SO, I restate, and quite correctly so, for any new readers of this thread, that Core i3, i5 or i7 equiped machines do not need to ask if they can play this game, the answer is yes. You can play STO.
Self Edited - Not going to get into the "my weeny is bigger then yours" thing about who's resume is more impressive. It's a silly argument. The fact is, you still fail to shoot down the original rule I posted. PC's based on Core i3, i5, and i7 are all 100% garunteed to be able to play this game (unless you purposefully hamstrung the system with a Matrox unGPU), you even admitted so yourself. Any further debate beyond that is pointless.
Furthermore, I expect fully that AMD's Fusion products will be much the same.
no they will run the game not play the game, I myself work in the tech field, and im also a gamer, will a 9800XT run Crysis yes it will, will it play Crysis no it wont. The Core i3 is paired with a ****** IGP in the same class as the 780G and 785G IGP which are not intended for gaming period the end, consider this first of all your access main memory to use these things the cache ram isnt big enough so your reducing system ram to use the page files. As for saying the i5 and i7 can play it, thats not a gurantee, because guess what I worked on a clients brand new PC had a core i7, but guess what came with a Geforce 9300GS OEM card, that card equals at best a 6600 or x700pro in actual preformance, and if you are a gamer you would know the diffrence between running and playing a game, 30FPS is barley acceptable, 60FPS is when a game is truly playable and those IGP's struggle to push 30FPS which means they often dip to well below 30FPS rendering the game unplayable for most normal people.
grosly underpowered to play the game, when my 8800GS lags at 12x10 at medium settings these cards wont keep up, it will be below 30FPS more often than not and unplayable, runing a game and playing a game are two entirly diffrent subjects. I sell computers at my local shop and guess what I don't lie to a client when they ask if our PII X4 965 with 9500GT is gaming computer, I tell them simply the 9500GT is suboptimal for gaming on any new games and if you want to play games you need at least a 9600GT because guess what that is the minimum for playing a game.
True, they are different models with different specs, but if you look at the fillrates (raw performance comparison), they don't very much. It's 3,000 vs. 3,600.
yes but in modern gaming fillrate means alot less today, it comes down more so to the shader clocks, as the games are being shader based not texture based, this is why in newer games an 8600GT with a lower filrate beats a 7900GT its come down to shaders, and 600 fillrate means 1-4 FPS in todays games, 4 years ago it would have been near 10-20% loss but now its about 5% or less thanks to how games are done today. The 12 pipelines running at 500mhz and the vertex shaders going at 540 mean alot more than the actual fillrate thats why shader domain has gone up magnitudes over the rops.
SO, I restate, and quite correctly so, for any new readers of this thread, that Core i3, i5 or i7 equiped machines do not need to ask if they can play this game, the answer is yes. You can play STO.
Wrong!
First you are misleading people by stating that integrated video can play STO. Your definition of "play" seems to be unique, so you shouldn't use it when giving advice. I suspect that everyone else here would equate "play" with something like "run with enough detail and smoothness to be enjoyable".
Second, you assume that no one would have a system with low end dedicated graphics but otherwise high specs. I have built several that way over the years, whether they be aimed at video editing, serving media, crunching SETI, etc. I avoided integrated graphics because I knew I might want to game in the future, and I had better uses for the space on the backplate.
Third, you assume that someone like me would not be here looking for advice on whether my systems will play STO. I am certainly a techie, and a Trekkie, but it has been many years since I did any serious gaming. So guess where I came to start learning about STO and which of my systems could be adapted to it?
So accept that you are wrong. Or don't. But quit giving bad advice.
no they will run the game not play the game, I myself work in the tech field, and im also a gamer, will a 9800XT run Crysis yes it will, will it play Crysis no it wont. The Core i3 is paired with a ****** IGP in the same class as the 780G and 785G IGP which are not intended for gaming period the end, consider this first of all your access main memory to use these things the cache ram isnt big enough so your reducing system ram to use the page files. As for saying the i5 and i7 can play it, thats not a gurantee, because guess what I worked on a clients brand new PC had a core i7, but guess what came with a Geforce 9300GS OEM card, that card equals at best a 6600 or x700pro in actual preformance, and if you are a gamer you would know the diffrence between running and playing a game, 30FPS is barley acceptable, 60FPS is when a game is truly playable and those IGP's struggle to push 30FPS which means they often dip to well below 30FPS rendering the game unplayable for most normal people.
grosly underpowered to play the game, when my 8800GS lags at 12x10 at medium settings these cards wont keep up, it will be below 30FPS more often than not and unplayable, runing a game and playing a game are two entirly diffrent subjects. I sell computers at my local shop and guess what I don't lie to a client when they ask if our PII X4 965 with 9500GT is gaming computer, I tell them simply the 9500GT is suboptimal for gaming on any new games and if you want to play games you need at least a 9600GT because guess what that is the minimum for playing a game.
