So I bought oblivion for the pc to use mods, the problem is I have an awful computer, its an emachines et1161-07. and i was wondering what settings should i use to make oblivion playable. It runs but things only come into view when they are ten feet away. i have ajusted some settings and made it better but what would be the best settings to run it at. also what are some cheap upgrades for my pc that could help it run better.

Post a DXDiag so we can see your specs.

If on XP, use Start menu, select Run, and type in DXDiag, then open the results in a text document so you can copy-paste the results here.

If you computer is really as awful as you say it is, your only option might be OldBlivion.

If this is your PC:
http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=ET1161-07

then yes, your settings will be horrendously low. Want a cheap upgrade? Get the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102843&cm_re=radeon_4650-_-14-102-843-_-Product or a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130522&cm_re=gt_220-_-14-130-522-_-Product video card. Both cards consume very little power (which will be good for the lowly power supply in your system), but will get you some high settings.

Let's be sure that the pairing of those two doesn't confuse anything. They are very different in overall performance, although it doesn't make that much difference in Oblivion because it was relaesed nearly five years ago, and almost anything from this year is good enough, with the exception of Intel and some nVIDIA IGPs. When nVIDIA dropped the older performance rankings that used the "hundreds", they moved dto the "tens".

An HD 4650 or 4670 was an excellent Mainline card two years ago, and the Geforce GT 240 just about split the difference between those two, although it's never been priced competitively with the Radeons. Essentially, their "40" is now a "650". their "30" is a "550", and their "20" is a "350", so the true comparison to the 220 is the HD 4350 / HD 5450 pair. None of those existed five years ago.

Getting acceptable graphics at a reasonable frame rate from a budget system such as Tig looked up in an old game isn't going to translate to anything particularly useful for Dragon Age or Mass Effect2, however.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=617&card2=619

HD 4650 for $37 after rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102843

Bang for the Buck winners lists: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-radeon-hd-6870-radeon-hd-6850,2782-2.html

Uncompetitive price on a Geforce GT 220 for $50: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130522

I am running vista so how can i get to the DXDiag , yes that is it, how much of an improvement would those cards make, I dont need it to be top of the line visuals but just somthing that could get the game running good enough to play,

If you are price-conscious, nVIDIA doesn't compete on price at this performance level. As per the links above, $50 for the GT 220 when you can get a faster, although older design, the HD 4650, for $37.

If you want a newer design that is faster than a GT 220 (I'm pretty sure it will be, although not certain), you can get an HD 5450 for $25, although it isn't as fast as the HD 4650 (it's basically just a business grapics card, but from a current generation), with a game this old, that is sufficient (won't be good enough for Dragon Age, but the feeling I got from Tig's comments after he looked up the data you haven't tried very hard to provide is your CPU wouldn't be good enough for that anyway).

There are thousands of tutorial web sites to teach you how to run computers. Getting a DxDiag report out of one isn't exactly rocket science, sorry if that sounds like stepping on your toes.

G

From what I read around the web from users and from benchmark sites, the Radeon 4650 and GT 220 are overall a wash. Both cards win some and lose some. The GT 220 is pretty much a slightly faster replacement of the 9500GT and I find it to be considerably faster than the Radeon 5450.


This is the GT 220's performance in Fallout 3:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf-210-gt220_12.html#sect0
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-220,2445-12.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gt-220-review-test/9

I don't find that to be in the same class of the Radeon 5450, which is a weaker card. Even GPUReview goes against that logic:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=625&card2=617


I stand by my assessment with both cards...they'll give you some high settings in the game.

Not the greatest processor in the world in that machine (AMD Athlon X2 4050e), but it will manage in this game.