technically i think those all in 1 pcs are just laptops inside a big screen so from what i've read the "cards" are soldered on the motherboard, its rare that laptops/all in ones have a mxm slot (like mobile pcie) which means the card is replaceableVinterberg said:Woot - do shops sell all-in-one PCs with no PCIe slots???
My computer is a HP all-in-one, and I just threw out my old 9500GS and replaced it with a GTX560ti - works wonders in games
Aww man, that sucks... Why they build those kind of PCs I will never understand...
Exactly. That Acer all-in-one is exactly that: a laptop motherboard in the display enclosure. I think Acer inherited the design when they bought Gateway/eMachines. And while older Acer laptops sometimes had an MXM graphics card, more recent ones (and this one) do not.xandman said:
i just read this properly, you seem to know what your talking about but dont understand how you get a 560ti in a all in 1 pc, with the small enclsures , laptop mobos, and probably under powered psus? not having a go, just curious.Vinterberg said:Woot - do shops sell all-in-one PCs with no PCIe slots???
My computer is a HP all-in-one, and I just threw out my old 9500GS and replaced it with a GTX560ti - works wonders in games
Aww man, that sucks... Why they build those kind of PCs I will never understand...
but yeah in mobile terms, i've seen the game running playable on a 5470m, (so i think the 8800gt minimum spec is a little over the top) allbeit with a i5 cpu, so will probably be ok on a nvidia 320/420/520m, but will need a much faster cpu than minimum id reckon, but either way wont exactly be a great experience
@OP
Well that really sucks bro, how your friend advised you that a 9200 is adequate to run this game ? a 9200 is very budget end card, the game is quiet heavy on resources and requires a hefty rig if you're going after all eye candies, even my 6970 2 GB has hard time handling it with Uber sampling on...
I don't know what to advice you, as you cannot plug a new card in your PC. I can only suggest that you slowly start building a gaming PC and don't go after all in one designs this time, a PC should be customizable.
Well that really sucks bro, how your friend advised you that a 9200 is adequate to run this game ? a 9200 is very budget end card, the game is quiet heavy on resources and requires a hefty rig if you're going after all eye candies, even my 6970 2 GB has hard time handling it with Uber sampling on...
I don't know what to advice you, as you cannot plug a new card in your PC. I can only suggest that you slowly start building a gaming PC and don't go after all in one designs this time, a PC should be customizable.
Oh maybe I have misunderstood the "all-in-one" concept: I bought my HP PC some years ago as a complete PC, and recently replaced the PSU with a Corsair TX 600W one + the graphics card... But, the motherboard is a microATX one, with only a PCIe x16 (not 2.0)... But it works okay for now, until I can afford a new motherboard, CPU, memory and cooler...xandman said:
Also replaced the cabinet with a Coolermaster one, if I hadn't done that it would have gotten too hot inside
ah yeah that makes sense, yeah an all-in-one is like no tower, everything inside the screen, like laptop hardware in big screen, like the apple imac.Vinterberg said:Oh maybe I have misunderstood the "all-in-one" concept: I bought my HP PC some years ago as a complete PC, and recently replaced the PSU with a Corsair TX 600W one + the graphics card... But, the motherboard is a microATX one, with only a PCIe x16 (not 2.0)... But it works okay for now, until I can afford a new motherboard, CPU, memory and cooler...
Also replaced the cabinet with a Coolermaster one, if I hadn't done that it would have gotten too hot inside
yeah this really, there isn't really much too building a pc, everything just fits like lego. you can google all the help you need. but if you really dont have the time or patients to build one, you could get a friend or a company to build one for you. there's loads of companys out there that put together custom pcs and sell them, just do a bit of googling first to distinguish the good ones from the cowboys. its not that expensive either, for the same price or less as a all-in-one, (there's some real overpriced all-in-ones out there) you can get or build a custom built tower with much more power.Vinterberg said:
Yeah, "all-in-one" now means a computer that has the works in the same enclosure as the screen. Not a bundled system with a separate case and monitor. If all you are doing is running Windows and Office, surfing the Web, and watching videos, they are very handy, because you do not have the tower and additional cables to deal with. For gaming or anything demanding high graphics or compute performance, though, they suck hind teat. This particular all-in-one looks like this: http://www.itechnews.net/2010/09/10/acer-aspire-z5100z5101-and-z3100z3101-amd-powered-all-in-one-pcs/Vinterberg said:Oh maybe I have misunderstood the "all-in-one" concept: I bought my HP PC some years ago as a complete PC, and recently replaced the PSU with a Corsair TX 600W one + the graphics card... But, the motherboard is a microATX one, with only a PCIe x16 (not 2.0)... But it works okay for now, until I can afford a new motherboard, CPU, memory and cooler...
