1427 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

How will I do with this rig?

 

Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz quad-core

 

Windows 7 64 Bit

 

Sapphire AMD Radeon 6970 HD Dual-X 2 GB GDDR5

 

8 GB RAM

 

At least 150 GB free on both HDs

[Petiertje]

which R9 is it? btw a bit less RAM for that great CPU (4core with HT). but in this resolution, you should be able to get high settings, even with the "smallest" "R9 200 Series", which would be the R9 270.

It's a 270X, I think it's the same as you mentioned. Thanks for your reply Glad I can get some of the 'shiny stuff'

[Deathangel008]

How will I do with this rig?

 

Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz quad-core

 

Windows 7 64 Bit

 

Sapphire AMD Radeon 6970 HD Dual-X 2 GB GDDR5

 

8 GB RAM

 

At least 150 GB free on both HDs

medium/high settings i guess, but rather high. the HD6970 is as fast as the GTX660. CPU is not that great though.

@ above me: the R9 270X is ~10% faster than the R9 270/GTX660.

[Vlk3]

Well, that's bad news for me. I didn't expect  that quad core CPU would be required to run the game.

I have a laptop and no way of buying anything new, so it seems I'll find out on November 20th if this is possible.

My specs:

• CPU: Intel Core i3-2330m cpu @ 2.20 GHz 2.20 GHz  
• System RAM:4 GB
• Graphics CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX
• Graphics Memory: 1024 MB DDR3
• DirectX 11
• OS: Windows 7 (64-bit)

I would be happy enough if it could run fluently on low settings. I assume that there are really long loading screenswaiting for me...if I could only manage to play the game.

 

Is there really such a great difference between dual and quad cores ?

[Scoobydooby]

medium/high settings i guess, but rather high. the HD6970 is as fast as the GTX660. CPU is not that great though.

 

Cpu could do okay, but it needs an OC badly. 

[blussi]

Wow, that's some pretty reasonable optimization for a game that looks this pretty! I'm on i7 and 8gb RAM but my graphic card is a whack lol so I guess I'll be playong somewhere between low-medium.. 

[LegallyTwisted]

So I meet all the other minimum requirements besides the fact my CPU's GHz is 2.4 instead of 2.5, think it's possible to scrape by? Cause if not it's off to the PS3 version for me u-u Which I'm hoping to avoid.

[Sugarjaye]

Ok all this spec stuff makes no sense to me, If i post what i have can someone tell me if i'm all good please.

 

Processor: AMD A8-5600K APU with Radeon™ HD Graphics    (4 CPUs), ~3.6GHz

Memory: 8192MB RAM

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650

(Not sure which memory is needed so)

Display Memory: 4043 MB

   Dedicated Memory: 971 MB

      Shared Memory: 3072 MB

 

Thanks  

[Scoobydooby]

Well, that's bad news for me. I didn't expect  that quad core CPU is required to run the game.

I have a laptop and no way of buying anything new, so it seems I'll find out on November 20th if this is possible.

My specs:

• CPU: Intel Core i3-2330m cpu @ 2.20 GHz 2.20 GHz  
• System RAM:4 GB
• Graphics CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX
• Graphics Memory: 1024 MB DDR3
• DirectX 11
• OS: Windows 7 (64-bit)

I would be happy enough if it run fluently on low settings. I assume that there are really long loading screenswaiting for me...if I could only manage to play the game.

 

Is there really such a great difference between dual and quad cores ?

 

Yes, there is a very big difference, especially when it comes to things like physics. A dual core is just not up to snuff for games these days.. I'd only use a dual core for games older than a couple years, or today for office tasks.. even any kind of professional development (games, design using anything autocad) benefits huge from a solid quad core. 

 

You may get lucky and be able to play on very lowest settings.. not sure if there will be a limitation in game that would prevent it from starting based on hardware.. however, the hardware you posted is quite low end.

[Deathangel008]

• CPU: Intel Core i3-2330m cpu @ 2.20 GHz 2.20 GHz  
• System RAM:4 GB
• Graphics CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX
• Graphics Memory: 1024 MB DDR3
• DirectX 11
• OS: Windows 7 (64-bit)

i would be more concerned about the gpu. the i3 is a dualcore, right, but it has Hyperthreading, so it acts more or less like a native quadcore.

@ Sugarjaye: good enough for medium settings. btw, dedicated memory is important.

[Petiertje]

what are you talking about the  i7 2600 is a hyper treaded Quadcore

Yep, I just learned that, :-) . As I said in my post, I'm not that great with the exact numbers and position compared to each other when it comes to hardware, I have a mild form of dyscalculia, and that's biting me when trying to compare numbers etc. I do know how the stuff works, it's just the numbers that comes with them that's making trouble.

[ShadowLordXII]

medium/high settings i guess, but rather high. the HD6970 is as fast as the GTX660. CPU is not that great though.

@ above me: the R9 270X is ~10% faster than the R9 270/GTX660.

 

Unless there's an AM3 6-core processor out there that only requires 95 Watts of power, then the processor that I have is the best that my motherboard can support.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I think it's time to retire the old HD7850 and bring in a GTX970 or 980 (since I want 1080p maxed).

[Scoobydooby]

 

Ok all this spec stuff makes no sense to me, If i post what i have can someone tell me if i'm all good please.

