35 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorath Alpha]

Official Minimum System Requirements and VGA Ranking

(When this thread was brand new) We have (had) another ten days to go before DA2 is (was) going to be on the shelves in the states, so I thought it would be good to have this right here in this forum with all of the complaining going on here (it should be noted that I do not consider these to be "highly demanding" requirements at all).

DA2 System Requirements

      Minimum:
      OS: Windows XP 32-bit with SP3
      OS: Windows Vista 32-bit with SP2
      OS: Windows 7 64-bit
      CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
      CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
      RAM: 1 GB (1.5 GB Vista and Windows 7)
      Video: Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB (should be 2600 XT or X1800
           GTO)
      Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256 MB cards (unless this should be
          7800 GS)
      Disc Drive: DVD ROM drive required
      Hard Drive: 7 GB
      Sound: Direct X 9.0c Compatible Sound Card Windows Experience
          Index: 4.5

Current Rankings in Shader Performance Order (and see my next comment for the Recommended Requirements):

- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 580
- ATI Radeon HD 6900 series (so far)
- ATI Radeon HD 5900 series
- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 480
- ATI Radeon HD 5800 series
- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 470
- ATI Radeon HD 6800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX275 - 280 - 285 - 295 - 460 and 465
- ATI Radeon HD 5700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX260
- ATI Radeon HD 4800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
- NVIDIA GeForce 9800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 5600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 4700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 9600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 3800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 4600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 2900 series
- ATI Radeon X1950 series
- ATI Radeon X1900 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 7900 series ( nVIDIA Official Minimum for DA2 )
- ATI Radeon X1800 series
- ATI Radeon X850 series     ( ATI Official Minimum Card for DAO )
- NVIDIA GeForce 7950
- ATI Radeon X800 series ( Dx9.0"b" only, though, & same for X850 )
- ATI Radeon HD 3690 
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 (DDR5 version)
- NVIDIA GeForce 7800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT  (Much more LIKELY as "Practical" DA 2 Minimum)
- ATI Radeon HD 3650 
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 230
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro  ( ATI Official Minimum Card for DA2 ~~ seems wrong )

(The Official nVIDIA DAO Minimum was wrong and is way below here in the ranks, and various relatively recent cards, such as the HD 6800s, don't have the right benchmarks available yet for addition to the list)

You will be too unhappy with the results to enjoy the game, if you try using recent Geforces numbered n20, n10, n05, or the older ones numbered n100, n200, n300, and at least two n400s, the 7400 and 8400.  Radeons numbered below n500, such as the HD 5450, HD 4350, and HD 3450 will similarly give you misery, and, of course, the Intel onboard Chipset Video Chips will do so as well (and, indeed, anyone's onboard Video is in that class).

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 23 mars 2011 - 02:14 .

[Orange_Section]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

We have another ten days to go before DA2 is going to be on the shelves in the states, so I thought it would be good to have this right here in this forum with all of the complaining going on here.

DA2 System Requirements

      Minimum:
      OS: Windows XP 32-bit with SP3
      OS: Windows Vista 32-bit with SP2
      OS: Windows 7 64-bit
      CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
      CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
      RAM: 1 GB (1.5 GB Vista and Windows 7)
      Video: Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB (should be 2600 XT or X1800 GTO)
      Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256 MB cards (unless this should be
          7800 GS)
      Disc Drive: DVD ROM drive required
      Hard Drive: 7 GB
      Sound: Direct X 9.0c Compatible Sound Card Windows Experience
          Index: 4.5

Current Rankings in Shader Performance Order:

- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 580
- ATI Radeon HD 6900 series (so far)
- ATI Radeon HD 5900 series
- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 480
- ATI Radeon HD 5800 series
- nVIDIA Geforce GTX 470
- ATI Radeon HD 6800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX275 - 280 - 285 - 295 - 460 and 465
- ATI Radeon HD 5700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX260
- ATI Radeon HD 4800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
- NVIDIA GeForce 9800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 5600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 4700 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 9600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 3800 series
- ATI Radeon HD 4600 series
- ATI Radeon HD 2900 series
- ATI Radeon X1950 series
- ATI Radeon X1900 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 7900 series ( nVIDIA Official Minimum for DA2 )
- ATI Radeon X1800 series
- ATI Radeon X850 series     ( ATI Official Minimum Card for DAO )
- NVIDIA GeForce 7950
- ATI Radeon X800 series ( Dx9.0"b" only, though, & same for X850 )
- ATI Radeon HD 3690 
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 (DDR5 version)
- NVIDIA GeForce 7800 series
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT  (Much more LIKELY as "Practical" DA 2 Minimum)
- ATI Radeon HD 3650 
- NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
- NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra
- NVIDIA GeForce GTS 220, GT 230
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro  ( ATI Official Minimum Card for DA2 ~~ seems wrong )

(The Official nVIDIA DAO Minimum was wrong and is way below here in the ranks, and various relatively recent cards, such as the HD 6800s, don't have the right benchmarks available yet for addition to the list)

So true.....those kind of people just want answers without even looking for themselves first. The info is there if they infact bother to look for it. So... Cudos to you mate, i have seen you on the forums trying to help alot of  spoiled and ungrateful people.

So here´s to you... Good work mate:)

[Gorath Alpha]

Secondly, I hadn't included the Recommended System Requirements yet, so here those are:

    * Recommended:
      CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent
      CPU: AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8 GHz or equivalent
      RAM: 2GB (4 GB Vista and Windows 7)
      Video: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater
      Video: NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater
      DirectX 11: ATI 5850 or greater
      DirectX 11: NVIDIA 460 or greater

Here's what was here before I edited in the block above -- Actually, I tend to just ignore any of them who are obviously self-centered and wearing blinders when they blunder into these places. I won't respond to L33T speak, to purposely misspelled foolishness, etc. I do get slightly impatient when the exact same question is sitting right there, in the open, like the Dx9 missing library file, asked over and over, while covered by a stickie.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 02 mars 2011 - 10:48 .

[Orange_Section]

Indeed....i almost loose it every time i see a new post regarding something that´s already stickied.



It´s funny how some people work, it´s like they are still letting their mother do everything for them. And maybe that´s it, they are most probably kids, all of them.



Oh well, i can rant about this for hours, but i wont.



Anyway...nice job

[Gorath Alpha]

I've made a relatively minor edit in the OP for the thread. Somehow, I'd swapped the GT and GTS versions of the Geforce 8600.

[Sleepee]

No love for the GTX 570 or the 560 Gorath? Though I doubt many who play Dragon Age are using one of those cards, but it's just a tiny smidge on your rather pristine graphics card chart. Props to you for making that.

[Gorath Alpha]

I always look to Toms hardware for a benchmark on a game with similar graphics to place the cards in the appropriate ranks, and neither those nor the Radeon HD 6800s are included in those VGA charts yet. The 580 is on top now, and the HD 6900s are second, though, without that particular benchmark; no telling if it gets moved or the 6900s do when the dual core 6900s and dual core 580s appear.

[basdoorn]

Although I do like the list it might be a bit too detailed, with sometimes very small differences making a large impression on people because they are 2 steps below or ahead of another card. One step on the video card ladder might not be equal to another step performance wise. Cards like the AMD 6950, 6970 and Nvidia GTX 560 and GTX 570 could simply be grouped, avoiding the exact ordering altogether. They offer similar levels of performance in the sense that somebody with an AMD 6950 could try and run similar settings to somebody with a GTX 570 (all other things equal). For the concerns on this forum that makes them equal enough to be grouped here. This might make maintainig the list easier as well, besides making it possible to add cards even when they are not at Toms in a comparable game yet.

Could we simplify the list by stating:
Very high/DirectX-11
- NVidia GTX 46x, 47x, 48x, 56x, 57x, 58x
- AMD Radeon 58xx, 59xx, 68xx, 69xx

If you would miss the mark a bit and the GTX 460/AMD 5850 would end up not being able to run the highest possible settings you could always make a small revision afterwards. The list is for reference only anyway, usually for people at the low end of the ladder complaining the game will not run at very high. Others might go frantic when the FPS drops to 59 from 60 and run games on high instead of very high even with a GTX 580. Or that the GTX 460 overclocks so good that it should really be above the AMD 6970, etc... suffice to say someone will be always complaining no matter how much effort you put in. I am still somewhat optimistic that the people I really care about will understand the difference between a $ 200 GTX 460 and the $ 500 GTX 580 on their own.

