351 réponses à ce sujet

[Momowo]

I really hope we get the specs soon.

Currently running with 4GB of ram and I know I will definitely need to upgrade my Graphics card... (as it has been soldiering on for a while now but almost certainly won't manage the demands of this generation). Until I have the specs I don't want to sink money into the upgrading and I'd like to have it all set up and running before release.

[AlanC9]

Probably taking the time to put the money aside for an upgrade. Not everyone has disposable income.

OK, so put the money aside. If it turns out you don't need to upgrade, you've still got the money.

[Revan Reborn]

While everyone has their own opinion and certainly their own experiences with various companies...In my experience, I cannot say enough about how much I agree with this statement.  Since 1992 when my family purchased our first 486 with a 2 mb ATI card, the RagePro II, then much later I personally purchased a 256 Mb ATI Radeon x850 (2004) and lastly the 256 Mb Radeon x1950 Pro (2006)....The cards themselves were OK (just OK), but they had horrible issues with their optimization/compatibility and the integration of their Drivers through Catalyst Control Centre. The only saving grace was that they (ATI) were a Canadian company (and I wanted to support our Canadian market), and their price/performance was quite decent and several hundred dollars cheaper than anything Nvidia offered.   But I will say again, that every single ATI card I ever owned had major issues with Drivers.  And in terms of the quality in their manufacturing, I also have to agree that since they were bought out by AMD and began out-sourcing their cards to such companies like Diamond, Sapphire, VisionTek and PowerColour...well, I have tried 4 diffierent cards from those manufacturers and they have all been absolutely garbage.  Seizing fans, fusing PCBs, short-circuiting/burning out...and just plain 'under-powered'.

 

In between those years of blundering through ATI products, I have had several Nvidia-based cards beginning with the 16 MB Voodoo 3 3000 (which was an amazing card, and the best card on the market at the time for performing OpenGL; a predecessor to Directx). Next I had the 32 Mb Matrox Rainbow which was a beast in terms of lifespan.  I've also had a 256mb GTX 8800 from PNY, a 512mb GTX 9800+ from MSI, a 1Gig GTX 285 OC from BFG Tech, 2 470s from EVGA, of which the only downer was that they ran qute hot. But  none of these nvidia cards ever gave me any serious problems of any  kind.  (Unless you cant 8 ASUS 570s being RMA'd in 13 months because they stopped working to the point where even the ASUS rep said they were 'not fixable').

 

In short I will continue to support Nvidia (and especially EVGA) for the rest of my computer-building days

 

For my next build....I wholly intend on buying EVGA for as many products as I can (Motherboard, Power supply, Video card).

As far as Nvidia and EVGA are concerned, I agree completely. I have a GTX 770 EVGA card currently and while EVGA is one of the more expensive manufacturers, they deliver on quality and have an absolutely amazing warranty policy. Nvidia is the only way to go when it comes to high-end PC gaming. AMD just doesn't compare. It's more or less comparing the NBA (Nvidia) to the WNBA (AMD). No offense to any WNBA fans out there!

[ghostzodd]

?  Shadow of Mordor's minimum GPU is a 5850, that only has 1GB.

 

(Not that that does me with a 5770 any good)

 

edit: I think there's a bit of confusion here

 

SoM needs 3GB RAM minimum, 8GB RAM recommended.  That's pretty reasonable, even I've got 4 RAM and my PC is old and wasn't top of the line when I got it.

 

It's ultra textures need 6GB V-RAM.  Which is a huge amount, there are seriously good and expensive cards that don't have that, but it's for Ultra.  But it's minimum requirements don't seem to specify a minimum, though there's probably a 1GB implied.

 

I am talking about system ram requirements not GPU

[Rychen]

As far as Nvidia and EVGA are concerned, I agree completely. I have a GTX 770 EVGA card currently and while EVGA is one of the more expensive manufacturers, they deliver on quality and have an absolutely amazing warranty policy. Nvidia is the only way to go when it comes to high-end PC gaming. AMD just doesn't compare. It's more or less comparing the NBA (Nvidia) to the WNBA (AMD). No offense to any WNBA fans out there!

No offense, but offense right? Choose your comparisons better and you could avoid having to pre-apologize in the future

[Lenimph]

As far as Nvidia and EVGA are concerned, I agree completely. I have a GTX 770 EVGA card currently and while EVGA is one of the more expensive manufacturers, they deliver on quality and have an absolutely amazing warranty policy. Nvidia is the only way to go when it comes to high-end PC gaming. AMD just doesn't compare. It's more or less comparing the NBA (Nvidia) to the WNBA (AMD). No offense to any WNBA fans out there!

Wow

[Revan Reborn]

No offense, but offense right? Choose your comparisons better and you could avoid having to pre-apologize in the future

It was supposed to be a joke, but in actuality the NBA is clearly more popular than the WNBA, which I'm surprised is still around honestly. The analogy applies entirely for Nvidia and AMD as well.

 

This is also coming from someone who was a longtime ATI/AMD GPU owner and then converted to Nvidia after being fed up with their terrible hardware and unreliable drivers.

