Fallout: New Vegas reaches the stores in Denmark tomorrow, October 22, and I have decided to get it for PC, because I svck at FPS on consoles. I have Fallout 3 for Xbox 360.

My Computer is, as the topic description says, a HP Pavilion dv7 with the following specs:

CPU: AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core QL-62 2 GHz
Graphics card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450
RAM: 3 GB
OS: Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit

So, can I run it?
I have already tried to test it on Can You Run It, but I don't really trust that site, because it shows a different Graphics card than I actually have..

Hope you can help.

yes with low to med settings

Nice! Thanks for the help.

That is an exaggeration, I think. Only through setting the screen resolution to 800 by 600 (well, to very low) can a graphics card that slow, supported by an equally sluggish processor, lift up this game out of the lowest image quality settings. That is a business level card from three years ago now, no better in performance than current onboard video chips, it's so slow.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-3450.9593.0.html

I don't see it that far fetched for low to med settings...leaning more towards the low side.

dont listen to this bimbo, earlier he told me my card was crap, which i admit it is not top of the line but i can run the game just fine with high settings. I think this guy just likes to make believe he's good at computers or something

Given the idiocy inherent in the way that the official minimum video cards were named for this game, I am applying Fallout 3 comparisons. Officially, the X850 was the minimum, but IMO, that was based on driver updates not being available from AMD (I used the Omega Drivers to test). I know that an X800 Pro runs the Fallout 3 game. I do not at present know that the Xn00 generation cannot be used any longer.

Here is where an HD 3450 fits when compared to an X800 Pro:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=555&card2=301

The little business card has about 30% of the X800's performance. The little Pentium Dual has about 50% of a Core Duo's performance at the same general core speeds (almost no cache in it).

he did the exact same thing with me, gave me a link to compare the graphics card, look i dont think you will get the game running decent with anything past medium settings, but it will run, definitely at low settings. once again i was practically told by this buffoon that i couldn't run this game, and here i am running it with high settings

POSTEDby GORATH THE ELDER
"Everyone has his own individual set of criteria for what "high" amounts to. You happen to be in a minority compared to everyone else who all consider the very poor performance of the Geforce "10s" to be unacceptable. Here it is next to the practical Fallout 3 minimum card (be aware that the ignorant clerks at Obsidian screwed up the official minimums on Fallout NV once again, same as on NWN 2, so you can't rely on those).

http://www.gpureview...1=621&card2=354

On a pont by point basis, it can only manage 25% of the memory bandwidth, for instance. It gets only 69% on the next measurement, and finally, is able to reach 92% of a third criteria. That's compared to a six year old video graphics card, not to a modern Mainline card at all, which will blow the poor little Geforce "10" totally away! "

this wat this guy posted after telling my card was BELOW min req. I even link'dthe thread, so take my word for it, not sure this dude knows wat he is talking about.
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1123460-potential-fix-for-npc-slowdown/page__st__200

This bench shows the Mobility Radeon 3470 will run FO3 (and thus probably this game) with a mix of low and medium settings:
http://optimitza.cat/benchmarks/fallout3

The Radoen 3450 will likley hit some low settings.

But I have also seen other individuals come on here with such card reporting similar results. GPUReview is a great site to find out raw numbers, but it becomes difficult when comparing two cards that implement shaders differently...the X800 series used separated shader pipelines, while the newer cards use unifed shaders and Stream Processors. I will not nor will I ever just go off of raw numbers alone.

Isnt there a demo version or a benchmark so you can just try it out without speculating and flaming?

AMD has been pushing the old gap between the Pro and the XT a lot wider after converting to "50" and "70". I was at least generally aware that the HD 3470 was much closer to the borderline zone. I do agree that the raw numbers are occasionally misleading; no other site, however, is quite so conveniently fast to collect comparisons from.

The nature of GPU architectures being what they are, the kind of data points offered by GPU Review's summaries has never been useful for trying to compare Geforces to Radeons, except in the most loosely interpreted manner, that's a fact.

(P. S. In edit): No, there is not a demo, and if you have seen what you believe is flaming, you should report it. Really.

Flaming starts with calling others names like ''bimbo''. I just notice a tense atmosphere in this thread.

wel i think u have your answer on whether this game will run on your rig, just remember to keep gorath out of the equation.

Well I bought the game today.. I'm currently running on low graphic and lowest resolution.. It runs fine, but it will be a bit laggy after a couple of hours.. And for some reason my game just crashed.. Don't know if it's a bug or my computer.. :/