Would the following laptop be able to play CoX properly?
By
Aggelakis,
Posted on: 2011-09-27 17:50 in Player Questions
Quick answer: not really.
It's got way more than enough ram, and a great processor. The graphics are SandyBridge's integrated graphics... which, as far as Intel's graphics go, is flat out amazing... unfortunately, as far as AMD/nVidia graphics go, it's mediocre at best. CoH will be more than playable, but, most likely at sub-UM levels (and even then, probably crappy performance on raids).
Playable? Yes. Pretty? Not really.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
eh. I don't NEED pretty. I do though, need "I turn the graphics down as low as possible. this computer doesn't fail me in trials then". Will it be "playable" in trials?
If you turn down the graphics ALL THE WAY, I'd guess it would be able to handle iTrials and mothership raids. But I'd get a couple other opinions on that, as I don't have anything I can compare with directly.
I have a laptop too but I made sure to get a decent graphics card, and I spent a bit more than $550 too. (I have an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 550v, which so far has been fine for anything less than Ultra Mode.)
Here's a review of my laptop, which includes some 3DMark scores you can compare against.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...k.40469.0.html
Note that while I think my laptop is "good," I also think it's probably about the minimum that anyone would consider "good." Less, and you're solidly into "mediocre." Note that my 3DMark 06 score is about 5200, and the one for the system you are considering buying is about 4000. That doesn't sound all that great to me.
If you want to get the model I'm using, make sure it has the H, and make sure it has the beefed up graphics card. There's two models which are similar, only one has 1024 MB of dedicated memory. That's the one I have.
From my testing on an AMD E-350, my impression is that CPU power is more important than graphics power, and this laptop will have it in spades. It also has faster graphics than the E-350, so you should be able to run settings at well above the minimum and get playable frame rates. Can't say about raids, but my guess is that it's a matter of CPU power there, too.
Quote:
LOL, don't take this the wrong way, but not likely. It's integrated MOBILE graphics...it's worse than desktop integrated graphics. And integrated desktop graphics play City pretty pathetically. Unless you consider 15-20fps "playable", which would include visible stutter (30fps is smooth to the human eye).|
Originally Posted by General_CoH
From my testing on an AMD E-350, my impression is that CPU power is more important than graphics power, and this laptop will have it in spades. It also has faster graphics than the E-350, so you should be able to run settings at well above the minimum and get playable frame rates. Can't say about raids, but my guess is that it's a matter of CPU power there, too.
|
And CPU is definitely not more important than GPU. GPU is definitely top dog. I had a single-core-faking-dual-cores and went up to a true dual-core processer, and saw little to no increase. I went from a 6600 nvidia graphics card to an 8800 nvidia card and performance SKYROCKETED. I then upgraded my CPU again to a faster dual-core processer, and again saw little to no increase. I then upgraded my GPU to a 9800 nivida card and again saw a big increase (not quite skyrocketing that going from 6xxx to 8xxx saw, since 6xxx is pitiful).
My fiance (whose computer is 2ft to my right, and whose computer I built and rebuilt and frankensteined) went from a dual-core processer to a quad-core of approximately the same speed (slightly faster) and saw pretty much no increase (as we were expecting; City doesn't utilize multi cores much (if at all)). He then went from an 8600 nvidia graphics card to a 460 nvidia card and saw huge gains - he can play at max settings with no lag and fps typically around 50-60...only ever dropping below 30 in ship raids, not even in itrials.
So I'm going to go with my personal experience here and say: yeah, no....no, you are definitely not right.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
You're talking about upgrading 2 generaties of videocards, thats pretty logic that CoH will get major boost from this. Specialy if u upgrade from 'low performance' card to a medium one, and you're talking deskop PC's wich act somewhat different then laptops.
At the end its a combo of the 4 aspecs (video, CPU, memory and HD) that will wrap up your overal performance.
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
Quote:
Of course it's a combination, but CPU does not have nearly as high an impact as GPU does. Which is what I was saying, and what I was expanding on. Which is what I'm saying General_CoH is wrong on. CPU power is NOT the bottleneck here.|
Originally Posted by SinergyX_EU
You're talking about upgrading 2 generaties of videocards, thats pretty logic that CoH will get major boost from this. Specialy if u upgrade from 'low performance' card to a medium one, and you're talking deskop PC's wich act somewhat different then laptops.
At the end its a combo of the 4 aspecs (video, CPU, memory and HD) that will wrap up your overal performance. |
I went from a CoreDuo (single core 'emulating' dual core) to a Core 2 Duo (true dual core) of a faster speed, and saw almost no increase. That right there is a huge tell.
