What heatsink do you have that is so hard to remove? Is it not a simple heatsink and fan to make a traditional air-cooling setup?
A Core i7 860 is actually a better processor than a Core i7 930. It will run faster due to the more aggressive turbo boost, while using less power. It will also have lower PCI Express latency, since the PCI Express 2.0 controller is built into the CPU die. The reason to buy the Core i7 930 is for the X58 chipset, mainly for multiple video cards, or if if you need three memory channels, in case 8 GB of memory isn't enough. (Or 16 GB, now that 4 GB modules have come down in price.) Well, that and people figuring that the 930 must be better because 930 > 860.
Also, if it doesn't have a good solid state drive, then it isn't a high end computer, regardless of what else it has.
I've been waiting for SSD's to come down in price. When I built this in April, it wasn't in the budget. My friends have gotten them, and have regaled me with the tales of awe with regards to boot and load times. I'm planning on picking one up probably around the middle of next year. Or if a quality one is available on Black Friday I might hit it up. :]
When it came down to the 800 VS 900 series i7's, I really was on the verge of getting the 860/870. The benchmarks certainly favored it. But between the fantastic deal on the 930 and motherboard that leveled them and my silly overconsideration of headroom for the X58 chipset, I ended up going that way. The multiple video card part of the chipset was also a nudge in that direction. Again, a matter of "in the not-so-distant future..." that I sometimes lend too much thought to. >_>
As for the secondary rig, well...it's one of those copper Zalman heatsinks that's so big you could bludgeon someone to death with it. Getting it on and off is something of a task, because it's now in a more cramped, utilitarian case (it was fine in my Antec 900, but that's now occupied by the new machine). It's not impossible, just something I'll really have to want.
I do appreciate your input on the matter. For now I'm going to abstain, but if the itch strikes me I'm probably going to snatch the 6800 unless the 8400 comes down hard (which I don't expect, from my Northwood experience).
$90 after rebate for 60 GB. And it's a real 60 GB (well, 59.6 GB, which is within rounding), not the 60 GB that other manufacturers would label as 64 GB. This was back before OCZ decided that they had to play hard drive manufacturer shenanigans, because everyone else selling SSDs was doing so.
The OCZ Agility isn't as fast as some of the newer ones, but it still performs like a good SSD ought to.
I do expect to see prices continue falling in the near future with the transition to 24-27 nm NAND flash. There are also some new SSD controllers on the way, though the history of SSDs is a cautionary tale about buying a new SSD controller right when it launches. But the real jump is from hard drives to the SSDs on the market now. Once something really isn't the bottleneck, adding more speed doesn't make such a difference.
Wow, that is a fantastic price for a 60GB SSD. I could easily keep Windows and a handful of my most commonly used games on that. Or would you recommend relegating it purely to the games for load times, given the space Windows takes up? Boot time really isn't a killer for me, if that's the main impact. I just take a few seconds to change my birds' food or some such. :]
I've only recently begun to look into and consider SSDs, so I'm not hugely familiar with them. I did read your informative post on them a week or so, ago.
The programs that benefit the most from the speed of an SSD are those that do lots of small file reads and writes. Browsers do a ton of that. Operating systems do quite a lot, too, in shuffling things between a page file and system memory. It's not just boot times. It's the whole system being more responsive because you're not waiting for the OS to move 64 KB to a page file at random times. I'd put other small programs on the SSD, too, because 20 MB here and 50 MB there doesn't add up to much, even if you won't see much of a performance improvement for some programs.
How much games benefit varies wildly from one game to another. Some games try to load things in the background so that you don't have to sit at loading screens. Some are pretty good about it, and manage to prevent a hard drive from being a problem. Some aren't as good at it, and can cause hitching at bad times while you're waiting for game to grab something off of the hard drive in the middle of combat. An SSD will fix that entirely.
Some games have constant loading screens that can be greatly shortened by an SSD, while others make you wait to load the initial game and then nothing afterwards because everything in the whole game fits neatly in system memory. How important shorter loading screens are is a matter of opinion. Some people rail against the existence of loading screens at all, so I think they really need an SSD. In the case of Champions Online, an SSD makes most of the loading bar go pretty quickly, but it stops near the end while it had to download the current information for the zone it is loading. I timed launching the game (from clicking play to the character selection screen being loaded and ready to go) as taking 18 seconds with a 120 GB OCZ Agility. You can time it on your own computer for comparison.
There's also the issue of installation size. Games like Aion or Final Fantasy XIV take in excess of 20 GB, and you're not going to fit very many such games on an SSD. But that varies wildly from game to game. On my own computer, Champions Online is 3.7 GB, Guild Wars is 3.4 GB, League of Legends is 2.3 GB, Civilization 4 is 1.5 GB, Europa Universalis 3 is 0.6 GB, and the Uncharted Waters Online beta is 5.9 GB.
What I personally did was to get a 120 GB SSD and no hard drive at all. This way, I don't have to worry about what goes where. I don't have pirated music or movies, so I don't really need that much space. I also don't have the constant hum of a hard drive spinning.
If you do get the SSD, it will probably come with firmware version 1.5 or later. If it's something earlier, you should update it immediately before installing anything on it. The OCZ Agility has been on the market for well over a year, so the firmware is mature by now.
I have a pentium 4 with Windows XP Service Pack 3 on it, 2GB RAM, and ATI RADEON 9250 as video card.
but when I finished the installation and tried to run the game afteer the patch; the game crack sending an error ticket about this... I don´t take notes abiout the numbers.
But the game didn't start.
Rainmark
I have a pentium 4 with Windows XP Service Pack 3 on it, 2GB RAM, and ATI RADEON 9250 as video card.
but when I finished the installation and tried to run the game afteer the patch; the game crack sending an error ticket about this... I don´t take notes abiout the numbers.
But the game didn't start.
Rainmark
You've got a very old video card that doesn't support DirectX 9 at all, let alone DirectX 9.0c. Most modern games will not run on that video card. You need a new computer.
So if I'm reading all this correctly I can't play CO because I'm trying to run it on a MacBook. All of the info presented is for PC users only. If I'm wrong then why won't the game download?
