PC: Can I run it? No, apparently not. Oh wait, yes I can. Wait, whut?

[Wolfram23]

I would really just do 2 things. First, look up a list of cards to see what desktop gpu it would compare to. Probably more like a 5550 for a desktop... then just go by that to see if it meets a game's system requirements - although when they give those they hardly ever seem to take monitor resolution into account. Your resolution is pretty small, being a laptop and all, so it's a bit easier for you system to run games.

On another note, Intel graphics are NOT for gaming at all. Intel graphics are simply meant for 2D stuff, and can only run games at the absolute minimum settings. You need a discrete laptop GPU for gaming, aka a "mobility" card.

However, there is hope! Early next year Intel should be releasing their Sandy Bridge CPUs, the next step up from the current i cores - they're still i cores, just with a die shrink which includes adding a GPU processor on the CPU. In some initial reports, it performs at least 3 or 4 times better than current Intel integrated graphics. We're talking at least as good as the OP's mobility card! Very impressive for on-die grahpics, however, in the desktop market this is a waste of space for enthusiasts. I think combining that with the fairly locked down core, the Sandy Bridge CPUs will be a hit only with laptops and very mainstream systems.

 

[tahrey]

...and this sort of thing is why I simply can't bring myself to give a crap about PC gaming any more. It's too complex.

Console: attach leads, insert disc, get a gaming experience not actually very far removed from the PC one any more. On a machine that costs less than a high end videocard.

 

[Eduku]

I would really just do 2 things. First, look up a list of cards to see what desktop gpu it would compare to. Probably more like a 5550 for a desktop... then just go by that to see if it meets a game's system requirements - although when they give those they hardly ever seem to take monitor resolution into account. Your resolution is pretty small, being a laptop and all, so it's a bit easier for you system to run games.

On another note, Intel graphics are NOT for gaming at all. Intel graphics are simply meant for 2D stuff, and can only run games at the absolute minimum settings. You need a discrete laptop GPU for gaming, aka a "mobility" card.

However, there is hope! Early next year Intel should be releasing their Sandy Bridge CPUs, the next step up from the current i cores - they're still i cores, just with a die shrink which includes adding a GPU processor on the CPU. In some initial reports, it performs at least 3 or 4 times better than current Intel integrated graphics. We're talking at least as good as the OP's mobility card! Very impressive for on-die grahpics, however, in the desktop market this is a waste of space for enthusiasts. I think combining that with the fairly locked down core, the Sandy Bridge CPUs will be a hit only with laptops and very mainstream systems.

Yeah, the only problem is that I have no idea what other cards my one compares to. Sometimes the system requirements will say 'Nvidia M320 (not an actual card, just an example) or better' and I'll just be confused. I guess I'll need to research that stuff, but I'm still a bit fuzzy in that area.

And yeah, I've got a mobility card, dedicated VRAM and whatnot. I don't have a wealth of knowledge on cards, but I know enough to keep the hell away from Intel ones.

 

[Wolfram23]

Well that laptop review site linked above has a lot of good comparisons for mobility cards so you can see where you sit on the mobile hierarchy.

Check this chart out, you're sitting in the 10th tier which really isn't bad.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gts-450-radeon-hd-4850-gpu,2732-7.html

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are a few things to keep in mind when determining if your system can run a game.

The first is, does the game make use of graphical features that your card simply cannot support. An example is pixel shaders (allowing for, among other things, lighting to be calculated at the pixel rather than the vertex, edge or face level), and any card made before late 2005 simply will not support this feature. If you find such a feature, does the game require said feature - in other words, can another, lesser feature be used instead.

The second is, does your system have sufficient free processing capacity to run the game? This is far trickier than the above to determine as actual available system resources vary. For example, if you have a multi core system, do you have an OS that allows all the cores to be tapped? If not, does the game itself support multiple processors? In many cases, (especially with an older OS like XP and/or older games), a multi-core system will have sufficient theoritical resources, but said resources might be tied up elsewhere.

The third is, does the system have sufficient memory to run the game? At the very minimum, this often means available memory sufficient to load the executable, the textures and models in current use, sounds that are commonly played, the current level and, a pair of data structures who's size is equivalent to the horizontal resolution multiplied by the vertical resolution multiplied by the total color depth.

Any one of these three considerations can, potentially, ruin a game that you could otherwise enjoy. One might have a bleeding edge video card for example but have insufficient CPU horsepower leading to stuttering framerates as your system struggles to process game logic.

One thing that makes this especially tricky is the case of integrated video. The chipset itself might have the power and features necessary to cover consideration 1 and the base system itself might have sufficient power to cover consideration 2 but the "card" itself often has very limited storage capacity and, instead, uses a portion of system memory for video purposes. This often leads to ambiguity where you cannot know for certain based upon the system specs if your system will run a game or not as the card's base memory may be insufficient for the game's purposes and yet you share sufficient memory to overcome the problem. Another thing that makes this difficult is that, technically, if your system is capable of processing the information the game requires at all, your system can run said game. At this point, it becomes a question of what level of performance is considered acceptable.

For example, Doom, when initially released, ran best on a 486 or better. The game would still "run" on a 386, but you were forced to play in a postage stamp window. The result was, very nearly, unplayable even though it worked by most any measure. Would one say then that a 486 was required as this provided maximum functionality, or would you say a 386 was required reasoning that the game still ran in spite of the diminished user experience?

 

[Vilcus]

Never had a problem with it. Every game it said I would have trouble running, I had trouble running. I even tried SC2 on a guest pass just so I could test it, and the result was as predicted. Even on lowest settings it moved at a snail's pace. I trust it, but that's because my system is a fossil, so it recognizes every piece of crappy equipment in there. It might not recognize all of your system specs, and that might cause it to return a false verdict.