And you are wrong. Geforce gt220 WILL play this game. It does meet minimum specs of the game. Why do you want to convince people they cannot play when they can? What are YOU getting out of it? Sales. Reported for lying to users to attempt to sell product. The link provided DOES meet minimum specification posted in this thread by Cryptic, any attempt to paint it as not meeting those specs can only be for profit motives.
I'm sorry, only an idiot tells somebody who CAN play the game that they cannot. An idiot or somebody who is SELLING hardware. Candle, all you did was show how ignorant you are of the point itself to do the EXACT same thing that made White Knight look so ridiculous. Once again, not a single link you pointed to said anything to counter my point.
No, candle_86, your not a tech, I remember YOU from Rage3D and remember making you look completely silly.
Candle and White Knight, you are telling people who CAN play the game that they cannot to sell hardware, this is inappropriate behavior. Either quit attempting to sell wares by lying to people about this game not running so you can sell them something or face reporting.
Edit: Actually, too late. I'm sick of watching people try to use this game as an excuse to make a little side cash. Reported.
How are we making any money off this? I am not selling anything. I post links to newegg, amazon, ebay, compusa, tiger direct, bestbuy, fry's, HP, Dell, cyberpowerpc, microcenter. You mean that somehow all these places are paying us. You really are delusional.
How are we making any money off this? I am not selling anything. I post links to newegg, amazon, ebay, compusa, tiger direct, bestbuy, fry's, HP, Dell, cyberpowerpc, microcenter. You mean that somehow all these places are paying us. You really are delusional.
You thought since we haven't been spending as much time here as we use to that you could get away with your TRIBBLE. You were wrong.
You're busted. Cold. Telling people who CAN play the game that they cannot can ONLY be for profit gain. You are reported. You have lied about the game's playability in direct contrast to Cryptic's own posted minimum specifications in order to sell video cards. There can be no other motivation for telling people they cannot play when they can.
And the only techies who have jumped that rule seem to have all AMD systems in their sigs or are KNOWN AMD fanatics like Candle who have been busted cold on Rage3D lying about hardware. All I see is brand bias and for profit motives.
You're busted. Cold. Telling people who CAN play the game that they cannot can ONLY be for profit gain. You are reported. You have lied about the game's playability in direct contrast to Cryptic's own posted minimum specifications in order to sell video cards. There can be no other motivation for telling people they cannot play when they can.
And the only techies who have jumped that rule seem to have all AMD systems in their sigs or are KNOWN AMD fanatics like Candle who have been busted cold on Rage3D lying about hardware. All I see is brand bias and for profit motives.
Excuse me, I am the only one with a AMD CPU. The other three are using Intel. What is wrong with you?
Edit: OPS Candie is also using a AMD. But Da-nal and cipher_nemo are Intel.
We just updated the FAQ, but wanted to call it out here, as well. Star Trek Online's system requirements are as follows:
System Requirements
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit) CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+ Memory: 1GB RAM Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required Disc: 6X DVD-ROM
You are ALL wrong. Cryptic themselves backs me up. Minimum specs show Intel HD integrated video as MEETING MINIMUM SPECS. Argue that all you will, you're wrong. I win
Edit: Say what you will about the QUALITY of Intel HD graphics, I won't argue those points and most likely will agree with you. But say it won't run the game in direct contravention of the rule of thumb I posted AND the minimum system requirements, and you show you know nothing on this subject or are biased or are just looking to make a buck by LYING to users to sell them a new video card.
Excuse me, I am the only one with a AMD CPU. The other three are using Intel. What is wrong with you?
You know Candle is using Intel? Really? That would almost be sacrilige for him to use Intel, I know him very well from another forum and he HATES Intel (he and I have gone round and round on the subject before). I would find that to be quite shocking if he's using Intel now.
I own many machines here in my home lab, both AMD and Intel. If you saw my converted garage lab, I think you'd drool yourself to death most likely.
