Highest system requirments ?
- Thread starter joeyzt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Imperial Video Games
dhlucke
Polypheme
- Feb 2, 2001
- 31,570
- 0
- 65,780
The system requirements that are given are generally too low. Really too low.
UT2K3 Recommends a 1Ghz processor and something like a GeForce2. It runs ok like that. It doesn't really shine though and isn't terribly exciting.
Unreal2 recommends a 1.2 Ghz processor and something like a Geforce2. It doesn't run very well with a 1.4Ghz and a GF2 Ultra. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to think it's not worth playing with that hardware.
A game like Neverwinternights requires a 450Mhz PIII and a TNT2 or something ridiculous. It doesn't run very well like this. It's definitely playable, but it looks like crap. You need a 1Ghz and a GeForce2 or it'll chock up terribly. As a matter of fact even a GeForce2 will choke up if there's a lot on the screen.
Operation flashpoint requires a 1Ghz processor on some maps. I ran it with a Geforce2 and it was playable like this. Kinda chunky put playable at whatever settings I had it at. I generally play at 1024x768 with medium to high settings.
BF1942's requirements are ridiculously low but it will not run on a 1Ghz Tbird with a GeForce2 Pro without looking like doom.
Not sure what the requirements are for GrandTheftAuto3, but with a 1Ghz and a GF2 Pro it'll be kinda chunky at 1024x768. 800x600 is a bit better, but not worth playing in my opinion. You won't really know the difference until you see the game on a better PC though.
My point is that whatever the "recommended" requirements are, expect those if you play at medium settings. For the "required", expect those just to get the game to run at the lowest possible settings. That's been my experience with too many games lately to take a chance with my money.
If you want to play at the highest settings, you'll need a good videocard. The 1 Ghz will probably do a lot for you if you have an awesome card like a Radeon 9500 Pro or better, but you should probably run with a better CPU as well.
Oh, and highest system requirements doesn't equate to better looking either. BF1942 for example is just a poorly made game in my opinion and requires way too much overhead compared to other similar games.
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>
UT2K3 Recommends a 1Ghz processor and something like a GeForce2. It runs ok like that. It doesn't really shine though and isn't terribly exciting.
Unreal2 recommends a 1.2 Ghz processor and something like a Geforce2. It doesn't run very well with a 1.4Ghz and a GF2 Ultra. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to think it's not worth playing with that hardware.
A game like Neverwinternights requires a 450Mhz PIII and a TNT2 or something ridiculous. It doesn't run very well like this. It's definitely playable, but it looks like crap. You need a 1Ghz and a GeForce2 or it'll chock up terribly. As a matter of fact even a GeForce2 will choke up if there's a lot on the screen.
Operation flashpoint requires a 1Ghz processor on some maps. I ran it with a Geforce2 and it was playable like this. Kinda chunky put playable at whatever settings I had it at. I generally play at 1024x768 with medium to high settings.
BF1942's requirements are ridiculously low but it will not run on a 1Ghz Tbird with a GeForce2 Pro without looking like doom.
Not sure what the requirements are for GrandTheftAuto3, but with a 1Ghz and a GF2 Pro it'll be kinda chunky at 1024x768. 800x600 is a bit better, but not worth playing in my opinion. You won't really know the difference until you see the game on a better PC though.
My point is that whatever the "recommended" requirements are, expect those if you play at medium settings. For the "required", expect those just to get the game to run at the lowest possible settings. That's been my experience with too many games lately to take a chance with my money.
If you want to play at the highest settings, you'll need a good videocard. The 1 Ghz will probably do a lot for you if you have an awesome card like a Radeon 9500 Pro or better, but you should probably run with a better CPU as well.
Oh, and highest system requirements doesn't equate to better looking either. BF1942 for example is just a poorly made game in my opinion and requires way too much overhead compared to other similar games.
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>
lonewolf1215
Distinguished
- Jan 30, 2003
- 47
- 0
- 18,530
I would definitely have to say UT2K3. The graphics are phenominal and without a good 3D rendering graphics card like the NVidia ti4200 or ti4600 the game would look crappy. Plus the size of the installation is massive. The other response does have a some good points about your question. I do agree that the graphics on BF1942 are lacking a little, for the maps, not the players or the vehicles. But the game is well worth playing.
HolyShiznit
Distinguished
- Nov 21, 2002
- 687
- 1
- 18,980
In a few months, the answer to your question will be: Doom3
<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>
<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>
Skipper007
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2002
- 167
- 0
- 18,680
dhlucke
Polypheme
- Feb 2, 2001
- 31,570
- 0
- 65,780
<A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000356" target="_new">http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000356</A>
Good read. It'll give you an idea on what kind of hardware certain types of games require.
For example, neverwinter nights is dependent on the Videocard, but games like BF1942 or Ghost recon (think A.I) need a fast CPU.
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>
Good read. It'll give you an idea on what kind of hardware certain types of games require.
For example, neverwinter nights is dependent on the Videocard, but games like BF1942 or Ghost recon (think A.I) need a fast CPU.
