft 2, say.

TF2 and Crysis are 3 years old though; Team Fortress 2 is far more forgiving then most other FPS titles, and let's be honest here, the 8400GS runs Crysis like puke, I'm sorry but to say otherwise isn't being very honest. It ran at 1024x768 low-ish on my 8600GT, which is much faster than the 8400GS. And that's not even including the later levels, in which even the lowest settings were a chore, I wouldn't like to even imagine the 8400GS in the snow levels.

For example, you can't really say I'm coming from an enthusiasts perspective when the owner of a 210 could walk into a shop and be presented with several new titles that he cannot buy because they will not run correctly. Just because some titles work doesn't mean it's not a poor card for gaming.

To me, any class of a gaming card is one that you know you can play pretty much any title on it, regardless of whether or not it's at decent or reduced settings. Walking into a shop and knowing you have to be picky because your card doesn't support some games isn't my idea of anything 'gaming' orientated to any capacity whatsoever.

I've a 9600GS in my laptop and even I call that very budget, and it's faster than the GT210.

So yeah, expect to be able to play Modern Warfare, Gears of War, Bioshock, Half Life 2 and other source games, and similar titles pretty well. But modern games - he's already mentioned, for example, Just Cause 2 - such as Bad Company - are a big no no. RTS games are typically always more forgiving, so yes Starcraft 2 should run OK I would imagine. But the latest FPS and action games aren't going to be so kind.