Edit: Info moved from another response for organization purposes:
Edit: OPS Candie is also using a AMD. But Da-nal and cipher_nemo are Intel.
Late edit was missed, and I think you have missed some of my edits as well, including the one where I posted the minimum specs for this game as Cryptic themselves posted it on the first page of this very thread. Read it and WEEP. This debate is over and you lost.
Edit: Also, the more people you try to bring in against me when I'm so entrenched in the actual posted information from Cryptic themselves only makes my debate victory all the sweeter
We just updated the FAQ, but wanted to call it out here, as well. Star Trek Online's system requirements are as follows:
System Requirements
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit) CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+ Memory: 1GB RAM Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required Disc: 6X DVD-ROM
You are ALL wrong. Cryptic themselves backs me up. Minimum specs show Intel HD integrated video as MEETING MINIMUM SPECS. Argue that all you will, you're wrong. I win
Edit: Say what you will about the QUALITY of Intel HD graphics, I won't argue those points and most likely will agree with you. But say it won't run the game in direct contravention of the rule of thumb I posted AND the minimum system requirements, and you show you know nothing on this subject or are biased or are just looking to make a buck by LYING to users to sell them a new video card.
7950/x1800 guess what that means in direct terms no IGP meets requirements.
The 785g is about even with a 1650XT the Geforce IGP = a 7300GT, the intel is about as fast as a 7600GS in actual prefomance it comes down to power not just feature support and rage3d im sorry to tell you is a joke, i though your name was familiar, and yes candle is in the tech field these days sorry to tell you. Want to know in modern terms where compareable prefomance to a 7950Gt or an x1800 are?
8600GT/9500GT/GT240
HD2600XT/HD3670/HD4550
thats comparable those cards listed are just as fast as a 7950 or x1800 in gaming, would you say someone can play a DirectX 10 game with an 8300GS just because the features are present, thats like people spouting an FX5200 could play DX9 games when any hardware guy knew better. If the game required just DX9C feature set to run guess what Crypic would have Geforce 6200TC or x1300HM but they didnt they set a bar for minimum acceptable prefomance also, thats where intelligence comes into play and customers knowing where there hardware rates. This is why rage3d has no new members but sites where i hang out today still do, we give good advice and we know what we are talking about, you moshpit havn't the slighest clue and if you would sell someone an i3 IGP rig for gaming youd be lieable for a lawsuit.
And last time we talked the Pentium4 was all intel had to offer im sorry to see your unable to see that no one in there right mind wanted a Pentium4 over an athlon 64 based system back then, why don't you look at when I left it will clearly tell you early 2006. I use AMD yes because its cost to preformance which AMD still reigns king in, intel is fast but AMD offers bang for buck. The only thing I truly hate is ATI grahpics and that will never change, where I work we don't sell them if you want one we will special order it for you, but we do not stock a single ATI card, and my hatered of ATI was verified when I tried a 3870+3850 X-fire setup and it gave me nothing but poor preformance and driver bugs.
White Knight now that I know who he is, id suggest just ignoring and continue to tell the people the truth, enough people telling the truth will make his posts moot, and that forum he speaks of is full of ATI fanbois that are as narrowmind as Hitler himself
Candle, argue with Cryptic about it, I already proved you wrong with this link. Cryptic posted the minimums. If you don't like it, take it up with them. But as you do so, know you only look silly doing so as I can confirm their findings about Intel HD video being enough to play this game at minimum.
Edit: ROFLMAO, I call "Hitler forum rule" in effect on candle, he said it, hehehe
Candle, argue with Cryptic about it, I already proved you wrong. Cryptic posted the minimums. If you don't like it, take it up with them. But as you do so, know you only look silly doing so as I can confirm their findings about Intel HD video being enough to play this game at minimum.
Edit: ROFLMAO, I call "Hitler forum rule" in effect on candle, he said it, hehehe
does it ever drop below 30FPS if so then its not playable then again if i remember you right you where telling folks Crysis would run just fine on there 6600GT's. The simple fact is for an MMO 30FPS is minimum, for RTS20 is playable barley, TBS 20FPS, FPS 60FPS those are the standards by which games are judged everywhere except in your mind
does it ever drop below 30FPS if so then its not playable then again if i remember you right you where telling folks Crysis would run just fine on there 6600GT's
Dude, stop. Cryptic says your wrong, and so does my nieces laptop sitting right here with Core i3 in it. Just stop already, you look silly.
lol show me a fraps timedemo run for 1 minute while fighting Fact or Fiction part of infected and I want to see minimum FPS please otherwise you have no proof its playable but thank you for reminding me of my system specs, I upgraded yesterday when I got paid thanks for reminding me to update
lol show me a fraps timedemo run for 1 minute while fighting Fact or Fiction part of infected and I want to see minimum FPS please otherwise you have no proof its playable but thank you for reminding me of my system specs, I upgraded yesterday when I got paid thanks for reminding me to update
Tell it to Cryptic. We'll see how quickly they ignore you because you are wrong.
