[radioman]

QUOTE (1st gtaROCKER @ Jan 3 2011, 16:35)

Is it the Total graphics memory (I've got 780 mb) or the Dedicated graphics memory (32 mb) that matters? Also, would it run on Win 7 32 bit?

Are you sure about those vram specs, cause how can you have over 700mb vram, but only 32mb is dedicated? Just curious-I mean do you have a lot of video files and/or games installed on your PC?

But, anyway, on topic-32mb will run the game, the only problem is you MUST close ALL non-essential programs, and then you will only get like 10-17fps maximum(with or without the Frame Limiter), as I used to run the game on a PC that had only 32mb of vram and that was the results. btw, what processor and processor speed do you have? and what kind of video card is it? The processor and speed matter too...

[Girish]

32 MB of video memory will not the run the game properly, no matter what you do. It doesn't even meet the minimum requirements, which is 64 MB.

[radioman]

QUOTE (girishb @ Jan 4 2011, 01:41)

32 MB of video memory will not the run the game properly, no matter what you do. It doesn't even meet the minimum requirements, which is 64 MB.

Actually, remember when I use to play in the early rounds of the Chain Game? At that time, I was playing on a laptop with an AMD Sempron 798MHZ processor, 256MB RAM, and an SIS/VIA Video card w/32mb vram, with XP Home-and that was the fps I got (15-17 w/out fraps recording) and (5-10 fps with fraps recording). SA was "playable"-with the exception of a few missions, but Dem's Mission Passer's code tool made short work of that-lol. I admit I had a lot of lag, but I got used to it and thus it wasn't that bad, it was "playable". Just a heads up...

I now have Windows 7, AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core processor, 3GB Ram, Nvidia 8200M G w/1407mb vram and get 35-80(sometimes it goes to 90+) with the Frame Limiter OFF, and all settings on High and AA OFF. Credits to Fraps for confirming FPS. On the other hand it sometimes(not often) drops to 20 in certain areas when it rains. And this is on a laptop.

SA runs better on my 7 laptop than it does on my Vista desktop-ie. on my laptop, I can run the game maxed out, but on my desktop it only runs optimally on Low Visual FX and high on the rest of the settings (25-45 fps), and this is on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core, 3GB RAM(same processor and speed and same amount of RAM as my laptop) An ATI Radeon X1250 w/1407mb vram, and Vista Home Premium.

So, evidently, based on that observation, it seems SA works better on Nvidia cards than it does on ATI Radeon cards.?

[Girish]

I won't say that 15-17 fps is playable. Besides, you were lucky to even get the the game to run on a SiS video card. I've seen many people complaining that the game doesn't work on that video card. It's worse than Intel video cards.

[radioman]

QUOTE (girishb @ Jan 4 2011, 09:51)

I won't say that 15-17 fps is playable. Besides, you were lucky to even get the the game to run on a SiS video card. I've seen many people complaining that the game doesn't work on that video card. It's worse than Intel video cards.

Actually, 15-17fps wasn't that bad for SA standards-if this was IV, than that is when it(15-17) would be considered unplayable, imo.-lol

But, the funny thing with the SIS/VIA cards is that evidently the 32mb version is better than the 64mb version, as the game ran on my laptop with the 32mb version, but it would not run on my old XP Home desktop with the same processor(but 2.1GHZ), 256mb Ram-later upgraded to 1.18GB, and the 64mb vram SIS/VIA.? So, why would it run on a 32mb card, but not a 64mb one(since 64mb is what the game says the minimum is.)? Just curious on that one.

But the funny thing about that laptop was that in the in-game settings under the fx quality, it didn't have a setting listed for it, that one was just blank, yet the game still ran-lol

But yeah, the Intel GMA cards are better than the SIS/VIA ones, because on my XP Pro laptop, with the Intel GMA card(128mb), Intel Core 2 Duo(Centrino) @ 2.0GHZ, and 2GB Ram, the game plays at Medium FX Quality AA OFF and everything else maxed, and gets around 30-80(sometimes 90) fps with the Frame Limiter OFF with very little fps drops. lol

This post has been edited by radioman on Tuesday, Jan 4 2011, 17:57

[Th3MaN1]

Operating System
MS Windows XP Professional 32-bit SP2
CPU
Intel Celeron 330
Prescott 90nm Technology
RAM
512 MB Single-Channel DDR @ 133MHz (3-3-3-8)
Motherboard
FUJITSU SIEMENS D1931 (CPU)
Graphics
Philips 107B (17inch/CM6800) (1024x768@60Hz)
Intel® 82915G/GV/910GL Express Chipset Family
Hard Drives
78GB Seagate ST380013AS (SATA)
It's a bad PC.I know.It's really bad.BUt I have a question.IF I would buy 512 or maybe 1 gb ram,and an Nvidia Card(anything cheap,maybe an 5500)would that improve fps much?I don't want to buy video cards and ram only for 5 fps more.

[Girish]

How much fps are you getting right now?

[Th3MaN1]

Indoor 30-40 fps
Outside 15-25 fps
Playing on 800x600 16
AA Off
Visual Fx quality low
Draw distance 0
Mip Mapping ON(WTF is mip mapping?)

[Girish]

Well, in that case, you should indeed get more RAM and a dedicated video card. It would certainly help boost that fps.

Or you can just save up and get a new PC altogether. Your current one is completely outdated by today's standards.

[Spider-Vice]

QUOTE (Th3MaN1 @ Tuesday, Jul 5 2011, 17:55)

It's a bad PC.I know.It's really bad.BUt I have a question.IF I would buy 512 or maybe 1 gb ram,and an Nvidia Card(anything cheap,maybe an 5500)would that improve fps much?I don't want to buy video cards and ram only for 5 fps more.

Yes, to some extent it would, but you'd have to play with low settings anyway, except 16 bit color. I've got a Pentium 4 with 1GB of RAM and an Nvidia 6200 that runs the game not very badly

[Th3MaN1]

I could play any game at 640x480 16 bit,it would not really bother me.Well ok,I will try to upgrade my pc as much as I can(when I get some cold hard cash,maybe I'll go do some missions )

[cawfee]

my phone has a dual core proccesser 1.3ghz, i could play this on mobile.