I'm looking at this Asus N751 laptop, thinking about buying it. It has Nvidia GTX 950m with 2GB RAM and I'm wondering if it will be ok to play Horizons on it on high/ultra settings @1920x1080 and get at least 30 fps or more. If you can please post your resolution and fps on this or similar mobile GPU and your in-game graphic settings for terrain. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
Horizons requires at least 6Gb of RAM, according to the minimum specs, so if you only have 2Gb then you'd need to address that.
In terms of GPU, the minimum specs also state at least a GTX 470. Looking at this page, your 950m is roughly on a par with the 470, although your 950m does have more VRAM than the 470's 1Gb. However, I've seen numerous posts from people with GTX 770's (non-mobile) getting poor framerates on planets so I'd be suprised if you could play at 30fps with everything on high/ultra - even if you upgrade your RAM to 6Gb or more.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-950M-vs-GeForce-GTX-470
In terms of GPU, the minimum specs also state at least a GTX 470. Looking at this page, your 950m is roughly on a par with the 470, although your 950m does have more VRAM than the 470's 1Gb. However, I've seen numerous posts from people with GTX 770's (non-mobile) getting poor framerates on planets so I'd be suprised if you could play at 30fps with everything on high/ultra - even if you upgrade your RAM to 6Gb or more.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-950M-vs-GeForce-GTX-470
I think he is referring to the GTX950's RAM, not system RAM.
OP - I'm currently running a GTX970m and getting stunning performance all round. 950 isn't that much older so I'd guess you should get reasonable performance.
Yes, it's not an old card but as I understand, 970m is a LOT better than 960m and 950m is a lot worse than 960m so that is my concern.
The 950m is actually newer, but has less performance.
Doh, I did wonder.
Well you'll definitely be able to play Horizons, but ultra detail may be a bit of a stretch with the 950m. There's quite a big gap between the 950m and 960m, take a look here. Doing this on my phone so apologies if I
up the link:http://laptopmedia.com/highlights/benchmarks-and-real-games-performance-comparison/
I see Asus also make (or made) an N551JW which has a 960m, though not sure how prices compare with the N751. I guess the 5 also means it has a 15" display rather than 17".
I see... Well, I was also interested in ASUS N551 before with 960m, it seems it's a lot better card but you are right, it is only 15" screen and the price is similar. That's why I was looking for 17" model like the one I have now, I'm used to that screen size. I don't know what to do, sacrifice screen size for better performance or buy a 17" version and hope 950m will do ok? I just don't know...
There's a G series with 980m but the price is way to high for me.
Two more questions:
Does SSD improves gaming performance at all? I know it improves system speed.
Does it matter if system has 8 GB RAM in only one slot and no RAM module in the second one? I'm talking about RAM and game performance.
There's a G series with 980m but the price is way to high for me.
Two more questions:
Does SSD improves gaming performance at all? I know it improves system speed.
Does it matter if system has 8 GB RAM in only one slot and no RAM module in the second one? I'm talking about RAM and game performance.
Last edited:
Well to answer the last two questions, no to both. Don't get me wrong, SSD's are wonderful things and they'll make your OS and programs load faster. But an SSD won't improve your gaming framerates. And no it shouldn't matter if one RAM slot is empty.
As far as the laptop goes, if you have a set budget then I guess ultimately it comes down to whether your priority is screen size or gaming performance. Hopefully someone with a similar system will see this thread and can give you an idea of performance in Horizons.
Got a GT 640M 2GB here, 3 generations and 1 grade behind, and I'm running Horizons at a pretty stable 20-30 FPS on medium settings while driving around the planet @ 1600x900p (my native resolution), so I'm guessing you should be able to run on at least high at 30+, but I can't guarantee (not sure how the performance scales between the 600M series and the 900M series, but I'm guessing a bunch)
Here's a good explanation I've found so others that have similar doubts can maybe benefit from it:
-"GT" cards are designed for "media" applications such as HD video playback and Flash (think Facebook games)
-"GTX" cards are designed for "gaming" in mind
-The 1st number of the model# refers to the "series" and has ZERO indication of performance.
-The 2nd # relates to the card's actual performance within that series.
-The end suffix "ti" refers to a mid-point card (or "half year" since these are usually released 4-6 months after the non-"ti" version). A "ti" card usually has ~20% better performance than the non-ti model and is "halfway" between the non-ti model and the next model up. (ie: GTX750->GTX750ti->GTX760)
-The "GT" line runs from x10 -> x40 (Media grade)
-The "GTX" line runs from x50 -> x80 (Gaming grade); while the x"90" is a dual GPU card which currently ended with the GTX690.
Example: The model# GTX-650 tells us that it's a "600 series", "gaming grade", entry level GPU
"GTX"= gaming
"6"= 600 series
"50"= entry level "gaming" GPU (ie: 50 of 80)
-Then there's the "M" notation... This stands for a "Mobile" (ie: Laptop) chip and in NO WAY compares to its desktop cousin in respect to performance. Typically; "Mobile chips" offer an approx "loss" in performance of 40%-60% when compared to the desktop version.
I'm pretty much sure that performance wise, 960m is the way to go, but will it be enough?
I still hope somebody with 950m/960m GPU will stumble upon this thread and share experience with Horizons.
-"GT" cards are designed for "media" applications such as HD video playback and Flash (think Facebook games)
-"GTX" cards are designed for "gaming" in mind
-The 1st number of the model# refers to the "series" and has ZERO indication of performance.
-The 2nd # relates to the card's actual performance within that series.
-The end suffix "ti" refers to a mid-point card (or "half year" since these are usually released 4-6 months after the non-"ti" version). A "ti" card usually has ~20% better performance than the non-ti model and is "halfway" between the non-ti model and the next model up. (ie: GTX750->GTX750ti->GTX760)
-The "GT" line runs from x10 -> x40 (Media grade)
-The "GTX" line runs from x50 -> x80 (Gaming grade); while the x"90" is a dual GPU card which currently ended with the GTX690.
Example: The model# GTX-650 tells us that it's a "600 series", "gaming grade", entry level GPU
"GTX"= gaming
"6"= 600 series
"50"= entry level "gaming" GPU (ie: 50 of 80)
-Then there's the "M" notation... This stands for a "Mobile" (ie: Laptop) chip and in NO WAY compares to its desktop cousin in respect to performance. Typically; "Mobile chips" offer an approx "loss" in performance of 40%-60% when compared to the desktop version.
I'm pretty much sure that performance wise, 960m is the way to go, but will it be enough?
I still hope somebody with 950m/960m GPU will stumble upon this thread and share experience with Horizons.