Edit: The burden of proof is on you, Candle, to prove Cryptic wrong, not me. I'm only standing behind Cryptics posted minimums, so I don't have to prove smack. You do. You're the one claiming Cryptic is wrong about their own posted info. As I said, take it up with them.
oh no i didnt, they say 7950 or x1800 that isnt DX9C only support thats also a bar for preformance not every DX10 card meets that bar, sorry to tell you, any tech would know that, I feel sorry for anyone you sell any computer parts to honestly
oh no i didnt, they say 7950 or x1800 that isnt DX9C only support thats also a bar for preformance not every DX10 card meets that bar, sorry to tell you, any tech would know that, I feel sorry for anyone you sell any computer parts to honestly
I'm done arguing with you, your failure to read is amazing:
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit) CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+ Memory: 1GB RAM Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required Disc: 6X DVD-ROM
READ, man, read! See the bold text? Read it! Like I said, if you don't like it, take it up with Cryptic. I'll give ya a hundred bucks if they change the specs for ya :rolleyes:
READ, man, read! See the bold text? Read it! Like I said, if you don't like it, take it up with Cryptic. I'll give ya a hundred bucks if they change the specs for ya :rolleyes:
and id also call that misleading on there part to state intel HD grahpics are playable thats simply untrue in ever sense of the word, Cryptic most likly knows this or there is a massive optimization comming because when it struggled on my 8800GS at reduced setting there is no way an intel IGP will cut it for playabilty. Game devs constantly relese specs way to low for playability thats common in the industry. Crysis requires a 9800pro/Geforce 6600GT 256mb or better but honestly you must have an x1650XT or 7600GT minimum to play. COD4 lists Geforce 6600GT to play when realitistly a min of a 7600GT is also needed. Medal of Honor Allied Assault TNT2 is listed want to enjoy your game though better have a Geforce2 MX400 at min I can go on and on and on and on and on, the simple fact is listed specs does not make a game playble simple as that, I would never tell anyone with Intel HD they can play a game, because unless they want to play games released during the DX8 generation they won't be enjoying anything. 800x600 at half resolution isnt playability its desperation. And dont worry I intend to message them taht there system specs are wholy misleading
and id also call that misleading on there part to state intel HD grahpics are playable thats simply untrue in ever sense of the word, Cryptic most likly knows this or there is a massive optimization comming because when it struggled on my 8800GS at reduced setting there is no way an intel IGP will cut it for playabilty. Game devs constantly relese specs way to low for playability thats common in the industry. Crysis requires a 9800pro/Geforce 6600GT 256mb or better but honestly you must have an x1650XT or 7600GT minimum to play. COD4 lists Geforce 6600GT to play when realitistly a min of a 7600GT is also needed. Medal of Honor Allied Assault TNT2 is listed want to enjoy your game though better have a Geforce2 MX400 at min I can go on and on and on and on and on, the simple fact is listed specs does not make a game playble simple as that, I would never tell anyone with Intel HD they can play a game, because unless they want to play games released during the DX8 generation they won't be enjoying anything. 800x600 at half resolution isnt playability its desperation. And dont worry I intend to message them taht there system specs are wholy misleading
Okay! NOW we're to the root of your problem. You don't believe the specs. Not my problem. Take it up with Cryptic in a trouble ticket or whatever, but unless Cryptic changes that in agreement with you, the only thing your debating the point accomplishes now is to troll this thread into oblivion as opposed to constructively combating the issue you see.
If you think the minimum specs are incorrect, take your proof of such to them and let the company that has to SUPPORT this game make the call. You are NOT more qualified then them to post their requirements. They are the ones who take the tech support calls for the game running on Intel integrated graphics. Not you. If the call volume isn't swamping them, considering the VAST market domination Intel Integrated Graphics has, you'd think they'd do something about it?
