UGX-Mods
Everything Else => Computer Tech => Topic started by: smasher248 on February 26, 2016, 01:44:20 pm
-
Hi, i just wanted to see who else is playing bo3 on a laptop, as it seems most people are running it on a high end desktop, saying that laptops are not good enough :P
-
Hi, i just wanted to see who else is playing bo3 on a laptop, as it seems most people are running it on a high end desktop, saying that laptops are not good enough :P
I'm sure that a lot of laptops could run bo3, but they are much more expensive then desktops especially if you want to run it at high settings. Which is why most serious pc gamers have desktops.
-
If you can handle it at 480p resolution, sure, you can play on a laptop :D
-
If you can handle it at 480p resolution, sure, you can play on a laptop :D
i play it on high settings at 1080p on my laptop :D
-
I got a Lenovo Y50 with a NVIDIA 860M (16GB RAM, Intel i7), and I have everything on max (90% render, 1080p) with 60FPS and little to no drops (Except Shadows of Evil and that confounded drop between Junction and Waterfont :c)
All in all, laptops get the job done pretty well, and the game still looks nice. I mean, unless you're going for 4K resolution on 200% render at max settings, there's no reason to go ham on a good desktop.
Mine cost me $1500 because it's 100% SSD, but they normally go for about $850, the same as any mid-range desktop with the same performance. We're still PC users, Desktopians, we're not ashamed of our specs :yeah:
-
I got a Lenovo Y50 with a NVIDIA 860M (16GB RAM, Intel i7), and I have everything on max (90% render, 1080p) with 60FPS and little to no drops (Except Shadows of Evil and that confounded drop between Junction and Waterfont :c)
All in all, laptops get the job done pretty well, and the game still looks nice. I mean, unless you're going for 4K resolution on 200% render at max settings, there's no reason to go ham on a good desktop.
Mine cost me $1500 because it's 100% SSD, but they normally go for about $850, the same as any mid-range desktop with the same performance. We're still PC users, Desktopians, we're not ashamed of our specs :yeah:
i just got a new one with a 970m, it runs fine at 1080p on high settings, but as soon as i put on dynamic shadows or textures on extra i start to drop frames to about 50% of what it was for some reason
-
i just got a new one with a 970m, it runs fine at 1080p on high settings, but as soon as i put on dynamic shadows or textures on extra i start to drop frames to about 50% of what it was for some reason
Sounds like it's maxing out the amount of VRAM the card actually has.
-
Sounds like it's maxing out the amount of VRAM the card actually has.
oh ok thanks, its only a 3gb card, and the 6gb card was £80 more, but the forums said that the gpu would bottleneck before the vram did
-
oh ok thanks, its only a 3gb card, and the 6gb card was £80 more, but the forums said that the gpu would bottleneck before the vram did
Yeah BO3 is very demanding on VRAM. I have a 960 with only 2 GB of VRAM and it doesn't even give me the option to turn texture resolution up past medium lol. Doesn't really bother me though, I have most of the other setting up the whole way besides the fancy lighting settings.
-
not on a Dell, it would literally be a nightmare lol
-
oh ok thanks, its only a 3gb card, and the 6gb card was £80 more, but the forums said that the gpu would bottleneck before the vram did
Well, hardly any other game that I know of even uses as much VRAM as BO3 does. Like really, the textures(even on high) look like complete crap yet it consumes 3+ GB of VRAM and like 6+ System RAM.
In other demanding games(Like BF4) 3GB would be enough.
-
I have an asus F550L and i can (kinda) play BO3 with it but it is slow everything with everything at low :/ they should optimize the game for older GPUs as well.
-
Yeah BO3 is very demanding on VRAM. I have a 960 with only 2 GB of VRAM and it doesn't even give me the option to turn texture resolution up past medium lol. Doesn't really bother me though, I have most of the other setting up the whole way besides the fancy lighting settings.
can get those options back, just have to change one thing in your config
-
can get those options back, just have to change one thing in your config
Can confirm this works, got my texture resolution up to High since Medium looks like crap with no negative effects on my 570. You won't get banned for doing this also, in case you're worried.
I have an asus F550L and i can (kinda) play BO3 with it but it is slow everything with everything at low :/ they should optimize the game for older GPUs as well.
I don't really agree, while I do agree it's a bit sluggish on even some decent mid-range GPUs and even on my 570 at times which can run other games like Far Cry 3, etc. fine which imo look 1000 times better, you can't expect a company to take into consideration the, let's say, 9800 GTX release ages back for the GT 730.
-
Can confirm this works, got my texture resolution up to High since Medium looks like crap with no negative effects on my 570. You won't get banned for doing this also, in case you're worried.
