Offline
here's my pc specs :
i don't know if that's everything?
my drivers are up to date according to driverToolKit.
Please explain whats bad and good about the specs if you can..
Forum
Off Topic About PC specs and games
About PC specs and games
19 replies
1 
here's my pc specs :
i don't know if that's everything?
my drivers are up to date according to driverToolKit.
Please explain whats bad and good about the specs if you can..
Graphics cards is my least known area and yet if your game lags, it's very probable that it's because of your graphics card. It seems it's a graphics card for a laptop, they're usually the weakest point since most laptops have integrated graphics or whatever.
If I had to bet, I would say it's because of your graphics card.
It's not that bad either though. Which is kinda baffling since you meet not only minimum but recommended requirements too.
When does it lag? All the time? When you're loading everything? At certain times? After some time has passed since you started playing?
I have a built desktop, i got it 3 years ago and since i know nothing about these stuff, i chose the i3 processor and told the guy i wanted a graphics card that could run mediocre games, it was pretty cheap.
The game lags all the time, exactly like when u have low fps in cs2d, i don't know if that's normal but it lags on the settings window and the start menu, so everywhere all the time.
Gone home requirements:
• WindowsXP SP2 or higher
• 1.80GHz Processor
• 2GB Memory
• Video card with 512MB of VRAM
• (NOTE: Intel HD Graphic 4000 NOT CURRENTLY SUPPORTED on Windows 8 )
• 2GB HDD space
i don't get why this game lags on low settings for me..
I have a ati radeon hd 5450, I think its little bit older than yours and the other specs are near my specs.
What I found out, my graphics-card has alot problems with Shaders/bloom and that stuff, even fog or Smoke hit my Fps really hard, even with Old games, like Oblivon, my pc is from 2011 and cant get over 30 fps with Max Settings......
with bloom or hdr enabled. Textures or model stuff is for me not a problem. well I think it is not much help, but what I found out about
my graphics-card, maybe try to disable bloom and shader stuff.
Probably the TE 120's developers used an old version of SDK which doesn't have a functional / proper multi-core support thus leading to a massive low framerate. This is a wild guess though than factual, not entirely sure.
As for Gone Home, the issue would be mostly caused from Unity not properly detecting your Graphics card and might be using an integrated one onto your motherboard. You might want to check this website for a look around - here's the link below.
https://fullbright.company/technical-support/ Let me elaborate and/or guess:
Eastern Country, Summer time ambient temperature easily hits 30-40ºC The PC is probably hidden in the closet or surrounded by at least 4 side walls. Dusty PC that has never been opened beforeResult: Your CPU/GPU overheat and throttle themselves down to early 2000's speeds to not go up in flames.
^ This $#@! is easy to check: Download OpenHardwareMonitor, it will show you the temps and the clock your CPU and GPU are at. Anything above 85ºC can safely be considered critical
And if my assuptions are correct, I want to see a photo of the inner life.
GeoB99: / Agentkiller i used the lowest settings possible on both games and still lagged, i checked but there were no other graphics cards and i ran the games from amd settings to make sure.@
VADemon: how did you know lolmy pc couldn't be as bad as the one in the picture though, i mean its only been 4 years
but srsly i once tried to clean it but didn't find a screwdriver (A+ excuse), I'll take a picture when I clean it later this week
anyway the good news is that the temperatures are okay i think, i ran the game and minimized it here's the results:
Also this website says the graphics card is the shit part but i don't understand could someone give it a look please: Click
edited 1×, last 06.07.16 03:01:58 am
Ahmad: The screenshots are nice, the temps are great. Cpu Total shows 48.7% max. If Hyper-Threading doesn't mess up my interpretation, then you have 50% left as a headroom. CPU hits the target 3.3 GHz clock easily at 59 C RAM usage maxes out at 71.7% But your GPU... maxes out at 99% 
I've run the benchmark to compare the results: Your GPU is just as bad as your processor's internal GPU. (I have a similar CPU with the same integrated GPU).
In the first graphics test your GPU scores 4.2 fps, my processor's GPU passed the benchmark with 3.5 fps.
TL;DR: You just wasted money by buying that graphics card, because you could have used your iGPU instead with similar results.
I'm sorry to say, but there's nothing I can recommend but to buy a newer card. Or play at 800x600
(Honestly, when I read "ATI Radeon HD 5400 Series" I thought it's a better graphics card from the 54xx series, not the worst of them, namely 5400)
*plays team fortress 2*
*no lag*
*never plays any game besides tf2 and cs2d*
*thinks graphics card can run most games*
at least it felt good thinking i had a nice graphics card all this time, oh well not cleaning my pc until i buy a new card..
any suggestions for a good card that is compatible with my cpu and other parts?