So if I'm reading all this correctly I can't play CO because I'm trying to run it on a MacBook. All of the info presented is for PC users only. If I'm wrong then why won't the game download?
Boogie
If it's a really old Mac, then no, it won't run. If it's a newer Mac, then it's a PC with a different OS. Find out what hardware you have and it might be able to run if you install Windows.
yo Pax youre avatar is cool and awesooome i well finish downloading via torrent after 30 minutes from now i am downloading from another website hope it works
No cuze the torrent version is 3.3 GB and i can see the name......he is like that : Champions online FC.15.20110111a.2 Hope its the current version
No, that's not the current version.
The current version is FC.15.2011.0225.15. It looks like that version number parses out to "2011, February 25th"; yours to "2011, January 11th". Not sure why yours ends in "__a.2", either. Regardless
And, since it may matter: the current version of the Launcher is CL_2011_01_23_17_18 ... so that may update first.
I have a Nvidia Geforce 6150SE nForce 430.
The first time I played this game the quality was low.
It said that I should install a new driver.
So, I installed a new driver, but the quality of the game even more worse than before.
Can someone please tell me what to do??
Depending on what you have, you may be able to upgrade your system by getting a real video card. Something like this would be cheap, low enough power to probably not fry anything, and still give passable gaming performance:
On the other hand, depending on what else you have in the computer, you may just need to replace it outright. You're running low end integrated graphics from six generations ago in video card terms, and that's way below the minimum system requirements for this game. A lot of people running those graphics couldn't even get the game to nominally run at all.
You could attach your DxDiag file to show what you've got. Also find out what case and power supply you have, and list them here.
Description: Apparaat voor digitale uitvoer (SPDIF) (High Definition Audio-apparaat)
Default Sound Playback: No
Default Voice Playback: No
Hardware ID: HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_10EC&DEV_0662&SUBSYS_10438290&REV_1001
Manufacturer ID: 1
Product ID: 100
Type: WDM
Driver Name: HdAudio.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.5840.16387 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 09:36:49, 235520 bytes
Other Files:
Driver Provider: Microsoft
HW Accel Level: Basic
Cap Flags: 0xF1F
Min/Max Sample Rate: 100, 200000
Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 1, 0
Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 0, 0
HW Memory: 0
Voice Management: No
EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: No, No
I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: No, No
Sensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No
Sound Capture Devices
Description: Microfoon (High Definition Audio-apparaat)
Default Sound Capture: Yes
Default Voice Capture: Yes
Driver Name: HdAudio.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.5840.16387 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 09:36:49, 235520 bytes
Cap Flags: 0x1
Format Flags: 0xFFFFF
Description: Microfoon (USB-audioapparaat)
Default Sound Capture: No
Default Voice Capture: No
Driver Name: USBAUDIO.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.6000.16386 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 10:55:04, 71552 bytes
Cap Flags: 0x1
Format Flags: 0xFFFFF
Well i just got this game. Saw it was free to play. I dunno if it's just the starting area. But on the graphics i'm set to recommended (one slider from best visuals) and man does it chug.
It really should not though, i have
1055t 2.8 6 core amd
8 gigs of dd3 1600
and a sapphire 6850.
I've played games that look far better with just as many online people around me at max graphics and it's smooth?
I exceed all what is in the first post. So is it just the starting area since it's probably busier than most areas?
Note that the "recommended" settings are always the default, but vary greatly depending on what hardware you have. In order to make meaningful comparisons, you have to edit the advanced video settings.
Note that "can run the game just fine" does not necessarily mean "can run the game smoothly on max settings". You can always turn up settings high enough to make the game choke, no matter what your hardware is. But it does mean you should be able to turn up the important settings quite a ways and make the game look decently nice.
First, make sure you have the right video driver installed. At the moment, that would be Catalyst 11.3, though Catalyst 11.4 is probably coming soon.
Next, make sure you aren't overdoing it with absurdly high video settings. Assuming you don't have an outlandishly high monitor resolution (basically, anything above 1920x1200), try turning off dynamic lighting, SSAO, depth of field, and shadows, and setting anti-aliasing to 4x MSAA with MLAA off. (The anti-aliasing types are set in Catalyst Control Center.) You should be able to basically max everything else in the in-game settings. That should give you settings that you can run the game pretty well at, and then you can turn things up or down from there to suit your taste.
If that still isn't enough to get a smooth frame rate, then try turning on safe mode in the launcher, and see what happens. That will force all video settings to the minimum, which should make the game run well.
It just seems odd to me. The controls feel laggy. Maybe they are supposed to be like that. But when i start to run it takes half a second before anything happens.
I've been playing PC games for over a decade now, i guess some games just are not optimized the best. With my computer i shouldn't have to be turning stuff like draw distance down. I should be able to handle pretty much anything. Heck, i played the crysis 2 MP beta, and that was a beta, and i ran that game maxed and it was smooth as butter. I can run LOTRO fully maxed and when there are 50 other players on screen i still get 30 FPS and that game looks beautiful.
And i usually turn stuff like AA off as i find that I don't really notice any difference but it seems to eat up the most FPS. Also, i'm running at 1680*1050
Just played for around an hour this morning. I suspect that it was server side last night. Looks like there are about the same amount of people running around but it's smooth now. Much more responsive.
So if I'm reading all this correctly I can't play CO because I'm trying to run it on a MacBook. All of the info presented is for PC users only. If I'm wrong then why won't the game download?
Boogie
The Star Trek Online Wineskin Wrapper in the forum post linked below runs Champions Online fantastic for me... I play it without Windows all the time :-)
Having troublle playing the game. I understand that if you have a card you add a 0 to the thousands place but even when i do.. i still cant find my driver on the ATI website. this computer is prehistoric (thank god its not mine) and goes for the memory and processor, i dont understand what im looking for. heres my dxdiag.
Prepare to laugh.