Also, you might want to include the Intel Core i7 2500 and 2600 with their HD3000 graphic cores in the low section at the bottom of the list. Previously unplayable, people with these 2 CPU's should now be able to see some Dragon Age (no matter how poorly) with no dedicated graphics at all. Other models have the lower specced HD2000 graphics built in, with only half the graphics power, do not want.

The list is highly appreciated in which ever form you decide on and I will surely keep pointing people towards it just like we did with DA:O, keep up the good work!

[SSV Enterprise]

Gorath didn't include weak stuff like a Radeon HD 5450 or a Geforce 210, which are on the level of the Intel HD Graphics 3000, so he still has absolutely no reason to include Intel's garbage. AMD's similar APU chips will likely blow away Intel when it comes to graphics performance, and may actually be worth listing.

[basdoorn]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
Gorath didn't include weak stuff like a Radeon HD 5450 or a Geforce 210, which are on the level of the Intel HD Graphics 3000, so he still has absolutely no reason to include Intel's garbage. AMD's similar APU chips will likely blow away Intel when it comes to graphics performance, and may actually be worth listing.

Great remark, but I would draw the opposite conclusion. When people cannot find the HD 5450 or Geforce 210 on the list, the might keep asking questions. Not everyone knows a 5450 performs less than a 4850, some people only see a higher number and think its faster, even though its price clearly suggests its not. So once again I would petition to show more condensely grouped video cards, for low end you could have something like:

Low settings, low resolution
AMD - x850 series, x18xx/19xx series, x28xx/29xx series, hd 36xx series, hd 46xx series, hd 55xx series
NVidia - GT230, 9500 series, 8600 series, 78xx/79xx series
Intel - HD3000 only found in Core i7 2500 and 2600 (still very poor)

Unplayable
AMD - x600 series and before, x16xx series and lower, x26xx series and lower, hd 34xx and lower, hd 44xx and lower, hd 54xx and lower
NVidia - gt220, gt 210, 9400 series and below, 8500 series and below, 7600 series and below
Intel - all except HD3000 found in Core i7 2500 and 2600

I do hope AMD and Intel will keep making their embedded graphics more powerful, as long as it does not noticably affect processor performance and/or energy consumption when a seperate video card is used. Don't know if all the cards listed are entirely correct in their respective categories, I don't even know if Dragon Age 2 will run with the built-in graphics of the 2500 and 2600 Intel processors for certain as I can't test this myself.

I do feel that at the very least all these product families should be on the list however, anywhere on the list, so people can find their own model and need not ask the same questions over and over. Otherwise, a footnote could be added to the bottom of the list that cards not on the list will simply not run the game properly. In which case all the latest cards should be on there to avoid confusion.

Its mostly a volume problem. Very many people come here, so when a few product families are not on the list, dozens (more) will be asking about them each month. That's what I hope to help remedy by my suggestion, not claim that Intels onboard graphics are great or better than AMD's. I don't care about this, all onboard graphics are and will remain insignificant to the video cards I select for my system anyway. It's the couple of people a week Gorath, I and others have to tell about Intel graphics that concern me, not exactly how crappy each model scores.

[MishraArtificer]

Something to note: I have played through the demo on a laptop with a GeForce Go 7400. It will run with some lag on low settings, but it will run. The main thing holding me back on it at the moment is the processor: Mobile Core2Duo T2600, 1.83GHz.

Anyone have a T7600 floating around that I can relieve you of?

[Gorath Alpha]

This should have had the recommended requirements in it as well, shouldn't it?  (Fixed)

[Gorath Alpha]

MishraArtificer wrote...

Something to note: I have played through the demo on a laptop with a GeForce Go 7400. It will run with some lag on low settings, but it will run. The main thing holding me back on it at the moment is the processor: Mobile Core2Duo T2600, 1.83GHz.

Anyone have a T7600 floating around that I can relieve you of?

The nature of modern laptops being what it is, attempting to access the "inside" where the CPU is probably permanently soldered in place is far more likely to literally DESTROY both the mainboard itself and the chassis while trying to get them apart. 

Anyone reading that rosy description should wait for next Tuesday to check with others before trying the full game on anything as weak as that Mobile card (about the same as the desktop 7300 GS). 