I don't really agree, while I do agree it's a bit sluggish on even some decent mid-range GPUs and even on my 570 at times which can run other games like Far Cry 3, etc. fine which imo look 1000 times better, you can't expect a company to take into consideration the, let's say, 9800 GTX release ages back for the GT 730.
or for it to even be possible, people forget this is a "next gen game" - therefore needs "next gen hardware"
cant just optimize the game till it works, the "hardware" you guys use has "limits"
i mean crap half the guys around here trying too play it on high settings, are the same people that struggle running waw - a 8 year old game - at medium settings...
-
or for it to even be possible, people forget this is a "next gen game" - therefore needs "next gen hardware"
cant just optimize the game till it works, the "hardware" you guys use has "limits"
i mean crap half the guys around here trying too play it on high settings, are the same people that struggle running waw - a 8 year old game - at medium settings...
to be fair, waw is really badly optimised, i get about 200fps on waw max settings and 120 fps bo3 high, and bo3 has far more detail than waw.
-
the engine has also evolved,
so engine gets better, makes it easier on hardware
so they add more features and improvements - eating that bottle neck back up again
BO3 was designed for PC - unlike its predecessors, it shouldnt suffer the same fate. 90% of people ive seen complaining about it running bad have bad settings in play and old hardware ( not old per-se,, but we knew long beffore it came out BO3 would reqquire "above average" )
the fact it "requires" so much just for the minimum requirements pretty much screams "you need a relatively modern PC to use me"
-
to be fair, waw is really badly optimised, i get about 200fps on waw max settings and 120 fps bo3 high, and bo3 has far more detail than waw.
My desktop PC on 4K res:
waw max settings - 60fps
Bo3 low settings - 9fps
How is waw badly optimized?
-
My desktop PC on 4K res:
waw max settings - 60fps
Bo3 low settings - 9fps
How is waw badly optimized?
think he means coz it was ported from console
-
My desktop PC on 4K res:
waw max settings - 60fps
Bo3 low settings - 9fps
How is waw badly optimized?
"I get about 200fps on waw max settings and 120 fps bo3 high, and bo3 has far more detail than waw."
that is how
-
"I get about 200fps on waw max settings and 120 fps bo3 high, and bo3 has far more detail than waw."
that is how
getting lower frames comparison on a old to a new game does not mean the new engine is worse... merely that to display the better graphics and higher limits "requires" more power...
waws "ultra" is the equivalent of a much lower setting on BO3 and still would not allow as much loaded
-
Hi, i just wanted to see who else is playing bo3 on a laptop, as it seems most people are running it on a high end desktop, saying that laptops are not good enough :P
Laptops were created for a reason. recreational use 'gaming' was not one of them.
The capabilities and power (The entire purpose) of a graphics card chipset extended into a motherboard gives the computer the ability to display. Laptops cannot. (Well, now they have USB enabled PCI-E docks for laptops Woo!)
However think of a laptop's GPU "Chipset" as a synthetic graphics card.
Same difference between Flash memory compared to other types
Only reason they started beefing up laptops to be 'ABLE' to play games is because people wanted it, people buy it. doesn't make it a good idea.
Even though I COULD I wouldn't use a Tank in a street race.
-
Laptops were created for a reason. recreational use 'gaming' was not one of them.
The capabilities and power (The entire purpose) of a graphics card chipset extended into a motherboard gives the computer the ability to display. Laptops cannot. (Well, now they have USB enabled PCI-E docks for laptops Woo!)
However think of a laptop's GPU "Chipset" as a synthetic graphics card.
Same difference between Flash memory compared to other types
Only reason they started beefing up laptops to be 'ABLE' to play games is because people wanted it, people buy it. doesn't make it a good idea.
Even though I COULD I wouldn't use a Tank in a street race.
K.
i use it for gaming in multiple places, and it more than meets my needs so i dont agree with u in any way
-
Laptops were created for a reason. recreational use 'gaming' was not one of them.
The capabilities and power (The entire purpose) of a graphics card chipset extended into a motherboard gives the computer the ability to display. Laptops cannot. (Well, now they have USB enabled PCI-E docks for laptops Woo!)
However think of a laptop's GPU "Chipset" as a synthetic graphics card.
Same difference between Flash memory compared to other types
Only reason they started beefing up laptops to be 'ABLE' to play games is because people wanted it, people buy it. doesn't make it a good idea.
Even though I COULD I wouldn't use a Tank in a street race.
There are a number of laptops available that are more than capable at playing current titles at decent settings with acceptable heat and power usage. Your post would have worked fine 10-15 years ago, not now, we are in an age where a high power portable machine isn't that hard to obtain.