[Lenimph]

It was supposed to be a joke.

 Of course! All is forgiven.

 

Also :

"The total points scored, correcting for minutes played, at different ages. The top graph shows NBA players, with a notable spike in points at age 25, and a steep decline there after. The bottom graph, WNBA has no such spike. The shaded areas (blue and red respectively) are 95% confidence intervals." You know just for sh*ts and giggles since we're comparing performances and longevity.  

[Revan Reborn]

 Of course! All is forgiven.

 

Also :

"The total points scored, correcting for minutes played, at different ages. The top graph shows NBA players, with a notable spike in points at age 25, and a steep decline there after. The bottom graph, WNBA has no such spike. The shaded areas (blue and red respectively) are 95% confidence intervals." You know just for sh*ts and giggles since we're comparing performances and longevity.  

I find it interesting because it's rather apparent you assumed the absolute worst of my analogy and took it out of context. As I explicitly stated, in terms of popularity, there is no contest. Where did I ever state anywhere about age, performance, or longevity? You can answer that for yourself of course.

 

It is an undisputed fact that the NBA is more popular than the WNBA. The same applies to Nvidia and AMD. How about we leave the analogy as it was intended and not make this something more than it actually is? That would be appreciated.

[Lenimph]

I find it interesting because it's rather apparent you assumed the absolute worst of my analogy and took it out of context. As I explicitly stated, in terms of popularity, there is no contest. Where did I ever state anywhere about age, performance, or longevity? You can answer that for yourself of course.

 

It is an undisputed fact that the NBA is more popular than the WNBA. The same applies to Nvidia and AMD. How about we leave the analogy as it was intended and not make this something more than it actually is? That would be appreciated.

You clearly didn't read when I said for sh*ts and giggles. Also as for longevity that's what we were comparing in the cards yes? So I posted how that is reflected in the leagues, as a joke. That all... just a joke, don't get offended dear sir. 

[skulldogx]

I will probably not going to be able to view until 6 pm Aus Time :/

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The briefing of our previous closed topics:

 

Minimum system requirements:

3 GB of ram

Core Duo 2.5 GHz

7600 GT

 

Max:

6 GB of ram

Corei5 3K~

GTX 770

 

GTX 970 is a good thing.

[Revan Reborn]

The briefing of our previous closed topics:

 

Minimum system requirements:

3 GB of ram

Core Duo 2.5 GHz

7600 GT

 

Max:

6 GB of ram

Corei5 3K~

GTX 770

 

GTX 970 is a good thing.

CPU: AMD Six-core CPU, Intel quad-core CPU or better CPU Speed: Info RAM: 8 GB OS: Windows 8 64-Bit Video Card: 3GB AMD Radeon HD 7870 / NVIDIA Geforce GTX 660 or better Free Disk Space: 30 GB

 

These are the recommended system requirements for Battlefield 4, and it's likely DAI will be identical to them. It's actually possible DAI won't even be this taxing as BF4 is a shooter as well as being an online experience where up to 64 players can be rendered and fight each other simultaneously on a large map.

 

I can tell you with certainty the GTX 770 definitely won't be the recommended GPU. That's definitely overkill.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I can tell you with certainty the GTX 770 definitely won't be the recommended GPU. That's definitely overkill.

 

 

I was wondering if GTX 760 or even 750ti will be enough for the max settings.

[Fiery Phoenix]

CPU: AMD Six-core CPU, Intel quad-core CPU or better CPU Speed: Info RAM: 8 GB OS: Windows 8 64-Bit Video Card: 3GB AMD Radeon HD 7870 / NVIDIA Geforce GTX 660 or better Free Disk Space: 30 GB

 

These are the recommended system requirements for Battlefield 4, and it's likely DAI will be identical to them. It's actually possible DAI won't even be this taxing as BF4 is a shooter as well as being an online experience where up to 64 players can be rendered and fight each other simultaneously on a large map.

 

I can tell you with certainty the GTX 770 definitely won't be the recommended GPU. That's definitely overkill.

 

The thing is recently revealed system requirements for upcoming games (Shadow of Mordor, The Evil Within, etc) are actually asking for much more than people had anticipated. In Shadow of Mordor, for example, you need a minimum of 6GB of VRAM to be able to run the game at Ultra at 1080p. The Evil Within recommends 4GB of VRAM available for the optimal experience.

 

When most people's cards right now barely have 2GB of VRAM, this is going to be a bit of an issue to get used to.

 

Now, I certainly do hope that DA:I isn't as demanding, and you make a good point in your comparison to BF4. But at this point it's probably best not to hold your breath.

[Jaulen]

*needs to know*

 

Can I keep the furniture I just bought....or does it need to go back so I can buy a new laptop instead......?

[Revan Reborn]

The thing is recently revealed system requirements for upcoming games (Shadow of Mordor, The Evil Within, etc) are actually asking for much more than people had anticipated. In Shadow of Mordor, for example, you need a minimum of 6GB of VRAM to be able to run the game at Ultra at 1080p. The Evil Within recommends 4GB of VRAM available for the optimal experience.