Ahmad: Honestly the better you want to run games the more you are going to have to buy. One cannot simply always upgrade their graphics card without having to replace the CPU, motherboard, RAM, power supply and sometimes even fans! Even the storage read and write speed matters!Looking at what you have now you will probably need to replace more than just a graphics card to make sure you can run everything at a decent speed and frame rate. My guess would be to start over with a custom build.
Last year I built one with the following (prices are from the time I bought everything, fans, sound and that sort of thing are not listed because who cares):
And I have to probably buy a new graphics card next year just to make sure I can run everything on epic/ultra. Life is hard. But once you get a PC built and understand what is all in it, it's actually not that bad to keep it all up-to-date (and it doesn't cost as much as everyone wants you to believe it does).
edited 2×, last 06.07.16 08:16:10 am
Yates: but i just want to be able to run mediocre games like the ones above on high settings without lag currently ;/later maybe i'll decide whether to buy ps4 or build a high end pc, but honestly i prefer console when it comes to 'heavy' games because it's just simpler , there are many ps3 games that i havent played yet so now's not the time for an upgrade.
Thank god I don't care much about graphics, to me ps3 graphics are amazing
Yates is just insane.@
Ahmad: when your GPU load is at 99% this means it's at full load and is the bottleneck of your system because it can't do any faster.As for graphics card you have these options:
If you want to record gameplay videos, go for GTX 660/670 or Radeon HD 7850 since they are the first series to support hardware acceleration for video capturing. They will make a great deal if you find them for under 80€ second-hand.
If you don't care about video capture, aim for something around GTX 570 that's cheaper than the ones above but almost just as powerful (50-60 Eur second-hand).
Contact me if you decide to buy a new graphics card to double-check things.
(my mobile firefox crahed here, I thought to have lost the post)
PS:
As for consoles... marketing budgets are still rising, I guess. They have less frames per second (often locked to 30, that's less than CS2D) and have lower resolution in games (Battlefield 4):
http://gamingbolt.com/battlefield-4-visual-analysis-ps4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-xbox-360-vs-ps3 has written
PS4 vs. Xbox One vs. PC
We’ll get this out of the way right now: The PS4 version looks better than the Xbox One version. It’s not a far and away victory, but the differences are very noticeable. Of course, neither compare to the PC version in performance but we’ll get to that.
The PS4 version outputs at 1600×900 resolution while the Xbox One version features a 1280×720 resolution. You’ll notice the utter lack of “1080” in both resolutions due to the goal of maintaining a 60 FPS frame rate. Overall, the level of destructibility, the sheer detail in the textures – whether it’s assorted debris or individual rain drops hanging off one’s gear – and the busy surroundings raging with tidal waves, capsizing ships and explosions is just as impressive now as the first time we laid eyes on Battlefield 4.
That being said, both the PS4 and Xbox One stall significantly in their frame rates when encountering these sequences. The PS4 is a lot better, losing only a few frames every now and then, but still suffers significantly when playing online.
We’ll get this out of the way right now: The PS4 version looks better than the Xbox One version. It’s not a far and away victory, but the differences are very noticeable. Of course, neither compare to the PC version in performance but we’ll get to that.
The PS4 version outputs at 1600×900 resolution while the Xbox One version features a 1280×720 resolution. You’ll notice the utter lack of “1080” in both resolutions due to the goal of maintaining a 60 FPS frame rate. Overall, the level of destructibility, the sheer detail in the textures – whether it’s assorted debris or individual rain drops hanging off one’s gear – and the busy surroundings raging with tidal waves, capsizing ships and explosions is just as impressive now as the first time we laid eyes on Battlefield 4.
That being said, both the PS4 and Xbox One stall significantly in their frame rates when encountering these sequences. The PS4 is a lot better, losing only a few frames every now and then, but still suffers significantly when playing online.
With that said, my rig from 2011 (i5-2400 + GTX 570) is still able to run most games at 1080p with 60 fps at mid settings and it can be used as a powerful workstation as well (unlike consoles that are only for "entertainment").
_Yank has writtenAMD
I died a little inside.
Anyways, I think that he should wait a little bit and see what both companies have to offer (especially if he is on the budget), 1000 series from nvidia has just released and there will be more additions (1050, Ti's and stuff) and AMD 400 series is near its full launch.
edited 1×, last 07.07.16 05:20:21 pm
anyone knows?
Even though I know nothing about power supplies and I just googled the model.
Bottom row: (3.3V * 28A) + (5V * 45A) + (12V * 18A) = 533.4 W
So whatever the actual value is, it's way above the 400w mark.
And by the way, it's called "ATW-900" so it probably is a 900W PSU (but I wouldn't necessarily test it
) 
I don't think it's actually 900w that's too good for my pc, but its above 400w and thats what matters...i googled the psu before and all i could find is a spanish company but i couldnt find this model in their website http://www.premium.es/web/en/premium_presentacion.phpthis psu has made in china written on it though so it might be a copy, but unlikely cuz it worked well for the past 4 years
1