How is this computer running games this well?

[majneeds2chill]

I have an Acer low-end laptop that cost $379 with an i5 at 2.3-2.8 GHz, 4 GB DDR4 Memory, and 2112 MB Video memory in its low-end Intel HD Graphics 520 Graphics Card.

Everything about this setup screams "won't run much", but I was able to run 2014's extremely graphically intense "Alien Isolation" at Ultra settings and got around 20 FPS average, which in my eyes is completely playable and looks great.

I'm completely bewildered as to how such low-end hardware can run this well. I've heard people trash talk this graphics card as barely able to handle flash games!

This laptop is all I could afford, and I didn't expect this performance at all, and it almost makes me suspicious!

Is there something I'm missing? Is this a normal performance rating for such hardware, or does this bewilder anyone else?

 

[genthug]

Take a look at this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
Cross referenced with the recommended settings on Alien Isolation which is a recommended R9 200 series/GTX660, minimum HD5550/GT430 your iGPU is quite a bit lower than recommended, but it's also quite a bit above the minimum specs to run it. There's also the fact that for 90% of the population, 20FPS would make eyes bleed. If I'm running a game below 40, I turn settings down. 20 isn't "playable", it might look great but where you're attempting to run a simulation you don't want to see stutter, you want to see a continuous loop. It's like trying to watch a DVD with a bunch of scratches on it. You get occasional pauses/glitches that just make it unwatchable. If it was a still frame, sure that's fine. But it's a simulation. So, no, that isn't exactly "playable". And Alien Isolation is not exactly "extremely graphically intense".

 

[majneeds2chill]

Take a look at this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
Cross referenced with the recommended settings on Alien Isolation which is a recommended R9 200 series/GTX660, minimum HD5550/GT430 your iGPU is quite a bit lower than recommended, but it's also quite a bit above the minimum specs to run it. There's also the fact that for 90% of the population, 20FPS would make eyes bleed. If I'm running a game below 40, I turn settings down. 20 isn't "playable", it might look great but where you're attempting to run a simulation you don't want to see stutter, you want to see a continuous loop. It's like trying to watch a DVD with a bunch of scratches on it. You get occasional pauses/glitches that just make it unwatchable. If it was a still frame, sure that's fine. But it's a simulation. So, no, that isn't exactly "playable". And Alien Isolation is not exactly "extremely graphically intense".

I guess I'm just used to lower frame rates due to my budget, hehe. Thanks for the explanation. I'm kinda surprised 20 is THAT bad though. I didn't really see stutter except for animations (like the kill animation), though I COULD tell there was a tiny, tiny delay.

I mean, I know 30 in considered the ""minimum", as it is the frame rate of the eye, but I was still able to be immersed in it at 20. At around 17 is where I notice the stutter pretty bad.

This is the best computer I've ever owned, so I guess that is why I don't mind so much. I actually managed to get halfway through the game at 14 FPS average on my previous machine on the lowest settings. When I bought this, I expected 20 FPS, but on "Very Low" settings, not "Ultra".

I hope that helps make sense of it. Thanks for the detailed answer.

 

[genthug]

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Interesting read, I would give it a go. Some of the stuff explained in there is also an explanation of how consoles make 30FPS seem fluid. Your eyes can interpret far more than 30FPS, but it's entirely dependent on what you're doing.