I don't know much about video cards and I have a Radeon 9550 256m. will the game run on this or should I start looking for another card?

Thanks.

Simple quick tip (probably already mentioned), but turn off 'bloom'.

I found myself getting an instant 10-30 fps higher just by turning that off.  Also, 2 gigs of ram is FINE, but I have a pretty fast system.  In the beta, I saw a lot of different FPS reports by players, so your results may vary.

The game ran well on my system, even with 16x AF, 1600x1200 res, high settings, and 8x AA.  Probably the best graphics I've seen to date in any MMO, and I've played "a zillion" of them, including all the free ones! 

Well to the above questions about graphics cards..

I have a pretty new laptop (cannot remember the exact name, at work atm) with 4GB RAM, a 300GB hard drive, dual 2.2GHz processor. These attributes are MORE than enough to run the game. HOWEVER when I purchased the laptop nearly 2 months ago I hadn't heard much about Conan, and the graphics required, so didn't look much into laptop graphics card. Mine came with a Nvidia GeForce 8400M GT GPU.

I have very patchy FPS, anything between 25 and 10. On the lowest graphics possible 1024x768, with the current settings the graphics are FAR worse than WoW, which I can run on full graphics on 1440x900. I cannot improve the graphics quality without major lag problems. I have had a few errors whilst loading (not sure if this is the game, or my card) and there is no smoothness at all in my gameplay.

Now the decision remains, try and flog the laptop back to Sony for a refund (not sure how possible as there is nothing actually wrong with it) and buy something better or struggle on with this amazing game on very poor graphics, with very low performance. Then again I could just go back to WoW...

thanks for the info

System:

======

Dell E521 (Wal-Mart Special)

AMD Athlon X2 3600+ (duel core 1.9Ghz)

3 Gb DDR2-533 (upgraded from default 1Gb)

nVidia 7300 GS video (upgraded from built-in 6100 video)

Internet connection: 128k ISDN

Performance:

1024x768 @ lowest settings

5-10 fps (typically 8-9 fps)

ping latency 120-180

I can run on this (got 1 char to lvl 15 so far), but it is painful and I probably look drunk to other ppl watching me run by.  Video quality is still fairly nice.  No crashes or other glitches so far.  Upgrades coming this summer (4 Gb DDR2-800 next, then new Mobo/video).

Originally posted by burmese

System:

======

Dell E521 (Wal-Mart Special)

AMD Athlon X2 3600+ (duel core 1.9Ghz)

3 Gb DDR2-533 (upgraded from default 1Gb)

nVidia 7300 GS video (upgraded from built-in 6100 video)

Internet connection: 128k ISDN

 

Performance:

1024x768 @ lowest settings

5-10 fps (typically 8-9 fps)

ping latency 120-180

 

I can run on this (got 1 char to lvl 15 so far), but it is painful and I probably look drunk to other ppl watching me run by.  Video quality is still fairly nice.  No crashes or other glitches so far.  Upgrades coming this summer (4 Gb DDR2-800 next, then new Mobo/video).

The weak link in your set-up is most likely your internet connection, must be a pain for you just updating AoC?. Even a very low end 512kb DSL connection would be a wast improvement.

The 4Gb of DDR2-800 will later move to a new PC.  It also looks like my system can handle an 8600(512Mb) cladd video card.  Both items will later migrate to a new system.  This approach allows me to upgrade piecemeal w/o buying a whole new system in one shot.  FC has never listed minimum or recommended Internet speeds/latency but in-game the latency indicator at the bottom of the screen is green.  Faster Internet is not in the cards for the foreseeable future and, yes, downloading the initial patches was a 24 hour process.

Hey guys, I'm getting a new laptop and was wondering how it would handle age of conan, as well as what graphic settings I should disable. here are the specs.

Acer Aspire 6920g gemstone blue.

• Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo T5750 2.0 GHz Dual-Core
• RAM - 4 GB (installed) 4 GB (max) - DDR II SDRAM
• Hard Drive - 250 GB
• Operating System - Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium
• Graphics - NVIDIA GeForce 9500M GS - 512 MB

I understand that because it's a notebook it wont run high end, but will it give me good fps on low to medium settings?

I'd assume it would be fine... But what do you think you'd be able to run Age of Conan at with the new iMacs running Bootcamp:

nice tips, but 4 gb od ram it is the solution

Well since everyone else is doing it, I'm going to wade in with my specs too. 

Intel p4 (single core) 2.8GHZ

2GB ram (elderly motherboard only supports 2GB max)

ATI HD2600XT 512MB (middle of the road, I know, but budgetry issues forced a compromise)

Processor is marginally below the minimum required spec (3ghz single core or 2.4ghz dual), but I'm going to take a chance on it - I figured AoC will be more memory/GPU intensive than CPU intensive - also, task manager is your friend; all should be well if I just kill everything (explorer.exe included). 

Anyone who has played games for more than a couple of years will have had experiences of being able to run games flawlessly that the manufacturers claim shouldn't even run at all on your specs.  I know I have.  My theory is, then, that as long as I've got the recommended RAM and GPU, then there should be a wee bit of leeway on the CPU spec.

Should have the game by monday and then I'll know if my gamble will pay off.

