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!

Google is your friend. Also this website will scan you rig and tell you which requirements you pass or fail.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/

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

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?

@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

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.

@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.

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.

Yep.

@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.

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

@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.

What i could find about the Intel HD 4000^

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

Agree.