<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>
Rubberbband
Distinguished
- Jul 9, 2001
- 867
- 1
- 18,985
Here's the recommended system for America's Army:
The recommended requirements for the game are:
Pentium4 1.4GHz (or equivalent)
256MB RAM
WinME/2000/XP
DirectX8.1
64MB GeForce2 or similar 3D card
1GB disk space
4x CD-Rom (CD version only)
EAX 3.0 compatible sound card
NVIDIA® nForceTM or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby® Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio.
Broadband network connection
This is the bare minimum:
The minimum requirements for the game are:
Pentium3 766 (or equivalent)
128MB RAM
Win98/ME/2000/XP
DirectX8.1
32MB vid card supporting hardware T&L
600MB Hard Drive free space
4x CD-Rom (CD version only)
DirectX 8 compatible sound
56k modem or better
NVIDIA® nForceTM or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby® Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio.
The Men Behind the GUNS!
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=327&s=8ae8909977d596e59e0ac8260313c4d0" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>
The recommended requirements for the game are:
Pentium4 1.4GHz (or equivalent)
256MB RAM
WinME/2000/XP
DirectX8.1
64MB GeForce2 or similar 3D card
1GB disk space
4x CD-Rom (CD version only)
EAX 3.0 compatible sound card
NVIDIA® nForceTM or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby® Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio.
Broadband network connection
This is the bare minimum:
The minimum requirements for the game are:
Pentium3 766 (or equivalent)
128MB RAM
Win98/ME/2000/XP
DirectX8.1
32MB vid card supporting hardware T&L
600MB Hard Drive free space
4x CD-Rom (CD version only)
DirectX 8 compatible sound
56k modem or better
NVIDIA® nForceTM or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby® Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio.
The Men Behind the GUNS!
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=327&s=8ae8909977d596e59e0ac8260313c4d0" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>
. The game is pretty fun but the game looks like [-peep-], it actually ran alright on my old k6-500/tnt2 system. Can't wait to get my 9700 PRO!!!I totally agree with you. I have an Athlon 2000+ with a Geforce 3 Ti500, and Unreal II is herky-jerky in 1024x768, and just doesn't look as good in 800x600. It really isn't what I would call "smooth" in 800x600 32 either. It's real smooth in 640X480, and looks like junk. Also, I think I am missing out on some visuals with my graphics card. The models look, wierd...like mottled metal...all except the chick who works in the space ship--she looks fine. (Very fine. hehe. )
Anyway, after seeing BF1942 run like a dog in terms of memory and level-loading, and seeing Unreal 2 totally tax my system, I've come to the conclusion it's time to upgrade. Besides, my computer has DDR266, so I'm practically in the stone-ages anyway.
I'm thinking my next system will have...P4 3.2 GHZ or AMD 3200+, DDR400, Raid0, and Radeon with R350. (Depends on how long I wait...maybe FX-Ultra will be out by them, or even R400.)
I'm sure that system will be sweet--for about a year. Then Quake 4 will be out and I'll have to upgrade again.
I want to move to space, so I can overclock processors cooled to absolute zero.
Anyway, after seeing BF1942 run like a dog in terms of memory and level-loading, and seeing Unreal 2 totally tax my system, I've come to the conclusion it's time to upgrade. Besides, my computer has DDR266, so I'm practically in the stone-ages anyway.
I'm thinking my next system will have...P4 3.2 GHZ or AMD 3200+, DDR400, Raid0, and Radeon with R350. (Depends on how long I wait...maybe FX-Ultra will be out by them, or even R400.)
I'm sure that system will be sweet--for about a year. Then Quake 4 will be out and I'll have to upgrade again.
I want to move to space, so I can overclock processors cooled to absolute zero.
Silverpig: was there any change in simcity's performance after the patch (or have your patched it yet)?
Twitch: I have an Athlon1900+ w/g3 ti500 (o/c) and can run Unreal2 @1024x768 with no jerkiness at all... Are you sure your details are not all maxed? Also how much ram do you have, because I hear BF runs bad unless you have atleast 512 (which I do, and the game runs great).
Twitch: I have an Athlon1900+ w/g3 ti500 (o/c) and can run Unreal2 @1024x768 with no jerkiness at all... Are you sure your details are not all maxed? Also how much ram do you have, because I hear BF runs bad unless you have atleast 512 (which I do, and the game runs great).
Actually, I do have most of the details set to high in U2. I figured out that turning of EAX in the options also helps. Thing that bothers me is: I don't really want to have to turn that stuff off. I like eye candy and ear candy. Hehe!
BF1942: I have 512 megs of Mushkin DDR266. The game itself runs fine in Multiplayer with bots off. In fact, I can run in 1024x768 and it looks awesome! My problem in BF1942 is not the game play, but the fact that it takes forever to load levels. I don't know if I have a settings issue, or if it's because I'm on the outer half of my Maxtor 30gig hard drive (I tend to think that may be part of the problem) but it takes sometimes as long as 3-4 minutes to change levels. That's a long time when you're looking at a transitive screen! Maybe I've been spoiled by 10 second level loads in RTCW but it just doesn't work the way it seems like it should.
I want to move to space, so I can overclock processors cooled to absolute zero.