My fiance went from a dual core to a quad core of marginally faster speed, and saw pretty much no increase. Not as much of a tell, but definitely showcasing that City doesn't utilize extra cores.
By the way, my second GPU upgrade was only one generation gap - not two like you said - and it was still a significant increase in performance.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
It has been my experience that CoH does not like Intel integrated graphics. I'd have to say that you will not be satisfied with that laptops performance playing this game.
Quote:
Agreed. This thing may play on low-low settings, but it's still going to be pretty horrible.|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
LOL, don't take this the wrong way, but not likely. It's integrated MOBILE graphics...it's worse than desktop integrated graphics. And integrated desktop graphics play City pretty pathetically.
|
Quote:
| Unless you consider 15-20fps "playable", which would include visible stutter (30fps is smooth to the human eye). |
Small variations in framerate at this level can destroy the perception.
60-80fps is usually the point where movement is truly smooth, save for all but the largest framerate drops. It's actually a little different for everyone. Some people are unable to discern framerate chop above the 30-40 frame range. Others notice it until the 60-70 frame range.
Quote:
|
And CPU is definitely not more important than GPU. GPU is definitely top dog. I had a single-core-faking-dual-cores and went up to a true dual-core processer, and saw little to no increase. I went from a 6600 nvidia graphics card to an 8800 nvidia card and performance SKYROCKETED. I then upgraded my CPU again to a faster dual-core processer, and again saw little to no increase. I then upgraded my GPU to a 9800 nivida card and again saw a big increase (not quite skyrocketing that going from 6xxx to 8xxx saw, since 6xxx is pitiful). My fiance (whose computer is 2ft to my right, and whose computer I built and rebuilt and frankensteined) went from a dual-core processer to a quad-core of approximately the same speed (slightly faster) and saw pretty much no increase (as we were expecting; City doesn't utilize multi cores much (if at all)). He then went from an 8600 nvidia graphics card to a 460 nvidia card and saw huge gains - he can play at max settings with no lag and fps typically around 50-60...only ever dropping below 30 in ship raids, not even in itrials. So I'm going to go with my personal experience here and say: yeah, no....no, you are definitely not right. |
Also, the GPU still relies on the CPU to keep it "fed" with data. Mismatch a CPU and GPU too much and you're going to nullify some of the benefits of having such a powerful GPU.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Okay THAT particular v570 model is not really going to be great for games. The graphics are the on-chip Intel. There ARE versions of the v570 that are more suitable though.|
Originally Posted by BrokenFace
Would the following laptop be able to play CoX properly?http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387552,00.asp
I am currently missing a working laptop, and my desktop's graphics card is, to put it kindly "non-existant" the laptop in the link, the lenovo v570 is available at best buy right now for 550$. I'm just wondering if this would be a buyer's remorse style purchase, or if I'd be able to play CoX on it. I don't need super-ultra-kahmaha-ma-ha settings, but I'd like to see what's going on on "recommended". So...thoughts? |
The v570 model you want is the 1066ADU.
Pretty much ANYTHING where the graphics says "Intel", just get a big mental Post-It note saying "DO NOT WANT".
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Since I have a machine with the same GPU, I decided to post some numbers:
With ultra mode all disabled, 1440x900 resolution (the native for my machine, a fair bit higher than that one though), Physics/Texture quality on Very High, Geometry Buffers off (that's recommended for OSX), Shaders on high, anisotropic/FSAA off, and other similar settings (so fairly decent pre-ultramode settings):
Baseline Performance (little action)
Overlooking the empty Croatia University, I average just under 30fps
Virtue's Pocket D, with ~11 Players/NPCs (not really any auras running): 30 fps
Virtue's Atlas Park (@ Trainer), ~14 Players/NPCs/Pets, wide view: 22 fps
Action Performance:
"CEBR" Ambush farm, double x8 ambushes, all visible, with aggro: 28fps - 30fps
AE Absurdity Test:
2x Ambush in GV Conference Room, enemies have only Rain of Fire, Fire Breath, Irradiate, and Neutron Bomb, two capes (back cape and hip cape), Fiery Aura, and the Victorian Steampunk Male outfit: 8 FPS - 10 FPS
You can see a screenshot of the horror here. I think that should be a fairly reasonable estimate for iTrail performance (if on the low side)... and mind you, it was still fairly smooth at that performance (it wasn't choppy or anything). It's hard to see it from the screenshot, but there's multiple Breath of Fires and Neutron Bombs all being cast on me simultaneously, along with several of them using Irradiate, plus the Rain of Fire..
