Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Not sure if my Laptop can run this game..!!!
Duilyon
Member Posts: 326
I currently own this laptop : http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+17.3%26%2334%3B+Laptop+-+8GB+Memory+-+1TB+Hard+Drive+-+Black/5176239.p;jsessionid=704C324F8C421DC7A059CE0EC9E23FCD.bbolsp-app03-65?id=1218621250769&skuId=5176239
And very unsure if it can run TSW. I really want to play it but I Don't wanna purchase till I know if im able to actually play it with a good FPS. Thanks for your help 
Comments
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
**DVD ROM REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION ONLY
seems liek that laptop is pretty much updated... now it put my ol'laptop to shame hahaha... /headdesk
Be really carful OP. I've tried to run it on 2 laptops. I suggest getting the 3 day trail first to see if it works for you. I think some of the intergrated laptop cards just don't work.
That said if you do get it to work, get ready for an mmorpg with just about the most character customization and skill development on the market, second only to EVE. The setting and story/lore delivery is seen by most as the best in the bussiness.
The only sore spot for TSW is the lack of a robust meaningful pvp system, something I have a feeling will change in the months ahead.
Good luck OP.
What hardware did you have? A GeForce GTX 660M is much faster than any integrated graphics ever made. In fact, it will probably take another 3-5 years for integrated graphics to offer that level of performance.
My graphics card I think should be fine. Would you agree? Actually I have no idea what would be holding back my laptop. But I am not good with the tech stuff that is why I asked here. And I went CANYOURINIT.com or whatever and said it was barely above minimum requirements..
The nVidia GTX660M in this notebook is basically the same as the three year old desktop GTX460. 384 CUDA cores and 128bit interface.
It's nowhere comparable to a desktop GTX660 with 960 CUDA cores and 192bit interface.
It's good for running TSW on all settings at low, but don't expect to ramp up the graphics and still have an enjoyable framerate.
I just recently upgraded my GTX460 to an GTX660, so I know what I'm talking about
Damn it. I really hoped I could play at least medium settings with a good stable FPS. Well I'll test out a trial but I hate lag and itll be a nogo if I cannot pla with at least decent graphics an fps.
Sad day for this guy
Having replaced one card with a mild upgrade doesn't prove that you know what you're talking about; rather, that points in the opposite direction.
A GeForce GTX 660M is basically an underclocked GeForce GTX 650. The latter offers performance about on par with a Radeon HD 7750, Radeon HD 5770/6770, or GeForce GTX 550 Ti. Take 20% off of the clock speeds and you're closer to a Radeon HD 5750 or GeForce GTS 450, but that's still respectable gaming performance, at least for a laptop.
A GeForce GTX 460 is much faster than any of the cards in the previous paragraph. In fact, all four of the different cards that Nvidia has branded as GeForce GTX 460 are much faster than any of the cards in the previous paragraph. And that "four" is not counting the GeForce GTX 460M (roughly on par with a GTX 660M) or the custom SKUs that various board partners come up with.
Besides, you have the specs wrong. A GeForce GTX 460 had either 336 or 288 shaders (calling them "CUDA cores" is just regurgitating stupid Nvidia marketing terms) and either a 192- or 256-bit memory interface, depending on which card it was. Also, that was back when the Fermi architecture ran shaders at double the clock speed of the rest of the GPU. AMD pretty conclusively showed that more shaders at lower clock speeds is superior to that approach, so Nvidia adopted it in Kepler, and one shader in a GeForce 600 series card (excluding 400/500 series rebrands) is much slower than one shader in a 400/500 series card.
It probably will. I doubt that you'll be able to max everything, but I'd expect you to be able to turn up settings quite a ways. You'll probably need to tinker with it and figure out which graphical settings bring a huge performance hit (so you can turn them down) and which barely affect performance (and you can turn them as high as suits your taste). I haven't played TSW, so I don't know what settings it has, but if it offers SSAO, depth of field, shadows, or SSAA, turning those off entirely would be a good start.
The only thing markedly bad about your hardware (other than it being a laptop in the first place) is the 5400 RPM hard drive. That won't affect your frame rate apart from causing hitching in a relative handful of badly coded games such as Vanguard. It will just mean that you have to sit and wait at loading screens a lot longer than necessary.
I agree if the others say so
I will happily defer to them.
The laptops I tried it on to be honest were not high performance probably not even mid.. What was said when I tried to launch though was "not supported." or something to that extent and it would not run.
Looks like I will just have to try it and see! Super excited!
Is there only one server or multiple; if several then which one should I join?
I have this laptop and play TSW on it.
Do the following:
I get 40-50 fps in most areas with that and it's beautiful. :-)
Moving the lighting slider in advanced can also can increase the fps. Play around with that too.
Hope this helps.
