Which classic FPS will work on my netbook?

On my netbook, a dell inspiron 1.66 with 2gb of ram and a ssd source engine games are not enjoyable to play even on min settings, very juddery ~12fps.

even half life source is a pain.


I have got oblivion installed and it will start but will frequently crash/hang within seconds of anything moving.

But i have to admit that the chance to rock it old-school has been enjoyable, finished the nod campaign of C&C last night and i have a immense back catalogue of old school pc games to hammer through
 
Hilarious.

Newer suggestions please.

I'm surprised you got any help at all after that post.

You asked an extremely generic, already well covered question and got a very apt answer.

You gave no stats of your netbook, nor did you quantify from exactly what time period you wanted the games to be from.
 
It's more than likely a crap intel one he has in it :p (like my eee pc 901).

Quake 3 runs pretty decently on low settings. Earlier quakes are fine. Early UT games also though I don't like FPS on mine as the keys are tiny!

In which case, cross off NWN2, Farcry, Grand Prix 4, San Andreas, Halo, FS2004, NFS Most Wanted, Sins of a Solar Empire, STALKER, Oblivion, The Witcher, and Tomb Raider Anniversary from neoboy's list. Unless you like playing ugly slideshows...:p
 
why dont you take out the 1gb memory module, and replace it with a 2 gb one like I have done. even replaced the wireless module with wireless n module very easy to do.
 
It entirely depends what onboard graphics you have. My MSI wind u230 plays half life 2 quite happily on low but it has Radeon 3200 onboard, one of the reasons I chose it. If you're prepared to turn settings right down & have Nvidia or ATI graphics, you might even be able to stretch to STALKER shadow of chernobyl on lowest. Farcry on low ?
Some experimentation will be needed. Nice thing is, the screens are so small, that low settings look quite good, in the way that Nintendo DS games look good because the screen is so small.
 
RTCW will run but even on lowest settings I struggled to get anything above 25fps on it, with regular dips into single figures.

Take those lists with a pinch of salt, I get the feeling many are on there by way of someone booting the first level, being happy that it opened at all and declaring it to run. Which it does in the case of RTCW, just really slowly.
 
my Netbook is a Asus 901, with 16gb memory, CPU n270 @1.60GHz btw memory is 1.60GHz, 1.99GB Main RAM , GPU is using some off it. windows xp with service pack 3.
 
Er...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/i915g_9.html

That's with a much better processor, by the way. :p

Eee was running at 800x480 so lower resolution even than 800x600.

I had upgraded to 2gig of RAM with the SPD reprogrammed for tighter timings - the 910/915 is very responsive to RAM bandwidth for performance.

Eee out the box is running at 650MHz despite being sold as 900MHz to set the clock back to 900MHz results in the GPU hardware running at higher performance too.


EDIT: Unfortunatly don't have any screenshots from FC on my Eee any more but heres one from hellgate london :D

http://aten-hosted.com/images/screenshot_000000.jpg

don't you just love the framerate.
 
Last edited:
Eee was running at 800x480 so lower resolution even than 800x600.

I had upgraded to 2gig of RAM with the SPD reprogrammed for tighter timings - the 910/915 is very responsive to RAM bandwidth for performance.

Eee out the box is running at 650MHz despite being sold as 900MHz to set the clock back to 900MHz results in the GPU hardware running at higher performance too.

I know I wouldn't find an FPS fun when the framerate drops down below 30 despite the worst graphic settings which make it look like Quake 3, but your call. :p

EDIT: Unfortunatly don't have any screenshots from FC on my Eee any more but heres one from hellgate london :D

http://aten-hosted.com/images/screenshot_000000.jpg

don't you just love the framerate.

That's playable? :p
 
Back
Top Bottom