Can my PC run it? Please help

#1 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

Hello, I am new to the forums and recently bought a pc for college and was wondering if my computer is capable of running Borderlands 2 . It has an Intel HD 4000 graphics card, 16 gb of ram, and an Intel Ivy Bridge i7-3520m dual core processor. If anyone can help answer this question I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks!

#2 Posted by wewantsthering (1594 posts) -
#3 Posted by Indiana_Jenkins (399 posts) -

Intel HD 4000 is integrated, so you might be able to get away with it on low/medium settings.

#4 Edited by Mnemoidian (962 posts) -

First hit when googling "Intel HD 4000" is: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000-Benchmarked.73567.0.html

This benchmark of the Intel HD 4000 claims that it can run Mass Effect 3 at "1366x768 pixels with all graphics options active, 4x texture filtering" at just over 30 fps.

Mass Effect 3 and Borderlands 2 both use Unreal Engine 3, so seems somewhat likely, I guess?

#5 Posted by Mirado (1057 posts) -

@MPatnode1: The HD 4000 is not a graphics card, at least not a standalone one. It's an integrated GPU that comes from your processor and not a discreet "card", to put it in layman's terms.

Will it run Borderlands 2? I'll lean towards yes, but the low end of that yes. It'll look worse then the console versions and I wouldn't expect any miracles when it comes to frame rate or resolution, either.

Of course, you've neglected to state the resolution you're going to be running this at, so it may go quite well at 640x480. At 1080p...not so much. :D

#6 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

I checked on system lab requirements. Everything passed but the dedicated video memory. Is there any way to increase the memory since it is an integrated CPU? I apologize ahead of time for my lack of knowledge, haha.

#7 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2133 posts) -

@MPatnode1 said:

I checked on system lab requirements. Everything passed but the dedicated video memory. Is there any way to increase the memory since it is an integrated CPU? I apologize ahead of time for my lack of knowledge, haha.

If this isn't a desktop then no you are stuck with integrated memory unfortunately. I'm only guessing you have a notebook as no one would be caught dead using integrated graphics on a desktop.

Also as a side-note, who needs 16 GB's of RAM on a notebook? Not a sarcastic statement as I am actually curious what kind of work would require this in a notebook setting.

#8 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

I'm an engineering student at Virginia Tech and it was suggested to get a notebook with at least 8gb ram. There are 2 versions of the computer I got and the price difference between the low and high-tier model was pretty small. The high-tier model just happened to have twice the RAM.

#9 Posted by A_Dungeon (3 posts) -

Yep.

#10 Edited by Praab_NZ (281 posts) -

@ShiftyMagician: Video editing, depending on which resolution and quality, will eat up 16gb or more. Not that video editing in high quality is a good idea on a notebook unless you like waiting hours or days for it to complete.

#11 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

Under system information it states that the minimum graphics memory is 64mb, but the maximum is 1696 mb. I don't believe there's a way to adjust this setting though so I guess I'm just stuck

#12 Posted by Jadeskye (4368 posts) -

@MPatnode1: The Intel HD4000 integrated APU is an on-die graphics solution that comes with Ivy bridge cpus. It's in fact, very respectable for an integrated solution and as a hardware guru of sorts i'd be very surprised if it can't handle borderlands 2 on a low-to-medium spectrum. Which is essentually what it's designed to do for all modern videogames. The graphics memory effectively won't matter as typical discrete graphics solutions have their own on-board RAM (VRAM) where as integrated gpus use the system RAM. This does result in lower performance but as the graphics solution isn't as powerful as a discrete GPU it won't make any discernable difference.

Happy gaming bro.

#13 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

What i could find about the Intel HD 4000^

#14 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

@Jadeskye: didn't see this until i already posted the 2 replies above. Thanks a lot man, i greatly appreciate it!

#15 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Mirado said:

It'll look worse then the console versions and I wouldn't expect any miracles when it comes to frame rate or resolution, either.

I doubt it -

Pretty good for onboard.

#16 Posted by Jams (2966 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@Mirado said:

It'll look worse then the console versions and I wouldn't expect any miracles when it comes to frame rate or resolution, either.

I doubt it -

Pretty good for onboard.

@MPatnode1:

no way man that's great news for this guy.

#17 Posted by believer258 (12211 posts) -

@Mirado said:

@MPatnode1: The HD 4000 is not a graphics card, at least not a standalone one. It's an integrated GPU that comes from your processor and not a discreet "card", to put it in layman's terms.

Will it run Borderlands 2? I'll lean towards yes, but the low end of that yes. It'll look worse then the console versions and I wouldn't expect any miracles when it comes to frame rate or resolution, either.

Of course, you've neglected to state the resolution you're going to be running this at, so it may go quite well at 640x480. At 1080p...not so much. :D

This is correct and, for the record, I played the original Borderlands on a laptop at 640x480 with the original Intel HD graphics chip, i3 processor, and it ran well enough to complete with the sole exception of the late-game boss that had you climb up a huge crane to kill some Baron dude. Anyway, the game's art style really saved it - it didn't look as bad as you would think at such a resolution.

So, you could probably run Borderlands 2 but do not expect the same experience that a good rig or even a console will get you.

#18 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2133 posts) -

@Praab_NZ said:

@ShiftyMagician: Video editing, depending on which resolution and quality, will eat up 16gb or more. Not that video editing in high quality is a good idea on a notebook unless you like waiting hours or days for it to complete.

That's good to know. Thanks for clarifying dude.

#19 Posted by Mirado (1057 posts) -

@Sooty: That was run at 1280x720 with an average of 30FPS. Not performance I would call stellar. He also ran it with vsync, which is a benchmarking deathwish. And finally, he ran a game that's a year and a half old without the high res texture pack, looping back to my first point: it doesn't look any better then a console version.

#20 Posted by believer258 (12211 posts) -

@Mirado said:

@Sooty: That was run at 1280x720 with an average of 30FPS. Not performance I would call stellar. He also ran it with vsync, which is a benchmarking deathwish. And finally, he ran a game that's a year and a half old without the high res texture pack, looping back to my first point: it doesn't look any better then a console version.

So... not bad for onboard graphics then? Onboard, which a year or two ago couldn't acceptably run most modern games that consoles could do just fine.

#21 Posted by Mirado (1057 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Mirado said:

@Sooty: That was run at 1280x720 with an average of 30FPS. Not performance I would call stellar. He also ran it with vsync, which is a benchmarking deathwish. And finally, he ran a game that's a year and a half old without the high res texture pack, looping back to my first point: it doesn't look any better then a console version.

So... not bad for onboard graphics then? Onboard, which a year or two ago couldn't acceptably run most modern games that consoles could do just fine.

Yeah, not bad for onboard. But worse then the console version of the game. Funny how I phrased that original post specifically to say that.

Also, you've missed a HUGE component of this: that's the 4000 on a quad core desktop CPU. His is a mobile dual core, which is going to lean on the performance even more. It'll be clocked lower then the desktop variant, which means those numbers will be even lower.

I stick by what I said, it'll play it at low to medium at or around 30FPS. If gaming was the purpose of that computer, its not going to win any medals.

#22 Posted by MPatnode1 (8 posts) -

I think im just gonna try it for PC. I have a PS3 back home but i'd rather be able to play it on a low-medium setting than have to wait for a while to play it on PS3. Thanks everyone, I appreciate it.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.