Arcania - Sys Reqs Update

[Dhruin]

Hehe, well, my personal "old sk00L" opinion on the matter is that notebooks to gaming is like when an Italian brings a knife to a gun fight… wrong tool for the job and all that .
But, seriously, I know that the reality is completely different, of course. The only reason the big PC builders (Acer, Dell, Lenovo etc.) aren't all out of business yet is sales of mobile computers as desktop replacements. And they are selling more notebooks every day while the number of desktops is dwindling.

You're right in every respect - including the sales of notebooks as desktop replacements. I accept that desktop gaming will always have the edge but everyone - hardware makers and software developers alike - would do well to accept that notebooks are becoming a serious chunk of the PC market. Scalability is one of the cornerstones of the success of WoW and Facebook gaming and so on.

At any rate, I wouldn't have bought Arcania even if it did run on my laptop. I'm still boycotting Dreamcather.

 

[toltec7]

Maybe at low resolutions, i.e. 1024x768 or less. Otherwise… you're full of shit.

That's actually the exact same specs I had before my last upgrade. A Core 2 E6700 and a Geforce 8800GTS (BFG overclocked edition). I could run Crysis at 1280x1024 with "high" settings, but any attempt at max settings ("very high") resulted in a slide show.


Even with my current system, a Phenom II 965 (3.4GHz Quad core) and Geforce GTX 470, Crysis isn't totally smooth at max settings @1920x1200.

I dunno what to say man... i played warhead after and i'm sure it was at 1680x1050... details, ok, might have been at just high or as low as medium but the damn thing was working and looking great.
I might install it again to check it out.

 

[kalniel]

I dunno what to say man… i played warhead after and i'm sure it was at 1680x1050… details, ok, might have been at just high or as low as medium but the damn thing was working and looking great.
I might install it again to check it out.

I can play warhead smoothly on a 4870, but I have to drop quite a few options down. Shadows and textures I think were killers for me. No way could I run it on full max, let alone Crysis (which performed worse when I borrowed a copy).

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Hasn't a flatscreen a *fixed* FPS rate ?

If so, is more FPS than the fixed rate(s) really necessary on flatscreens ?

And ... I think I already wrote somewhere that a cinema movie has only 24 FPS ...
Kind of ...

 

[kalniel]

Hasn't a flatscreen a *fixed* FPS rate ?

If so, is more FPS than the fixed rate(s) really necessary on flatscreens ?

And … I think I already wrote somewhere that a cinema movie has only 24 FPS …
Kind of …

Refresh rate is fixed, but that's different from frames per second that get sent from the graphics card. The difference is important as you want to minimise input lag and/or avoid tearing.

If you perfectly synchronise frames and time your shutter speed so that anything moving faster than 1/24s is blurred then it can look very good when displayed at 24fps. The problem is when you render content you have to start adding in blur automatically and it looks a bit naff. On a 60hz monitor then you have to sync at 60 fps, and if you even drop one frame to 59fps you have to wait a whole cycle to update, meaning the frame rate drops to 30fps. Without natural motion blur we can very much detect 30fps as unsmooth.