System Information
Time of this report: 6/2/2011, 11:11:10
Machine name: HOME
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.101209-1647)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Compaq Presario 061
System Model: EL426AA-ABA SR1710NX NA610
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3400+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.0GHz
Memory: 958MB RAM
Page File: 788MB used, 1525MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode
Display Devices
Card name: ATI RADEON XPRESS 200 Series
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Chip type: ATI Radeon Xpress Series (0x5954)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5954&SUBSYS_2A26103C&REV_00
Display Memory: 256.0 MB
Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
Driver Name: ati2dvag.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6925 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 2/10/2010 22:45:14, 325120 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: No
WHQL Date Stamp: None
VDD: n/a
Mini VDD: ati2mtag.sys
Mini VDD Date: 2/11/2010 01:38:10, 3565056 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-1A14-11CF-8168-2C0AA1C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x1002
Device ID: 0x5954
SubSys ID: 0x2A26103C
Revision ID: 0x0000
Revision ID: 0x0000
Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV8_B ModeWMV8_A ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A
Deinterlace Caps: {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{552C0DAD-CCBC-420B-83C8-74943CF9F1A6}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
Registry: OK
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
DDraw Test Result: Not run
D3D7 Test Result: Not run
D3D8 Test Result: Not run
D3D9 Test Result: Not run
i dont care if i have to run it on lowest graphics. speaking of that even when i do i get like 3 fps
I've seen people show up here with much worse systems than that. Of course, they showed up complaining that they couldn't get the game to do anything other than crash.
One problem, as you are well aware, is your graphics. You're running some ancient integrated graphics that don't support DirectX 9.0c, but only DirectX 9. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that completely failed to run the game at all, but you said you managed to get a few frames per second out of it. If you want the game to be playable at all on those graphics, you're going to need to stick all normal-in game settings at the absolute minimum.
But that likely won't be enough. You're probably also going to need to turn the monitor resolution way, way down. You can do that using the /renderscale command. For example, try "/renderscale 0.5" (type it in the chat without quotes while you're in-game) and see how your frame rates look. If that's not good enough, then replace 0.5 by 0.25 or 0.2 or whatever. You can reduce the load on the graphics to next to nothing that way. The drawback is that it will look absolutely terrible.
But that's only the graphics, which are far from your only problem here. It looks like your processor is basically a cut down single core Athlon 64. Even at absolute minimum graphics, you'll be capped at 10-15 frames per second in the busier areas, because that's all that your processor can handle. I wouldn't call that playable.
Memory is likely another concern. Windows XP is light enough on memory that if you have nothing else running in the background and low enough settings, 1 GB of system memory might be enough. I'm not sure, as I haven't tested it.
If you want the game to run well, though, then you're going to need a new computer. Here's my advice if you want to go that route:
The good news is that computers are cheaper than the used to be. You can get a passable gaming system for around $600 if you keep your old peripherals.
I could run the game perfect back in January-February and have no trouble running recent games with ultra low settings but for some reason i cant play CO.And yes all my video drivers are up to date.
I just redownloaded on steam now and got a problem.
When i try to play it loads fine,i get to the cryptic loading screen and 3/4 of the way the screen goes black.I hear the music and see the cursor but see nothing but black.The only way i can quit is Ctrl+Alt_Dlt and when i close the game my screen looks screwed up.Everything looks distorted and there are flickering pixels.
There's your problem: unsupported hardware. Your ancient integrated graphics supports the right API, so it's not a, full stop, no chance of running type of situation. But performance is vastly below what you'd want for gaming.
The trouble with unsupported hardware is not necessarily that it flatly will not run, but that it won't reliably run. Maybe it will run at one point, but then for complicated reasons, a patch that makes relatively minor changes will make it no longer run on that hardware.
The good news is that your video card is likely the only problem. It would be good to post the rest of your DxDiag file before upgrading anything, just in case there are other problems. But you could probably pick up a cheap video card like this and have a system that will run nearly any game on the market at moderate settings.
In addition to being cheap, that card is also low power, so you won't need to replace the case or power supply. It should offer something on the order of 20 times the graphical performance of the integrated graphics that you have now, as well as having a far more modern feature set.
Just to share my experience: my computer is a Pentium E2140 (I think) with 2 cores and a speed of 1.6 Ghz while my video card is an Nvidia GEForce 9500 GT. When I tried the test here and on another website, the result is always failed. However, by the time I ran the game it is going smoothly so far on default settings. I guess I will encounter problems by the time I engage in PVP.
Smooth is a matter of degree. In the busier areas, you're probably not breaking 30 frames per second, and I wouldn't call that smooth. Playable, perhaps, but not smooth.
Smooth is a matter of degree. In the busier areas, you're probably not breaking 30 frames per second, and I wouldn't call that smooth. Playable, perhaps, but not smooth.
In the busier areas, I turn everything in the video options down to min level and optional things like bloom and suchlike off. Works fine after that. Once I'm done in the busier areas, I turn it back up to the levels I like.
In the busier areas, I turn everything in the video options down to min level and optional things like bloom and suchlike off. Works fine after that. Once I'm done in the busier areas, I turn it back up to the levels I like.
You can do that if the problem is an inadequate video card. That doesn't accomplish much if the problem is an inadequate processor. There's no hardware reason why you couldn't pair a Zacate E-350 APU with a GeForce GTX 580. But if you did, you'd get about 20 frames per second in the busier areas almost no matter what you turned your video settings to, because that would be all that the processor could offer, and making the video card half idle or 90% idle wouldn't change that.
Smooth is a matter of degree. In the busier areas, you're probably not breaking 30 frames per second, and I wouldn't call that smooth. Playable, perhaps, but not smooth.
I'll try to see up to what extent my system could endure in playing this game. I don't think I'll be meeting that many people in this game since I'm from the other side of the globe.
Anyways, I'm glad that I'm able to run the game at least. After I've done the test in your thread I was like "I've downloaded this game for 3 days for nothing?"
Just to share my experience: my computer is a Pentium E2140 (I think) with 2 cores and a speed of 1.6 Ghz while my video card is an Nvidia GEForce 9500 GT. When I tried the test here and on another website, the result is always failed. However, by the time I ran the game it is going smoothly so far on default settings. I guess I will encounter problems by the time I engage in PVP.