[Brandonspikes]

Like others said, don't forget the 570 and 560, they are the 2nd best and 3rd best nvidia cards right now respectively.

[Rosium]

&^%$ I have Nvdia Geforce 210 1GB which should give me a lot of trouble...:-'(
I am hoping to make up with 8GB Ram on 2.80 x4 core.

[Gorath Alpha]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

MishraArtificer wrote...

Something to note: I have played through the demo on a laptop with a GeForce Go 7400. (etc. etc.)

Anyone reading that rosy description should wait for next Tuesday to check with others before trying the full game on anything as weak as that Mobile card (about the same as the desktop 7300 GS).

Rosium wrote...

&^%$ I have Nvdia Geforce 210 1GB which should give me a lot of trouble...:-'(
I am hoping to make up with 8GB Ram on 2.80 x4 core.

Compared to just a couple of years or so ago, the costs of a far better card, brand new, are quite reasonable for owners of desktop PCs. But the reason Laptops can be purchased for the kind of prices that those cost is that they are now designed as disposable appliances. After only a couple of years, you recycle them, which is where the expense catches you. They can hardly be upgraded at all. You can change the drives, and the RAM. That's it.

I already know that there will be penny-pinching clowns who will come along and claim that Intel Chipset video chips are wonder devices, and try to convince others to suffer with the crappy performance that those offer, and Geforce 7300s, maybe even FX 5200s.  Those people aren't normal.  Ignore them,  The same ones, kinds of people, will want to use an ION 9300, or an even worse G.205, G.210, well, you lnnow I mean the ones with that strange antipathy toward buying decent hardware.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 07 mars 2011 - 10:44 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

How smoothly would this work on an alienware laptop... only asking since im thinking i need a better laptop... the one im using isn't really ideal for gaming and so most games are glitch and laggy.
Also this laptop is a little damaged...

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 06 mars 2011 - 01:36 .

[Moondoggie]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

How smoothly would this work on an alienware laptop... only asking since im thinking i need a better laptop... the one im using isn't really ideal for gaming and so most games are glitch and laggy.
Also this laptop is a little damaged...

I think you answered your own question. If other games are laggy then by default DA II will probably be too unless you are willing to play on low settings at a low resolution.

To get a definitive answer listing what hardware specs your laptop has will help. Oh and for future reference i'd steer away from Alienware and it's ridiculous prices.

[Biotic_Warlock]

Moondoggie wrote...

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

How smoothly would this work on an alienware laptop... only asking since im thinking i need a better laptop... the one im using isn't really ideal for gaming and so most games are glitch and laggy.
Also this laptop is a little damaged...

I think you answered your own question. If other games are laggy then by default DA II will probably be too unless you are willing to play on low settings at a low resolution.

To get a definitive answer listing what hardware specs your laptop has will help. Oh and for future reference i'd steer away from Alienware and it's ridiculous prices.

Exactly a moral dilema... need good gaming laptop of good value which i can also use for some work.
The DA2 demo works okay... nice + smooth on min graphics... but if i can play smooth on full blown graphics then i can do an evil laugh.

Possibly more that dragon's laugh from the demo.

[Flaming Alistair]

I have a Dell Studio XPS laptop with Core 2 Duo T9550 @ 2.66 Ghz with a ATI mobility radeon HD 4670 with 1GB VRAM. My native resolution is 1920x1080 and running the demo, I was able to play pretty smoothly with medium detail, no AA. Even at very high detail, I noticed a bit lower FPS but still playable.  I guess it benefits from a high VRAM.

Modifié par Flaming Alistair, 06 mars 2011 - 05:19 .

[lalo676]

l/knlnn"mN

[Gorath Alpha]

Flaming Alistair wrote...

I have a Dell Studio XPS laptop with Core 2 Duo T9550 @ 2.66 Ghz with a ATI mobility radeon HD 4670 with 1GB VRAM. My native resolution is 1920x1080 and running the demo, I was able to play pretty smoothly with medium detail, no AA. Even at very high detail, I noticed a bit lower FPS but still playable.  I guess it benefits from a high VRAM.

That HD 4670 has been one of the greatest bargain cards for over two years.  It performs very well and costs very little! 

[basdoorn]

Rosium wrote...
&^%$ I have Nvdia Geforce 210 1GB which should give me a lot of trouble...:-'(
I am hoping to make up with 8GB Ram on 2.80 x4 core.

For a GT 210 there really is no hope and you cannot compensate a poor GPU with a fast CPU or abundant (V)RAM. With a GT 220 you could have played the game on low settings, but the GT 210 is less than half of the GT 220 performance wise, scoring 2-3x lower framerates in most games. Please see the link below as reference (lowest entry in graphs is the 210), you can check out the other games in the same article, but they give similar results:

http://www.tomshardw...220,2445-9.html

In your case I would upgrade your video card before the game releases. Little point in watching a slideshow on the lowest quality possible, if the game runs at all. *** edit: shame on me here, the G210 should run the game as shown below, be it at (near) lowest quality ***. Especially as the rest of your system seems capable of far better performance, depending on the exact brand and model of your CPU.

Modifié par basdoorn, 07 mars 2011 - 11:31 .

[Xena_Shepard]

Rosium wrote...

&^%$ I have Nvdia Geforce 210 1GB which should give me a lot of trouble...:-'(
I am hoping to make up with 8GB Ram on 2.80 x4 core.

Don't listen to any of these guys and their talk about upgrading your card, it should be perfectly fine.

I have a nearly 2-year old desktop, it has a Nvidia GeForce G210 512mb card, 2.33 quad core processor, and 6 gigs of RAM.

My graphic card requirements score depressingly low on any requirement calculators I plug it into for any new games.

And yet, I have been able to play BioShock 2, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Dead Space 2, and Bulletstorm, which was recently released, all perfectly smoothly. Bulletstorm even has the exact same graphics card requirement that Dragon Age 2 has.

How do I do this? Simply: First I crank the resolution down. My monitor's native is 1600x900, but in reality that's just a bunch of useless extra pixels, who gives a damn about all that extra fancy stuff unless your comp is good enough to handle it? Even then it barely makes a difference, I tune mine down to 1280x720, which is still pretty nice.

Then I turn off all the other useless bells and whistles that many of the high and mighty people with powerful PCs would say you CAN'T enjoy your game without, such as antialiasing and the like, I also crank down shadow and other miscellanous qualities such as grass or whatever. The only advanced setting I can't live without is VSync. Then, I play, and I turn settings back up or on depending on how well the game performs.

So, in reality, you'll be perfectly fine if you turn off some useless settings. Bulletstorm was tragically laggy at 1600x900 resolution, but when I turned it down to 1280x720, I didn't even need to turn any quality settings down, and Bulletstorm has the exact same minimum requirements as Dragon Age 2

There's my input, from someone who actually deals with using a 'low end' graphics card, rather than someone who doesn't have a clue.

[basdoorn]

Xena_Shepard wrote...
I have a nearly 2-year old desktop, it has a Nvidia GeForce G210 512mb card, 2.33 quad core processor, and 6 gigs of RAM.

So, in reality, you'll be perfectly fine if you turn off some useless settings. Bulletstorm was tragically laggy at 1600x900 resolution, but when I turned it down to 1280x720, I didn't even need to turn any quality settings down, and Bulletstorm has the exact same minimum requirements as Dragon Age 2

I really like your post, as it is very much true it is hard to talk about low-end video cards when you have no such video cards to test with. I certainly do feel you should be able to enjoy the story line and RPG elements of the game at even the lowest graphic quality. In the end, it is all about the text and numbers when you talk about the core of an RPG game.

I want you to know that we are not simply shouting upgrade at everyone. I did look up the G210 and found it to be lower performing than the AMD 4350. The faster AMD 4350 is explicitly listed as not supported for Mass Effect 2 and thus Dragon Age 2, which in turn makes me recommend an upgrade, especially as the player has other components superior to even the recommended specifications. 

http://www.pcgamesha...viewed/Reviews/
(4350 scores slightly better in all benchmarks than the G210)

http://www.tomshardw...ments,9162.html
(Mass Effect 2: "ATI Radeon HD3200, and HD4350 are below minimum system requirements")

Bioware themselves put your card below the minimum requirements, so they too expect most people with such a card to be disappointed I guess. It all comes down to managing expectations in the end. That said I do like your post so the other player knows he will be able to run the game with the G210, while I had doubts in that department before. I also hope you will enjoy the game and that the other player now has all the information he needs.