Turning untargetable on, then turning it back off once all their Irradiates has recharged, so they all use it at the exact same time didn't result in a drop below 9 1/2-ish FPS.
With Ultra Mode on the minimum on settings, FSAA/Anistropic on 2x, in the same ambush map I get 6-6.7 FPS, at this point it starts looking a bit choppy.
With ALL settings on max, I end up at 2 1/2 - 3 fps, and the game's UI starts becoming unresponsive.
Summary:
The laptop that you're looking at should have slightly higher performance due to two things: The resolution is ~25% higher on mine (meaning the GPU has to do more work), and mine is running on OSX, which has a semi-crappy client. I would label it as playable, but mediocre performance, and definitely no ultra mode (at least on large teams/trials). I'm not sure how other laptops at a similar price point look, but they're likely going to suck pretty bad, especially if they're preSandyBridge (SandyBridge is the first not-horribly-sucky graphics Intel ever made...).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
Since I have a machine with the same GPU, I decided to post some numbers:
|
Er, same GPU as what? Surely not what the OP proposed.
Quote:
Yes, the very same- Intel HD 3000 graphics (the article incorrectly calls it 'GMA HD 3000', despite that not being what they're called) that comes included on mobile SandyBridge processors. This isn't the machine I normally play CoH on, though.|
Originally Posted by gameboy1234
Er, same GPU as what? Surely not what the OP proposed.
|
That machine, actually, has a higher clocked processor than what's in my MBA, although that really shouldn't make a bit of difference, as the SandyBridge processors are already so fast.
What makes you say it must not be the same?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
I suggest looking at other options. Here's the tests for the GMA HD.
I have an acer aspire 5253-bz661 with AMD Radeon HD 6310. It's totally laggy in raids, but I was able to play AE ambush farms with it. My responsiveness was slower tho, and I had to click greens at 30% hp instead of 20% hp. It's a hit or miss for trials since sometimes I couldn't even load into the map. Anyway, just wanted to show another example of a low-end GPU.
Also, I suggest avoiding posting actual link code ie, http://etc.etc.com. A mod told me not to do that and use the 'Insert Link' feature.
Quote:
Just that the FPS numbers were much higher than I would have expected. Unless I misunderstand your settings. If it works OK, then I guess the OP might be good.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune Knight
Yes, the very same- What makes you say it must not be the same?
|
Quote:
According to the link you posted, it's actually quite a bit slower than Intel's HD 3000, and even slower than the HD 2000! HD 3000's graphics are fairly equivalent to nVidia's 320M (what it replaced in the MacBook Air).|
Originally Posted by Jade Ivy
I suggest looking at other options. Here's the tests for the GMA HD.
I have an acer aspire 5253-bz661 with AMD Radeon HD 6310. |
Zacata is also a very low end processor, so low that I'd be concerned about it hindering performance in general. The i5 SandyBridge in the OP's article actually has an extremely beefy processor, along with six gigabytes of RAM... both of which will guarantee they won't be an issue for CoH.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gameboy1234
Just that the FPS numbers were much higher than I would have expected. Unless I misunderstand your settings. If it works OK, then I guess the OP might be good.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
I've found that if you don't have enough graphics power, it doesn't matter how much CPU power you have.
When I play on on parent's PC, 3.2GHz Athlon II X4 with an integrated HD 4200 (1K by 768 in a window, graphics slider midway), the game only uses about 25-30% of the total CPU power. And it is split across multiple cores, with two getting the bulk of it. It's just that without having enough graphics horsepower, the CPU is essentially waiting for the video side to get done.
The opposite can also be true, if you have a lot of graphics horsepower, but if your CPU isn't powerful enough to keep the graphics card "fed", your system is still not reaching it's potential. Of course that only happens with extremely low performance CPUs (single core P4 or Athlon, castrated Core II Pentium 2xxx/4xxx series, etc.).
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Would the following laptop be able to play CoX properly?http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387552,00.asp
I am currently missing a working laptop, and my desktop's graphics card is, to put it kindly "non-existant"
the laptop in the link, the lenovo v570 is available at best buy right now for 550$. I'm just wondering if this would be a buyer's remorse style purchase, or if I'd be able to play CoX on it. I don't need super-ultra-kahmaha-ma-ha settings, but I'd like to see what's going on on "recommended".
So...thoughts?