My system is middle of the road, but the following improved my fps by about 15 .

intel e8400 3.0ghz

2 gigs ram

8500gt 512 mb

go to video options

go with "high" graphics

go to advanced

put shader from 3.0 down to 2.0

disable shadows

apply

this works for quite a few users on the official forum, but  then, it doesnt work for all so don't bitch if your rates dont go up.

some players report that alt-tabbing out of AoC then going back in helps with fps. Didn't for me.

Update:

Upgraded the nVidia 7300 GS/256 to an nVidia 8400 GS/512

went from 5-10 fps to 18-21 average, also now on medium settings

1024x768 @ medium settings, shader 2.0 18-21, drops to 10-12 rarely, up to 30fps in some empty areas

big note - shader 3.0 drives the fps back to below 10, shader 2.0 needs to be used on rigs like this.  Also, it has a bad habit of switching back to 3.0 after some zoning.  When I see my fps drop thru the floor, I go reset the shader to 2.0 and all is good again.

Going to break from the pattern here.

The OP actually is NOT good.  Just because something appears technical doesnt mean it is useful or accurate.

That is NOT an accurate representation of what is going on with pixel OR vertex shaders.  The two are very different routines.

Pixel shading routines apply effects on a per pixel level.  Imagine each frame of an animation as an individual bitmap image.  Before effects are applied, the image is flat (like old school games like Kings Quest :) ).  A pixel shader does some quick fancy math based on parameters to decide what new color EACH PIXEL should be AFTER the effect. 

A vertex shader performs a similar function, but does it at a higher level.  At the vertex level (naming of these routines is kept pretty simple :) )  Vertex can be broadly defined as an objects 3D definition. 

There are also geometry shaders which exist between the two.  Geometry shaders work on primitives or shapes.  So like, a triangle or square.

So now imagine a textured cube is the image.  The vertex shader starts, sees it as an actual cube, and applies some effects.  Next, the geometry shaders sees it as a collection of squares and triangles (based on the angle that is showing) and applies effects.  Last, the pixel shaders see it as a bitmap (just 1280x1024 pixels - or whatever res) and apply effects.

Usually, in modern game design, a combination of all of these routines are used depending on what is the least expensive (ie - most efficient) for the particular effect.

NVidias G80s use a unified shader model architecture with big giant fully programmable units that can do whatever the software tells it.  Older architectures had dedicated hard wired units that were either pixel or vertex/geometry.

DirectX (and OpenGL) are the software API side of this.  When the hardware paired with them can handle running the routine, it is run on the hardware.  These routines are VERY expensive and typically CANT HAPPEN in software.  The CPU is just too bad at floating point and too busy to do it.

So the opening paragraph is just completely misunderstanding how the pipeline works and, therefore to me, the whole article is pretty useless.

I think what is happening is that, once again, the unified shader model of the new cards is causing trouble for devs.  Nearly EVERY new game seems to have stuttering problems on the BEST hardware.  This is an optimization issue or an incompatibility somewhere.  Throwing endless RAM at it MASKS it, but isnt the root cause.

I dont understand how this stuff is slipping past QA, to be honest.

Also, using becnhmarks like 3DMark 06 (or whatever year) aren't very reliable in predicting how AoC will run.  It's a very different animal and the -only- way to know how it runs on your system is to play it, collecting fps while experimenting with the various advanced gfx settings in the game control panel.

I'm getting great FPS in this game with an 8800GTS G92 edition, and an AMD 4200+. Since the "Low" and "Medium" settings are bugged right now, turn it to "High" and turn shadows off. It gave me a 30fps boost ^-^.

Great info OP, I will try these techniques sometime.

I have been playing AoC since 3 day early access, and to put it as simply as i can, this post im replying to pretty much sums it up.  The best pc on the planet cant play this w/o crashing every 15 mins.  I love the game and waited 3 years to play it, but it is definately INDEED BROKEN.  And everyday that is going by Bugcom is losing their entire gamebase because of it.  It is definately sad, it is, but it is also definately the truth, bugcom is putting themselves outta business almost as fast as vangaurd if not faster.

EXACTLY.

Originally posted by dobbsie213

Am I doomed?  I mean System Requirement Labs says I have minimum standards yet I failed according to them. 

II have a laptop with:

• Intel pemtium R
• 2.8 GHz
• Rated at 4.19
• 2 g of ram
• Pemtium 4
• 120 Gigs

SRL Says:

Video Card

Minimum: 128 MB DirectX 9.0c Graphics Card with Shader 2.0 support (NVIDIA GeForce 6800+ / ATI Radeon 9800+)

You Have: ATI MOBILITY RADEON X600 (ATI display adapter (0x3150))

 

Video Card Features - Minimum attributes of your Video Card

Video RAM: Required - 128 MB , You have - 128.0 MB

Video Card 3D Acceleration: Required - Yes , You have - Yes

Video HW Transform & Lighting: Required - Yes , You have - Yes

Vertex Shader Ver.: Required - 2.0 , You have - 2.0

Pixel Shader Ver.: Required - 2.0 , You have - 2.0

Should I call their bluff and get the game to see if it works? 

 

 

 

  

What about this is confusing you?
 

It states the minimum required video card, and it states the video card you have.

It is correct that your card does indeed match all features, but it does not match the required speed. Does SRL not say anything about that?

Anyway, you could check this page for video card comparisons:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=318&card2=19

Then you will see that your X600 card is at about half the speed for every specific operation (fill rates, shader operations) compared to the minimum required 9800.

Concluding, I'm fairly confident that the game will indeed start on your laptop, but it will run far to slow to be enjoyable.