Edit: Logic dictates that if it couldn't be run that way at least fairly smoothly, the support call que depth would be worse then the 5 minutes I waited last week when I called about a CrossfireX question. I got right through, doesn't seem like they're very swamped with tech support problems with Intel Integrated Graphics. Wonder why? It's supported by the minimum and the forums are FULL of Mac Book users running Intel HD Graphics and are crowing about how happy they are with it... Hmmmmm.
no they wont, id bet they have a nice shiny contract with intel which is why the grahpics where listed, and yes I will continue to debate the issue and will also continue to tell anyone using intel HD to buy a discreet video card and forget about tring to use that TRIBBLE intel pawns off as HD video, I wouldn't use it to run Windows XP desktop let alone a game.
no they wont, id bet they have a nice shiny contract with intel which is why the grahpics where listed, and yes I will continue to debate the issue and will also continue to tell anyone using intel HD to buy a discreet video card and forget about tring to use that TRIBBLE intel pawns off as HD video, I wouldn't use it to run Windows XP desktop let alone a game.
You are only acting blindly. The forums are full of HAPPY Mac Book users running Bootcamp and Intel HD Graphics who are crowing about how well it runs for them. Hmmmmm. As I said to you on Rage3D a long time ago, keep your false crusades to yourself.
You are only acting blindly. The forums are full of HAPPY Mac Book users running Bootcamp and Intel HD Graphics who are crowing about how well it runs for them. Hmmmmm. As I said to you on Rage3D a long time ago, keep your false crusades to yourself.
there mac users they are just happy there mac book can do something useful
but honestly they say dou dual core lowest cpu. yet in options it mentions single cores.
to wich i point out that my 3.4 GHZ p4 pentium D with HT (esentialy a false dual core) 800 mhz frontside.
2gigs ram ddr2 pc 5200. soundblaster 24 bit live. 8400 gt nvidia with 512 megs of ram. 500 gig hdd win vista sp1
plays te game in high graphics with no problems, now if i can get my wireless connection to be more reliable.
Comments
no they will run the game not play the game, I myself work in the tech field, and im also a gamer, will a 9800XT run Crysis yes it will, will it play Crysis no it wont. The Core i3 is paired with a ****** IGP in the same class as the 780G and 785G IGP which are not intended for gaming period the end, consider this first of all your access main memory to use these things the cache ram isnt big enough so your reducing system ram to use the page files. As for saying the i5 and i7 can play it, thats not a gurantee, because guess what I worked on a clients brand new PC had a core i7, but guess what came with a Geforce 9300GS OEM card, that card equals at best a 6600 or x700pro in actual preformance, and if you are a gamer you would know the diffrence between running and playing a game, 30FPS is barley acceptable, 60FPS is when a game is truly playable and those IGP's struggle to push 30FPS which means they often dip to well below 30FPS rendering the game unplayable for most normal people.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227207 GT220 grahpics are a joke any tech knows this
here is another but with an i5
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227214
grosly underpowered to play the game, when my 8800GS lags at 12x10 at medium settings these cards wont keep up, it will be below 30FPS more often than not and unplayable, runing a game and playing a game are two entirly diffrent subjects. I sell computers at my local shop and guess what I don't lie to a client when they ask if our PII X4 965 with 9500GT is gaming computer, I tell them simply the 9500GT is suboptimal for gaming on any new games and if you want to play games you need at least a 9600GT because guess what that is the minimum for playing a game.
yes but in modern gaming fillrate means alot less today, it comes down more so to the shader clocks, as the games are being shader based not texture based, this is why in newer games an 8600GT with a lower filrate beats a 7900GT its come down to shaders, and 600 fillrate means 1-4 FPS in todays games, 4 years ago it would have been near 10-20% loss but now its about 5% or less thanks to how games are done today. The 12 pipelines running at 500mhz and the vertex shaders going at 540 mean alot more than the actual fillrate thats why shader domain has gone up magnitudes over the rops.
Wrong!
First you are misleading people by stating that integrated video can play STO. Your definition of "play" seems to be unique, so you shouldn't use it when giving advice. I suspect that everyone else here would equate "play" with something like "run with enough detail and smoothness to be enjoyable".
Second, you assume that no one would have a system with low end dedicated graphics but otherwise high specs. I have built several that way over the years, whether they be aimed at video editing, serving media, crunching SETI, etc. I avoided integrated graphics because I knew I might want to game in the future, and I had better uses for the space on the backplate.
