Can my laptop run this?

[ConcreteKitten]

So after about a year of Warthunder and finally realizing that this seems so much more fun I'm thinking of getting this game. However I don't want to buy something that I can't play (happened with Rust ). War Thunder runs at 50-80 fps at low settings on this rig:

Intel i5-3317 1,7 GHz, I think it's quad core though.

8 gb RAM

Geforce GT 635M

 

I tried CLOD, horrible fps there (no patches installed though).

 

Any input would be appreciated!

Edited April 15, 2014 by ConcreteKitten

[Cybermat47]

Well, if you could run War Thunder on your laptop, I guess you could run BoS. I'm not sure, though.

[ConcreteKitten]

Well I don't really care for graphics, so lowest of the low is fine. I heard it's based on RoF, maybe I can benchmark there? 

[Cybermat47]

Well I don't really care for graphics, so lowest of the low is fine. I heard it's based on RoF, maybe I can benchmark there?

 

Yeah, sure. There's a free version of RoF, so you won't be wasting any money. But you probably know this already. God, I'm tired.

[ConcreteKitten]

Well if I get reasonable fps in ROF it's all good, as long as I can see dots its all fine!

[LLv44_Mprhead]

As I said in other thread, I have laptop with GTX560M, and I would not recommend anything slower that it for BoS. Actually I wouldn't recommend this either. Maybe you can play with 635M, but most likely it will struggle.

[ConcreteKitten]

Turns out Rise of Flight runs really well, except for some minor hiccups at the beginning of a mission. As a whole, does BOS run smoother? Rise of Flight feels inherently a bit slow, especially the menus.

[Cybermat47]

Turns out Rise of Flight runs really well, except for some minor hiccups at the beginning of a mission. As a whole, does BOS run smoother? Rise of Flight feels inherently a bit slow, especially the menus.

Well, BoS might run a bit less well for you, but if Rise of Flight works, it's a safe bet that BoS will too

[Johnny_Red]

It's not just the gpu you need to worry about. You also need to consider the cpu. 1.7 ghz is pretty slow for gaming. Maybe try overclocking if you know how to do it.

[SeaQuark]

I recently got the pre-order and am running it on my laptop-- a MacBook Pro with 2.3 GhZ intel core i7, running Windows 7, 16GB ram. To be honest I am struggling with it, even with anti-aliasing all the way off and graphics on the lowest setting. I can get it to 60fps if I lower the resolution way down-- like below 1280 x 720-- but then the game just looks like mud. Even at a higher resolution, the game at its lowest settings does not look as good as War Thunder or RoF.

 

War Thunder and RoF run great on my machine, after tweaking the graphics a bit (reducing trees and so on). Unfortunately that is not possible here-- you can't tell the game to sacrifice terrain resolution for a better looking sky or shadows.

 

It's possible I'm doing something wrong, but given the specs of your machine, I would say wait until the game is released or receives proper graphics controls. It's fun to mess around with, but given how alpha the gameplay is, the real draw of the preorder now is to marvel at the amazing graphics, and if you can't do that, I don't think it's worth it right now.

[kstab]

@SeaQuark 

What is your GPU? SSD? Is it the retina MacBook Pro?

 

Up to what resolution you manage to get >24fps consantly?

 

 

 

I am planning on buying a retina MBP but I am almost convinced that I should wait for rMBP with Broadwell CPU and nVidia 850m GPU.

[SeaQuark]

@SeaQuark 

What is your GPU? SSD? Is it the retina MacBook Pro?

 

Up to what resolution you manage to get >24fps consantly?

 

 

 

I am planning on buying a retina MBP but I am almost convinced that I should wait for rMBP with Broadwell CPU and nVidia 850m GPU.

 

So your post motivated me to do a bunch of tests.

 

Here's the full specs on my laptop:

15-inch: 2.3GHz

with Retina display   (however, I usually play games on my old apple cinema display) Specifications

• 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
• Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
• 16GB 1600MHz memory
• 512GB PCIe-based flash storage 
• Intel Iris Pro Graphics
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M

  with 2GB GDDR5 memory

1680 x 1050, High Graphics, 4 anti-aliasing = 15 - 20 fps     (obviously unplayable)

1680 x 1050, Lowest Graphics, 0 anti-aliasing =  35 - 45 fps

 

1380 x 768, High Graphics, 4 anti-aliasing =  23 - 50 fps

1380 x 768, High Graphics, 2 anti-aliasing = 40 - 60 fps   (I would say these are my optimal settings)

1380 x 768, Lowest Graphics, 0 anti-aliasing = 41 - 60 fps     (oddly, very little difference in performance)

 

Note: an upgrade to 2.6ghz was available for this model, but I didn't purchase it.

 

24 fps is achievable easily, but I don't think that's really playable, very choppy. 1680 x 1050 is the maximum resolution available in my menus.

 

All of this is with VSync On, Fullscreen. One odd thing: in the start-up launcher I can select the "multi-gpu" option, but once in-game, this option is unchecked and permanently greyed out. Is this normal? Should this affect my performance?

 

The trouble is, on all of these, the frame rate varies quite wildly, depending on what's in the frame. So I'm chasing a plane up past the horizon, I'm on 60fps, then I look over my shoulder towards the ground and I go all the way down to 40, for example. 30-ish on take-off sometimes. The higher altitude I have, the closer I get to 60. Obviously my machine is struggling with the ground detail. Most of the time it just hovers around 50. No matter what my settings, the opening screen of the plane in the hangar is always around 30 fps. And of course, when running the game my macbook heats up and the fans get rather noisy.

 

The only way I can get to a totally constant 60 fps, is to go down to 720 x 480, lowest graphics, 0 anti-aliasing. Which looks like a game from 1997. Compare that to War Thunder, where I am able to achieve constant 60fps on 1680 x 1050, by futzing with the settings (high textures, high shadows, low clouds, minimum terrain detail). And it still looks very good.

 

I'm hoping that when the final version is released they'll give us specific graphic controls.

Edited April 22, 2014 by SeaQuark

[LLv44_Mprhead]

If you really need to buy laptop and it has to be mac, then I would wait until ones with 850M come. Here is article from Tom's hardware about new 800-series mobile GPUs and it seems that 800-series cards are clearly more powerful than earlier 700-series. There is also one difference that might be relevant, namely new "50"-card will be GTX, not GT, indicating that unlike GT 750M, it's actually meant for gaming. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-800m-graphics-performance,3800.html

[kstab]

@SeaQuark:

Thanks a lot for testing and posting your results. Really helpful and thorough examination.

 

You own the laptop i am planning to buy.

 

I strongly believe that a slightly faster CPU than yours would have a minimal -if any- impact on fps.

 

I am almost certain that the upcoming nVidia 850m (GTX?) would be sufficient.

 

I will probably wait for a refreshed rMBP.

 

Thanks again.