Hi Guys.
I need a little help and advise please. I would like to know if my Acer laptop can run The Witcher 2.

Windows Vista
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo cpu T6400 @ 2.00GHz 2.00 GHz
RAM 4.00 GB
32-bit
nvidea GeForce 9600m GT... 1GB.

Any advise most welcome.. i would love to play this game but don't want to purchase if i can't run it.

Thank You in advance...

I have a 2.3ghz C2 duo, 2gigs of DDR2 ram, and an 8800gt 512meg vid card. With my resolution set to 1600x1050 or therabouts, almost everything set as low as it can go (or second to lowest setting) in the advanced menu, and vsync enabled (HATE screen tear), I get 20+ fps most of the time. It's smooth enough for me to play, but I usually have to have difficulty set to Easy, as the occasional low dip in frames can prove fatal on higher difficulty settings. Lol

Edit: I should also mention that even on these low settings, the game looks pretty good, imho.

You should be able to run it fine. Of course some details will have to be turned off like AA and such but the game will still look "pretty"

I have a Mobility Radeon HD 5650 + Phenom 2 X4 N930 (4x2GHz) and it's okay with settings between low and medium.
With your specs I guess it will run but it will probably be not quite smooth. However if you don't mind either windowed mode or a pixelized picture you'll probably be able to lower the resolution until you reach an acceptable FPS. As mentionned by soot00 and lolwut77 the game looks nice even in lowest details.

NB: the 8800 GT is nowhere near the 9600M GT

It should run, somewhere around low or maybe medium with some compromises. The 9600M (same chip as the desktop 9500 GT) doesn't meet minimum requirements, but the minimum requirements are somewhat higher than they need to be.

Watch out for heat problems with this game on a notebook.

Thank You so much guys for all the very helpful replies..

Might be worth taking a chance then...

Sorry i'm not very up on the tech side of things so all this info has been very useful.. (dumb musician)

I do have a fairly high end mac for my music but i am new to pc.

Any more replies comments would be very much appreciated... thank You...

Just a comment... You really shouldn't be trying to do gaming on a normal laptop - they're just not made for it. And the above comment about heat is applicable, because you will be stressing your video system running this game. Make sure your exhaust port is clear.

Oh, it will most likely run acceptably well - but don't expect miracles.

You should be able to play it with a decent framerate at low settings, maybe you may experience some drops anyway.

The simplest way to build a PC is to first figure out how much money do want to spend on it - then figure out the best components that will fit into your budget. They change weekly, so don't get hung up on a certain item.

There is no "best". You just get the best you can for the money you want to spend at that time.

As Peetz noted, it's very much budget dependent. Toss us a ballpark figure, as well as any components you don't need (such as keyboard and mouse, OS, monitor, or whatever) and maybe someone can suggest some parts.

This is a great guide to get a beginner like yourself on your way: http://www.tweakguides.com/Hardcon09_1.html

TW2 is a good benchmark, but BF3 will be better. I've written something estimating the requirements here.

Yeah, the recommended specs are a good place to start, though there has been a lot of innovation in graphics cards recently, and the "recommended" cards are a couple of generations old already.

Intel "Sandy Bridge" quad cores have the highest performance you can get right now (and correspondingly high cost). Core i5 2400, 2500, 2500K; Core i7 2600, 2600K. Highly recommended, if your budget runs to them.

AMD "Phenom II" quad and hex cores aren't as high performing, but better value; they've been discounted heavily recently. "Athlon II" quad cores are the low end of what can be recommended; they would be even better value if it weren't for the discounts on Phenom II's.

The probable reason for the discount on Phenom II's is that AMD is about to release their next generation (unlike Intel, which (almost) never discounts older CPUs), code-named "Bulldozer". I'll discuss this more under "motherboards".

When selecting a motherboard, it's easier to select the CPU first, then select motherboards known to be compatible with it.

Motherboards for Intel "Sandy Bridge" CPUs use socket "LGA 1155"; nothing else will do. There are lots of "LGA 1156", "LGA 1366", and even a few "LGA 775" motherboards still on the market. They can't be used with the "Sandy Bridge" CPUs. Cull them immediately.

AMD, on the other hand, has used a number of mostly-compatible socket types. If you choose carefully, this makes upgrading an AMD CPU without replacing the motherboard easier.

Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+ are old-style AMD motherboards. Although many Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs will run in these motherboards, they will usually underperform. I wouldn't use one in a new design. Cull them.

Socket AM3 is the current AMD style. Almost all Phenom II's and Athlon II's will run well in these motherboards. Only the fastest and hottest Phenom II's (which draw 125 or 140 watts) require careful selection; not all Socket AM3 motherboards can handle their power draw. If your motherboard can't do so, the CPU will underperform badly. This is the cause of a lot of performance problems with rigs that have high-end Phenom II's.

But I promised you a further complication: here it is. AMD is about to introduce new CPUs requiring "Socket AM3+". These new CPUs may run in Socket AM3 motherboards, but not necessarily well. There aren't many AM3+ motherboards in the market yet. ASUS (and ASUS's child company ASRock) have the market to themselves for the moment. MSI and Gigabyte will be there soon.

If you're considering an AMD CPU, I would encourage looking closely at the current AM3+ offerings and/or waiting a month for the Bulldozer CPUs and a bigger selection of motherboards to hit the market.

Beyond CPU, socket, and compatibility issues, you choose motherboards based on features.

Chipset: This can make a big difference if you are considering running multiple graphics cards (Crossfire or SLI). The better chipsets provide adequate PCI-Express capacity for the second (or third or fourth) card. Chipsets that can only do PCI-Express x4 on the second card are fine if you're going to run only one card; if you're going to run two, you need better.

RAM slots and RAM: All the new motherboards are using DDR3. You have greater flexibility if you get a motherboard that has four RAM slots. If you get one with just two, you have to replace RAM to increase RAM. Remember, the thing about RAM is that it keeps your computer from having to read the disk frequently. You need enough RAM; that's most important. Get at least a pair (2x2GB) of DDR3-1333 or DDR3-1600. There's no reason at current prices to try to get by with less.

Card slots: If you're going to run multiple graphics cards, you need multiple PCI-Express x16 slots. As mentioned under chipsets, you don't want the second slot to run at just x4; you want at least x8. Otherwise, you just need one PCI-Express x16 slot.

Other features: If you have peripherals you want to attach, make sure there are enough ports on the motherboard for them. If you have USB 3.0 devices, make sure the motherboard has USB 3.0 ports. If you have a camcorder, you'll probably want an IEEE-1394 (Firewire) port. If you have an antique serial or parallel printer, make sure the motherboard has a suitable port (or you can get USB port adapters for these).

The other big concerns and the ones that cause the most headaches in picking are the graphics card and the power supply. I'll leave these for now, because I've wasted too many bits already.

Thank You again for Your help and responses.

Wow!.. the more i am reading the less i seem to know.

I haven't got a set fee in mind as yet... Maybe £800 or so just off the top of my head If i can get away with less great but i don't mind spending a little more to future proof or if i'm going to be missing out on something for the sake of a bit more. Please let me know if i'm far off the mark price wise?

i'm never going to be a "good" gamer. i'm just a casual gamer.. i don't usually play online or compete, rather i mostly play single player. What i would like ideally is a rig that enables me to run the more system intensive games that seem to be coming out now and be able to enjoy them without too much frustration. I'm in the UK by the way.. if You can suggest a good place to buy from.
Am i right in understanding so far, that building a rig or have someone do it for You would be a far better approach that buying an off the shelf gaming rig?... Although i am very tempted to look at the pre made rigs as a much easier option considering my knowledge limitations.

Thank You for the useful links chautemoc.. I have them bookmarked so i can study them further.

Thank You so much cyrgreen for such a comprehensive and informative post.. I can't claim to understand most of it yet but it's certainly helping me get there...

Cheers Guy's i'm genuinely shocked at Your patience and kindness... paul...

Even at UK prices, £800 or so is a generous budget. Building your own takes little more than the ability to use a screwdriver, though working with somebody who's done it before is a big help and confidence builder the first few times.

The "Hardware Confusion" article is a couple years out of date, but all of it is still good advice. Just substitute the currently available components, and don't think you have to have the best of everything the way that writer seemed to.

For example, Core i7 has little advantage over Core i5 for games (where Core i7 really shines is in serious number crunching like Photoshop or video encoding), and while WD Velociraptors are pretty fast disks, all mechanical disks are by far the slowest component in your system. Nowadays it's better to get a mainstream hard disk and spend the extra money on a solid-state disk (SSD).