It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionComparing integrated graphic chipset with the system requirements(26 posts)(26 posts)
(26 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 29, 2017
avatar
blotunga: You could buy it in Steam, try it for an hour then refund it and buy it here if it worked.
Yeah this is probably the safest solution. I've done it with several games and have yet to face a problem with it.
Posted January 29, 2017
Well, I don't have Stream account, but that is an excellent idea... But just thinking of downloading twice 10 GB with my crappy connection gives me anxiety attack.

But hell, that is brilliant...
Posted January 29, 2017
Get a used hd7950/70/r9 280(x) or gtx 670/770 - and enjoy.

Built-in intel graphics are all garbage for current 3d, except Intel Iris.
Post edited January 29, 2017 by Lin545
Posted January 29, 2017
avatar
NoNewTaleToTell: I can't give actual FPS because I never enable/use a FPS checker
Since those were apparently Steam games, Steam has an option to enable a FPS counter. Works even with non-Steam games if you run them through Steam, I did that in order to see what kind of framerates I get on my gaming laptop on e.g. The Witcher 3 (GOG version).

avatar
NoNewTaleToTell: Those are just a few examples. Gaming with a 4000/4400 card isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, although it's definitely not ideal if you're looking to play big name AAA games from 2014-ish onward haha.
Yeah pretty much this. Anyway, to me the biggest positive suprise really was how good it is at running older (Windows) games where I might have serious compatibility issues with e.g. NVidia GPUs.

Oddly enough, this jump in backwards compatibility seemed to happen with some more recent Intel GPU drivers; with older drivers there were lots of compatibility issues. With NVidia drivers I am used to the opposite: newer drivers may break some older games.

avatar
Lin545: Get a used hd7950/70/r9 280(x) or gtx 670/770 - and enjoy.

Built-in intel graphics are all garbage for current 3d, except Intel Iris.
Are there integrated Intel GPUs on desktop PCs nowadays? I assumed he is playing on a laptop (since he mentioned using integrated Intel HD graphics).
Post edited January 29, 2017 by timppu
Posted January 29, 2017
avatar
Lin545: Get a used hd7950/70/r9 280(x) or gtx 670/770 - and enjoy.

Built-in intel graphics are all garbage for current 3d, except Intel Iris.
Yeah thanks, yet it will be difficult to put these cards in a laptop...

EDIT - ...as timppu said...
Post edited January 29, 2017 by Exhodos
Posted January 29, 2017
avatar
Lin545: Get a used hd7950/70/r9 280(x) or gtx 670/770 - and enjoy.

Built-in intel graphics are all garbage for current 3d, except Intel Iris.
avatar
Exhodos: Yeah thanks, yet it will be difficult to put these cards in a laptop...

EDIT - ...as timppu said...
If mxm slot is available, why not? But yes, laptops have limited gpu upgrades, especially because ACPI may not support sensor read of the new card and in combination with dedicated gpu cooler (like on some alienware models) its asking for trouble. Although I have once replaced ancient mobility x1900 with hd4650 (mxm III -> mxm II) and it went fine.

avatar
timppu: Are there integrated Intel GPUs on desktop PCs nowadays? I assumed he is playing on a laptop (since he mentioned using integrated Intel HD graphics).
Sure, I built one system with i3-3xxx recently, which relied on HD graphics.

If by "nowadays" you mean 2015-17 then 1151 socket supports it: and [url=http://geizhals.eu/?cat=mbp4_1151&asuch=&bpmax=&v=e&hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu&plz=&dist=&mail=&fcols=7090&sort=t&bl1_id=30]motherboards.

If you also include 2015 and before, 1150, 1155 and 1156 also supported it.


Edit: found it! It was i3-3220 in msi matx mainboard (forgot which), given it 4 gigs of ram with 2 banks - which is more than enough for internet use and light gaming. Still thinking I should've used amd+asus instead...
Post edited January 29, 2017 by Lin545
Posted January 29, 2017
The game is not listed on Intel's list of playable games.
https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/graphics-drivers/graphics-for-3rd-generation-intel-processors/000005659.html
Posted January 29, 2017
avatar
OlivawR: The game is not listed on Intel's list of playable games.
https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/graphics-drivers/graphics-for-3rd-generation-intel-processors/000005659.html
That list is worthless.
Posted January 29, 2017
avatar
lunarjadebunny: My motherboard/RAM meet the recommended system requirements for Pillars of Eternity, however, for the graphics card, it only lists non-integrated graphics cards. I'm pretty sure my integrated graphics card (Intel HD Graphics 2500) is garbage for gaming, but I have no way of knowing whether it meets the minimum requirements or not without first purchasing the game to try it out for myself. And if I do that, and it doesn't work, then I'm not eligible for a refund because I don't meet the minimum requirements. A bit of a catch-22, if you will. Can anybody confirm whether or not this graphics card is enough to run this game? I'm tired of missing out on sales for technical reasons, and I want to know if it'd be okay to jump on this one.
Doesn't look too promising:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-2500.69812.0.html

Edit:
"Compared to the faster HD Graphics 4000, the 2500 one features less Execution Units (6 versus 16) and only one texture sampler. Therefore, the performance is clearly worse and only suited for low demanding gaming. Intel states a 10 to 15% higher performance compared to the old Sandy Bridge based HD Graphics 2000. Therefore, only older casual games with low requirements are playable with the HD 2500."
Post edited January 29, 2017 by BreOl72
Posted January 30, 2017
I know this is a crazy idea but mabye ask on the developer forums?
Posted January 30, 2017
avatar
BreOl72: Doesn't look too promising:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-2500.69812.0.html

Edit:
"Compared to the faster HD Graphics 4000, the 2500 one features less Execution Units (6 versus 16) and only one texture sampler. Therefore, the performance is clearly worse and only suited for low demanding gaming. Intel states a 10 to 15% higher performance compared to the old Sandy Bridge based HD Graphics 2000. Therefore, only older casual games with low requirements are playable with the HD 2500."
The reason why modern chips all support 3d is not because they are designed to play games.

Its because of how graphics engine of all mainstream OSes works. All of them handle window placements via compositing and use textures. This is contrast to old gdi/xorg model, where windows are plotted in 2d buffer by 2d functions.

This is why both intel and amd produce so low-level "3d" chips... they are not designed for "3d games". If they run two decade old 3d game, this is an unforseen bonus.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionComparing integrated graphic chipset with the system requirements(26 posts)(26 posts)
(26 posts)