Advice on Specs.

[xxmaelstrom]

Hey everyone. I was wondering what you make of these specifications and what settings you think I could run SS at. I'm currently running everything at High on the Shader Version 1.

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz
2.19 GHz Performance Rated at: 3.6135 GHz

3.0 GB RAM

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition Service Pack 2 (build 6002), 32-bit

GeForce 8600M GT
Video RAM: 1.5 GB
3D: Yes
Hardware T&L: Yes
Pixel Shader Version: 4.0
Vertex Shader Version: 4.0

10.0 DirectX Version

[bɑne]

1.5gb video ram? How much of that is shared memory?

[xxmaelstrom]

1.5gb video ram? How much of that is shared memory?

Not sure. How do I find out?

[sbroadbent]

Hey everyone. I was wondering what you make of these specifications and what settings you think I could run SS at. I'm currently running everything at High on the Shader Version 1.

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz
2.19 GHz Performance Rated at: 3.6135 GHz
3.0 GB RAM
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition Service Pack 2 (build 6002), 32-bit

GeForce 8600M GT Video RAM: 1.5 GB
3D: Yes
Hardware T&L: Yes
Pixel Shader Version: 4.0
Vertex Shader Version: 4.0

10.0 DirectX Version

I have:

Intel Core 2 Duo e6300 (1.86Ghz)
2GB RAM
Radeon x1950 Pro

... and I maxed out all the settings, while bumping up to the monitor's native resolution, and things run pretty smoothly.

According to this site: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Your cpu is somewhat better than what I have, though the video card falls behind. I presume that you have a laptop there.

I'd try to bump up settings and test to see how high you can put settings up with a performance that you can tolerate. The GPU performance is more than likely a more important comparison than processor, so you may not be able to put everything to max.

[xxmaelstrom]

I have:

Intel Core 2 Duo e6300 (1.86Ghz)
2GB RAM
Radeon x1950 Pro

... and I maxed out all the settings, while bumping up to the monitor's native resolution, and things run pretty smoothly.

According to this site: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Your cpu is somewhat better than what I have, though the video card falls behind. I presume that you have a laptop there.

I'd try to bump up settings and test to see how high you can put settings up with a performance that you can tolerate. The GPU performance is more than likely a more important comparison than processor, so you may not be able to put everything to max.

Is there any way I could bump up the GPU/Video Card's performance? Like mess with the shared memory or something? Or mess with memory allocated to the game? Something?

[xxmaelstrom]

Also I'd like to note that I can't run Shader Version 2 AT ALL. It lags ALL battles to being unplayable. No idea why given my specs.

[bɑne]

My old system had a 8600M GS, 4gb ram and Turion 64 X2 2ghz - I suspect you could use the following settings as a baseline:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[video]
anisotropic_level = 4
anti_alias_mode = off
antialiasing = 0
assassination_movies = 0
autodetect = 0
battle_resolution = 1024 768
bloom = 1
building_detail = high
campaign_resolution = 1024 768
depth_shadows = 1
depth_shadows_resolution = 1
effect_quality = lowest
event_movies = 1
gamma = 128
grass_distance = 0
ground_buffers_per_node = 4
ground_cover_buffers_per_node = 4
infiltration_movies = 0
model_buffers_per_node = 4
no_background_fmv = 0
reflection = 0
sabotage_movies = 0
shader = 2
show_banners = 0
show_package_litter = 1
skip_mip_levels = 1
splashes = 1
sprite_buffers_per_node = 4
stencil_shadows = 1
subtitles = 1
terrain_quality = custom
texture_filtering = 2
unit_detail = low
vegetation = 1
vegetation_quality = low
vsync = 0
water_buffers_per_node = 4
widescreen = 1

You should be able to go higher then that. For details and in order to point out potential errors in my config I'll leave the field to the others

[xxmaelstrom]

My old system had a 8600M GS, 4gb ram and Turion 64 X2 2ghz - I suspect you could use the following settings as a baseline:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[video]
anisotropic_level = 4
anti_alias_mode = off
antialiasing = 0
assassination_movies = 0
autodetect = 0
battle_resolution = 1024 768
bloom = 1
building_detail = high
campaign_resolution = 1024 768
depth_shadows = 1
depth_shadows_resolution = 1
effect_quality = lowest
event_movies = 1
gamma = 128
grass_distance = 0
ground_buffers_per_node = 4
ground_cover_buffers_per_node = 4
infiltration_movies = 0
model_buffers_per_node = 4
no_background_fmv = 0
reflection = 0
sabotage_movies = 0
shader = 2
show_banners = 0
show_package_litter = 1
skip_mip_levels = 1
splashes = 1
sprite_buffers_per_node = 4
stencil_shadows = 1
subtitles = 1
terrain_quality = custom
texture_filtering = 2
unit_detail = low
vegetation = 1
vegetation_quality = low
vsync = 0
water_buffers_per_node = 4
widescreen = 1

You should be able to go higher then that. For details and in order to point out potential errors in my config I'll leave the field to the others

The WEIRDEST thing just happened. I upped my settings to Shader Version 2 (which I've NEVER been able to run before on Vanilla M2TW), ran a custom battle with Normal Unit Size like I've always ran before with Shader 1, and it actually ran SMOOTHER than before. I have NO idea why. I updated my video card driver (it was slightly out of date), but idk if that was the reason why I can run things higher now. It looks amazing!

[sbroadbent]

I have NO idea why. I updated my video card driver (it was slightly out of date), but idk if that was the reason why I can run things higher now. It looks amazing!

Perhaps that driver update made a difference. You might've had the original factory drivers installed which while acceptable for regular use, were not optimized for the best performance. The competition between ATI and Nvidia in the market means that there is some pressure to get your product out as soon as possible to stay on top. Delay can mean your customers decide to go with your competitor, reducing your eventual market (I note the battle to get multi-GPUS to market, Nvidia for a while had the only functional dual card option and took ATI forever it seemed, as well as not to mention when the Core 2 procs from Intel came out, and AMD had nothing that could even compete, performance-wise until some time down the road).

With the manufacturing and shipping process, it's not unusual for optimized drivers to only become available until after the product has left the factory and on shelves, much in the same way as the Total War games almost always require several patches to be playable (and even then it takes quite a while for the patches to be available).

[xxmaelstrom]

Perhaps that driver update made a difference. You might've had the original factory drivers installed which while acceptable for regular use, were not optimized for the best performance. The competition between ATI and Nvidia in the market means that there is some pressure to get your product out as soon as possible to stay on top. Delay can mean your customers decide to go with your competitor, reducing your eventual market (I note the battle to get multi-GPUS to market, Nvidia for a while had the only functional dual card option and took ATI forever it seemed, as well as not to mention when the Core 2 procs from Intel came out, and AMD had nothing that could even compete, performance-wise until some time down the road).

With the manufacturing and shipping process, it's not unusual for optimized drivers to only become available until after the product has left the factory and on shelves, much in the same way as the Total War games almost always require several patches to be playable (and even then it takes quite a while for the patches to be available).

I feel like it was the update that did the trick. It was only updated once...about a year ago. I agree about the competition thing as well. Anyway, it looks great. I can play on Large Unit Size with minimal lag at the beginning of the battle (up until units start dying). The bloom effect looks awesome, shadows are great and terrain and unit detail is amazing. Thanks for all the replies!