Also replaced the cabinet with a Coolermaster one, if I hadn't done that it would have gotten too hot inside
No room for anything but the screen and a laptop-style motherboard.
Ah thanks for clearing that up - didn't know such computers existed LOL
They build them so that the typical user has no way in hell of upgrading unless they pay the specialists extortionate amounts to replace huge amounts of hardware for them.Vinterberg said:Woot - do shops sell all-in-one PCs with no PCIe slots???
My computer is a HP all-in-one, and I just threw out my old 9500GS and replaced it with a GTX560ti - works wonders in games
Aww man, that sucks... Why they build those kind of PCs I will never understand...
On all of Acer's manuals for our PCs (we have 3 of the all-in-one aspires in this house) it claimed we could upgrade the memory ourselves effortlessly and easily (yet for some reason all manuals were for Acer aspire laptops). We bought the memory for each unit online, but when we got it we couldn't find a way to open the units.
We contacted Acer's support through their official site to ask how to open the units, to which they kept working around the question of how to open the box, ignored us, told us we were stupid for attempting and gave us the address and contact number of a local Acer support centre (it being a 2 hour drive from here) and refused to answer anymore questions. Directly, my father phoned them and asked how to do this, they ignored. He then stated the paragraphs in the manual which claim it can be done to which the CSA hung up on him (charming, isn't it?)
Anyway, my father phoned this support centre the guy had advised us to, and was told he would need to drive two hours to unload all the computers, the memory, etc, and that they wanted £89 (per computer) plus a £20 deposit to take the back off and put in the extra 4GB memory we had bought for each computer. They THEN told us it would take three days (business days, so we would be without our computers for that weekend) and that since the computer would take up space in their shop we would have to pay £16 per day cover. They, too, refused to answer any questions on how the back comes off the unit.
After much humming and hawing, countless searches online with NO information, my dad finally pried his open, figured out how to do it, upgraded the memory on all three, took him maybe forty minutes per computer. Acer's charge would have been £471 for all three computers for memory that cost us around £40 combined. Oh, and hilariously my father posted a video on Youtube of how to open the units since there was NOTHING to explain how it was done, and Acer filed a complaint to youtube and had it taken down (on the grounds that they were "protecting their customers").
THIS is why they make these computers, they don't want people to do what costs little, they want to charge an arm and a leg for forty minutes of work and no answers or explanations. They want to give their staff the right to "play God" and decide who has the right to upgrade their units at home or who should pay extortionate balances to do a simple job. They don't want a computer user to have rights anymore. If I had known then what I know now, I would have bought a tower unit and saved myself the chaos.
That's a shame, it really is. Acer used to be one of the good guys. We have some old Acer towers that are easy to work with and as good as indestructible. They had decent customer service. In computers, your customer service doesn't have to be good. It just has to be not as awful as your competition.GratuitousViolets said:
Then they bought Gateway. I don't know whether they picked up all of Gateway's bad business practices, along with the Packard Bell and eMachines crap that Gateway had absorbed along the way. They did pick up a CEO, Gianfranco Lanci, who tried to grow the business too fast and cut a lot of corners. (He resigned last March, no reason given, which means he was fired.) They picked up Gateway's awful all-in-one and notebook lines. They invested heavily in the netbook flop.
Now they say that if you buy Acer, you had better hope it works out of the box and keeps working, because your chances of getting any tech support at all are slim and none, and Slim has left the building.
