37 réponses à ce sujet

[AzmodantheRed]

Computer is 2 years old.

Processor: Intel® Core™2 CPU 6300 @1.86 Ghz
2 GB RAM
Jetway 7600 gs 256mb videocard
Windows Vista

The character creator runs just fine btw.

Now i think i meet the minimum specifications. But fail the recommended specifications on all 3 accounts.

So the question is....How much will this negatively affect performance, and seeing how i own an Xbox 360, would I not be better off buying it on Xbox instead of PC??

I rather have the PC version due to toolset and player generated content. And its cheaper.
But if its gonna be slow and with poor graphics, I much rather play it on the xbox...which is linked to a large television screen and better sound system. And popular mods will probably make their way on xbox live anyway.

So im a bit torn, can you guys help me out?

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

The video card is the main issue. I figure low-medium settings at 1680x1050. About the same as the console ins some places, worse than the console in other I'm sure.



An $90 upgrade (9800 GT at newegg.com) could have you running this game at Max at1680-x1050 or higher. If that's not an option then yes, I'd recommend the xbox 360. Maybe even pick up another copy for the PC as well so you can play with the toolset.

[MingWolf]

The ram is slightly lacking as well, since its on windows vista...  Upgrading the video card alone will not do much due to the bottlenecks of processor and ram. 

You might be running the game on some lower graphics settings for sure, but as you are above the minimum requirements, the game should be very playable in terms of performance (so long as you keep your graphics sliders down).

Modifié par MingWolf, 26 octobre 2009 - 10:42 .

[Ingrimm22]

It won't run anywhere near as good as the xbox-version, so better buy the latter one, because upgrading you PC to the point that the game will outperform the 360-version would require you to replace cpu, gpu and beef up the RAM at least 1 GB, that basically means a new computer, so don't bother.

It could perform at a playable level IF you play at low settings but seeing that DA isn't exactly the shiniest game technically to begin with, i really wouldn't want to play it on the lowest settings.

Modifié par Ingrimm22, 26 octobre 2009 - 10:55 .

[AzmodantheRed]

As for the toolset, im not much of a programmer or modder. Wouldnt very popular mods find their way to Xbox live downloads?

[Ingrimm22]

AzmodantheRed wrote...

As for the toolset, im not much of a programmer or modder. Wouldnt very popular mods find their way to Xbox live downloads?

Bioware said yes. If it really comes to that depends entirely on how well this will sell on consoles.

[flem1]

2gb is fine on Vista.  Unless you have crapware running all the time, of course.

Modifié par flem1, 26 octobre 2009 - 10:56 .

[Ingrimm22]

flem1 wrote...

2gb is fine on Vista.

Not for playing recent games.

[Dragon727272]

I have no option but to get it on the PC although my specs aren't the greatest:



Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

2046MB RAM

Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6750 ~2.7 GHz

Also Vista



I think graphics may be my main problem everyhting else should do for me, d'you think?

(Hopefully will get by with the RAM, if not a £20 stick should work?)

[flem1]

Ingrimm22 wrote...

flem1 wrote...

2gb is fine on Vista.

Not for playing recent games.

Quite wrong, unless you mean Crysis.  As long as games are not 64-bit, they won't get that large anyway.

With DA you may get slightly longer loading times, but that's nothing compared to the endless drudgery of loading on the RAM-starved consoles (remember ME elevators?).

[Jab0r]

Ingrimm22 wrote...

It won't run anywhere near as good as the xbox-version, so better buy the latter one, because upgrading you PC to the point that the game will outperform the 360-version would require you to replace cpu, gpu and beef up the RAM at least 1 GB, that basically means a new computer, so don't bother.

RAM is cheap, a graphics card that handles DA is cheap, and his CPU  comfortably meets minimum specs (and from what information we have, the recommended specs are totally overkill in that department). Also, CPU speed will likely have very-little-if-any effect on how the game looks.

It would be fairly small change to upgrade it to something which matches or even exceeds the 360's performance, something which is more than compensated by the wealth of free mods that the PC is going to get.

Modifié par Jab0r, 26 octobre 2009 - 11:09 .

[Little Paw]

If you ran Mass Effect you will run this fine.

BioWare is not stupid...they want it to sell.

The Witcher was another game with modest requirements but lush graphics and decent gameplay, and I think those guys took a page out of BioWare's book, and this game will take a page out of theirs by being more mature.

I applaud BioWare for not making me buy new a new PC. Of course I can go Xbox, but I just love my WASD and mouse!!!

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

Some misinformation here:



First community created content is NOT coming to the consoles. The Devs said they will try. I guarantee it won't happen, but that's just IMHO.



Second more than 2 gigs of RAM is NOT required for a game like this one. 2 Gigs is fine. The only thing you need to upgrade is that 7600 GS. Everything else is fine. An $80 upgrade will have you running at medium settings. That's about on par with the console.

[Ingrimm22]

Quite wrong, unless you mean Crysis.  As long as games are not 64-bit, they won't get that large anyway.

With DA you may get slightly longer loading times, but that's nothing compared to the endless drudgery of loading on the RAM-starved consoles (remember ME elevators?).