 

Processor: AMD A8-5600K APU with Radeon™ HD Graphics    (4 CPUs), ~3.6GHz

Memory: 8192MB RAM

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650

(Not sure which memory is needed so)

Display Memory: 4043 MB

   Dedicated Memory: 971 MB

      Shared Memory: 3072 MB

 

Thanks

 

 

Your specs are not too bad, but you could afford to up your ram to 8gb.. your card should be able to handle low-med settings, not sure of resolution though..

[Scoobydooby]

I think it's time to retire the old HD7850 and bring in a GTX970 or 980 (since I want 1080p maxed).

 

If you want 1080p maxed, get the 970. it will pin you at 60 in almost anything out right now. 

[OdanUrr]

My laptop (since it's better than my current rig):

 

• CPU: Intel Core i7-4700HQ @2.40 GHz
• RAM: 16,0 GB
• Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M
• VRAM: 2 GB GDDR5
• DirectX 11
• OS: Windows 8.1 (64-bit)

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

the 870M is very similar to the desktop 660ti which is ~20% faster than the 660 non-ti. i guess it will be a bit faster than the 660, cause compared to the 660ti (same chip as the 870M, and both 1344 ALUs) both core- and memory-clock are a bit lower.
your CPU is very good.

 

Benchmark and game framerate wise, I think the closer comparison to GTX 660ti is the GTX 880m. But that chipset doesn't come in laptops that cost less than 2 grand USD. The GTX 870m does fall short a little compared to the 660ti, but should still perform very well.

[devSin]

Oh, also probably worth noting that even the 7000 series should have Mantle support (maybe even the 6000s too? Can't recall). So I think that helps boost 'em a bit too, though to be honest I personally know nothing how that stuff works.

Mantle's chief effect is overcoming the CPU impact from the overhead of higher-level APIs.

A fast CPU with a lot of cores will get relatively little benefit, whereas a slower processor with only two cores can see dramatic improvement.
 

Is there any evidence of this?  And what potential gains would be had?  I'm not looking to run the leanest, meanest gaming rig evar...  just a solid, single card powerhouse that will keep me in Ultra for a good 1.5 - 2 years.

Evidence of what? We've been stuck at 28nm forever now, and it's been a huge issue (notice how upgrades have been coming slowly the past few years—everybody was banking on a shrink that never came, so they had to stick with old designs or retool their new designs for the old process).

Everything is in limbo until the new process is ready, and we either have mostly old designs with slight improvements (AMD) or pseudo-new designs that aren't as good as they were supposed to be (Nvidia).

Next generation may not automatically be better, but it should be the first in a while that has the capacity to truly be new (the shrink allows either for more complex hardware or smaller, more efficient hardware, or more likely both).

[Sugarjaye]

i would be more concerned about the gpu. the i3 is a dualcore, right, but it has Hyperthreading, so it acts more or less like a native quadcore.

@ Sugarjaye: good enough for medium settings. btw, dedicated memory is important.

Ok thanks  

[Sugarjaye]

Your specs are not too bad, but you could afford to up your ram to 8gb.. your card should be able to handle low-med settings, not sure of resolution though..

Thanks, 

And which ram - My system ram? in control panel it says my installed memory - ram is at 8.00 gb

[Deathangel008]

Benchmark and game framerate wise, I think the closer comparison to GTX 660ti is the GTX 880m. But that chipset doesn't come in laptops that cost less than 2 grand USD. The GTX 870m does fall short a little compared to the 660ti, but should still perform very well.

i know, i just said that its exactly the same chip as the 660ti, but with lower clocks -> a bit faster than the 660, but not as fast as the 660ti.

[EdwinLi]

I'm a bit worried if my Specs good enough for the game since I don't have a proper compare system for the game yet?

 

Window 7

Geforce GT 530

Intel Core i5-2500 CPU 3.30GHz

6 GB RAM

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

I think it's time to retire the old HD7850 and bring in a GTX970 or 980 (since I want 1080p maxed).

 

Unless you have some cash you would really like to burn, I would highly recommend the GTX 970. 80-90% performance for 50% of the price, or something. Overclocked, it will stand toe to toe with the 980.

[Deathangel008]

I'm a bit worried if my Specs good enough for the game since I don't have a proper compare system for the game yet?

 

Window 7

Geforce GT 530

Intel Core i5-2500 CPU 3.30GHz

6 GB RAM

cpu is great, gpu is crap, but good enough for low/medium settings.
(always these OEM-PCs...)
 

 

Unless you have some cash you would really like to burn, I would highly recommend the GTX 970. 80-90% performance for 50% of the price, or something. Overclocked, it will stand toe to toe with the 980.

this.

[Vlk3]

Yes, there is a very big difference, especially when it comes to things like physics. A dual core is just not up to snuff for games these days.. I'd only use a dual core for games older than a couple years, or today for office tasks.. even any kind of professional development (games, design using anything autocad) benefits huge from a solid quad core. 

 

You may get lucky and be able to play on very lowest settings.. not sure if there will be a limitation in game that would prevent it from starting based on hardware.. however, the hardware you posted is quite low end.

Even lowest settings are something I look forward to. Thanks for explaining.

i would be more concerned about the gpu. the i3 is a dualcore, right, but it has Hyperthreading, so it acts more or less like a native quadcore.

@ Sugarjaye: good enough for medium settings. btw, dedicated memory is important.

 

 

You would be surprised howw ell my graphics card works.It's got bad reviews but I could run Battlefield 4 on medium settings with some even set to high. What you said abbout the CPU is quite comforting though!

 

Thanks for the answer.