People who make threads like this are usually trying to come up with a way to help them enjoy the game on inadequate hardware, find out what they can do to make the game enjoyable without having to go out and buy the latest and leetest rig, or at least get some sympathy after they've been misled by well-meaning friends or self-interested salesmen.dkJammin said:
Waving your big iron in their face doesn't help. Not one ploughing bit.
GuyN said:
it's true. If someone is going to be wave a big iron in front of my face, I'd at least hope that Hugh Jackman or Johnny Depp was attached to it
Still driving through the issues, game is running, mouse still lags but not as bad until it's dialogue or inventory time. I've managed to get to act 1 and that's an accomplishment considering the laptop wasn't made for it. I really wish they had just focused on gameplay instead of the graphics - I think it'd have still been as much of a success regardless. If I want to see realistic looking rocks and trees, etc, I'll go outside...if I want to look at realistic looking monsters, I'll stand outside the local pub at closing time...quite a few come crawling out of that place.
Anyway, the fight goes on!
No it wouldn't, unfortunately .. The gaming industry is a battlefield, and gamers wants better and better graphics - nobody would buy a game with "year 2001" graphics :/GratuitousViolets said:
If a game has got great-looking graphics it shows the world that it's serious and is of good quality.. You know, just like a car: if Ford made a car that looked like it had rolled out of 1985 nobody would buy it these days ...
Beautiful graphics shows that there's been put alot of effort into a game: it tells something about the skills of the programmers
Happy gaming BTW
GratuitousViolets said:it's true. If someone is going to be wave a big iron in front of my face, I'd at least hope that Hugh Jackman or Johnny Depp was attached to it
Still driving through the issues, game is running, mouse still lags but not as bad until it's dialogue or inventory time. I've managed to get to act 1 and that's an accomplishment considering the laptop wasn't made for it. I really wish they had just focused on gameplay instead of the graphics - I think it'd have still been as much of a success regardless. If I want to see realistic looking rocks and trees, etc, I'll go outside...if I want to look at realistic looking monsters, I'll stand outside the local pub at closing time...quite a few come crawling out of that place.
Anyway, the fight goes on!
horses for courses i guess. if i wanted this game to have crappy graphics i'd wait for the xbox version. i buy pc games to have the best graphics. i'd advise to sell your all-in-ones and go someplace like www.overclockers.co.uk and get yourself a decent pc, and play games like the witcher 2 and assasins creed how they were meant to be played, even if you dont ultimatly buy from there, the forum has some really dedicated and helpful people who will advise you what to buy who actually know what there talking about.
quick lesson on what graphics card models are good. forget about all the complicated shaders and stuff:
radeon cards: models are denoted like this xyz0
x= series number eg at the moment were on series 6 but does not mean all series 6 cards will be fast.
y = major performance number, this is the most important, basicly the higher the number, the better, 6470 is low end and not really good for games, 6570 a bit better 6670, will run most games ok on medium, 6770, starting to become very fast 6870, 6970 top end enthusiast models. the last models which start with a 5 are also fairly indate, like 5770, 5870 are still excellent cards. it's not an exact science ie a 6870 is actually a bit slower than a 5870 but they are comparable. A 5870 for example is always going to be way ahead of the 6470 - just remember IT'S ALL IN THE SECOND NUMBER.
z = minor performance number, a 5770 is a tad faster than a 5750 but not by much, but a 5850 is quite a bit faster than a 5770.
nvidia:
at the moment they are using 3 digits for model numbers, (because they ran out of numbers at the end of the 9000 series and went back to 200, shows how old the 9200 is!!) at the moment we are on series 5, so 5x0
x = again a major performance number. so a nvidia 520 is going to be rather slow but a 560 or 570 or higher for example are very fast. 400 series again is also very indate but again remember a 520 is nowhere near as good as a 480 for example. once again ITS ALL IN THE SECOND NUMBER, as long as the series number is reasonably up to date
I'm fed up of poor salesman, crummy marketing and an overall lack of decent pre built pcs from major manufactureres giving pc gaming a bad name.