I've modified the original post to basically say, I wouldn't call that playable, but some people might. You're certainly not in "game won't run" territory, but that's going to be awfully choppy. The video card is all right for low settings. You should be able to pick a few things selectively to turn up from the minimum, while still being mainly processor-bound. I'd recommend prioritizing high lighting quality, as that makes a huge difference in how the game looks. Maybe you can set view distances to 100%, too.
I've modified the original post to basically say, I wouldn't call that playable, but some people might. You're certainly not in "game won't run" territory, but that's going to be awfully choppy. The video card is all right for low settings. You should be able to pick a few things selectively to turn up from the minimum, while still being mainly processor-bound. I'd recommend prioritizing high lighting quality, as that makes a huge difference in how the game looks. Maybe you can set view distances to 100%, too.
Yep. Made a few adjustments to my graphics settings like getting rid of shadows, among other things. Slightly choppy on some areas, but still manageable.
And one more thing, loading time may take some time compared to your system, especially if you are spawning to a very populated area.
Hello all. I plan on purchasing a new PC soon and was wondering...
I am thinking of purchasing an HP with a quad processor with a Radeon HD 4200 video card.
With these specs in mind, would this be optimal for running the game? I single out Videocard and Processor specs because those factors have caused my current PC to run the game slowly. Any help would be appreciated.
HD 4200 is really quite low end. On the ATI/AMD side you should be looking at a 6850 and above, and on the nVidia side I think a GTS 550 and above. You can google some benchmarks to give you an idea.
Hello all. I plan on purchasing a new PC soon and was wondering...
I am thinking of purchasing an HP with a quad processor with a Radeon HD 4200 video card.
With these specs in mind, would this be optimal for running the game? I single out Videocard and Processor specs because those factors have caused my current PC to run the game slowly. Any help would be appreciated.
For starters, there is no such thing as a "Radeon HD 4200" video card. The 4200 series is integrated graphics, not a discrete card. It's heavily based on the GPU chip in the 3400 series, which is the low end GPU chip from three generations ago. It will run the game, but you'd need to turn the graphical settings to the minimum.
If you're getting a new computer, then check this thread:
You can get a passable gaming computer for $600 excluding peripherals. But you can't get it from HP. If you can't or won't build your own, then you're far better off getting something built to order by a company that gives you a broad selection in components. HP gives you a few choices, but that's pretty thin, and often it's a case of, you have several bad choices and no good ones.
A GeForce GT 220 should be able to run the game at moderate settings. Hopefully you got the proper DDR3 version rather than the crippled DDR2 version, but even the latter should run the game just fine, albeit at lower settings.
Curious: Why would a Phenom 2 Quad Core score only slightly higher than an Intel I3 dual core? Is CO not really making full use of 4 core CPUs or something? It seems to use all 4 of my cores according to various monitoring programs, even if it doesn't use more than 60-70% of the CPU's total power.
Curious: Why would a Phenom 2 Quad Core score only slightly higher than an Intel I3 dual core? Is CO not really making full use of 4 core CPUs or something? It seems to use all 4 of my cores according to various monitoring programs, even if it doesn't use more than 60-70% of the CPU's total power.
Quaternion commented in another post that CO only uses about two and a half cores, and in addition to that, the Phenom II has been struggling for a while against the newer Intel iX architectures. AMD hasn't really been competitive since the Core 2 series, when Intel had a less overwhelming edge. The upcoming AMD Zambezi may change that.
Intel HD Graphics 3000
Intel® Core i5 Processor 2537M
I mean I really have no understanding when it comes to laptops so...
The CPU is probably fine since it's a current generation i5, but you're pretty much hosed by the Intel graphics. Intel couldn't make graphics that could render a paper bag smoothly, so to speak. It may be playable in the most rudimentary sense, but don't count on much. The graphics are poor and the drivers are notoriously lacking from Intel.
For laptops, just make sure it comes with a discrete GPU, and better than say, a nVidia GT 420m or ATi Mobility Radeon 5650. First digit is generation, second digit indicates where it is in the lineup. A new current generation notebook should have at least a GT 540m or Radeon 6550.
Well, the higher end Mobile Llanos like the A8-3510MX and 3530MX should be able to run Champions on moderate-low settings without a discrete GPU. They're still very new though, and I've only seen the 3510MX in one laptop (an HP, blah) and no 3530MX's.
Otherwise, just like HidingCat said, make sure it's got some form of discrete mobile graphics.
The CPU is probably fine since it's a current generation i5, but you're pretty much hosed by the Intel graphics. Intel couldn't make graphics that could render a paper bag smoothly, so to speak. It may be playable in the most rudimentary sense, but don't count on much. The graphics are poor and the drivers are notoriously lacking from Intel.
Thanks for the reply, I'm trying to get a decent laptop and I was recommended these two:
I would prefer to use the smaller Samsung due to it being easier to lug around, but really I want to be able to play champs and other games while on the go. I'm not even sure if the larger one will be able to play champs at all either. So if it's not to much to ask which would be the bettervlaptop for champs?
Samsung no, Sony yes. GT540M on the Sony. Look at the GPU first, CPU second, because if it's new, the CPU is likely to be decent, but the GPU is just as likely to be crap.
Yeah, that Samsung isn't going to cut it. The Sony certainly will.
An Intel CPU and either AMD or nVidia discrete graphics like the nVidia GT 540M or AMD Radeon HD 6650M will do you well. Plenty potent as far as non-hardcore mobile gaming goes. It will put out a fair bit of heat and probably have limited battery though. Switching between the Intel integrated graphics and the nVidia dedicated graphics can be kind of flakey, from what I hear.
If battery life and heat are an issue, and you don't plan to really crank it up, waiting for someone to put out an AMD A8-3530MX or finding a 3510MX based unit will probably be lighter, cooler, and have longer battery, but also be significantly weaker (good enough to play at moderate/low settings, though). Honestly, though, I expect that a lot of laptop makers are going to include dedicated graphics with the 3510MX and 3530MX.
One thing Quaternion's commented on consistently is that this game seems to push nVidia graphics harder than it pushes AMD graphics, for what it's worth.
Curious: Why would a Phenom 2 Quad Core score only slightly higher than an Intel I3 dual core? Is CO not really making full use of 4 core CPUs or something? It seems to use all 4 of my cores according to various monitoring programs, even if it doesn't use more than 60-70% of the CPU's total power.
