Hallucination detection has become a pressing requirement for trustworthy AI deployment at scale. The most accurate detection methods depend on GPU-intensive inference, proprietary API calls, or white-box access to the generating model. This puts them out of reach for resource-constrained researchers and practitioners. In this paper, we explore a practical alternative: how well can hallucination detection perform using only lightweight, CPU-feasible methods built on publicly available models? We systematically benchmark four such detectors, ROUGE-L, semantic similarity, BERTScore, and a Natural Language Inference (NLI) detector based on a FEVER-trained DeBERTa model, together with a score-level ensemble of similarity and NLI. We evaluate them across all three tasks of the HaluEval benchmark: question answering (QA), dialogue, and summarisation. We calibrate each method on a held-out validation split and evaluate it on 2,000 test instances per task, and we report bootstrap confidence intervals for the main results. We find that the similarity-NLI ensemble is the most consistent method, but that absolute performance is highly task-dependent. The ensemble ranks best on QA (F1 = 0.792, AUC-ROC = 0.873) and on dialogue (F1 = 0.694, AUC-ROC = 0.749), where NLI is the strongest standalone method; on summarisation every method performs near chance (AUC-ROC between 0.469 and 0.574). We then ask whether that failure is intrinsic to lightweight detection or an artifact of our single-pass design, and find it is largely the latter. Raising the premise budget from 800 to 1600 characters lifts summarisation AUC-ROC from 0.567 to 0.629, and replacing single-pass scoring with sentence-level chunk aggregation reaches 0.683, still on CPU and with the same model, though at roughly twenty times the NLI inference. Summarisation remains by far the hardest task, but our results do not support treating lightweight detection as intrinsically unsuited to it. All experiments run on a standard laptop CPU using public models.