Sephael said:
I bought it used (1/2 months old) for around 3/4th of the original price. The key to using "medium" settings is to compromise.
I use lower resolution than my native, i usually turn off the shadows or keep them at minimum and turn off AA, as these are the most FPS-hogging settings for me.
Other than that, anything runs fine, e.g. Bulletstorm and Mass Effect 2 on medium settings.
For the reference, I've got a dual core 2.0, 256mb nvidia quadro nvs 320m but running on 8700GT drivers, as it's mostly the same card, and a crappy 5400 HDD (I suppose a 7200rpm would make it much snappier).
Hang on, maybe I misread you. Did you say it was a laptop or a desktop? I figured laptop for some reason, but that doesn't sound like stuff you'd even get in one, let alone for anything like the price you quoted. I can believe it still being able to play contemporary titles as you can probably still find machines with a similar specification right down at the ultrabudget end of the market.
(I mean... my specs vs yours: 1.73 single core (and architecture level at least one, probably two steps down from the "Core"-branded chips), 512mb and 40mb 5400? 4200?rpm disc at time of purchase, and i915 graphics. It's a different planet)
You'd MAYBE have squeaked that in a desktop, if the original owner had forgone the monitor, got a good price, and been generous/vague about what they were knocking off when passing it on to you. In a laptop... no chance. $2000+ alienware maybe, if at all.
BTW 5400 vs 7200 hard disk really doesn't matter unless you get bored very easily by loading times and have a properly high-speed interface, or you're hurting for RAM. I have put a high-speed replacement disc in mine, but that's because I work with a lot of large files and so need something with high continual throughput and slightly quicker random seek times.
I'm surprised that running at less than native resolution makes any difference though, I thought most modern cards had sufficient shaderage to make output rez pretty much irrelevant; it's all the T&L, poly/normal counts, SFX etc that make the massively parallel GPUs work hard. Heck, even I see only the barest difference in FPS between 800x600 and 1024x768 (which is the native rez of the built in screen), almost a 2/3rds increase in pixel area.
So, if I got that wrong, my apologies