Suppose that 40% of the processor work is done in one thread, and 10% is done in each of six other threads. You can put that one thread on a core all by itself, but with three cores, you you won't be able to max the other two cores simultaneously. You could get the other cores to 75% utilized, or max out one and use half of the other. If you have four cores, then you can spread the small threads such that you use all of the cores, but again, you can't max out all of the cores simultaneously.
Champions Online does see improvements from adding a third core, but they're not huge improvements. Adding additional cores past three don't benefit the game. Making a game scale well to many cores is hard to do.
Intel HD Graphics 3000
Intel® Core i5 Processor 2537M
I mean I really have no understanding when it comes to laptops so...
Ultra low voltage means ultra low clock speeds, and hence ultra low performance. The game should be playable at minimum settings. Don't get your hopes up for more than that, though.
For laptops, just make sure it comes with a discrete GPU, and better than say, a nVidia GT 420m or ATi Mobility Radeon 5650. First digit is generation, second digit indicates where it is in the lineup. A new current generation notebook should have at least a GT 540m or Radeon 6550.
Or Llano integrated graphics. Radeon HD 6620G integrated graphics isn't far shy of a GeForce GT 540M or Radeon HD 6550M in performance. It is much lower power consumption, however, meaning that low end discrete cards like that are rather pointless.
Discrete switchable graphics between Radeon HD 6620G integrated graphics and Radeon HD 6470M discrete graphics. If you guess from the name that the discrete card is slower than the integrated graphics then you see the problem. The discrete card adds cost, weight, and power consumption. And it offers reduced graphical performance, so it doesn't even give you the performance that is the only justification for getting a discrete card in the first place. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The processor side of Llano isn't terribly impressive. If you're going to get a discrete card, then you want a Sandy Bridge processor, as that will get you far better processor performance.
Comments
A Core i7 860 is actually a better processor than a Core i7 930. It will run faster due to the more aggressive turbo boost, while using less power. It will also have lower PCI Express latency, since the PCI Express 2.0 controller is built into the CPU die. The reason to buy the Core i7 930 is for the X58 chipset, mainly for multiple video cards, or if if you need three memory channels, in case 8 GB of memory isn't enough. (Or 16 GB, now that 4 GB modules have come down in price.) Well, that and people figuring that the 930 must be better because 930 > 860.
Also, if it doesn't have a good solid state drive, then it isn't a high end computer, regardless of what else it has.
When it came down to the 800 VS 900 series i7's, I really was on the verge of getting the 860/870. The benchmarks certainly favored it. But between the fantastic deal on the 930 and motherboard that leveled them and my silly overconsideration of headroom for the X58 chipset, I ended up going that way. The multiple video card part of the chipset was also a nudge in that direction. Again, a matter of "in the not-so-distant future..." that I sometimes lend too much thought to. >_>
As for the secondary rig, well...it's one of those copper Zalman heatsinks that's so big you could bludgeon someone to death with it. Getting it on and off is something of a task, because it's now in a more cramped, utilitarian case (it was fine in my Antec 900, but that's now occupied by the new machine). It's not impossible, just something I'll really have to want.
I do appreciate your input on the matter. For now I'm going to abstain, but if the itch strikes me I'm probably going to snatch the 6800 unless the 8400 comes down hard (which I don't expect, from my Northwood experience).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227461
$90 after rebate for 60 GB. And it's a real 60 GB (well, 59.6 GB, which is within rounding), not the 60 GB that other manufacturers would label as 64 GB. This was back before OCZ decided that they had to play hard drive manufacturer shenanigans, because everyone else selling SSDs was doing so.
The OCZ Agility isn't as fast as some of the newer ones, but it still performs like a good SSD ought to.
I do expect to see prices continue falling in the near future with the transition to 24-27 nm NAND flash. There are also some new SSD controllers on the way, though the history of SSDs is a cautionary tale about buying a new SSD controller right when it launches. But the real jump is from hard drives to the SSDs on the market now. Once something really isn't the bottleneck, adding more speed doesn't make such a difference.
I've only recently begun to look into and consider SSDs, so I'm not hugely familiar with them. I did read your informative post on them a week or so, ago.
How much games benefit varies wildly from one game to another. Some games try to load things in the background so that you don't have to sit at loading screens. Some are pretty good about it, and manage to prevent a hard drive from being a problem. Some aren't as good at it, and can cause hitching at bad times while you're waiting for game to grab something off of the hard drive in the middle of combat. An SSD will fix that entirely.
Some games have constant loading screens that can be greatly shortened by an SSD, while others make you wait to load the initial game and then nothing afterwards because everything in the whole game fits neatly in system memory. How important shorter loading screens are is a matter of opinion. Some people rail against the existence of loading screens at all, so I think they really need an SSD. In the case of Champions Online, an SSD makes most of the loading bar go pretty quickly, but it stops near the end while it had to download the current information for the zone it is loading. I timed launching the game (from clicking play to the character selection screen being loaded and ready to go) as taking 18 seconds with a 120 GB OCZ Agility. You can time it on your own computer for comparison.
There's also the issue of installation size. Games like Aion or Final Fantasy XIV take in excess of 20 GB, and you're not going to fit very many such games on an SSD. But that varies wildly from game to game. On my own computer, Champions Online is 3.7 GB, Guild Wars is 3.4 GB, League of Legends is 2.3 GB, Civilization 4 is 1.5 GB, Europa Universalis 3 is 0.6 GB, and the Uncharted Waters Online beta is 5.9 GB.
What I personally did was to get a 120 GB SSD and no hard drive at all. This way, I don't have to worry about what goes where. I don't have pirated music or movies, so I don't really need that much space. I also don't have the constant hum of a hard drive spinning.
If you do get the SSD, it will probably come with firmware version 1.5 or later. If it's something earlier, you should update it immediately before installing anything on it. The OCZ Agility has been on the market for well over a year, so the firmware is mature by now.
but when I finished the installation and tried to run the game afteer the patch; the game crack sending an error ticket about this... I don´t take notes abiout the numbers.
But the game didn't start.
