724 réponses à ce sujet

[Bagaget]

Chikkenstorm wrote...

Most games these days have an 'optimized' setting, yes.
But they're most of the time not worth the space of the screen they take. They don't take into account on what resolution you play, and that makes a big difference.

I hope we get ourselves an ingame benchmark, to quickly test how well we run stuff at certain settings.

Just download a trial of fraps and it will show you your fps in any game while you tweak.

[Chikkenstorm]

Yes, I already have fraps actually.

But one moment in the game isn't the other. I don't want to find out in the midst of a big battle that the settings are too high for me. I don't really feel like tweaking them in the midst of a big battle either.

[shakix]

I'm wondering if I'll be able to run med setting smoothly with,

Vista

Intel Duo 1.86GHz

2Gb Ram

GeForce 9800 GT 1Gb

[Chikkenstorm]

Your CPU seems to be the weak point.

But I don't think that'll effect most of the graphic settings, so I'd say high to max. Particles maybe not, since those are handled (partially) by your CPU.

[Odelpex]

So will Service Pack 1 for Vista be absolutely necessary to run the game? The thing is that I've tried to install it many times, but it just ends up screwing up my whole computer to the point where it won't even boot.



I've been thinking about just formatting the computer and installing everything over again, but I've been putting it off for a while now. So will I finally have to just do it, or will I be able to run this?

[Hooch0959]

Ok only my second post and I'm really not computer savy and I apologise if people are sick of answering the same questions but help would be appreciated.



I bought this computer for work and was wondering if it is adequate for running Dragon Age



Intel Quad Core CPU Q6600 @ 2.40ghz

Ram 3.00GB

Nvidia 9800 GT 512MB GDDR3

and I have no idea how to find out what sound card I have or if it will be a problem



Once again sorry to be a pain

[DPB]

High or maximum settings, depending on the resolution. Having a soundcard shouldn't matter much, most onboard solutions are fine these days (unlike graphics cards).

[crevus]

I think it will work...damn your PC has almost the same things as mine...except that I have a ati radeon 4770(which I don't know if it is better or worse) and I have a dual core...I think it will go on high for us...does anyone know is my ati radeon 4770 better than the nvidia 9800 gts?

Modifié par crevus, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:18 .

[Chikkenstorm]

@Odelpex: Probably not, but it's always a good idea to install service-packs. They fix a lot of stuff, usually. Weird that your pc crashes when you install it.



@Hooch0959: You will most likely run it close to max. Sound card isn't an issue. I think any (even onboard) sound-card of the last 7 years (DX9) will do fine, and your pc is far from that old.

And this topic is so people can ask the same question over and over again. People who hate it just have to ignore it.

[Hooch0959]

Thank you thats most helpful, never bought a game on PC before only console so was unsure which one to buy

[thheNO]

My specs:



Intel Core Duo T2500: 2 GHz

2.5 gb DDR2 ram

256 MB Nvidea Geforce Go 7900 GS



Waddayathink?

[Chikkenstorm]

You're barely above the minimum specs, so don't expect stunning graphics. I don't know how it'll relate to the console graphics though.

But it'll run.

[bodines1]

Win XP

Pentium D @ 3 GHz

2 GB ram

ATI radeon 1900xtx w/ 512 MB



Haven't upgraded in a while, about what settings would you think? I can run Fallout 3/Oblivion at max settings (I only play at 1280x960 without any AA).

[Maiverick]

hey i only got 2 rams the rest i know i can run it great but will having just 2 ram make a big diffrence?

[Dead Heero]

Not posting to see if i can run it just boasting.



Intel Duel Xeon Quad Core 3.0 GHz

16 gigs RAM

Duel Nvidia 9800 GT 1 gig cards

Creative X-Fi sound blaster

[bd480]

I've been out of the PC upgrade loop for a couple of years, and given the recommended specs I was wondering if I could pull out high settings at 1440x900 (old LCD):



CPU: Athlon X2 64 4600+ OC'd to 2.8GHz



2GB PC6400 RAM (had 4 gig, but a matched set went bad on me and I haven't had time or money to replace)



EVGA 8800GTX 768MB edition (original launch GTX)



I'm thinking the 2GB of RAM will be the choke point, as I'm currently running Windows 7 which has similar memory requirements to Vista.