Third, you assume that someone like me would not be here looking for advice on whether my systems will play STO. I am certainly a techie, and a Trekkie, but it has been many years since I did any serious gaming. So guess where I came to start learning about STO and which of my systems could be adapted to it?
So accept that you are wrong. Or don't. But quit giving bad advice.
I love your definition of Run and Play.
And you are wrong. Geforce gt220 WILL play this game. It does meet minimum specs of the game. Why do you want to convince people they cannot play when they can? What are YOU getting out of it? Sales. Reported for lying to users to attempt to sell product. The link provided DOES meet minimum specification posted in this thread by Cryptic, any attempt to paint it as not meeting those specs can only be for profit motives.
Why don't you post that same blanket statement here http://forums.startrekonline.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70 and see how many more techies will jump on it.
You thought since we haven't been spending as much time here as we use to that you could get away with your TRIBBLE. You were wrong.
You're busted. Cold. Telling people who CAN play the game that they cannot can ONLY be for profit gain. You are reported. You have lied about the game's playability in direct contrast to Cryptic's own posted minimum specifications in order to sell video cards. There can be no other motivation for telling people they cannot play when they can.
And the only techies who have jumped that rule seem to have all AMD systems in their sigs or are KNOWN AMD fanatics like Candle who have been busted cold on Rage3D lying about hardware. All I see is brand bias and for profit motives.
Excuse me, I am the only one with a AMD CPU. The other three are using Intel. What is wrong with you?
Edit: OPS Candie is also using a AMD. But Da-nal and cipher_nemo are Intel.
We just updated the FAQ, but wanted to call it out here, as well. Star Trek Online's system requirements are as follows:
System Requirements
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit) CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+ Memory: 1GB RAM Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required Disc: 6X DVD-ROM
You are ALL wrong. Cryptic themselves backs me up. Minimum specs show Intel HD integrated video as MEETING MINIMUM SPECS. Argue that all you will, you're wrong. I win
Edit: Say what you will about the QUALITY of Intel HD graphics, I won't argue those points and most likely will agree with you. But say it won't run the game in direct contravention of the rule of thumb I posted AND the minimum system requirements, and you show you know nothing on this subject or are biased or are just looking to make a buck by LYING to users to sell them a new video card.
You know Candle is using Intel? Really? That would almost be sacrilige for him to use Intel, I know him very well from another forum and he HATES Intel (he and I have gone round and round on the subject before). I would find that to be quite shocking if he's using Intel now.
I own many machines here in my home lab, both AMD and Intel. If you saw my converted garage lab, I think you'd drool yourself to death most likely.
Edit: Info moved from another response for organization purposes:
Late edit was missed, and I think you have missed some of my edits as well, including the one where I posted the minimum specs for this game as Cryptic themselves posted it on the first page of this very thread. Read it and WEEP. This debate is over and you lost.
Edit: Also, the more people you try to bring in against me when I'm so entrenched in the actual posted information from Cryptic themselves only makes my debate victory all the sweeter
7950/x1800 guess what that means in direct terms no IGP meets requirements.
The 785g is about even with a 1650XT the Geforce IGP = a 7300GT, the intel is about as fast as a 7600GS in actual prefomance it comes down to power not just feature support and rage3d im sorry to tell you is a joke, i though your name was familiar, and yes candle is in the tech field these days sorry to tell you. Want to know in modern terms where compareable prefomance to a 7950Gt or an x1800 are?
8600GT/9500GT/GT240
HD2600XT/HD3670/HD4550
thats comparable those cards listed are just as fast as a 7950 or x1800 in gaming, would you say someone can play a DirectX 10 game with an 8300GS just because the features are present, thats like people spouting an FX5200 could play DX9 games when any hardware guy knew better. If the game required just DX9C feature set to run guess what Crypic would have Geforce 6200TC or x1300HM but they didnt they set a bar for minimum acceptable prefomance also, thats where intelligence comes into play and customers knowing where there hardware rates. This is why rage3d has no new members but sites where i hang out today still do, we give good advice and we know what we are talking about, you moshpit havn't the slighest clue and if you would sell someone an i3 IGP rig for gaming youd be lieable for a lawsuit.
And last time we talked the Pentium4 was all intel had to offer im sorry to see your unable to see that no one in there right mind wanted a Pentium4 over an athlon 64 based system back then, why don't you look at when I left it will clearly tell you early 2006. I use AMD yes because its cost to preformance which AMD still reigns king in, intel is fast but AMD offers bang for buck. The only thing I truly hate is ATI grahpics and that will never change, where I work we don't sell them if you want one we will special order it for you, but we do not stock a single ATI card, and my hatered of ATI was verified when I tried a 3870+3850 X-fire setup and it gave me nothing but poor preformance and driver bugs.
