3rd Gen Intel Core i5 Processor with Intel HD Graphics 4000

I'm really curious how xiv could/would run on that. The new Microsoft Surface Pro is coming out in 8 days, and that would be the perfect as far as mobile gaming, with built in keyboard/mouse and a full size usb port for my logitech dual action wireless 2.4ghz rf controller. Not sure how long the battery would last running xiv, and i already have a backup laptop that will run it(barely), but i'm curious how well that gpu will do.

If anyone has experience with it I'd be interested in hearing.

Once the benchmark comes out someone with that hardware can post the results.

I expect the HD4000 will be barely playable, you probably have to play at 720p to get an acceptable frame rate.

For the price of that you can buy a much better computer dedicated to gaming...

But if you must play on that... it looks like it is on par with a geforce 220?

Ok this is a rough estimate but the HD 4000 is basically equivalent to an Nvidia 610M @720p:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.69168.0.html

Again very rough estimate... a 610M puts out 141 GFlops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...6xxM.29_series

This makes it comparable to an 8600GTS nvidia desktop chipset - although comparing the fillrate its more like a 8500GT. Minimum requirements for AAR are 8800 series.

It might be playable since its a much newer architecture but it will probably suck. If you get one be sure to report how it works out :D

I heard my friend who played with his laptop with 2 Cores I5 n HD4000, barely run at lowest setting. Guess around 15 fps.

Intel anything graphics are horrible. Need a real graphics card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meatdawg

For the price of that you can buy a much better computer dedicated to gaming...

But if you must play on that... it looks like it is on par with a geforce 220?

---

This, a gaming PC is so much better.

That certainly was true, but for a budget PC, ALUs are definately looking... promising might be too strong of a word, but at least servicable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meatdawg

For the price of that you can buy a much better computer dedicated to gaming...

But if you must play on that... it looks like it is on par with a geforce 220?

---

I have a computer dedicated to gaming. It's an i7 with dual gtx580's and three 28" screens for 5760x1200 resolution that i can play on high settings. However this is for on the go. It's size is incredibly small making it very portable. Ultrabooks in a similar category start at a few hundred dollars more, and fat laptops that have a card are roughly the same price, if not a wee bit cheaper, but they're bulky, heavy, and a pita to carry around.

My work laptop has xiv on it, it has a gt220 video card, and it plays xiv quite well at 720p resolution. I'm not talking party/grind for hours on it, I'm talking i'm sitting at work and want to check the market or sell some stuff or talk, I can hop on and check stuff out.

For on the go gaming you mean outside of the house? Outside of work as well?

You could always look into something like this http://shield.nvidia.com/ but you have to be "close" to your home machine and have a Geforce 6XX series

At work, in hotel rooms while I'm on hte go, in business centers when I'm waiting for customers, etc. With the restraint of traveling on a plane, I seldom check a bag, my laptop case fits in my lap and my suitcase fits in an overhead compartment. Lugging an extra laptop and it's weight, and it's power supply, isn't something I want to do. Most of hte time I go with my surface alone because it can do everything I need on the road. The surface pro, being a comparable size, would be just as good.

Also it'd be killer if someone made an ultra portable rf controller with dual analogs, that say folds up. Maybe I'll canibalize one of my wired controllers and see if I can make osmething.

It will have 60~ FPS with most of the features turned off.

One other thing to consider about the Surface Pro

64GB*, 128GB
*System software uses significant storage space. Available storage is subject to change based on system software updates and apps usage.
1 GB = 1 billion bytes. See Surface.com/storage for more details.

A lot of people are complaining that you are only getting 20-30 gigs free on the 64 GB version. (Os and other apps take up to 30 gigs) Just a heads up if you plan on getting that one.

I have an Asus laptop with an i5 and intel HD 3000 and I was doing about 25 fps in 1.0 so it will prolly run ARR a lot better than 1.0. So you can expect with HD 4000 graphics, it will perform reasonably.

I read about the hdd size, but that's understandable. It has a 64gb ssd, the os always takes up something. Windows 8 takes up nearly 30gb on it, which isn't really the fault of hte tablet. It has an sd card slot so you could stick a card in there and leave it. A 10x 32gb card should run xiv just fine, and htat's cheaper than the extra $100 for the 128gb ssd.

ive heard nothing but good things about AMD's A10 APU's, the link contains all the laptop vendors using the latest A10's "Link"

all A10 proccessors have a built in 7660M Graphics chip and should be able to put out medium setting @ 30FPS for FFXiV:ARR.