Rainmark
You've got a very old video card that doesn't support DirectX 9 at all, let alone DirectX 9.0c. Most modern games will not run on that video card. You need a new computer.
I honestly suggest buying a new computer, built fresh, from the ground up.
Boogie
If it's a really old Mac, then no, it won't run. If it's a newer Mac, then it's a PC with a different OS. Find out what hardware you have and it might be able to run if you install Windows.
Be aware, you'll still have to PATCH up to the most current version, and that may take a lot more time spent downloading.
No, that's not the current version.
The current version is FC.15.2011.0225.15. It looks like that version number parses out to "2011, February 25th"; yours to "2011, January 11th". Not sure why yours ends in "__a.2", either. Regardless
And, since it may matter: the current version of the Launcher is CL_2011_01_23_17_18 ... so that may update first.
The first time I played this game the quality was low.
It said that I should install a new driver.
So, I installed a new driver, but the quality of the game even more worse than before.
Can someone please tell me what to do??
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102875
On the other hand, depending on what else you have in the computer, you may just need to replace it outright. You're running low end integrated graphics from six generations ago in video card terms, and that's way below the minimum system requirements for this game. A lot of people running those graphics couldn't even get the game to nominally run at all.
You could attach your DxDiag file to show what you've got. Also find out what case and power supply you have, and list them here.
System Information
Time of this report: 4/4/2011, 12:24:42
Machine name: CP550513-B
Operating System: Windows Vista Home Premium (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_gdr.100218-0019)
Language: Dutch (Regional Setting: Dutch)
System Manufacturer: System manufacturer
System Model: System Product Name
BIOS: BIOS Date: 12/20/07 19:22:34 Ver: 08.00.12
Processor: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor LE-1200, ~2.1GHz
Memory: 894MB RAM
Page File: 1348MB used, 697MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 32bit Unicode
DxDiag Notes
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 2: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
DirectX Debug Levels
Direct3D: 0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)
Display Devices
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_03D0&SUBSYS_82341043&REV_A2
Display Memory: 314 MB
Dedicated Memory: 122 MB
Shared Memory: 191 MB
Current Mode: 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (75Hz)
Monitor: Algemeen PnP-beeldscherm
Driver Name: nvd3dum.dll
Driver Version: 8.17.0012.6099 (English)
DDI Version: 9Ex
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 10/22/2010 08:23:05, 10023528 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp:
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-4090-11CF-2064-38A21CC2C535}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x03D0
SubSys ID: 0x82341043
Revision ID: 0x00A2
Revision ID: 0x00A2
Video Accel:
Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
Sound Devices
Description: Hoofdtelefoon (High Definition Audio-apparaat)
Default Sound Playback: Yes
Default Voice Playback: Yes
Hardware ID: HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_10EC&DEV_0662&SUBSYS_10438290&REV_1001
Manufacturer ID: 1
Product ID: 100
Type: WDM
Driver Name: HdAudio.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.5840.16387 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 09:36:49, 235520 bytes
Other Files:
Driver Provider: Microsoft
HW Accel Level: Basic
Cap Flags: 0xF1F
Min/Max Sample Rate: 100, 200000
Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 1, 0
Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 0, 0
HW Memory: 0
Voice Management: No
EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: No, No
I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: No, No
Sensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No
Description: Apparaat voor digitale uitvoer (SPDIF) (High Definition Audio-apparaat)
Default Sound Playback: No
Default Voice Playback: No
Hardware ID: HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_10EC&DEV_0662&SUBSYS_10438290&REV_1001
Manufacturer ID: 1
Product ID: 100
Type: WDM
Driver Name: HdAudio.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.5840.16387 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 09:36:49, 235520 bytes
Other Files:
Driver Provider: Microsoft
HW Accel Level: Basic
Cap Flags: 0xF1F
Min/Max Sample Rate: 100, 200000
Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 1, 0
Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 0, 0
HW Memory: 0
Voice Management: No
EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: No, No
I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: No, No
Sensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No
Sound Capture Devices
Description: Microfoon (High Definition Audio-apparaat)
Default Sound Capture: Yes
Default Voice Capture: Yes
Driver Name: HdAudio.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.5840.16387 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 09:36:49, 235520 bytes
Cap Flags: 0x1
Format Flags: 0xFFFFF
Description: Microfoon (USB-audioapparaat)
Default Sound Capture: No
Default Voice Capture: No
Driver Name: USBAUDIO.sys
Driver Version: 6.00.6000.16386 (English)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Date and Size: 11/2/2006 10:55:04, 71552 bytes
Cap Flags: 0x1
Format Flags: 0xFFFFF
It really should not though, i have
1055t 2.8 6 core amd
8 gigs of dd3 1600
and a sapphire 6850.
I've played games that look far better with just as many online people around me at max graphics and it's smooth?
I exceed all what is in the first post. So is it just the starting area since it's probably busier than most areas?
Note that "can run the game just fine" does not necessarily mean "can run the game smoothly on max settings". You can always turn up settings high enough to make the game choke, no matter what your hardware is. But it does mean you should be able to turn up the important settings quite a ways and make the game look decently nice.
First, make sure you have the right video driver installed. At the moment, that would be Catalyst 11.3, though Catalyst 11.4 is probably coming soon.
Next, make sure you aren't overdoing it with absurdly high video settings. Assuming you don't have an outlandishly high monitor resolution (basically, anything above 1920x1200), try turning off dynamic lighting, SSAO, depth of field, and shadows, and setting anti-aliasing to 4x MSAA with MLAA off. (The anti-aliasing types are set in Catalyst Control Center.) You should be able to basically max everything else in the in-game settings. That should give you settings that you can run the game pretty well at, and then you can turn things up or down from there to suit your taste.
If that still isn't enough to get a smooth frame rate, then try turning on safe mode in the launcher, and see what happens. That will force all video settings to the minimum, which should make the game run well.
I've been playing PC games for over a decade now, i guess some games just are not optimized the best. With my computer i shouldn't have to be turning stuff like draw distance down. I should be able to handle pretty much anything. Heck, i played the crysis 2 MP beta, and that was a beta, and i ran that game maxed and it was smooth as butter. I can run LOTRO fully maxed and when there are 50 other players on screen i still get 30 FPS and that game looks beautiful.
