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

×
Community
The Witcher 2Tried at the Graphics Fixes, A Bit Confused by the Specs(7 posts)(7 posts)
(7 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 17, 2011
Hey there all.

I got up at 3 in the morning here in the States to download this thing and begin testing it out and whatnot. I repeatedly checked the specs beforehand to be sure I had the requirements needed, and I don't really mine playing at paltry settings so long as I can actually play it. Unfortunately I, like many others, have run into a graphical hitch problem. I've done all I can in researching the forum in order to amend these problems, but to no avail it seems. I have downloaded the beta drivers and made sure that the 3D thing is not in them, so I've eliminated that as an issue.

Now, before I post my specs, I remind you that I said I don't mind that it goes at bare minimum. I even turned it DOWN from lowest settings to the bare bottom and still thought the game looked grand. The problem here is that, after doing more research, I cannot for the life of me find out why my computer is seemingly incapable of running it at even such low settings. I know what the required specs are:

· OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista SP2 / Windows 7 (32/64-bit)
· Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
· Memory: 1 GB Windows XP / 2 GB Windows Vista and Windows 7
· Video Card: 512 MB RAM, supporting Pixel Shader 3.0 (Nvidia GeForce 8800 or ATI Radeon HD3850)

These are my specs:

- OS: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition 5.1
- Processor: Intel Core Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
- Video Card: GeForce 9400 GT

Am I just missing something extremely obvious in this equation? It's not the memory, I guarantee you. Is this card that came out after the 8800 inferior to it simply because it was cheap to get?
Posted May 17, 2011
I don't know about the 9400GT vs. 8800 but generally with nvidia, the 9 in front does not mean that the card is better than the one with the 8. The 8800 was a high end card and the 9400 a budget version. So it MAY be that the 9400 is inferior to the 8800.
That just as comment. The problem can be something entirely different.
Posted May 17, 2011
avatar
GoodGuyA: Hey there all.

I got up at 3 in the morning here in the States to download this thing and begin testing it out and whatnot. I repeatedly checked the specs beforehand to be sure I had the requirements needed, and I don't really mine playing at paltry settings so long as I can actually play it. Unfortunately I, like many others, have run into a graphical hitch problem. I've done all I can in researching the forum in order to amend these problems, but to no avail it seems. I have downloaded the beta drivers and made sure that the 3D thing is not in them, so I've eliminated that as an issue.

Now, before I post my specs, I remind you that I said I don't mind that it goes at bare minimum. I even turned it DOWN from lowest settings to the bare bottom and still thought the game looked grand. The problem here is that, after doing more research, I cannot for the life of me find out why my computer is seemingly incapable of running it at even such low settings. I know what the required specs are:

· OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista SP2 / Windows 7 (32/64-bit)
· Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
· Memory: 1 GB Windows XP / 2 GB Windows Vista and Windows 7
· Video Card: 512 MB RAM, supporting Pixel Shader 3.0 (Nvidia GeForce 8800 or ATI Radeon HD3850)

These are my specs:

- OS: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition 5.1
- Processor: Intel Core Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
- Video Card: GeForce 9400 GT

Am I just missing something extremely obvious in this equation? It's not the memory, I guarantee you. Is this card that came out after the 8800 inferior to it simply because it was cheap to get?
You are right; the 9400 GT is inferior to the 8800's because it was made as a cheap entry-level card, while the 8800's were expensive top-of-the line cards for power gamers and number crunchers.

GPUs are sold across a huge range of price and performance points. Just because a card is newer does not mean it is better.

A very rough rule of thumb is that the second digit of the model number tells you what purposes it is suitable for.

nVidia: In the old 4-digit number system, a second digit of 6 indicated entry-level gaming, and a second digit of 8 indicated high-performance gaming. In the new 3-digit number system, a second digit of 4 indicates entry-level, 5 indicates mid-range, and 6 through 8 indicate high performance.

ATI: Look at the second and third digits. A second digit of 6 indicates entry-level gaming, 7 indicates mid-range, and 8 or 9 indicates high performance. The third digit indicates a level of performance within the range of the second digit. There were big steps up in performance from the 3xxx to 4xxx to 5xxx series, but the 6xxx series has been a bit of a fiasco.

These are only rough guidelines. Mobile GPUs are numbered a bit differently, though they still follow the second-digit rule. And you should always investigate exactly what GPU a computer you buy will come with, and just what its performance capabilities are. Salesmen either will not know this or will lie to you.
Post edited May 17, 2011 by cjrgreen
Posted May 17, 2011
The 8800GTX/GTS is indeed far superior to the 9400GT.

Is low settings even unplayable?
Posted May 17, 2011
It's honestly hard for me to tell at times when companies are just naming things for prices sake and such. Back when I bought it, I thought it was top of the line. I know it's outdated by now, but I wouldn't think it was so outdated it just wouldn't run things. It runs the majority of games I have very well. Runs L4D2 at almost max and modded Oblivion at almost max as well.

EDIT: Thank you green. Now it looks like I'm thoroughly screwed for a while.
Post edited May 17, 2011 by GoodGuyA
Posted May 17, 2011
9400 GT is much slower than 8800 GT. I found a simple comparison:

9400 GT:
3DMark 2003 score: 7730
3DMark 2005 score: 4850
3DMark 2006 score: 2530

8800 GT:
3DMark 2003 score: 35230
3DMark 2005 score: 17860
3DMark 2006 score: 12040
Posted May 17, 2011
avatar
GoodGuyA: It's honestly hard for me to tell at times when companies are just naming things for prices sake and such. Back when I bought it, I thought it was top of the line. I know it's outdated by now, but I wouldn't think it was so outdated it just wouldn't run things. It runs the majority of games I have very well. Runs L4D2 at almost max and modded Oblivion at almost max as well.
Well, one nice thing about desktops is that they are upgradeable. If you were to swap that 9400 GT out for a current low-power card like an ATI 5670, you should get medium settings for less than $100 (US) without even having to upgrade your power supply.

The E8400 CPU is no longer state of the art but still one of the best dual cores ever made.
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
The Witcher 2Tried at the Graphics Fixes, A Bit Confused by the Specs(7 posts)(7 posts)
(7 posts)