Sadly I won't be able to get back up to 4GB of RAM till at least the first of the year.

[flem1]

Official clarification on the CPU requirements

Ross Gardner wrote...

That is some good feedback, and we certainly have a chance to change what min/recommended specs actually make it onto the box. Based on the feedback we are getting for the min and recommended one change that comes to mind is lowering recommended to 3Ghz+ dual core. Another might be to specify single core, but with 2Ghz.

So:
alternate minimum = Athlon 64 at 2ghz or greater
alternate recommended = Core 2 Duo at 3ghz or greater

Modifié par flem1, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:33 .

[flem1]

Let me copy some relevant developer posts here...

Andreas Papathanasis wrote...

Especially concerning CPU and system memory, you guys shouldn't be worrying as much about meeting the recommended system requirements for playing this game. I run the game fine on my 2 gig vista/2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo machine at home, and I'd be suprised if someone experienced significant performance gains when running Dragon Age on a quad core CPU, compared to an otherwise identical setup with a dual core CPU.

The video card will probably affect your experience more. Even though you'll get the full game experience on the minimum required graphics cards, having a recommended or better video card will make a difference in the visual quality of the game. That said, it very much depends on what kind of gamer you are and how much attention you pay to graphics. I personally enjoyed the game just as much on my laptop playthrough using the lowest visual quality setting.

Ross Gardner wrote...

Speaking to the single core questions, the game actually runs OK on a single core depending on the clock speed. We change the threading model slightly to take that into account and Andreas is saying it is about 20% slower, with likely a few dips in a larger heated combat. The min-spec was actually supposed to be an Intel Core 2 (single core) although that is not very clear. If it was a single core though, I'd want to run at higher than 1.4Ghz.

To the older AMD questions I ran the game all through development on the following system:

AMD 64 X2 Dual 4400+ 2.21Ghz w/ 3 gigs of RAM which I assume is DDR 2 without pulling the box apart. I tried and it runs really well on 1.5 Gigs but I constantly had a crapload of other apps running so hence the 3.
The video card I had was a 256MB 7800GT.
OS was XP

I ran on medium settings and the game ran really well - 99% of the time about 20fps and usually between 25-40.

Most of our single core work was done on a similar system with 1 core disabled.

We did a lot of work to make it run on lower end PC's well and if you have the minimum you will have an OK gaming experience. If anything I'd recommend closer to a 2Ghz and above processor before upgrading to a dual core (or a quad) if you can do that cheaply. And before upgrading you should try the game - because it might just surprise you

Ross Gardner wrote...

The AMD spec is for dual core, but as I was saying if you had a single core AMD 64 running around 2+Ghz you should be OK. The game will run on lower than that for sure, but then you start getting into questionable experiences IMO - and that will be up the individual if that is acceptable or not.

Ross Gardner wrote...

Based on the feedback we are getting for the min and recommended one change that comes to mind is lowering recommended to 3Ghz+ dual core.

Andreas Papathanasis wrote...

Posted 06/25/09 17:43 (GMT) by ushae

I'm glad I invested in a good machine a few months ago. I just have a question for the developers. Can I run the game at high frames wit maximum settings on 1680 x 1050 resolution with the following setup.

AMD Phenom 9850 Quad Core 2.4 Ghz
Nvidia GTX 260
4GB RAM
Win 7 (RC)
480GB HD

Or does the game struggle at highest settings ?

-U-

Haven't tested on Windows 7, but from everything else, it will run consistently over 30 frames a second on the highest available graphics setting at that resolution.

Andreas Papathanasis wrote...

I'm not sure what mobile notebook cards we'll officially support (typically what you see in most games is a disclaimer "mobile versions of these video cards may work but are not officially supported"), but for whatever it's worth, the game run respectably on my exact same laptop as yours, except I had the NVIDIA 9300M. The GPU was by far the biggest bottleneck, I run most of the game using the medium detail setting, but was willing to play between 10-15 frames a second. Playing at the low detail setting with that video card made it noticeably better, but still there were frequent cases when it dropped under 15. So I'd expect it will work on your video card, and quite a bit better than what I got.

