Arqade is a question and answer site for passionate videogamers on all platforms. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm considering getting Diablo III to play on my laptop but my system doesn't meet all the requirements:

So Close!

As you can see my only issue is my video card. Is it so extreme an issue that I'm screwed or will this shortfall be only a small problem with playability (viz. if turn everything to its lowest setting, etc.)?

share|improve this question
You will have to wait until a Trial/Starter Edition is offered to find out. There is no way to know for sure, any experience with the beta client, wouldn't be accurate information. It has been stated that the performance with the beta client and retail client will have a significant difference. My guess even if it does run, the game will be unplayable, you have a very poor performing card. – Ramhound May 4 '12 at 19:11
@Ramhound I can't see Blizzard making any drastic changes between the public beta a couple weekends ago and the released version. Early beta, sure, but it's diminishing returns now. – Nick T May 6 '12 at 5:03
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 is part of the 4000-series which is 2 generations ahead of the 1000-series it recommends (which is why the pixel/vertex shaders versions are fine), though the *2** ATI graphics cards are among the "budget" models and generally underpowered.

It's hard to compare notebook graphics to desktop as reviews aren't generally going to compare them head-to-head, but some generic benchmarks might offer insight:

  • X1950 Pro
    • Default: 4640
    • SM 2.0: 1783
    • SM 3.0: 1931
  • HD 4250
    • ?: 1016-2110 (depending on system, memory, CPU)

Unfortunately I can't find the specifics of's (their benchmark numbers above for the 4250) 3Dmark06 test. If it's the "default" then it's clearly abysmal, otherwise it's somewhat competitive.

A Tom's Hardware Guide table ranks the 4250 along with the ATI 9700, X800, X1600, etc., 7 tiers below the X1950 Pro and 6 below the NVidia 7800 GT.

Your experience will likely be "poor" on your current hardware, but what does that mean? Blizzard games in general scale extremely well to hardware, so cranking everything to low (resolution included) may afford you a "playable" game. I doubt the game developer wants it to simply be playable but something a bit more spectacular (read: not ugly), so they may be a bit conservative in their requirements.

share|improve this answer
what do you mean by .*.*.2.*. ATI ? are you referring to how its a 4250 hence the 2? And what do you mean by SM #.#? Some of this is beyond me. Also you said in the beginning that I was 2 tiers ahead of recommended 1000 series, and then in the end you said I was 7 tiers below? I'm rather confused. – Ender May 5 '12 at 11:07
@Ender It's like comparing a 2007 Mercedes S-class with a 2010 Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta may be better in some respects (efficiency, a newer gadget here or there), but the Merc is still a way better car overall. – Nick T May 5 '12 at 17:02
i really appreciate the help! but i know nothing about cars – Ender May 5 '12 at 19:24
wait, is he saying that even though my video card is newer it still sucks? – Ender May 5 '12 at 19:25
@ender You're right but you can still play diablo 3 though... tried it on my notebook, it works fine. We have the same graphics card btw. but all settings should be, like NiQAlas said, on low. – user28671 Jul 4 '12 at 3:55

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.