A GeForce GTX 660M is basically an underclocked GeForce GTX 650. The latter offers performance about on par with a Radeon HD 7750, Radeon HD 5770/6770, or GeForce GTX 550 Ti. Take 20% off of the clock speeds and you're closer to a Radeon HD 5750 or GeForce GTS 450, but that's still respectable gaming performance, at least for a laptop.
A GeForce GTX 460 is much faster than any of the cards in the previous paragraph. In fact, all four of the different cards that Nvidia has branded as GeForce GTX 460 are much faster than any of the cards in the previous paragraph. And that "four" is not counting the GeForce GTX 460M (roughly on par with a GTX 660M) or the custom SKUs that various board partners come up with.
Besides, you have the specs wrong. A GeForce GTX 460 had either 336 or 288 shaders (calling them "CUDA cores" is just regurgitating stupid Nvidia marketing terms) and either a 192- or 256-bit memory interface, depending on which card it was. Also, that was back when the Fermi architecture ran shaders at double the clock speed of the rest of the GPU. AMD pretty conclusively showed that more shaders at lower clock speeds is superior to that approach, so Nvidia adopted it in Kepler, and one shader in a GeForce 600 series card (excluding 400/500 series rebrands) is much slower than one shader in a 400/500 series card.
Yeah, you're right, the GTX460 has 336 CUDA-cores and 192-bit, but they're comparable to the 384 cores and 128bit of the GTX660M.
Anyways, technical nitpicking aside, the GTX660M is comparable in performance to the GTX460 and this performance allows to run TSW with all settings on low.
Thank you very much! What type of laptop do you use and is it comparable to my own?
It's the exact same model you referenced in your link.
No, they're not comparable. One Fermi shader is not comparable to one Kepler shader. GTX 460 shaders had a stock clock speed of anywhere from 1.3 GHz to 1.556 GHz. GeForce GTX 660M shaders have a stock clock speed of 835 MHz. But again, it depends on which GTX 460 you're talking about, as Nvidia recycled the name a lot.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-460/specifications
Kepler cards have much better memory controllers than the broken Fermi memory controllers, which would allow Nvidia to clock memory much higher and get the same memory bandwidth with two channels in Kepler cards that they'd have needed three for in Fermi cards. In desktop cards, they do roughly that, but the GeForce GTX 660M doesn't, in order to save on power consumption, as GDDR5 is quite the power hog.
SSAO should definitely be off, as that's ugly fake shadows with an enormous performance hit. That's not specific to TSW; that's fundamentally what SSAO is. FXAA is certainly a good idea if the game supports it properly (i.e., applies it to 3D models but not 2D text and icons), as it's a much smaller performance hit than MSAA, let alone SSAA.
Depending on how the game models are set up, you may or may not have to turn tessellation off entirely. If they start with high-triangle models and then use tessellation to break them up into even more triangles, then they've missed the point of tessellation, so you might as well turn it off. But if they start with low-triangle models, then a moderate amount of tessellation will make the game look quite a bit better with only a modest performance hit.
I'll add that you should probably mess with shadows and see how that affects performance. Doing shadows properly would bring such an enormous performance hit that the hardware necessary to make a game playable doesn't exist. And no, quad CrossFireX Radeon HD 7970s or quad SLI GeForce GTX 680s wouldn't get the job done. Games tend to use ugly approximations that reduce the performance hit considerably, with a choice on a continuum ranging from somewhat ugly with a huge performance hit to extremely hideous with a mild performance hit. I don't know where TSW shadows land on that scale, but it's worth tinkering with--and make sure you compare it to turning shadows off entirely.
Tesselation really doesn't make the game look that much better to me. It certainly won't break my immersion while playing because I don't have bumpy gravel ;-)
Even the highest preset (Ultra) doesn't turn it on by default, which indicates to me that the developers didn't invest in it much more than to create additional eye-candy.
Disclaimer: I still play UO regularly so chances are graphics are not my highest priority. :-)
If bumpy gravel is the most notable effect of tessellation, then it sounds like they've missed the point. Think of it as the graphical equivalent of a crafting system that lets you grind crafting levels by crafting a zillion of some stupid item, but never lets you craft anything that you actually want, no matter how high your level gets. That's more a marketing checkbox than a game feature.
At least it beats what Crysis 2 did with tessellation: massive amounts of tessellation of objects that are completely flat so that tessellation makes no visual difference whatsoever. Also, massive amounts of tessellation of water that is completely invisible because it's underneath the game world.
Ahhh well playing the trial now. Game seems like a lot of fun. But my laptop clips a lot. Game slows down and such.
Shame shame. Going to keep messing with the graphics till I find the sweet spot.
Hell what resolution should I put it on? It looks so weird right now. Kind of grainy.
Well I keep playing but the FPS shoots down hardcore too frequently for me to play. I keep changingthe graphics but itll play perfect for a few minutes then will go back to the way it was. It is very odd.
Not too sure how to fix it. Maybe my computer can just not play it : (