What resolution are you trying to play the game at OP? Is it possible you could run the game at a lower resolution? Perhaps start with 800x600 and see if it works (full screen or windowed mode). It's certainly not ideal but at least it might work better.
Google for a free program called FRAPS and download it and run it. It'll show you your FPS while you play the game. I've got an all-in-one also, it's got an i5 2400S 2.5GHz (3.3GHz Turbo) and has a 6750M graphics and it can only barely get 20-25 FPS (playable) on nearly the lowest settings at 1280x720p. It's a pretty tough game to play.
Google for a free program called FRAPS and download it and run it. It'll show you your FPS while you play the game. I've got an all-in-one also, it's got an i5 2400S 2.5GHz (3.3GHz Turbo) and has a 6750M graphics and it can only barely get 20-25 FPS (playable) on nearly the lowest settings at 1280x720p. It's a pretty tough game to play.
Wow! I have now read a lot of posts about this lag issue. Most of these seem to be caused by GPU issues. Makes me wonder what kind of PC's the writers have. Must be way up there. Because it seems like the game wasn't made to be used by the average or even above average PC's. I have many PC's with mostly higher than average spec's and I have the same issues. Also when I purchased this game I purchased another copy of Dragon Age 2, Dungeon Siege 3, Rift, and Portals 2. And have had no issues with these games. Just have to keep shelving this game & continue to try it at the end of each month to see if it has been updated. Because I spend a lot of money each year on a new PC. At least one a year. (The IRS tax check every year pays for them)and yet I have to install new video cards in the same PC's that run every new game I have purchased this year. I am at the Fry's computer store at least once a week spending money on games and gear. Mostly I buy new games to kill time. Since I have to be in this wheelchair for the rest of my life, I tend to have a lot of time to play games. And since I hate TV, and all the social networking junk, that leaves me with Casino's and PC games.
I am rambling too much here, I know... I tend to do that when I get tired.
Point to all this is as I have said in other posts, I think that next patch should address the lag issues and give the users an option to use the same PC that runs Wither 1, to run Witcher 2. I just cant see the logic of making a game that doest run on all the GPU's that are GB, instead of just select ones. Especially since the low end is supposed to be GB. There are GPU's that are higher than GB, but I have yet to see any come in any stock machine, even the machines that are built with high end gaming in mind.
And with the lack of quick updates I am wondering if the people that made all the cash on the loyalty of us fans of TW1 have run off. First I heard of these guys they were pretty dedicated to the fans. Don't get me wrong, they earned it, and the right to take all the time they desire, or even just give in and move on to another project. But it seems like a lot of software companies ( "Microsoft", "Atari"), push out products that have not had good testing or are written for the next gen of computers rather than the ones in use now.
Seems like most of the posts that are made on this issue have GPU's that should be able to do the job at full speed, instead they are forced to lower the game specifics because they don't have the highest of GPU's, just above average GPU's. Heck, some of the newer motherboards are coming out with built in graphics abilities that should be able to run software like this easily.
To all you techs, Thanks for the assists. To all you with GPU problems, have faith that a fix will be on its way (even if slower than we would like). And to all the persons that are working on this on the TW2 side, I say thanks. There is no reason to get angry with a problem that is just as much societies fault as any one persons. We are just doomed to repeat the errors of others in the name of technology and greed.
I am rambling too much here, I know... I tend to do that when I get tired.
Point to all this is as I have said in other posts, I think that next patch should address the lag issues and give the users an option to use the same PC that runs Wither 1, to run Witcher 2. I just cant see the logic of making a game that doest run on all the GPU's that are GB, instead of just select ones. Especially since the low end is supposed to be GB. There are GPU's that are higher than GB, but I have yet to see any come in any stock machine, even the machines that are built with high end gaming in mind.
And with the lack of quick updates I am wondering if the people that made all the cash on the loyalty of us fans of TW1 have run off. First I heard of these guys they were pretty dedicated to the fans. Don't get me wrong, they earned it, and the right to take all the time they desire, or even just give in and move on to another project. But it seems like a lot of software companies ( "Microsoft", "Atari"), push out products that have not had good testing or are written for the next gen of computers rather than the ones in use now.
Seems like most of the posts that are made on this issue have GPU's that should be able to do the job at full speed, instead they are forced to lower the game specifics because they don't have the highest of GPU's, just above average GPU's. Heck, some of the newer motherboards are coming out with built in graphics abilities that should be able to run software like this easily.
To all you techs, Thanks for the assists. To all you with GPU problems, have faith that a fix will be on its way (even if slower than we would like). And to all the persons that are working on this on the TW2 side, I say thanks. There is no reason to get angry with a problem that is just as much societies fault as any one persons. We are just doomed to repeat the errors of others in the name of technology and greed.
..or CDPR just wanted to create a beautiful game, and assumed that people could read the minimum requirements?
It may seem harsh, but I totally agree with this.
CDPR doesn't make money from selling graphics cards. Neither does Atari. Microsoft are highly unlikely to be an influencing factor - it isn't about "Big Business influence". If Big Business had been behind the decisions, we'd have got a game that made combat easier, so that the "I can't bear to die in a fight" gamers loved it, we'd have got a game without mature content, to avoid censorship issues, the XBox version would have been released first, all DLC's would have been chargeable, it would have had DRM, and CDPR would have been pressured into releasing the game a year earlier, with Flotsam recycled as Loc Muinne.
Gaming has been driving graphics technology forward for years. We have superb graphics in TW2 because it's possible, and it's only possible because each generation of games raises the bar. Long may they continue to do so.
I have every sympathy for anyone who bought the game not realising that they didn't meet the minimum requirements, and even more for that small minority of users who have problems even though they're at recommended requirements. In the latter case, I do hope that CDPR are looking into it, although I'm not necessarily convinced that it's a game problem.Vinterberg said:..or CDPR just wanted to create a beautiful game, and assumed that people could read the minimum requirements?
CDPR doesn't make money from selling graphics cards. Neither does Atari. Microsoft are highly unlikely to be an influencing factor - it isn't about "Big Business influence". If Big Business had been behind the decisions, we'd have got a game that made combat easier, so that the "I can't bear to die in a fight" gamers loved it, we'd have got a game without mature content, to avoid censorship issues, the XBox version would have been released first, all DLC's would have been chargeable, it would have had DRM, and CDPR would have been pressured into releasing the game a year earlier, with Flotsam recycled as Loc Muinne.
Gaming has been driving graphics technology forward for years. We have superb graphics in TW2 because it's possible, and it's only possible because each generation of games raises the bar. Long may they continue to do so.
There are lists over how fast cards are.
Tomshardware compile a list a few times a year.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card-gaming-performance,3042-7.html
Remember, there are discrete versions of cards those are in desktop computers, mobile versions and integrated.
Tier 1 is best card available (GTX590 or Radeon 6990), tier 34 is slowest (the tier 34 cards are 13 years old!)
From the guide, 3 tiers are considered a worthwhile upgrade:
I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in performance.
GeForce GTX260 is tier 7 (Witcher 2 remmomended)
GeForce 8800GT is tier 10 atm. (Witcher 2 minimum)
GeForce 9200 is tier 29.
I have a tier 6 card, and I can run Witcher2 almost maxed with good fps. I could max it, but then again, there would be some lag.
Tomshardware compile a list a few times a year.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card-gaming-performance,3042-7.html
Remember, there are discrete versions of cards those are in desktop computers, mobile versions and integrated.
Tier 1 is best card available (GTX590 or Radeon 6990), tier 34 is slowest (the tier 34 cards are 13 years old!)
From the guide, 3 tiers are considered a worthwhile upgrade:
I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in performance.
GeForce GTX260 is tier 7 (Witcher 2 remmomended)
GeForce 8800GT is tier 10 atm. (Witcher 2 minimum)
GeForce 9200 is tier 29.
I have a tier 6 card, and I can run Witcher2 almost maxed with good fps. I could max it, but then again, there would be some lag.