"Intel Integrated Graphics below IntelHD series not recommended"? Why?

[kalirion]

I have an Intel 4500mhd on my laptop (worse than Intel HD I'm pretty sure), and so far in the demo's tutorial the game hasn't dropped below 42 fps at 1280x960 without any settings being reduced.

Are there far more demanding levels later on? Considering the game supports 640x480 and all those "disable this and that" in the config, I'm pretty sure even a X3000 series Intel card could run the game more the fine...

[Potatochobit]

if you have a 4500mHD then your graphic card would not be 'under' an intel HD, now would it?
anything made in the last 3 years will be perfectly fine, so dont worry about it

[Protoss]

Why? Most probably because the worst graphics card they tested is an IntelHD series card, so they can't guarantee any lower card will work fine or at all.

[kalirion]

Originally Posted by Potatochobit

if you have a 4500mHD then your graphic card would not be 'under' an intel HD, now would it?

Hmm, I've always thought of "Intel HD" being the new "Intel HD 2000" and "Intel HD 3000" chips. Does 4500MHD count as "Intel HD" for having "HD" in the name?

In any case, played to the end of the demo, framerate only dropped to 30fps for like 1 second in town - I assume something else took a lot of CPU cycles at that time. Otherwise, the tutorial plains were the "worst" with 42 fps, most of the rest was a rock solid 59/60. This is with game settings maxed out at 1280x960. So even significantly weaker cards would handle this game, unless they're old enough to be missing DirectX features or something.

Originally Posted by Protoss

Why? Most probably because the worst graphics card they tested is an IntelHD series card, so they can't guarantee any lower card will work fine or at all.

This make sense. Too bad though, since the requirements could scare away some potential customers. I'm guessing the game would even run well on netbooks which have a good enough CPU.

[Zorlac]

Originally Posted by kalirion

Hmm, I've always thought of "Intel HD" being the new "Intel HD 2000" and "Intel HD 3000" chips. Does 4500MHD count as "Intel HD" for having "HD" in the name?

In any case, played to the end of the demo, framerate only dropped to 30fps for like 1 second in town - I assume something else took a lot of CPU cycles at that time. Otherwise, the tutorial plains were the "worst" with 42 fps, most of the rest was a rock solid 59/60. This is with game settings maxed out at 1280x960. So even significantly weaker cards would handle this game, unless they're old enough to be missing DirectX features or something.



This make sense. Too bad though, since the requirements could scare away some potential customers. I'm guessing the game would even run well on netbooks which have a good enough CPU.

If you have a lesser card than that you probably can't run much of anything, so PC gaming most likely isn't your priority. That's not being mean btw, it's just facts.

[DRUNKCANUCK]

Not to sound rude, but how can you possibly using such a POS system that you have such a low framerate. I mean, I think its time to update regardless...also avoid intel chips like the plague...also I assume you have a laptop, use something like notebookcheck for retardproof ranking of cards, best of luck.

Also sometimes steam quoted minimums are higher than actual minimums...

[kalirion]

Originally Posted by DRUNKCANUCK

Not to sound rude, but how can you possibly using such a POS system that you have such a low framerate. I mean, I think its time to update regardless...also avoid intel chips like the plague...also I assume you have a laptop, use something like notebookcheck for retardproof ranking of cards, best of luck.

Also sometimes steam quoted minimums are higher than actual minimums...

Well my desktop (E8400, GTS 250) broke down almost a year ago now. I got the parts from the warranty, but been having too much fun going through my retro/indie-gaming backlog to bother actually putting it back together

Well, actually I guess I'm just too lazy.

[NC37]

Well it should scare people into thinking before they buy utter crap computers. If you buy a machine with Intel graphics and are upset it can't run anything...either learn from that and never buy it again, or you deserve to be poked fun at.

They can make CPUs just fine but never ever buy their graphics. I don't care if that changes someday, I get so tired of telling people they've bought a paperweight, that Intel will never be able to redeem themselves in the GPU community. Terrible graphics, terrible drivers, just plain terrible.

[SpaceDrake]

The issue with older Intel GMA integrated chips (such as the 945, 3000 series, 4000 series and the like, all the ones prior to the Core-i processors) is that they lack hardware transform, lighting & vertex shaders and have rather poor software solutions for these. In some scenes (the latter parts of the Aquan Ruins are good examples) there's a lot of surprisingly complex T&L and vertex shading going on, and in a software environment (often paired with somewhat inferior processors) the game will simply choke.

As such, we can't, in good conscience, say that the game is fully compatible with these graphics processors and we encourage our users to obtain another graphics processor by whatever means necessary, ideally something from Nvidia or ATI, both of which will have all the necessary hardware functions to run the game smoothly.

[DJ Cryotek]

I have an HP Mini 311. Atom processor at 1.6ghz and Nvidia Ion graphics. The game runs great! In fact, it runs far better than Recettear o_O

[kalirion]

Originally Posted by SpaceDrake

In some scenes (the latter parts of the Aquan Ruins are good examples) there's a lot of surprisingly complex T&L and vertex shading going on, and in a software environment (often paired with somewhat inferior processors) the game will simply choke.

Ah, I see. Is that something that playing around with the config options would be able to remedy, just for those scenes?

[SpaceDrake]

Originally Posted by kalirion

Ah, I see. Is that something that playing around with the config options would be able to remedy, just for those scenes?

Unfortunately, no; the transform & lighting in particular is absolutely required to render the scenes comprehensibly. Without it the game would look even rougher than it does in places.

This is really a flaw specific to Intel's terrible older graphics chips; every single Nvidia card since the original GeForce 256 (that is, every single GeForce ever, over the past eleven years) and every ATI card since the Radeon 32 (that is, every Radeon ever) has had hardware support for transform & lighting and the primitive vertex shading Chantelise (and Recettear!) require. If you have a computer, usually a laptop, with a pre-Core-i-generation Intel GMA unit, we cannot advise an upgrade strongly enough. It will give you increased performance in any game you might play.

[kalirion]

Originally Posted by SpaceDrake

Unfortunately, no; the transform & lighting in particular is absolutely required to render the scenes comprehensibly. Without it the game would look even rougher than it does in places.

Well that sucks. Thank you for your honesty!

I did play through Recettear on this system, and the game remained playable even at the worst of times (I never got to the last couple dungeons though, so not sure if those would've been worse.)

[kalirion]

Originally Posted by SpaceDrake

The issue with older Intel GMA integrated chips (such as the 945, 3000 series, 4000 series and the like, all the ones prior to the Core-i processors) is that they lack hardware transform, lighting & vertex shaders and have rather poor software solutions for these. In some scenes (the latter parts of the Aquan Ruins are good examples) there's a lot of surprisingly complex T&L and vertex shading going on, and in a software environment (often paired with somewhat inferior processors) the game will simply choke.

Well, I just wanted to say that I picked up the game at the holiday sale, and just finished the Aquan ruins without any noticeable dips in the framerate. And the lighting did look pretty good

So I'd say a 4500mhd at least can max this game quite easily!

[DarkJeff]

Originally Posted by DJ Cryotek

I have an HP Mini 311. Atom processor at 1.6ghz and Nvidia Ion graphics. The game runs great! In fact, it runs far better than Recettear o_O

This may have to do with the Japanese versions of Chantelise (2006) being older than Recettear (2007). I think we just got Recettear first so it didn't have to end in a box.