• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Computer Specs vs Game Requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 12
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
565
Well, i wanted to check if my pc would run this new game coming out...

My SpecsMinimum Specs
Vista Home PremiumVista /w SP2
Core 2 duo T7500 2.2 ghzPentium(R) Intel Core® 2 Duo 2.6 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ or better
DirextX10DirectX® 9.0c with Shader Model 3 support*

2gb RAM
2 GB RAM

200 gb hard disk(4200 rpm)
8 GB of uncompressed hard disk space (Plus 500MB for swap file.)

nvidia 8400 m gs(128 MB dedicated.
256 MB 3D hardware accelerator card required - 100%
*Supported Chipsets for Windows(R) XP and Vista
All NVIDIA® GeForce™ 7800 256 MB and better chipsets
All ATI® Radeon™ X1800 256 MB and better chipsets


Im not a idiot or anything, just that im a bit confused,

The procesor, mine is 2.2 Duo and the required is 2.6 Duo
Is Duo 2.2+2.2? so 4.4Ghz as compared to 2.6 required?
Or is 5.2Ghz required :eek: because if so, thats just a bit over the top.

Also, the Graphics Card, i was never sure on how to compare those :confused:

I dont think ill be able to run it? Will I?

Thanks in advance.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
No, your processor is below the minium. They want atelast an intel core 2 duo at 2.6 GHz, while yours is only at 2.2 GHz. They want one which is 400 MHz faster then yours. Clock rate is universal thoughout all cores of a processor so I have no clue what the random numbers you are sprouting are. However as the language used is the same, it will run. Any quad core or intel I7 however is fast enough as even the slowest intel quad cores have a total power greater than the needed.

nvidia 8400 m gs(128 MB dedicated.
256 MB 3D hardware accelerator card required - 100%
All NVIDIA® GeForce™ 7800 256 MB and better chipsets
Say goodbye to running that game at a playable 15 FPS. Your card may work due to extra graphic RAM from main memory but it will be hideously slow so that even on minimum 10-15 FPS may be a dream. the 8400m is like atmost 1/4 the power of a 7800 (if not 1/8), which is like only the quarter of the power of a 8800 or less. Honestly, I doubt it will be playable at all, let alone playable FPS wise. Due to all the shairing of RAM and stuff, any DX10 benifit will be more than countered, that is even if the game uses DX10 at all. Thus I would have to say its a one in two chance the game will not even run on your PC and the other is that it will run hideously poorly knowing how bad the minium specs perform usually.

I would advise getting a desktop computer, you can get ones quite reasonably now which have a 8800 and quad core with 4 GB ddr2 ram and those specs will certainly run the game at a barable rate with barable FPS.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
DSG is probably right. Obviously your processor is not good enough (no it's not 4.4, sorry) but usually you can get by with a processor just under the minimum. I wasn't sure about the graphics, and didn't bother checking the rankings. I thought the 8400 would be good enough for lowest settings. Guess not.

Yeah, laptops aren't ideal for gaming. Desktops are ftw.
 
Level 15
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
1,058
I disagree with the statement that the CPU is not enough.

An AMD Athlon X2 3800 is 2.0 GHz, which roughly performs like a 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo. It sounds as if the game specification might be referring to the minimum recommended clock speed of a Pentium 4 or Pentium D. Because otherwise a 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo is far faster than an Athlon X2 3800.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
I disagree with the statement that the CPU is not enough.

An AMD Athlon X2 3800 is 2.0 GHz, which roughly performs like a 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo. It sounds as if the game specification might be referring to the minimum recommended clock speed of a Pentium 4 or Pentium D. Because otherwise a 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo is far faster than an Athlon X2 3800.
Yeah I did't really understand the Pentium part. There's no Pentium duel core is there? Perhaps a laptop/mini desktop processor?
 
Level 15
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
1,058
Yeah I did't really understand the Pentium part. There's no Pentium duel core is there? Perhaps a laptop/mini desktop processor?
There is. Two actually.

Pentium D (old Netburst Pentium 4-ish generation)

Pentium Dual-Core (binned Core 2 Duos)

The former is not worth it, the latter is worth it and a low-cost alternative to a Core 2 Duo.
 