The funny thing about not being able to run SC2 on lowest for me is the fact that I meet all of the feature requirements for my video card, but my card simply isn't powerful enough. That made me angry, and made me chuckle a little bit.

 

[emptee]

Wait, some people have problems with running games on PC? Its not that I'm bragging about my super PC cause its not super, ffs I bought it 2 years ago, but I can run everything I try on Ultra-hight, even Crysis (k, high on Crysis but bear with me).And still, after 2 years I can crank any game I get on high. This is an anomaly for the PC gaming world, nothing in the video game world is improving. The problem with latest PC games is that the majority are console ports or made simtanously for all platforms. Since you cant upgrade any hardware for consoles the specs and requirements are all the same, ALL THE TIME. And the thing is, any mediocre PC can chew-spit-rinse PS3/XBOX360 hardware in a second. What Im trying to say, STOP HOLDING US BACK SONY AND MICROSOFT!

 

[no oneder]

Wait, some people have problems with running games on PC? Its not that I'm bragging about my super PC [...]

Yes you are.

OT: Those sites are not the best to try.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

this seems to be pretty much solved for you, so I'll share an anecdote about "recommended specs"... My PC could play Oblivion, with upgraded Textures mods, the maximum resolution that I could possibly make it, at probably around 40fps.. which isn't top of the line, but it's definitely serviceable.

I later tried to install Knights of the Old Republic, and it was like "Wait wait wait wait.. you want to play THIS game? With THAT video card? Pah!! PAH HA HA HA!! HEY EVERYONE!! CHECK OUT THIS LOSER!! HE WANTS TO PLAY THIS GAME WITH THAT VIDEO CARD!! Yeah, what a joke, get out of here you loser."

It still let me install the game, but it ran like crap.

So, don't always think about System Requirements as set in stone.

haha im sorry, but i did laugh when i read this =P

what card were you usingat the time/are you using?

 

[Eduku]

Well that laptop review site linked above has a lot of good comparisons for mobility cards so you can see where you sit on the mobile hierarchy.

Check this chart out, you're sitting in the 10th tier which really isn't bad.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gts-450-radeon-hd-4850-gpu,2732-7.html

I have a feeling that page might be pretty useful for me in the future. Thanks for the link

 

[Irridium]

Systemrequirementslab said I didn't even get up to the minimum requirements for Civilization 5.

Got my settings on medium-high(except water, which is low) and it runs fine with no slow-downs.

 

[Pielikey]

download some demos and give it a go

^This. Demos are a great way to test if the game will run on your system, because they are always the same engine and mostly the same content.

 

[tahrey]

Best ask PC questions at the forum I linked, if not you run the risk of getting answers like this drooling, button masher here at the Escapist:

...and this sort of thing is why I simply can't bring myself to give a crap about PC gaming any more. It's too complex.

Console: attach leads, insert disc, get a gaming experience not actually very far removed from the PC one any more. On a machine that costs less than a high end videocard.

lol @ not very far removed from the PC experience. Console-tard gold! XD

Classy, Darkness. Classy.
I've been there through the time when consoles and computers were about equal on power but with the strengths concentrated in very different areas and for different games.

Through the evolution where consoles stopped being just simplistic kids' toys - but the PC was very definitely my platform of choice as it was simply so much better than any tv-pluggable system, and it was fairly easy to spec up a system all told (and I could manage reasonable upgrades on paper round money, even if the core machine was pricey)

...and on to the current situation where a perfectly good system such as the one I'm typing on can be had for next to nothing (but it's useless for anything but emulators, DOSBox and flash coffeebreak games), but for the same money I can buy a games machine with graphics that blow my fucking mind, a variety of interesting control systems (admittedly not the flexibilty of a keyboard, but certainly more comfortable), and very simple setup from the unboxing and connecting-up through to running a new title or getting into an online game, giving a game experience that you can't put a creditcard between the small black (or white) box and a gaming PC unless you spend a quite simply ludicrous amount on your rig.

OK, I haven't been massively active firsthand since the PS2 and Live4Speed Alpha days, but I've kept my eye in looking at what's available in the various scenes, and particularly what my brother - the much more committed gamer of us two - has been getting. He built a gaming PC about 3~4 years ago, which we had trouble getting a suitable PSU for. Hasn't bothered upgrading it since. There hasn't been any point. He's spent the money on X360, PS3, DS instead. The point at which he built that was when I got my laptop, expressly for typing up assignments on the go (I had a proper, souped up desktop of my own) but it quickly became the main one, and the overblown desktop was chucked. Not just bulky, but also too much work and money to keep it current.

So don't you fucking dare call me a drooling, button mashing consoletard. I'm not a cocky 13-year old XBL Halo freak. I don't have any particular vested interest in any platform. They all rise and fall, and occasionally die off. Loyalty is a stupid thing in this arena, I haven't had any since Atari (home computer wing, particularly) kicked the bucket and Sega started going down the tubes. My opinion may well be different from yours, that much is plain. But it's based on the evidence gathered through my own eyes and experience. Said observation tells me that currently the game of keeping up with the latest £300 triple-SLI NVidia whatever-it-is-this-week needing its own power supply is a fools one, and my meagre troth, once my resolve finally breaks, is better pledged to Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft's hardware division if I want bang for my gaming buck.

Well, that or Minecraft. My lappy can just about get a playable speed with the java demo if I put some fog on.

This situation may well change in future, but that's how I see it standing right now. Unless you really need three quad-XGA monitors to play WoW at 120fps.