Yeah, good call, but these specs won't do it. Another victim of system requirements that haven't been updated for 6 or 7 years. *My mistake. @Filip I should really google the specs a bit more before making a judgment, apart from the low GPU ram I thought the CPU wasn't anywhere near it - but it does boost to 3.9GHz. So yeah, most of the content should be (literally) playable. It may not be much fun though.
Probably won't be enough. Maybe it is doable with going to lower non native video resolution. If one is willing to accept that sacrifice.
Try to start with 1360x768 to test how many FPS you get, if it goes well, try raising the resolution, to test ...
I have a GTX950 2 gig of vram and everything runs good except for Official Nords, unless I turn everything to low and turn the mirrors off. At 1360/768 at 60hz.
You don't meet the recommended specs at all. You have a mobile GPU, which performs way below recommended. On top of that you have a laptop which will also be limited thermally on top of that
I have laptop with mobile gpu GeForce 960M. Can't remember if it's 3 or 4 GB RAM. It can be played on 1920 but I went for 1440 and with almost all settings on minimum and 10 AI FPS almost never drops below 60.
coasting&cruising Nvidia MX110 and MX130, both graphics cards are quite low-end and still use the Maxwell architecture inside. If they are not going to be used for gaming, or for very very simple games and without graphic requirements, Nvidia cards can be used for the vast majority of users, who only look for the basics. They are a rehash of the existing Geforce 920MX (in the case of the MX110) and the 940MX (in the case of the MX130). I don't think that card is capable of playing any current 1920x1080 game. Take a look here: https://www.notebookcheck.org/NVIDIA-GeForce-MX110.279092.0.html#:~:text=La Nvidia GeForce MX110 es,soporte para DDR3 y GDDR5. For Filip the same: https://www.notebookcheck.org/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-960M.143366.0.html Try 1360x768 and play with the level of details and settings, maybe it will be more visually satisfying with a little more FPS than playing trudge at FHD
Thx but I already found the sweet spot with 1440x900 (or 1440x960 maybe). A little less crisp image than native resolution is something I got used to very quickly while I could never get used to stuttering and fps drops while playing on 1920. It surprises me when I see players deliberately sacrificing fluidity for good looks. Edit: When changing resolution deleting cbash and shaders was necessary in my case. Otherwise it looked and performed wrongly.
I'm running in a laptop 6700HQ and a moded 1070 mobile, 1tb nmve ssd and running in VR, I target ASW so I limit my fps to 46. No issue so far running rFactor2, take in to account that my current bottle neck is the weak CPU for today standar. not using VR you can easily hit 120fs at 1440p, going 4k you may be able to get 50~60 fps depending in the track and vehicle model; also the GPU is just a part of the equation, you need to choose a corresponding CPU, RAM , mombo, storage that give you the performance you're looking for.
You're probably right, but the ssd is a welcome addition to reduce loading time. While there's no texture streaming in rFactor 2 the storage performance do not hamper game performance while in track.
Filip, you might find this old post of mine informative: https://forum.studio-397.com/index....t-for-optimum-performance.67613/#post-1044468. I'm on a 1070Ti, so couldn't judge the impact of different aspects on a lower end card, but you might find some of it helpful. Mind you, it didn't get any likes, so maybe nobody has found it useful! Ah well, I tried.
Yeah, I made the same mistake. It's a laptop CPU so that's the normal speed, but it boosts up to 3.9.
Nice post. I gave you a like to do justice. I experimented a lot through the years so I am aware of most of this stuff but it is a good guide for new users. I would add most important setting: postprocessing. It can half your fps. I would also add vsync and antialiasing mentions. Don't know if anything changed in latest builds but I remember when in-game antialiasing had 5 levels on my system best quality/performance ratio was level 3. Vsync set to video was only way to have really fluid image on my side.
Hey @Joe Cole, I've now got my new graphics card so if you're still looking for one my 1080ti is available. PM me if you're interested.
Probably best to start a new thread. This one is about Graphics Card Performance. You might also want to mention a few more details such as how far it gets.
Which card did you get in the end. How much of an improvement have you got over your 1080TI on a single screen, really interested because I run a EVGA 1080TI FTW3 on a 32" 4K single monitor and may upgrade if the improvement is significant. Thanks.
Got KFA2 3080ti HoF. The prices for the non-ti are practically the same so thought I might as well. I've only tried in VR so far. That's really all I do but I'll give it a go on my 34" ultra wide and let you know. I imagine it'll be amazing! VR is just so demanding but worth it with a bit of tweaking. I must admit I was kinda expecting it to work at max detail with 30 cars! I'm not sure where I got that notion but after adjusting my expectations I'm pretty happy. I like to have quite a few cars visible and that's really what kills performance. Do note I'm testing this on Sebring which is one of the most demanding tracks.