Apples and oranges. Again, apples and oranges. Different games have different demands, and you are making the mistake of assuming low graphical fidelity to mean low demand, which is just factually untrue. A game performs poorly on your weak systems, so it must be the game? Great logic there... Starbound is CPU intensive and only barely uses the GPU, so a high powered graphics card wouldn't really impact Starbounds performance. Fallout New Vegas has a few things going for it here. It is an older generation game, and it is heavier on the 3D, so it makes use of the graphics card much more than the CPU. Additionally, the world is already made so it just needs to load in the assets as opposed to Starbound which has to generate all its world content on the fly, which is all CPU intensive. People are FAR more likely to post about issues rather than lack of issues. When was the last time you saw a random post for ANY game thats just like "Hey guys! just wanted to post about how completely normal the game is running!". Probably never. Yes, admittedly there are people out there that are having issues with this game, but their issue may not be your issue. Not all lag is created equal. The cause of lag is not always the same across the board. So without verification, we can not conclude that your issue is a result of an issue with the game or just a simple issue of your computers being underpowered for the task. This is demonstrably false. Should I? Sure, why not. Here is the benchmark for the Q6600: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q6600+@+2.40GHz Note the score of 2652 based on, ironically, just over 6600 samples. Compare that with the very first commercial i5 CPU: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-750+@+2.67GHz&id=772 Note the score of 3693. You can also note the higher single core performance under each respective score. Here are comparisons of the lowest end i5 CPUs from each generation there after: Gen 2: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2390T+@+2.70GHz&id=792 Gen 3: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-3340M+@+2.70GHz&id=1889 (Mobile CPU to boot) Gen 4: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4430+@+3.00GHz&id=1924 Gen 5: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-5575R+@+2.80GHz&id=2683 Gen 6: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-6400+@+2.70GHz&id=2578 Gen 7: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-7400+@+3.00GHz&id=2929 Gen 8: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-8400+@+2.80GHz&id=3097 As you can see, even the lowest end of each generation i5 outperforms the Q6600. And in case you are just ignorant about CPUs and are basing your view on pure GHz, then here is a 1.9GHz i5 that outperforms the Q6600: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4460T+@+1.90GHz&id=2370 In fact, if you were basing it on GHz, then virtually all the i5s are either as fast if not faster than the Q6600 on pure GHz alone. But comparing GHz between different generation CPUs is a fool's errand.