Grimrock

Hello friends,
I own a Sparkle GT210 graphics card specifications of my graphics card are : http://www.softwaretechnology.info/2012 ... force.html ,
my question is will i be able to play Dungeon crawling?
If so,at what settings,is it recommended for smooth gameplay without any lags.please reply!!!!

geeker wrote:Hello friends,
I own a Sparkle GT210 graphics card specifications of my graphics card are : http://www.softwaretechnology.info/2012 ... force.html ,
my question is will i be able to play Dungeon crawling?
If so,at what settings,is it recommended for smooth gameplay without any lags.please reply!!!!

Well .. LoG will run on that card BUT don't expect it to be lag free at any time.

My second PC has an old 7600 GT. Out of curiousity i installed LoG there and found that while running LoG in 1280x1024 fullscreen (my old PC's native resolution) with Texture Resolution and Filtering on High i have to reduce Shadows to Low and set SSAO to Off to get an OK framerate of 30+ FPS or higher.

Now the GT210 only has about half the power of my old 7600 GT so you will have to lower things even further.

I play Grimrock on three different computers with varying graphics card power, the crappiest of which is my main laptop with a POS built-in "Intel HD Graphics" on a Core i3. I have most of the Grimrock graphics settings turned to the lowest in order to get a smooth enough gameplay experience (and I think it still looks pretty good)

geeker wrote:Hello friends,
I own a Sparkle GT210 graphics card specifications of my graphics card are : http://www.softwaretechnology.info/2012 ... force.html ,
my question is will i be able to play Dungeon crawling?
If so,at what settings,is it recommended for smooth gameplay without any lags.please reply!!!!

Despite I was not able to find a example for a succesful geforce 200 series usage with LoG, I found a benchmark 2 generations older: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2738&p=28235&hilit=nvidia#p28235, where it runs very well. Also, all reports I have seen show that LoG runs very well on Nvidia cards (even half a decade old). ATI/AMD cards should not older then 3-4 years, on older one performance can be a problem (HD2000 or HD3000 series).

So, I'm pretty sure LoG should work very well (>60fps) for you.

badhabit wrote:

geeker wrote:Hello friends,
I own a Sparkle GT210 graphics card specifications of my graphics card are : http://www.softwaretechnology.info/2012 ... force.html ,
my question is will i be able to play Dungeon crawling?
If so,at what settings,is it recommended for smooth gameplay without any lags.please reply!!!!

Despite I was not able to find a example for a succesful geforce 200 series usage with LoG, I found a benchmark 2 generations older: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2738&p=28235&hilit=nvidia#p28235, where it runs very well. Also, all reports I have seen show that LoG runs very well on Nvidia cards (even half a decade old). ATI/AMD cards should not older then 3-4 years, on older one performance can be a problem (HD2000 or HD3000 series).

So, I'm pretty sure LoG should work very well (>60fps) for you.

Actually i don't see how the 8600 GT can achive 60+ FPS when it delivers only about 5% more performance on average (according to tomshardware.com) compared to my old PC's 7600 GT. Both cards are listed at the PassMark video benchmark table at about the same performance level (383 and 394) while the GT210 is only at 211.

I just re-checked it to tell no BS: the best FPS rate my 7600GT can get with LoG is up to 45 FPS in 1280x1024. That's with CPU at 30%, GPU at 100%(!), fullscreen, Textures High, Shadows Low, SSAO off and facing a wall. Throughout the game i see a range from 20 to 35 FPS depending on the room and it's quite playable this way. But once i set Shadows from Low to High framerate drops up to 5 frames, the game starts to behave laggy and with switching in SSAO too the framerate is virtually nailed at 10 no matter what.

K, I know that with the Geforce 8 the advanced Shader 4.0 was introduced so it's very likely that high Shadows and SSAO settings don't matter much past the GF7 chips. Still, ratings are ratings and here the GT210 is very far behind both GeForce 7 and 8 cards mentioned here.

Moved to Support and Tech Discussion.

Daniel.

Dr.Disaster wrote: Actually i don't see how the 8600 GT can achive 60+ FPS when it delivers only about 5% more performance on average (according to tomshardware.com) compared to my old PC's 7600 GT. Both cards are listed at the PassMark video benchmark table at about the same performance level (383 and 394) while the GT210 is only at 211.

I just re-checked it to tell no BS: the best FPS rate my 7600GT can get with LoG is up to 45 FPS in 1280x1024. That's with CPU at 30%, GPU at 100%(!), fullscreen, Textures High, Shadows Low, SSAO off and facing a wall. Throughout the game i see a range from 20 to 35 FPS depending on the room and it's quite playable this way. But once i set Shadows from Low to High framerate drops up to 5 frames, the game starts to behave laggy and with switching in SSAO too the framerate is virtually nailed at 10 no matter what.

K, I know that with the Geforce 8 the advanced Shader 4.0 was introduced so it's very likely that high Shadows and SSAO settings don't matter much past the GF7 chips. Still, ratings are ratings and here the GT210 is very far behind both GeForce 7 and 8 cards mentioned here.

Right, we have no real benchmark up to now, so this is just guessing based on indications. But even older and slower Nvidia ION chipsets are reported offering (almost) enough performance (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=104&start=40).
By clock by clock (598 vs 560 MHz), shader unit number (16 vs ~17) the GT210 and the 7600 seems comparable (don't think memory bandwidth matters in LoG), so at least the same performance is to expect, probably better because of the advanced architecture.

GT210 (40nm)
graphic clock 589 MHz
DDR3 800 MHz
Memory Interface: 64-bit bus
12.4GB/s memory bandwidth
16 SPUs, 8 Texture Address Units, 4 ROPs.

7600GT
graphic clock 560 MHz
Memory Clock Speed: 700 MHz (1400 MHz effective)
Memory Interface: 128-bits
Memory Bandwidth: 22.4 GB/s memory bandwidth
Fill Rate:4.48 billion pixel/s and 6.72 billion texel/s
Vertex/s: 700 million
five vertex shader units, 12 texture/fragment shader pipelines

(PS: But you are right > 60fps seems a little bit overoptimistic, i drop my guess to >30fps, which should be OK for playing )

EDIT: hmm, found the information that the gt210 is just the shrinked variant of the 8x00/9x00 architecture.
EDIT 2: there is a report of succesful finishing LoG with a geforce 210 viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1680&p=17629&hilit=geforce#p17629

it'll run fine. my laptop is way under the specs and still manages about 30fps with medium textures/filtering and the rest on low. 1.6GHz core 2 duo, 1GB ram, and geforce 8400m GS (which has 16 shaders/cuda cores and 256MB-64bit GDDR2), so the GT210 is about the same maybe a tad better because of higher core/mem clocks. but with more vram (1024MB) on your GT210 you should be able to turn texture quality up to high with that much memory. I'm actually surprised it runs at all on the above guy's 7600GT since that was a very old arch before unified shaders.

My desktop is really overkill though with a geforce GTX 690. with 3072 shaders/cuda cores it doesn't even go past the low power mode