White Knight now that I know who he is, id suggest just ignoring and continue to tell the people the truth, enough people telling the truth will make his posts moot, and that forum he speaks of is full of ATI fanbois that are as narrowmind as Hitler himself
Edit: ROFLMAO, I call "Hitler forum rule" in effect on candle, he said it, hehehe
does it ever drop below 30FPS if so then its not playable then again if i remember you right you where telling folks Crysis would run just fine on there 6600GT's. The simple fact is for an MMO 30FPS is minimum, for RTS20 is playable barley, TBS 20FPS, FPS 60FPS those are the standards by which games are judged everywhere except in your mind
Dude, stop. Cryptic says your wrong, and so does my nieces laptop sitting right here with Core i3 in it. Just stop already, you look silly.
Tell it to Cryptic. We'll see how quickly they ignore you because you are wrong.
Edit: The burden of proof is on you, Candle, to prove Cryptic wrong, not me. I'm only standing behind Cryptics posted minimums, so I don't have to prove smack. You do. You're the one claiming Cryptic is wrong about their own posted info. As I said, take it up with them.
I'm done arguing with you, your failure to read is amazing:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=941244&postcount=1
READ, man, read! See the bold text? Read it! Like I said, if you don't like it, take it up with Cryptic. I'll give ya a hundred bucks if they change the specs for ya :rolleyes:
and id also call that misleading on there part to state intel HD grahpics are playable thats simply untrue in ever sense of the word, Cryptic most likly knows this or there is a massive optimization comming because when it struggled on my 8800GS at reduced setting there is no way an intel IGP will cut it for playabilty. Game devs constantly relese specs way to low for playability thats common in the industry. Crysis requires a 9800pro/Geforce 6600GT 256mb or better but honestly you must have an x1650XT or 7600GT minimum to play. COD4 lists Geforce 6600GT to play when realitistly a min of a 7600GT is also needed. Medal of Honor Allied Assault TNT2 is listed want to enjoy your game though better have a Geforce2 MX400 at min I can go on and on and on and on and on, the simple fact is listed specs does not make a game playble simple as that, I would never tell anyone with Intel HD they can play a game, because unless they want to play games released during the DX8 generation they won't be enjoying anything. 800x600 at half resolution isnt playability its desperation. And dont worry I intend to message them taht there system specs are wholy misleading
Okay! NOW we're to the root of your problem. You don't believe the specs. Not my problem. Take it up with Cryptic in a trouble ticket or whatever, but unless Cryptic changes that in agreement with you, the only thing your debating the point accomplishes now is to troll this thread into oblivion as opposed to constructively combating the issue you see.
If you think the minimum specs are incorrect, take your proof of such to them and let the company that has to SUPPORT this game make the call. You are NOT more qualified then them to post their requirements. They are the ones who take the tech support calls for the game running on Intel integrated graphics. Not you. If the call volume isn't swamping them, considering the VAST market domination Intel Integrated Graphics has, you'd think they'd do something about it?
Edit: Logic dictates that if it couldn't be run that way at least fairly smoothly, the support call que depth would be worse then the 5 minutes I waited last week when I called about a CrossfireX question. I got right through, doesn't seem like they're very swamped with tech support problems with Intel Integrated Graphics. Wonder why? It's supported by the minimum and the forums are FULL of Mac Book users running Intel HD Graphics and are crowing about how happy they are with it... Hmmmmm.
You are only acting blindly. The forums are full of HAPPY Mac Book users running Bootcamp and Intel HD Graphics who are crowing about how well it runs for them. Hmmmmm. As I said to you on Rage3D a long time ago, keep your false crusades to yourself.
there mac users they are just happy there mac book can do something useful
ROFLMAO!!!! You tickled my Mac hatred so much with that, we can have a cease fire
to wich i point out that my 3.4 GHZ p4 pentium D with HT (esentialy a false dual core) 800 mhz frontside.
2gigs ram ddr2 pc 5200. soundblaster 24 bit live. 8400 gt nvidia with 512 megs of ram. 500 gig hdd win vista sp1
plays te game in high graphics with no problems, now if i can get my wireless connection to be more reliable.