And i usually turn stuff like AA off as i find that I don't really notice any difference but it seems to eat up the most FPS. Also, i'm running at 1680*1050
Just played for around an hour this morning. I suspect that it was server side last night. Looks like there are about the same amount of people running around but it's smooth now. Much more responsive.
The Star Trek Online Wineskin Wrapper in the forum post linked below runs Champions Online fantastic for me... I play it without Windows all the time :-)
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=76799
You just have to modify it a bit to be Champions Online instead of Star Trek Online, but it runs.
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/
Very handy indeed.
Prepare to laugh.
System Information
Time of this report: 6/2/2011, 11:11:10
Machine name: HOME
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.101209-1647)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Compaq Presario 061
System Model: EL426AA-ABA SR1710NX NA610
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3400+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.0GHz
Memory: 958MB RAM
Page File: 788MB used, 1525MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode
Display Devices
Card name: ATI RADEON XPRESS 200 Series
Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.
Chip type: ATI Radeon Xpress Series (0x5954)
DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5954&SUBSYS_2A26103C&REV_00
Display Memory: 256.0 MB
Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor
Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200
Driver Name: ati2dvag.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6925 (English)
DDI Version: 9 (or higher)
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 2/10/2010 22:45:14, 325120 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: No
WHQL Date Stamp: None
VDD: n/a
Mini VDD: ati2mtag.sys
Mini VDD Date: 2/11/2010 01:38:10, 3565056 bytes
Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-1A14-11CF-8168-2C0AA1C2CB35}
Vendor ID: 0x1002
Device ID: 0x5954
SubSys ID: 0x2A26103C
Revision ID: 0x0000
Revision ID: 0x0000
Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV8_B ModeWMV8_A ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A
Deinterlace Caps: {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{552C0DAD-CCBC-420B-83C8-74943CF9F1A6}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
Registry: OK
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
DDraw Test Result: Not run
D3D7 Test Result: Not run
D3D8 Test Result: Not run
D3D9 Test Result: Not run
i dont care if i have to run it on lowest graphics. speaking of that even when i do i get like 3 fps
One problem, as you are well aware, is your graphics. You're running some ancient integrated graphics that don't support DirectX 9.0c, but only DirectX 9. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that completely failed to run the game at all, but you said you managed to get a few frames per second out of it. If you want the game to be playable at all on those graphics, you're going to need to stick all normal-in game settings at the absolute minimum.
But that likely won't be enough. You're probably also going to need to turn the monitor resolution way, way down. You can do that using the /renderscale command. For example, try "/renderscale 0.5" (type it in the chat without quotes while you're in-game) and see how your frame rates look. If that's not good enough, then replace 0.5 by 0.25 or 0.2 or whatever. You can reduce the load on the graphics to next to nothing that way. The drawback is that it will look absolutely terrible.
But that's only the graphics, which are far from your only problem here. It looks like your processor is basically a cut down single core Athlon 64. Even at absolute minimum graphics, you'll be capped at 10-15 frames per second in the busier areas, because that's all that your processor can handle. I wouldn't call that playable.
Memory is likely another concern. Windows XP is light enough on memory that if you have nothing else running in the background and low enough settings, 1 GB of system memory might be enough. I'm not sure, as I haven't tested it.
If you want the game to run well, though, then you're going to need a new computer. Here's my advice if you want to go that route:
http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=102211
The good news is that computers are cheaper than the used to be. You can get a passable gaming system for around $600 if you keep your old peripherals.
I could run the game perfect back in January-February and have no trouble running recent games with ultra low settings but for some reason i cant play CO.And yes all my video drivers are up to date.
I just redownloaded on steam now and got a problem.
When i try to play it loads fine,i get to the cryptic loading screen and 3/4 of the way the screen goes black.I hear the music and see the cursor but see nothing but black.The only way i can quit is Ctrl+Alt_Dlt and when i close the game my screen looks screwed up.Everything looks distorted and there are flickering pixels.
Heres my info.
System Information
Time of this report: 6/18/2011, 21:23:07
Machine name: USER-PC
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.110408-1633)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: HP-Pavilion
System Model: VG241AA-ABU p6206uk
BIOS: BIOS Date: 02/10/10 19:29:04 Ver: 5.19
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) II X3 425 Processor (3 CPUs), ~2.7GHz
Memory: 3072MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 2816MB RAM
Page File: 1828MB used, 3800MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
DxDiag Version: 6.01.7600.16385 32bit Unicode
DxDiag Notes
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.
DirectX Debug Levels
Direct3D: 0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)
Display Devices
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_03D0&SUBSYS_2A99103C&REV_A2
Display Memory: 1401 MB
Dedicated Memory: 249 MB
Shared Memory: 1151 MB
Current Mode: 1600 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: HP 2009 Series Wide LCD Monitor
Monitor Model: HP 2009
Monitor Id: HWP2827
Native Mode: 1600 x 900(p) (60.000Hz)
Output Type: HD15
Driver Name: nvd3dumx.dll,nvd3dum
Driver File Version: 8.17.0012.7533 (English)
Driver Version: 8.17.12.7533
DDI Version: 9Ex
Driver Model: WDDM 1.0
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 5/25/2011 07:09:12, 15223912 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
WHQL Date Stamp:
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-4090-11CF-E16E-950A1CC2C535}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x03D0
SubSys ID: 0x2A99103C
Revision ID: 0x00A2
Driver Strong Name: oem35.inf:NVIDIA_SetB_Devices.NTamd64.6.0:Section001:8.17.12.7533:pci\ven_10de&dev_03d0
Rank Of Driver: 00E62001
Video Accel:
Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{F9F19DA5-3B09-4B2F-9D89-C64753E3EAAB}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=
D3D9 Overlay: Not Supported
DXVA-HD: Not Supported
DDraw Status: Enabled
D3D Status: Enabled
AGP Status: Enabled
Please help
There's your problem: unsupported hardware. Your ancient integrated graphics supports the right API, so it's not a, full stop, no chance of running type of situation. But performance is vastly below what you'd want for gaming.