I mean Crysis, Far Cry 2, GTA 4 and Batman: AA to name just a few (not to mention MMOs of course who border on unplayable with vista and 2 GB RAM). And it's not even about loading times. If you try playing DA:O an vista and 2 GB RAM the game will start to choke frequently, i can guarantee you that. Only solution would be dumping down texture resolution but who would want that? But then again, it's not an action game, perhaps people won't be bothered by things like that, though i know i would.

[Jab0r]

If you try playing DA:O an vista and 2 GB RAM the game will start to choke frequently, i can guarantee you that. Only solution would be dumping down texture resolution but who would want that?

What are you basing this off? Did you actually code part of Eternity or something?

The 360 has 512MB of RAM. Oh, and that's shared between the CPU and GPU. Minimum requirements for DA are 1.5GB on Vista, so with 2GB you've already 512MB over minimum plus whatever memory you've got on the GPU.

[DPB]

I haven't played any other of those games you mentioned, but GTA IV is perfectly playable on Vista with 2gb of RAM.

[bodines1]

Ingrimm22 wrote...

Quite wrong, unless you mean Crysis.  As long as games are not 64-bit, they won't get that large anyway.

With DA you may get slightly longer loading times, but that's nothing compared to the endless drudgery of loading on the RAM-starved consoles (remember ME elevators?).

I mean Crysis, Far Cry 2, GTA 4 and Batman: AA to name just a few (not to mention MMOs of course who border on unplayable with vista and 2 GB RAM). And it's not even about loading times. If you try playing DA:O an vista and 2 GB RAM the game will start to choke frequently, i can guarantee you that. Only solution would be dumping down texture resolution but who would want that? But then again, it's not an action game, perhaps people won't be bothered by things like that, though i know i would.

Nah having less than the "recommended" 4 GB will increase load times and i doubt much else. Load times are increased simply due to the fact that textures and meshes will be reloaded often. It is slower, but you can always increase virtual memory also.

[Jab0r]

but you can always increase virtual memory also.

If this had any impact at all, it would be a negative one. Having to reload textures from disk during an area transition is much preferable to having to reload them from backing store (which is likely the exact same disk) in the middle of combat because they got swapped out by the OS.

[Hockey Beard]

The only problem I see is that Vista is already using half - two-thirds of the 2 gigs he's got in his system...It may not matter much, but it might be beneficial to upgrade.



All in all I agree though, you won't have much of a problem running the game if you've got the min specs.

[Craig McDermott]

I'd say you should get it for xbox. A 7600 and 2gb of RAM in vista isn't going to cut it.

[stfb1055]

well then save money to buy a gaming pc computer xD then u can own this game i hate being a min specs then game wont be running well sometime...

[MrGOH]

You won't see that much improvement by adding in another stick of RAM. You will see great improvements by replacing that video card, though. Heck, I'd even suggest you upgrade your processor before adding any RAM, on general principle. Just check your power supply to make sure it can power a newer card.

[flem1]

Hockey Beard wrote...

The only problem I see is that Vista is already using half - two-thirds of the 2 gigs he's got in his system...

This is another one of those ridiculous myths.  Vista always shows a lot of memory in use because it preloads things:  if you run an actual memory-intensive program, that's freed up instantly.  The idea that 1.25 gb is going just to the OS is just...    Beyond absurd.

[vyvexthorne]

I have almost the same computer as yours..but two 7600 gt ko's on sli. Bioshock played fine on full settings, Fallout 3 played fine on full settings..That's all I have to compare too.. game performance also depend on what resolution you run it at.. I still use my CRT monitor and run games on 1024 x 768 at 85hz I think games look great at that resolution. ..Any greater resolution just seems to make the words smaller for me but it really decreases game performance without making the graphics look all that much better. I really don't know the major differences between CRT and LCD monitors though.

[Komodo120]

The mini specs will be playable on a pc -if- you can bare the low settings. Keep in mind quite alot of PC gamers tend to upgrade there computers to play the games on high settings.



But dont think you need to buy a 5,000USD computer to play DA:O on high oh no no..



For vista? I would really push for 4 gigs (Only because well there cheap as heck and might as well. Never hurts) as for the computer it self? I would see to a better video card with more Vram (512 or better) The 9800's Nivida are not badly priced. As for the CPU etc Ah a 3.4gHz(duo core) or so is fine.



I have no problem with folks wanting to use and play games on there TV's but if you are asking what to take PC or Xbox. I would think you want the better looking more stable game. With min specs on the pc for DA:O I would go with the xbox if you dont want to upgrade. If you do want to upgrade then I would go PC (toolset and better look over all forget the "huge" tv and small seat of fluff..computer chair, good head set and a decent sized monitor with good gear to run the game will look alot better over all then a TV with Xbox. In these days I understand that alot are not made of money and cant upgrade there pc...Thats fine



But please if you really dont want to be a PC gamer then dont ask the question and buy it for the Xbox and love it (im sure it will be just as fun on the Xbox) Though if you really want to give DA:O and other games a good try on the computer then you will need to spend some money and upgrade the computer. Just my two coppers befor I pass out..these night classes are killing me