A fast dual core is much cheaper than a slow quad core and I can max out all the newest games with no slowness on my Dual Core 3.0 GHz. I am also running 4 gigs of ram, though I am using 32-bit Windows XP so it only uses 3 gigs of it. Also I would recommend my graphics card to anyone. Its a GeForce 9500, not the fastest card out there, but has a whopping 1 gig of video memory, as well as useful HD and dual monitor capabilities. And though as I mentioned it isn't the fastest card out there, I can max out all the new stuff fine. And the big advantage to this card, it is only about $60 on tigerdirect.com
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
Just play old games then. I'm sure there are plenty of great older games you've never played.

Actually I've made it a point to try and only buy games that are ~20 now. I just got Soul Calibur for 20 and some Square Enix game for 15. Both on 360 (actually the enix game is only on 360, which is odd for them). I think 80% of my collection of games have been bought at pretty low prices.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
Games need to be more demanding. No games so far use modern RAM sizes to their full not take advantage of 64 bit OS.
Thus people should, like with the consoles, use what they have to full potential and really make a game of the time and not one which has to work on hardware from pre PS3/360 times.

All games nowdays should use atleast 1 GB of RAM and 256+ of graphics not including the ammount the OS uses. They should need atleast a medium range dual core and probably be aimed at quad cores. Graphically, the minimum I would expect a game to run on would be cards with equal power to the nvidia 7800, however they really need to distance themselves from DX9, thus all modern games should move towards only using DX10 as it would allow such engines to be far more bug free instead of like universe at war which had DX10/9 bugs due to having to support both. Also all modern games should use atleast some features of 64 bits for additional speed, as nearly every modern gamming PC now is 64 bits (ofcourse should still work on 32 bits). I find it a joke how most PC games still have lowish requirements, especially considering how poorly optimized PC games are in general compaired to console games. Looking at the game prototype, I would say its minimum requirements are perfectly reasonable and down to earth if it is well optimized, now if only all PC games were being aimed like that.

The 9500 sucks. My bros 8800 GT is better and has 1 GB GDDR2 RAM.
Also if it has one GB of graphics RAM and XP 32 bits can only use 3 GB, does than not mean only 2 GB of your RAM is used as graphic memory is included into the limate over normal RAM. My bro's PC has 4 GB RAM, quad core + 8800GT and runs everything pretty well. Honestly dual cores are not that powerful, and purly make up for their lack in processor capabilities with high clocks. Already people are complaining that their dual cores are not cutting it very well with modern games unless they have an insane clock rate (GTA 4 anyone?). Really, I think a quad core probably will be more future proof as games are going to reall take advantage of threading now, especially since processors like the I7 can run a massize 8 threads at once without any time shairing help from the OS.
 
Level 15
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
1,397
GDDR2?

32-bit uses 3.5gb

What about us Tri-Core owners?

8800GT's are old, and the 4770 and (with deals) 4850 cost less then a 8800GT/9800GT

And Intel made an 8 socket server with each processor having 8 cores and hyperthreading, 128 threads anyone?
 
Level 21
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
2,384
I can tell you people one thing, I got a 9600 GSO (the only 9600 with DDR3 Ram(348 MB DDR3)), and it is so powerful, I made a calculation benchmark, with that graphic card my 2,2 ghz dual-core processor gives the same power as a 3,0 GHZ dual-core processor.

So if you dont want to replace your core, just get a much better graphic card, it can reduce the required core power by alot.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
(the only 9600 with DDR3 Ram(348 MB DDR3))
Firstly DDR3 RAM is processor only, only the futre nvidia cards may plan to use it but I can sure as hell assure you you do not. You mean eithor GDDR3 which is slower than DDR3 and most graphic cards from nvidia use as of the current or you mean DDR2 acording to wikipedia which is slower than DDR3.

Your card is basically a repackaged 8800 done to clear stock. I was not aware that nvidia tried stock dumping but all other cards including the 512 model were not repackaged 8800s and were slighly slower.

A new graphic card will not improve your processor, it can make it seem faster however due to what you actually view is graphics generated by the graphic card while the processor purly sets them up.

Example, I am using a 7800 GS and I can not even watch high definition youtube due to my processor not being fast enough, however my graphic card can run TES oblivion at MAX with few FPS reductions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top