The trouble with unsupported hardware is not necessarily that it flatly will not run, but that it won't reliably run. Maybe it will run at one point, but then for complicated reasons, a patch that makes relatively minor changes will make it no longer run on that hardware.
The good news is that your video card is likely the only problem. It would be good to post the rest of your DxDiag file before upgrading anything, just in case there are other problems. But you could probably pick up a cheap video card like this and have a system that will run nearly any game on the market at moderate settings.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102874
In addition to being cheap, that card is also low power, so you won't need to replace the case or power supply. It should offer something on the order of 20 times the graphical performance of the integrated graphics that you have now, as well as having a far more modern feature set.
In the busier areas, I turn everything in the video options down to min level and optional things like bloom and suchlike off. Works fine after that. Once I'm done in the busier areas, I turn it back up to the levels I like.
You can do that if the problem is an inadequate video card. That doesn't accomplish much if the problem is an inadequate processor. There's no hardware reason why you couldn't pair a Zacate E-350 APU with a GeForce GTX 580. But if you did, you'd get about 20 frames per second in the busier areas almost no matter what you turned your video settings to, because that would be all that the processor could offer, and making the video card half idle or 90% idle wouldn't change that.
I'll try to see up to what extent my system could endure in playing this game. I don't think I'll be meeting that many people in this game since I'm from the other side of the globe.
Anyways, I'm glad that I'm able to run the game at least. After I've done the test in your thread I was like "I've downloaded this game for 3 days for nothing?"
I've modified the original post to basically say, I wouldn't call that playable, but some people might. You're certainly not in "game won't run" territory, but that's going to be awfully choppy. The video card is all right for low settings. You should be able to pick a few things selectively to turn up from the minimum, while still being mainly processor-bound. I'd recommend prioritizing high lighting quality, as that makes a huge difference in how the game looks. Maybe you can set view distances to 100%, too.
Yep. Made a few adjustments to my graphics settings like getting rid of shadows, among other things. Slightly choppy on some areas, but still manageable.
And one more thing, loading time may take some time compared to your system, especially if you are spawning to a very populated area.
I am thinking of purchasing an HP with a quad processor with a Radeon HD 4200 video card.
With these specs in mind, would this be optimal for running the game? I single out Videocard and Processor specs because those factors have caused my current PC to run the game slowly. Any help would be appreciated.
For starters, there is no such thing as a "Radeon HD 4200" video card. The 4200 series is integrated graphics, not a discrete card. It's heavily based on the GPU chip in the 3400 series, which is the low end GPU chip from three generations ago. It will run the game, but you'd need to turn the graphical settings to the minimum.
If you're getting a new computer, then check this thread:
http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=102211
You can get a passable gaming computer for $600 excluding peripherals. But you can't get it from HP. If you can't or won't build your own, then you're far better off getting something built to order by a company that gives you a broad selection in components. HP gives you a few choices, but that's pretty thin, and often it's a case of, you have several bad choices and no good ones.
Intel HD Graphics 3000
Intel® Core i5 Processor 2537M
I mean I really have no understanding when it comes to laptops so...
Otherwise, just like HidingCat said, make sure it's got some form of discrete mobile graphics.
Samsung: http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/pc-peripherals/notebook-computers/ultra-portable/NP900X3A-A01UK/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail
Sony: http://www.sony.co.uk/product/vn-f-series/vpcf22m0e
I would prefer to use the smaller Samsung due to it being easier to lug around, but really I want to be able to play champs and other games while on the go. I'm not even sure if the larger one will be able to play champs at all either. So if it's not to much to ask which would be the bettervlaptop for champs?
/finishes typing on a borrowed iPad :O
Samsung no, Sony yes. GT540M on the Sony. Look at the GPU first, CPU second, because if it's new, the CPU is likely to be decent, but the GPU is just as likely to be crap.
An Intel CPU and either AMD or nVidia discrete graphics like the nVidia GT 540M or AMD Radeon HD 6650M will do you well. Plenty potent as far as non-hardcore mobile gaming goes. It will put out a fair bit of heat and probably have limited battery though. Switching between the Intel integrated graphics and the nVidia dedicated graphics can be kind of flakey, from what I hear.
If battery life and heat are an issue, and you don't plan to really crank it up, waiting for someone to put out an AMD A8-3530MX or finding a 3510MX based unit will probably be lighter, cooler, and have longer battery, but also be significantly weaker (good enough to play at moderate/low settings, though). Honestly, though, I expect that a lot of laptop makers are going to include dedicated graphics with the 3510MX and 3530MX.
One thing Quaternion's commented on consistently is that this game seems to push nVidia graphics harder than it pushes AMD graphics, for what it's worth.
Suppose that 40% of the processor work is done in one thread, and 10% is done in each of six other threads. You can put that one thread on a core all by itself, but with three cores, you you won't be able to max the other two cores simultaneously. You could get the other cores to 75% utilized, or max out one and use half of the other. If you have four cores, then you can spread the small threads such that you use all of the cores, but again, you can't max out all of the cores simultaneously.
Champions Online does see improvements from adding a third core, but they're not huge improvements. Adding additional cores past three don't benefit the game. Making a game scale well to many cores is hard to do.
Ultra low voltage means ultra low clock speeds, and hence ultra low performance. The game should be playable at minimum settings. Don't get your hopes up for more than that, though.
Or Llano integrated graphics. Radeon HD 6620G integrated graphics isn't far shy of a GeForce GT 540M or Radeon HD 6550M in performance. It is much lower power consumption, however, meaning that low end discrete cards like that are rather pointless.
If you want to play games on it, then check this thread:
http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=131194
Which is completely stupid, as the whole point of Llano is to use the integrated graphics. For example, look at this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215113
Discrete switchable graphics between Radeon HD 6620G integrated graphics and Radeon HD 6470M discrete graphics. If you guess from the name that the discrete card is slower than the integrated graphics then you see the problem. The discrete card adds cost, weight, and power consumption. And it offers reduced graphical performance, so it doesn't even give you the performance that is the only justification for getting a discrete card in the first place. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The processor side of Llano isn't terribly impressive. If you're going to get a discrete card, then you want a Sandy Bridge processor, as that will get you far better processor performance.