Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Shouldn’t 256mb VRAM make for smoother gameing?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 19, 2010 1:37:10 PM

I’ve been playing World of Warcraft on the lowest of settings and have expected it to run much better on 256Mb of VRAM but was wrong....or am i?
From what I’ve found out looking at various sources Wow (world of Warcraft) only needs 64mb of VRAM to run at lowest settings (Not much at all) and here I am on my machine running on macros to make the settings lower than the game offers. I can play Halo 2 and Combat arms at 40 - 50 fps and they look a whole lot better than Wow so what gives? My friends’ computer has a Display card with even lower VRAM then mine and runs Wow on Fair settings and 30fps and On my machine I’m running at 17 - 20fps. Now I know that It can run allot better than that so why in the world is it not? I turn off all background processes and play in full screen and even reduce windows effects and that still doesn’t seem to have any difference. I don’t think my fire wall has anything to do with this but it hardly takes any room on my computer. I’ve also turned off all anti - analyzing and shaders including particles and anti-trophic features and reduced the view distance down to low in game. :heink: 
Is there a way i can make my display card utilize what memory it has and NOT hold back because that’s what it seems it’s doing. I’m not sure I can share extra RAM with VRAM. I’m not sure what card my machine uses yet but can repost my system specs later today.

So far all i know about it is:

Manufacturer: Hp (Hewlett-Packard)
Model: Pavilion a4316f-b desktop
OS: Windows Vista Home
CPU/Ram: 4.00 GB
Video Card: ?? (Post later when i get home)
a b U Graphics card
November 19, 2010 3:16:17 PM

Video RAM isn't the only thing that determines performance.No matter how much of it you have, performance will always be poor if you're running integrated graphics.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 19, 2010 4:05:19 PM

Integrated graphics aren't meant for gaming performance-
Smoother gameplay doesn't only depend on vram, it depends on the graphics engine core speed too.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 19, 2010 4:22:11 PM

Integrated is only good for low gaming needs and watching either video's/surfing the internet. Depending on what you have, either the newer 4200's, and intel set of graphics, or a 6150 which are so common in store bought prebuilts from HP.
6150=Congrats, you can play games like DOOM 3 and Half Life on medium settings at 1280x1024.
Intel= You might be able to play CS1.6 at 1280x1024.
4200 HD= WoW is possible, on low settings and 1280x1024 works generally well.

I say try and go for a 4570/9400 gt if your psu is at least 300w. It'll increase gaming performance by nearly 5x.
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
November 19, 2010 5:55:27 PM

Quote:
www.pcmag.com says, "Cons: Poor 3D gaming. Bloatware."


Your PC has the nVidia GeForce 9100 chipset in it according to the pcmag.com review.

World of Warcraft has apparently become more demanding over the years with each expansion pack. Integrated graphics simply aren't enough to play WoW anymore these days.

Keep in mind, with an integrated graphics chip, that 256MB of VRAM is actually 256MB of your system RAM being used/designated for the GPU. This slows down the whole system a little bit as you don't have as much RAM for everything else.

Here's a synthetic example to compare performance of your integrated graphics versus some other budget/cheap video cards:


http://service.futuremark.com/hardware/graphics_cards/a...
Share
November 19, 2010 6:12:06 PM

Tamz_msc said:
Video RAM isn't the only thing that determines performance.No matter how much of it you have, performance will always be poor if you're running integrated graphics.



Ahh yes it is intergrated i remember that much, im still not home yet to send fullspecs of my system for you guys to look further into but yes I belive its intergrated. If thats so I guess I am going to have to buy a new card.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 9:11:10 PM

Ok my Video card and such are:

Intel(R) G33/G31 Express Chipset Family.

Display

Approx. Total Memory: 286
Manufacturer: Intel Corp.
Chip Type: Intel(R) GMA 3100
DAC Type: Internal
Current Display Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Drivers:

Main Driver: igdumdx32.dll
Version: 7.15.0010.1666 (Engligh)
Date: 2/26/2009 6:34:14 Pm (This probably needs to be updated :na:  )
WHQL Logo'd: Yes
DDI Version: 9Ex
__________________________________________________________/

System Info

OS: WIndows Vista Home Premium (6.0, Build 6002)
System Manufacturer: HP-Pavilion
System Model: Up to date
BIOS: 02/26/08 Ver:5.21 (This Also needs to be updated :lol:  )
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.0GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.0GHz
Memory: 3062MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
_________________________________________________________/




Score
0
November 19, 2010 9:20:35 PM

expecting larger vram to run games faster is like expecting a car with larger gas tank to go faster...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 20, 2010 1:22:50 AM

Try purchasing a cheap grahpic card for like $40
Score
0
November 20, 2010 2:05:21 AM

when experiencing really slow game play on a laptop/netbook one may have to forgo full screen even at 640X480 low resolution as long as the hardware is Stretching that resolution to your screen its gonna cause some bad loss of fps

set your laptop/netbooks screen to "Centered timings" even 640X480 on an 11" screens centered is still bigger than a psp think of it in that light it doesn't seem so bad to have to do that to get an extra 4 or 5 Fps

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 20, 2010 2:18:35 AM

dafunklull said:
when experiencing really slow game play on a laptop/netbook one may have to forgo full screen even at 640X480 low resolution as long as the hardware is Stretching that resolution to your screen its gonna cause some bad loss of fps

set your laptop/netbooks screen to "Centered timings" even 640X480 on an 11" screens centered is still bigger than a psp think of it in that light it doesn't seem so bad to have to do that to get an extra 4 or 5 Fps

Wow, you need to lay off of the sauce.

Model: Pavilion a4316f-b desktop
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
a b Ý World of Warcraft
November 20, 2010 4:19:39 AM

I would agree with buying a really cheap Graphics Card,For around $50 you can play WoW on high settings.
Score
0
November 24, 2010 10:31:43 PM

Best answer selected by morkintash.
Score
0
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Ý World of Warcraft
November 25, 2010 12:12:11 PM

This topic has been closed by Maziar
Score
0
!