Edit: Forgot to say I was running at 800x600 and without post-processing effects, that video card's fill rate is not nearly as good as the desktop versions.

Modifié par flem1, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:33 .

[flem1]

And a bunch more quotes from Andreas...

The key point to keep in mind from all of this is that if you have the recommended system configuration (even substituting the quad core CPU with a dual core at the same speed), you'll get 99% of what the game has to offer visually, and it will run very smoothly at all times on reasonable resolutions. Anything higher than that and all you'll get is better framerates if you're into that sort of thing (though it doesn't really make a substantial difference given this is not an action game), and/or the ability to run more smoothly at crazy high resolutions.

If you only meet the minimum requirements you'll have to turn down all graphics details sliders, but the game will still run smoothly - we focused a lot on making sure it is fully playable and that gameplay is not affected in any way by the lower detail graphics. If you're under the minimum requirements, the game may still run, but we can't guarantee what will happen since we haven't tested in configurations lower than that.

Yes, 1680x1050 is reasonable enough for the recommended video cards. On our daily tests we're running on a machine with an 8800 GTS and at 1920x1080 resolution (you have to see the game on that projector...), and the framerate was generally running above 30, some congested areas between 20 and 30, and it would occationally drop under 20 in larger battles, but not too often.

Both the 9600 GT and 8800 GS will run the game well on high settings. The recommended 8800 GTS will just be able to give better framerates on higher resolutions. It will also allow you to enable the high detail textures (that will be a different setting unrelated to graphics detail), which isn't recommended on cards with less than 512 MB of memory.

In general we designed the game so that 7800-7950 series nVidias and X1800XT ATIs would run the game well on medium graphics settings. Anything above that and you should be thinking about switching to the higher settings. You should know that the game looks great on medium settings as well, I wouldn't lose sleep if my system didn't meet the recommended specifications.

[In response to a question about "Intel pentium dual CPU E2180 @ 2GHZ (2 CPU's), ~ 2.00 GHz"]

You won't have issues playing this game because of your CPU. It's actually the video card that will determine what graphics detail settings the game will run comfortably with.

Modifié par flem1, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:33 .

[Chikkenstorm]

Windows 7 is more like XP in terms of memory usage, I read. Haven't compared it myself, though.

[flem1]

Maiverick wrote...

hey i only got 2 rams the rest i know i can run it great but will having just 2 ram make a big diffrence?

No.

[bd480]

Chikkenstorm wrote...

Windows 7 is more like XP in terms of memory usage, I read. Haven't compared it myself, though.

Hmm...I've noticed a higher footprint than XP Pro w/ my 7 Ultimate. Not signficantly larger, but it is taking up about 36% of physical memory with normal background services and processes whereas XP PRO was using around 28-30% normally.

[ShadowKhan]

My current system:

Liquid cooled

Intel Dual Core E8500 3.06 OC 4.12Mhz

8GB DDR2 PC6400ram

2x SLI nVidia 9800GT 1GB

Dual Raid 0 mirror Seagate 1TB 7200rpm SATA3 drives

Running Win7-64 bit



I'm pretty sure it will run it just fine since I can run Crysis2 cranked up. Just in case I've spec'd out a new i7 system and have it on standby order.

[flem1]

bd480 wrote...

Chikkenstorm wrote...

Windows 7 is more like XP in terms of memory usage, I read. Haven't compared it myself, though.

Hmm...I've noticed a higher footprint than XP Pro w/ my 7 Ultimate. Not signficantly larger, but it is taking up about 36% of physical memory with normal background services and processes whereas XP PRO was using around 28-30% normally.

I assume 7 is doing some of the same pre-loading into memory that Vista did.  This doesn't mean that it actually USES that memory when a program actually wants it.

[Chikkenstorm]

It's heavier than XP, but if you compare it to Vista, it's close to nothing. Vista just ate too much memory for it's own good, that's why people hate it.