BF1942: I have 512 megs of Mushkin DDR266. The game itself runs fine in Multiplayer with bots off. In fact, I can run in 1024x768 and it looks awesome! My problem in BF1942 is not the game play, but the fact that it takes forever to load levels. I don't know if I have a settings issue, or if it's because I'm on the outer half of my Maxtor 30gig hard drive (I tend to think that may be part of the problem) but it takes sometimes as long as 3-4 minutes to change levels. That's a long time when you're looking at a transitive screen! Maybe I've been spoiled by 10 second level loads in RTCW but it just doesn't work the way it seems like it should.
I want to move to space, so I can overclock processors cooled to absolute zero.
silverpig
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 5,068
- 0
- 25,780
I patched it and have only played it sparingly since the patch, but I didn't try upping the visuals again. It seemed to run just the same for me, but I'll test it out further for you.
Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
Pettytheft
Distinguished
- Mar 5, 2001
- 1,667
- 0
- 19,780
Try Everquest it's online but it's a hog if you want to try and run it at a higher resolution. They actually require 512MB of ram to play the game (with the detailed models on otherwise the game looks like it's 4 years old) and it runs even better with more.
Only other game that I can think of that might even come close is BF1942 in single player mode. I dont think that either game is all that great looking, I chalk it up to poor programming. (Especially BF1942)
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Only other game that I can think of that might even come close is BF1942 in single player mode. I dont think that either game is all that great looking, I chalk it up to poor programming. (Especially BF1942)
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Yahiko81
Illustrious
- Jul 17, 2001
- 10,987
- 0
- 40,780
I've got an Athlon XP2600, 1GB of ram, and a Radeon 9700 pro and every time I go into the bazaar in EQ it taxes the hell out of my system. If I switch out and check task manager I'm using 740mb of memory and my processor usage is at 100%.
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">I reckon all women should learn how to do an engine re-build so they can get the right to vote.</A>
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">I reckon all women should learn how to do an engine re-build so they can get the right to vote.</A>
Regarding BF1942, I agree and disagree. I find the game looks great in the wooded and city scenes, just OK in the desert locales. However, some of the models are bad. The ship models are laughable. One thing I think (but I'm not sure) I noticed is the game tries to adjust LOD based on the amount of memory installed in the system. I've got to go back and check this but it seemed to me the game looks a whole lot better with 384 MB of memory vs 256 MB. I know it runs better with at least 384 MB. Level load times (single player) go from 1.5-2 minutes down to 30 seconds with more memory. I don't play multiplayer (because dial-up stinks) so I can't speak about those load times.
The www.tweaktown.com BF1942 tweak guide suggests that 768 MB is needed to avoid all system related performance hits. Not that this alone guarantees smooth performance, just that anything less could mean worse performance.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
Pettytheft
Distinguished
- Mar 5, 2001
- 1,667
- 0
- 19,780
I was blabbing away and didn't read my post. I do believe that the game is not all that graphically impressive. But the poor programming is the rampant glitches that occur with the game. I am starting to see a pattern with EA computer games. They are full of bugs and glitches. However they make some pretty dame good console games.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Well it's strange, but I haven't noticed any signifcant bugs or glitches but this is best left for another discussion.
Bad programming, on the otherhand, can certainly increase system requirements for a game.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
Bad programming, on the otherhand, can certainly increase system requirements for a game.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
bum_jcrules
Distinguished
- May 12, 2001
- 2,186
- 0
- 19,780
It runs well on my XP2000+, 512MB DRR333, and a Gainward GF4 Ti 4200 system.
<b><font color=red>Fredi</font color=red> <font color=red>Fredi</font color=red> He's our man! If he can't do it no one can!</b>
<b><font color=red>Fredi</font color=red> <font color=red>Fredi</font color=red> He's our man! If he can't do it no one can!</b>
It runs pretty well with my XP1700+ @2.1 Ghz, with 384MB of SDRAM and a Radeon 8500 (overclocked). In fact, it ran pretty well with a Tbird @1.5.
I think what the BF1942 guide is implying is the more memory you add the better the game gets, up to 768 MB. After this, more memory doesn't help.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
I think what the BF1942 guide is implying is the more memory you add the better the game gets, up to 768 MB. After this, more memory doesn't help.
<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
If Simcity 4 runs like [-peep-] on 2000+ CPU, I wonder what The Sims 2 would require when it is released?
Sidenote, anybody played Goldeneye or Perfect Dark on Project 64 on a high spec system? Oh!!!! 60FPS an high res!!!!!
It's the biz.
if wishes were fishes, we'll all cast nets
Wai Lun Lee
Sidenote, anybody played Goldeneye or Perfect Dark on Project 64 on a high spec system? Oh!!!! 60FPS an high res!!!!!
It's the biz.
if wishes were fishes, we'll all cast nets
Wai Lun Lee
I'm in the process of building a few adapters to be able to play those console games on my computer. I have on for my NES and SNES, but as the controllers get fancier they are harder to make adapters for. I haven't given up yet tho!
umheint0's phat setup --> <A HREF="http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html" target="_new">http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html</A><--
umheint0's phat setup --> <A HREF="http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html" target="_new">http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html</A><--
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram