[TechnoProdigy]

Can't exactly do that since I'm going to college this fall and already need to do a work-study job for that but thanks for all the advice!

One last question, just to be sure: would those who have experience with both say that the Witcher 3 for PC is more or less demanding than TES: Skyrim? Because I can generally run Skyrim (+Dawnguard, Hearthfire, and Dragonborn) at a pleasant ~30FPS average, with up to 60FPS in less demanding areas (but as low as 12FPS in the most demanding). I think a comparison between the two might be the best way of determining for certain if it's worth playing or not (since I'm not willing to buy it only to find that I can't run it).

~dlgn

The Witcher 3 is significantly more demanding that Skyrim. If you're getting 30FPS average in Skyrim you'll probably get about 5FPS in The Witcher 3.


For reference here is a review of the AMD R9 390 which is a refresh of the AMD R9 290. Even the lowest scoring card on the graph is miles ahead of the iGPU in your laptop. You might get away with extremely low-detail levels at a very low resolution, but I wouldn't bother.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powe ... us/23.html

[dlgn]

All right. I suppose I'll have to find some way of getting a new PC. Thanks for the help.

[macrofeet]

Laptops

Laptops External Card (

)

you can buy this and similar on ebay but to be honest looks.. not the best only works on some laptops

Laptops with Internal Graphics,

Some laptops Graphics are upgradeable Via MXM slot, see following (http://www.mxm-upgrade.com/Table.html)


Desktops

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88

look at texture fill rate and pixel fill rate on charts you will see that the higher this is the more expensive the card will be on ebay

Basically some old cards are actually massively fast, not everyone knows this and you can get them cheap(newer does not mean faster for gaming) but the problem would be Direct x/Open GL compatibility DX 10/10.1 is lowest you would want to go although some older cards might have special drivers which allow them to run newer DX games, graphics memory will slow the game 512mb (dedicated) not shared is the minimum you will need for any chance of modern game running smoothly I have a laptop with NVidia Quadro fx 770m 512mb which runs elite dangerous I also managed to get elite dangerous to run on a Quadro fx 550m with 256mb but it was just playable on lowest settings both dual core laptops would not expect them to cope with the witcher 3 but...

here is the specs for elite dangerous https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=74

[TechnoProdigy]

Desktops

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88

look at texture fill rate and pixel fill rate on charts you will see that the higher this is the more expensive the card will be on ebay

Basically some old cards are actually massively fast, not everyone knows this and you can get them cheap(newer does not mean faster for gaming) but the problem would be Direct x/Open GL compatibility DX 10/10.1 is lowest you would want to go although some older cards might have special drivers which allow them to run newer DX games, graphics memory will slow the game 512mb (dedicated) not shared is the minimum you will need for any chance of modern game running smoothly I have a laptop with NVidia Quadro fx 770m 512mb which runs elite dangerous I also managed to get elite dangerous to run on a Quadro fx 550m with 256mb but it was just playable on lowest settings both dual core laptops would not expect them to cope with the witcher 3 but...

here is the specs for elite dangerous https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=74

Literally everything you said is completely and totally wrong.

Texture fill-rate and pixel fill-rate mean absolutely nothing when comparing graphics cards. If you want to accurately compare two cards, use proper benchmarks to do it. You cannot compare two cards of a different generation or from either AMD or Nvidia on specs alone.

Older cards are slower than new cards when talking about the same tier of card. It's just how it works.

[macrofeet]

Intel HD Graphics 4000 Desktop

2.6 GTexel/s
2.6 GPixel/s

EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SuperSC ACX 2.0+

81.9 GTexel/s
40.9 GPixel/s

Please show me a card that is good for gaming with low rates ?
also please list a card without dedicated memory(system shared) that is better than the dedicated alternative?

Older cards are slower than new cards when talking about the same tier of card. It's just how it works.

who said same tier ?

[macrofeet]

cheapest option I found in 3secs for you

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Graphics-Video- ... adeon+5770

£40/$80

34 GTexel/s
13.60 GPixel/s
850mhz
dx11

[TechnoProdigy]

Stop comparing cards and using their Texel and Pixel fill-rates as a rating system. That is not how graphics cards work.

Dlgn if you want a cheap card that will not require any additional hardware, look up the GTX 750 Ti.

It does not require additional PCI-E power connectors, and wipes the floor with a 5770 while being marginally more expensive. All you need is a PCI-E 2.0 or 3.0 slot.

Here is a very comprehensive benchmark against the two. You can use this site to compare virtually any card made within the last few years.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1078?vs=1130

I've been building computers since I was 14 (20 now, for reference), so I know what I'm talking about. Just for myself I've built close to 10 systems, and my last job was primarily building computers and fixing them.

[macrofeet]

I've been building computers since I was 14 (20 now, for reference), so I know what I'm talking about. Just for myself I've built close to 10 systems, and my last job was primarily building computers and fixing them.

firstly no offence but over confident people tell others they know nothing, you did not post a card with low rates that is good for gaming ? (BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXSIST)

gefore gtx 750 ti is a higher spec card AT OVER 200% more exspencive $160, the minimum to run the game the OP requested is the 5770 at $80

gefore gtx 750 ti
40.8 GTexel/s
16.3 GPixel/s

5770
34 GTexel/s
13.6 GPixel/s

Strange how these numbers increase on the better cards WOOT?

You might want to go slightly above the 5770 to have a good game experience

you should be able to get something for around $100 and not (REPLACE THE HOLE SYSTEM) like somebody told you

[macrofeet]

100% more expensive not 200% exspencive lol wtf

[TechnoProdigy]

I've been building computers since I was 14 (20 now, for reference), so I know what I'm talking about. Just for myself I've built close to 10 systems, and my last job was primarily building computers and fixing them.

firstly no offence but over confident people tell others they know nothing, you did not post a card with low rates that is good for gaming ? (BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXSIST)

gefore gtx 750 ti is a higher spec card AT OVER 200% more exspencive $160, the minimum to run the game the OP requested is the 5770 at $80

gefore gtx 750 ti
40.8 GTexel/s
16.3 GPixel/s

5770
34 GTexel/s
13.6 GPixel/s

Strange how these numbers increase on the better cards WOOT?

You might want to go slightly above the 5770 to have a good game experience

you should be able to get something for around $100 and not (REPLACE THE HOLE SYSTEM) like somebody told you

Let me explain something to you since you're obviously not getting it.

Yes, a stronger card will generally have a higher Pixel/Texel fill-rate.

NO, that does not mean you should ever use that as an indicator of performance.

A 5770 can be found for around $80 as you said. A 750Ti can be found for around $110-120 on eBay. Given that it's 2015 and the 5770 came out in 2009, I would highly recommend against getting it. Stick with the two most recent generations if you want to get a good bang-for-your-buck.

As well, Dlgn has a laptop, so he cannot add a graphics card without replacing it with a better laptop or a desktop.