tom clancys ghost recon wildlands
- Thread starter deepak16c
- Start date
Solution
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
A G4560 will, with same GPU and 8GB RAM, but since your G2030 is barely more than half as powerful as the 4560, you'd likely have to use lower settings, and still might have lag problems in places.
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRmdPMSwI8"][/video]
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRmdPMSwI8"][/video]
I have played games like Assassin's creed syndicate and unity gtav ....at 30-35 fps at high settings.....so my question is can I play this ....like some games like watch dogs2 needs quad core processor right ....does this require any....
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
All of those games you mention list a 4 core CPU in even the minimum requirements.
Ghost Recon Wildlands is a very resource hungry game. It has a vast game world with lots of detail, and lots of constantly active AI as well. Furthermore the draw distance is massive.
I'f you're asking me to condone using a 2 core CPU on some of today's most demanding titles, can't do that. It's not a wise choice.
Ghost Recon Wildlands is a very resource hungry game. It has a vast game world with lots of detail, and lots of constantly active AI as well. Furthermore the draw distance is massive.
I'f you're asking me to condone using a 2 core CPU on some of today's most demanding titles, can't do that. It's not a wise choice.
I know that these games minimally require a quad core but their functionality is not restricted to quad core. They can run on dual core...games like fracry primal wd2 mafia3 witcher3 only need quad core ...so they don't run on dual core ....my doubt is.... is wildlands restricted to quad core as well....??or can it be played on dual core??
Forget abut performance...it's my headache...just say yes or no..
Forget abut performance...it's my headache...just say yes or no..
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
Part of my intent when helping is pointing out flaws in thinking. I'm not a yes man. I'm not going to advise a dual core when it's well below sys reqs. In other words, though some games may run on such hardware, it's not going to produce desirable results, especially going forward with games only getting more hardware demanding.
You can refuse to accept that if you wish, but I think most experienced gamers here will tell you the same. The only other way I can put it is I know a lot of gamers get anxious to play certain games on the holidays, but keep in mind the hardware you buy is often used for at least 3 yrs, if not much longer. It makes sense to wait a little while until you can afford something better, because you'll either love it all those years, or feel stuck with it.
Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear, but the truth is less painless in the long run.
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
How long have you played it? Any game purchased on Steam can be fully refunded if played less than 2 hours. The only problem with that is you may experience parts of the game past those 2 hours that are much more hardware demanding, so the first two hours of play can sometimes be deceiving.
That was the case for me with Wolfenstein 2. I was delighted that my 7970 3GB was handling it way better than I'd anticipated, especially since minimum requirements stated a 290 4GB. However right after that when I got to the Manhattan Ruins level, the FPS dropped way down from 45-65, to sub 30 FPS, and it was very laggy. Changing settings drastically didn't help much. It would sometimes raise the FPS a fair amount, but there was always that lag, probably because I had less than the minimum required VRAM.
Fortunately for me though, I was already planning a significant GPU upgrade, and can now run it on max settings no problem. It was really just a case of me being overanxious to play the game at launch. I know how that is, especially with sequels of a series you love, but the truth is, sp campaigns are good anytime, whether at launch, or months or even years later.
Games are often patched well after launch too, so they could even be better if you wait to buy them, and just as cheap if not cheaper than launch sales. MP games are a different story though of course. You have to plan ahead for those to get on the servers when they're most busy.
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
OK, my recommendation is to play it for less than two hours while sampling performance and settings options (including reading a GeForce or other guide on the latter if need be), then stop with less than 2 hours logged, and google the game with your gpu and cpu added into the search. The most significant setting optimization for GRW on lower spec is lowering the draw distance btw.
You could also look at a walkthrough of the game to get to know the names of the sp campaign levels, then add the name of each level past what you've played one at a time to see if any youtube vids show lag problems on your spec. Most of the more popular titles have lots of youtube vids detailing what hardware it's run on, as long as your hardware isn't too old. That will be the biggest obstacle in researching btw.
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
On Steam purchased games, only if it's played less than 2 hours, and for any reason. It doesn't matter if it's because it won't play on your rig or you don't like the game. Just make sure you closely monitor your gameplay time and stop before you get to 2 hours.
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
LOL, I guess we have drastically different opinions of what "like a charm" means. FPS of 25-30 in my experience was quite laggy. That said, it could be that you have 4GB VRAM on your GPU, which could certainly allow it to run smoother at those frame rates than it did on my retired 3GB VRAM GPU.
The annoying thing with games is, there's more to it than just frame rates and VRAM. I fired up Call of Duty WWII last night on my 1080 Ti. It was using no more than a bit over 4GB of my 11GB VRAM, yet it kept crashing on Ultra settings. I Googled it and many were having the same problem. Even PCGamingWiki's page for the game said one of the problems was crashing during loading scenes because so many people reported it.
One guy on Steam said the only way he could get it to run without crashing was to drop all Ultra settings to High. I tried it and it worked. Apparently the game has a bad memory leak, so no matter how much VRAM you have, it will crash on Ultra. This is unacceptable considering how much money they profit on these games.
Frag Maniac
Illustrious
- Oct 6, 2012
- 5,914
- 354
- 41,590
Let me clarify, the graphics menu claimed it would use that much. I never monitored VRAM use in game though. The errors I kept getting though were not enough storage space, and it was always associated with whatever texture file was being drawn at the time. I hope they patch this problem, but I'm not counting on it.
So that pretty much verifies a problem with the texture files being streamed very inefficiently. Memory leaks are usually caused by one of the game scripts or streams running repeatedly, instead of running as long as it needs to then stopping. It soaks up way more memory than it's supposed to.
It's too bad too because on Ultra it looked so jaw dropping I even got sucked into marveling over the cutscenes, which I normally don't do the 3rd play through. Compared to the settings I had to play on with my 7970 though, it looked quite a bit better, especially now that I have a better display too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Tried moving SSD from old PC to new one, now it won't boot from either
- Started by scyer327
- Replies: 9
-
Question why my pc dont have sound after install new Nvidia GPU Card?
- Started by sudsaviour
- Replies: 3
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 17
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram