game lags

[bud the chud]

I downloaded the demo for the game and it does run but it runs slow and tends to lag. I tried closing out of background programs. It helped but didn't fix the problem completely. I have a NVIDIA Geforce fx 5200 graphics card and 512 MB of ram. Is there anything I can do about this????

 

[unmerged(1207)]

I downloaded the demo for the game and it does run but it runs slow and tends to lag. I tried closing out of background programs. It helped but didn't fix the problem completely. I have a NVIDIA Geforce fx 5200 graphics card and 512 MB of ram. Is there anything I can do about this????

There has been many other posts from people with the 5200. The consensus is that the 5200 is not "up to job" for EUIII. You need a need graphics card if you want better performance.

George

 

[mib]

well i have a 6100 and 1 gb of ram and it also lags...

 

[unmerged(1207)]

well i have a 6100 and 1 gb of ram and it also lags...

What processor do you have? I have an Athlon XP 3200+ with 3/4 GB RAM and a Nvidia 6600 GT. It runs the demo fine.

George

 

[mib]

athlon 64 3800 x2

6100 is built on the mobo so that's probably why it lags.

 

[Stonewall]

athlon 64 3800 x2

6100 is built on the mobo so that's probably why it lags.

Same situation as me. I have the AMD 64+ 4200+ x2 with the 6100 and 1 gig of ram. It lags for me as well.

Luckily, the power supply on my desktop blew out a week or so ago, and getting a new one gave me the excuse to get one capable of supporting a new video card. So, I ordered the 7600 GT for my PCI-e slot. We'll see if that helps.

I'm waiting to try and figure out how to disable the 6100, because I can't remove it. Or possibly SLI it with the 7600GT. If possible.

 

[unmerged(1207)]

athlon 64 3800 x2

6100 is built on the mobo so that's probably why it lags.

I agree. Your Processor and RAM beats my system, so that leaves the graphics. Integrated graphics likes yours share system memory with the processor which is much slower that dedicated graphics memory. Hopefully your computer has a graphics expansion slot (AGP or PCIe) so you can upgrade it.

 

[Duuk]

The 6200 is the lowest end nVidia capable of pixel shader 2.0 AFAIK.

Honestly there should be a sticky thread at the top of the forum that says, "Check your video card here" and the only post should be "Less than 6200 or less than 128M = You screwed. Oh, and ATI and Intel graphics don't work for any games ever."

 

[Nimic]

I've got GeForce 6800XT and AMD Athlon 64 3800+, and while I don't lag per se, there is a noticable (and slightly annoying) delay when I click on a province. Lowering the graphics doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

[mib]

The 6200 is the lowest end nVidia capable of pixel shader 2.0 AFAIK.

Honestly there should be a sticky thread at the top of the forum that says, "Check your video card here" and the only post should be "Less than 6200 or less than 128M = You screwed. Oh, and ATI and Intel graphics don't work for any games ever."

Actually 6100 (and probably most of the 6000 series) support vertex and pixel shader 3.0. I can play mtw2, splintercell double agent, and oblivion with no problem, but not eu3?

I can run oblivion. I can't run EU3. It makes no sense.

Same situation as me. I have the AMD 64+ 4200+ x2 with the 6100 and 1 gig of ram. It lags for me as well.

Luckily, the power supply on my desktop blew out a week or so ago, and getting a new one gave me the excuse to get one capable of supporting a new video card. So, I ordered the 7600 GT for my PCI-e slot. We'll see if that helps.

I'm waiting to try and figure out how to disable the 6100, because I can't remove it. Or possibly SLI it with the 7600GT. If possible.

Yes I've been meaning to get a new gfx card (seeing everything else about my system is relatively up-to-date) but I haven't because I'm not sure that I'd be able to disable the 6100 if I do. Tell me if you do it successfully.

 

[Duuk]

AYes I've been meaning to get a new gfx card (seeing everything else about my system is relatively up-to-date) but I haven't because I'm not sure that I'd be able to disable the 6100 if I do. Tell me if you do it successfully.

Disabling on-board graphics is easy. go into your hardware manager, "disable" it. Remove the monitor cable. install new video card. connect monitor cable to new card. Boot.

 

[mib]

Disabling on-board graphics is easy. go into your hardware manager, "disable" it. Remove the monitor cable. install new video card. connect monitor cable to new card. Boot.