 

When most people's cards right now barely have 2GB of VRAM, this is going to be a bit of an issue to get used to.

 

Now, I certainly do hope that DA:I isn't as demanding, and you make a good point in your comparison to BF4. But at this point it's probably best not to hold your breath.

Well there are a couple of things to keep in mind. For one, just because a game may "recommend" having 6GB or 4GB or VRAM doesn't mean you actually need that. Your regular RAM will actually replace and compensate for the VRAM you don't have, as clearly any standard high-end card today will only come with 4GB of VRAM max. You also have to consider the size of these textures and how many of them are actually replacing lower resolution textures in the game. That plays a large part into actual performance hit.

 

We also need to recognize that system requirements are largely based on the engine and how well it's optimized. This is why BF4 is a great indicator of what to expect with DAI. Not only is BF4 one of the best looking games on the market, but it's hardware requirements are reasonable and aren't completely over-the-top thanks to how well-optimized Frostbite 3 is. Considering DAI doesn't appear to have any levolution, certainly doesn't have dog fights with jets, doesn't have massive destruction or large explosions, I really can't see it requiring more than BF4.

 

Battlefield: Hardline is coming out next year and I was part of the closed beta process. The system requirements for Hardline were exactly identical to Battlefield 4 and I had seamless and smooth performance on ultra settings without issue. I'm using a GTX 770 2GB of VRAM, btw. I'm not concerned.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

*needs to know*

 

Can I keep the furniture I just bought....or does it need to go back so I can buy a new laptop instead......?

 

Just don't do laptops. They become like a forging place when you run a post-2010 game on them.

 

 

They don't have useful fans. Also it's said that the hardwares in laptops use less electricity. Less electricity consumption -> Less performance

[Revan Reborn]

Laptops are definitely not meant for gaming. You also pay A LOT more money for a gaming laptop than you do a desktop, and it's performance will not be on par in the slightest. The other glaring problem is laptops are almost impossible to upgrade, unlike a desktop. You are essentially paying for a ticking time bomb in the hopes that it will play BF4 and Crysis 3 on ultra settings and still be convenient due to size and mobility.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Well there are a couple of things to keep in mind. For one, just because a game may "recommend" having 6GB or 4GB or VRAM doesn't mean you actually need that. Your regular RAM will actually replace and compensate for the VRAM you don't have, as clearly any standard high-end card today will only come with 4GB of VRAM max. You also have to consider the size of these textures and how many of them are actually replacing lower resolution textures in the game. That plays a large part into actual performance hit.

I'm not so sure about that one. Isn't the Titan 6GB VRAM by default?

 

We also need to recognize that system requirements are largely based on the engine and how well it's optimized. This is why BF4 is a great indicator of what to expect with DAI. Not only is BF4 one of the best looking games on the market, but it's hardware requirements are reasonable and aren't completely over-the-top thanks to how well-optimized Frostbite 3 is. Considering DAI doesn't appear to have any levolution, certainly doesn't have dog fights with jets, doesn't have massive destruction or large explosions, I really can't see it requiring more than BF4.

That's actually why I'm holding out hope for DA:I's system requirements to be reasonable. Frostbite seems like it's beautifully optimized and so even relatively underpowered rigs should be able to manage. I also doubt it will require more than BF4--at least in theory, I don't see why it would.

[Jaulen]

Meh.....I travel a lot for work, usually for extended periods of time. (Ah, the life of a geologist)

 

I don't do desktop, they just aren't portable.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm not so sure about that one. Isn't the Titan 6GB VRAM by default?

 

That's actually why I'm holding out hope for DA:I's system requirements to be reasonable. Frostbite seems like it's beautifully optimized and so even relatively underpowered rigs should be able to manage. I also doubt it will require more than BF4--at least in theory, I don't see why it would.

The Titan is not a gaming graphics card, so it doesn't count really. The Titan is meant for professional development purposes and nothing more. It's actually terrible for gaming compared to a GTX 780ti. I also doubt many would be crazy enough to actually spend the grand necessary to even purchase one...

 

Frostbite 3, alongside the fourth generation of CryEngine, is truly an amazing engine. I actually expect system requirements to remain relatively reasonable due to the fact so many developers will use and refine Frostbite 3. Long gone are the days of developers (at least in EA) having to build their own separate engines for their games and then build the game necessary to run it. Less time to optimize it and less time to polish the game and truly add all the features they want. This way, developers already have the tools and only need to add to it and they can make ambitious and large games faster and with a lot less effort.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

You're overestimating this VRAM thing. I'm sure 2 GB is enough for DA:I. For those other new games, 3 GB. "Vanilla versions"

[Osena109]

I second this. AMD is going to be the better experience for years to come, especially since they basically own the console market. 

and they can keap that  peasant box market AMD  has allways been inferior too intel and Nvidia

[BloodyTalon]

I am not sure about the evil withins specs, the whole release was like here is how we play you test for the rest.

But sure bioware will be more then that, so sort of bad to compare other game releases with this one. Not all of them have lived up to what the devs said.