It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
GameRager: I have a Radeon 4670 PCIe 2.0x16 with 1GB ddr3 and the game runs like shite even with a 3.4 Ghzx quad core backing it if I go above 1440x900 resolution.

I lowered the other graphics stuff down but that didn't help much so I set every graphics option to high/on again and kept the scren res down. Still, I shouldn't be getting 20fps(13 in big fights) running at 12xx by 720 resolution.
avatar
doccarnby: I want your computer. I was running it on a 2.1 GHz Dual Core. Running at around 1280x768 I'd venture. It actually wasn't my computer, it was my dad's. My computer could not run the game at all. Unfortunately I can't find the box for the graphics card we put in. All I remember was that the box was blue and had a spider design on it.

Sorry I couldn't be much help. :/
I had a phenom 2.2 ghz quad core and then my parents gifted me awhile back with an amazingly awesome phenom II 3.4 ghz quad core. That thing BLAZES thru all but a few super advanced new titles, and those titles with sucky code.....like Metro2033(good game but the coding is not efficient as it even lags on my rig at 1440x900 w the other graphics options set to high and not ultra high), and it seems this Batman Game.
avatar
GameRager: What's your video card and cpu specs?
avatar
StingingVelvet: GTX 480
Q9550 Quad Processor
4GB 1033 DDR2 RAM

I think I had my old GTX 275 when I played Arkham Asylum though.
Nice.......I see why you could run it though. Better video card(ddr5 or ddr4 in that gtx 275? and how much?), and more/faster ram(I have 3GB of like ddr2 6xx or 8xx speed)

What's the speed of your cpu btw, as well?
Post edited November 30, 2010 by GameRager
avatar
GameRager: at 1440x900 w the other graphics options set to high and not ultra high)


Yeah... my own computer is lucky if it can run a game from 2005 at low setting with a resolution of 640x480. That's why I tend not to buy very many modern games and when I do, run it on my dad's computer, which I described above. Generally after installing it and then cursing at it for running at single digit FPS even though I turned setting down so low it looked like a Quake mod (Call of Duty 4 I'm looking at you).
avatar
GameRager: at 1440x900 w the other graphics options set to high and not ultra high)
avatar
doccarnby:

Yeah... my own computer is lucky if it can run a game from 2005 at low setting with a resolution of 640x480. That's why I tend not to buy very many modern games and when I do, run it on my dad's computer, which I described above. Generally after installing it and then cursing at it for running at single digit FPS even though I turned setting down so low it looked like a Quake mod (Call of Duty 4 I'm looking at you).
Lucky for me I can run alot of stuff at max options and res for my screen....but that's maybe to 2008....except for the odd non optimised title with buggy code and the like, and maybe accounts for 95% of everything pre 2009 I can play that way.

The stuff from 2009-2010? I can maybe run 75% or so, with the rest being either too demanding so as to be unplayable or too buggy to run properly. More games have come out bugridden lately it seems. I mean, if my game BEATS the game's RECOMMENDED optimal requirements by a mile and still cannot run the game outside of a super low screen resolution then the game has to be buggy as shite.
I played it in 3D with a GTX 260 at a fantastic framerate. Great port, great game, sucks if you had problems but it's an excellent piece of work, one of the best games I've played in some time.

EDIT: I should mention that I use a Phenom II 3.2 quad processor which worked great, haven't had a problem with it for anything.
Post edited December 01, 2010 by PhoenixWright
avatar
GameRager: What's the speed of your cpu btw, as well?
Stock, 2.8Ghz. I know it's a simple process to up it to 3.4Ghz or so even on air cooling but I just don't like the idea of it. I never have bugs or crashes and I attribute a lot of that to keeping my system at stock.
avatar
GameRager: What's the speed of your cpu btw, as well?
avatar
StingingVelvet: Stock, 2.8Ghz. I know it's a simple process to up it to 3.4Ghz or so even on air cooling but I just don't like the idea of it. I never have bugs or crashes and I attribute a lot of that to keeping my system at stock.
Mine is stock as well. It could probably run at 3.8 Ghz with air cooling but I don't want to tinker with it as last time I tried upping it a bit at a time the system crashed and rebooted....even with the temps still within safe ranges.

P.S. I think it's either the game doesn't play well with amd quad cores in general(some say it does) or that my video card isn't good enough.....which i'm guessing is due to unoptimised code(same as the reason for amd problems) as the card beats recommended spec by a fair bit.

As a side note I wish I could afford water cooling, and had the nerve to install it.....it looks cool and seems good in theory for stable computing/gaming at fast specs.
My computer (nVidia 8800GT 512MB, Core2 Extreme QX9650 3.00GHz, 4GB DDR2 800MHz) runs Arkham Asylum maxed out (except for antialiasing) at 1680x1050 quite happily, with only a few slowdowns in complicated scenes.
avatar
DreadMoth: My computer (nVidia 8800GT 512MB, Core2 Extreme QX9650 3.00GHz, 4GB DDR2 800MHz) runs Arkham Asylum maxed out (except for antialiasing) at 1680x1050 quite happily, with only a few slowdowns in complicated scenes.
It seems alot of people with no issues are using intel processors. I read amd multicores may have hangups with the game......making it require much better hardware then normal to run it at higher settings.

I'm guessing this is my issue, and my video card could use an update anyways so i'll put off playing it for the most part until I get a better card.(CPU is pretty fast so that's ok for now)
avatar
GameRager: I mean, if my game BEATS the game's RECOMMENDED optimal requirements by a mile and still cannot run the game outside of a super low screen resolution then the game has to be buggy as shite.
my first port of call there would be gpu drivers, a few outdated files can make all the difference
avatar
GameRager: I mean, if my game BEATS the game's RECOMMENDED optimal requirements by a mile and still cannot run the game outside of a super low screen resolution then the game has to be buggy as shite.
avatar
Aliasalpha: my first port of call there would be gpu drivers, a few outdated files can make all the difference
Up to date.........and the card beats the specs, even the recommended ones. Yet when I lower the resolution to like 8xx by xxx it runs at 60 fps. Anything above that and the game slows to around 20-25 fps, then slower as I raise the res till the game is at like 10-15fps.
Then it's pretty obvious Batman dislikes you.
:( ..
I'm SO looking forward to this damn game, Arkham Asylum was goddamn awesome.

I ran it at 1920 x 1080 at max settings with 8x AA and max shadows at pretty much 60fps, maybe 40 at the worst...

GTX460 768mb, i7 930 and dual core quad at 2.8ghz

ALL stock - nothing overclocked at all, I'm the same as StingingVelvet - I never have problems and believe that is because I don't fuck around with my gear.