Right, but would that disabled gfx chip still eat power? Would it still hog system resources? I want to be able to pluck it out like it never existed, not just microsoftish 'solution' which may or may not actually be working.

 

[Duuk]

Disable works like a charm. Every PC I've had for years I instantly disable the on board graphics and install a nice, shiny nVidia card. Some newer machines will ever auto-uninstall the on-board if it detects a PCI/AGP one.

 

[HarkovAdm]

I'm sorry but the 5200 is three (3) generations old! I don't see how you can be upset that it does not play a new game crisply.

Also I suspect the processor has more to do with this than people tend to recognize. If you have a 4 year old processor then the game probably isn't going to run extremely well.

What people don't understand is that "1.7 ghz" is not the same processor to processor. A new processor at 1.7 ghz can be several times as efficient as an old celeron.

 

[Duuk]

Yeah, my AMD64 is only technically 2.0G, but it flies compared to my old machine which was 2.2G

 

[fraese]

Well, the demo ran great on my laptop for about 3 hours.

Specs? 1.6ghz Pentium mobile! Radeon 9700 mobile! 1 gig ram.

Then it quit launching because of the video memory error...

I'm thinking that if it ran as well as it did on my dated gaming laptop, driver/compatibility issues are what is holding quite a few people back. I think the patch 1.1 coming out today will probably fix things up for quite a few people.

 

[Rogueagle]

I have a 1.86 Pentium M (so a bit slow and can't hyperthread, but its about as powerful as a 3.75 ghz pentium 4 or so on single program tasks) 6800go graphics card, 1gig ram. Its a laptop, so i also can't upgrade - and i'm not really in the market for an upgrade or new computer anyways.

With this, i can run Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, AoE 3, Medieval Total War 2, Company of Heroes, Oblivion and others at full graphics (minus Anti-Aliasing...that kills FPS for me, and also minus grass for Oblivion) - mostly with no FPS issues.

Compared to that, this game should be a breeze to run, yet lags noticeably on higher speed settings, when scrolling, and most frustratingly, when clicking on provinces. I am, however, running the demo version.

My question is simply this - does the full retail version run better than the demo? I would love to buy the game, as the features seem really interesting (and i don't really care about graphics, which to be honest i don't find as unappealing as others seem to), but i can't deal with the delay when doing everything. Considering that i just purchased EU2 a mere few weeks ago, i can stick with that until EU3 is playable...but if its already playable, i may as well go get it.

Thanks in advance,
Rogueagle

 

[ravensuominen]

Strange. I have a computer that's mostly 4 years old. Processor is Athlon 2700+, there's 768 MB of system memory and it has an ATI Radeon 9600 graphics card. At least the demo runs just fine in this museum of a computer! It's funny how many modern computers seem to have much more problems! It'll be interesting to see how it can handle the full game.

-- RS

 

[HarkovAdm]

rogueagle I am surprised your computer lags... you seem to have a more than ample machine to run this game from my subjective understanding of the demands it makes on the cpu and gpu :wacko:

my brother has a very similar laptop with slightly worse graphics... I will have to test and see whether the game runs smoothly on his machine or not

 

[Hallsten]

I have a 1.86 Pentium M (so a bit slow and can't hyperthread, but its about as powerful as a 3.75 ghz pentium 4 or so on single program tasks) 6800go graphics card, 1gig ram. Its a laptop, so i also can't upgrade - and i'm not really in the market for an upgrade or new computer anyways.

With this, i can run Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, AoE 3, Medieval Total War 2, Company of Heroes, Oblivion and others at full graphics (minus Anti-Aliasing...that kills FPS for me, and also minus grass for Oblivion) - mostly with no FPS issues.

Compared to that, this game should be a breeze to run, yet lags noticeably on higher speed settings, when scrolling, and most frustratingly, when clicking on provinces. I am, however, running the demo version.

My question is simply this - does the full retail version run better than the demo? I would love to buy the game, as the features seem really interesting (and i don't really care about graphics, which to be honest i don't find as unappealing as others seem to), but i can't deal with the delay when doing everything. Considering that i just purchased EU2 a mere few weeks ago, i can stick with that until EU3 is playable...but if its already playable, i may as well go get it.

Thanks in advance,
Rogueagle

In one of the gloat-threads I read that some posters actually felt that the full game ran smoother than the demo. Have you updated all you drivers, btw?