Those are slick, but they're big, much bigger than the surface, lack touch screens, and weigh more than twice the surface. I use the surface for work and it's important for that, if I upgrade to the surface pro it'll still be for work, but I'd like to be able to play xiv on it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nasomi

I'm really curious how xiv could/would run on that. ... i'm curious how well that gpu will do.

If anyone has experience with it I'd be interested in hearing.

---

I am running on an N53S Asus ultra laptop with intel i7 and Geforce GT 630M-2GB and it runs fine. I have noticed it is a little slower than my gaming tower due to the internet limitations on wireless links.

I am waiting for the new i9 quad core and the new GTX 780 to come out (sometime in the next few months) because the 20nm technology runs cooler, uses less power (one charge gives 8 hours play) and fits neatly into the new super-ultra laptop style. The only limitation is screen size, which depends on your preference.

ARR is designed to run on PS3, so it demands less of your computer than FFXIV-1. If you can run FFXIV-1, ARR will run just fine. I don't know about the ARR HD version. I expect it will run fine on the specs posted as minimum requirements on the Beta Test Application site.

Like they said in the letters alpha was a forked build with little engine optimizations, so everything is just a speculation at this point. I know my lappy (R.I.P.) ran 1.0 on a core2duo/8600m GT at 20 fps at lowest settings and 1680x1050. Going by what they've been telling us, ARR should be less taxing. Didn't they show off the low preset on a core i5 laptop? I assumed it ran on the integrated GPU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Like they said in the letters alpha was a forked build with little engine optimizations, so everything is just a speculation at this point. I know my lappy (R.I.P.) ran 1.0 on a core2duo/8600m GT at 20 fps at lowest settings and 1680x1050. Going by what they've been telling us, ARR should be less taxing. Didn't they show off the low preset on a core i5 laptop? I assumed it ran on the integrated GPU?

---

yes. That was my impression also.

I'm selling my iPad for a Surface Pro next week as well. Also using it mainly for work, but am planning on installing ARR and FFXI. XI should run pretty smoothly, since the Surface will have better tech than my laptop, but it's up in the air for ARR. Looking forward to trying out the beta to see how it runs. Will be happy to post results (once NDA is lifted, of course).

interesting... no one mention the nico nico alpha event yet.
you should be able to find your answer there.... they use core 2 duo i3 and GT8800 at low setting
Cross checking with GPU and CPU benchmark...

so if we assume it's GTS 8800M they are using, and we use 3D marks 06 to do the score
GTS 8800M: 7966
HD4000: 4698

So I guess the answer is: you can (barely) run at low setting.
even you can play it... the whole tablet will be crazy hot too...

That's funny, I was also thinking of the Surface Pro for ARR. But I can't really justify the price. Would be nice to know how it runs once the benchmark is out though.

DOn't know how it will run. My laptop is an I7 with dual gpu (both HD4000 and GT650/660 with 2 gig vram). It ran great, but not saying anything more.

HD4000 isn't horrible, but when it comes to it's use in the laptop, it is for running low demand games while the main GPU is for high end.

It will run, but it won't be very pretty.

You will have a bit of a laugh when I tell you this~

I was running 1.0 on a Late 2009 Core2 Duo 3.33ghz iMac with a Radeon HD 4850 (256MB GDDR3) and the game was running.. Not amazing but playable enough.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...d.73567.0.html

If you google there are plenty of benchmarks that are comparable to FFXIV.
However from experience with one of these and a game very-very-very similar ( ;) ) It seemed to work okay, not great but okay!

Oh for the OP:

I have an onboard Intel HD4000 that I forgot about / don't use... If you would like, when the benchmark is released, I can run it for you and tell you the results.

my god, that thing is $800-1000, you could get a gaming pc that will blow that away for half the price, if you spent 800-1000 on a gaming pc you could play any game at max specs for now and years to come

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricky

my god, that thing is $800-1000, you could get a gaming pc that will blow that away for half the price, if you spent 800-1000 on a gaming pc you could play any game at max specs for now and years to come

---

I believe it was established that he already has a gaming PC but wanted to know what people thought about it as a mobile gaming device while he was travelling for work etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAXX

I have an Asus laptop with an i5 and intel HD 3000 and I was doing about 25 fps in 1.0 so it will prolly run ARR a lot better than 1.0. So you can expect with HD 4000 graphics, it will perform reasonably.

---

I also have an Asus with I5 and HD3000, I was able to play 1.0 on "lowerish" settings.