Aren't System Requirements Just A *****.
- Thread starter SniperWolf427
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I tried the demo of arma 2 on my rig dual core 2.4Ghz 2gig of ram and 7600gt and i had to drop it down to near enough rock bottom to run at a playable framerate. I wanted to get dragon age on the pc but the specs for that are fucking insane so i'm gonna have to bite the bullet and get it for the 360 when i really prefer rpg's on the pc. 
I actually did this, it didn't cost $400, it was a little more, like around $500, but now I can run most games on high settings with a decent framerate. The only games I can't crank up all the settings are crisis and a few RTS games, but even then they are a mixture of medium/high settings.khaimera said:
Although on a side note, I can barely run oblivion on high settings (around 15 frames per second with plenty of stuttering), yet I can run Fallout 3 on high settings with no stuttering with usually 40 FPS.
Although with mods I was able to eliminate most lag and stutters from Oblivion, but still, the requirements were VERY misleading.
I'm sure you can get a patch to trick computers into thinking you have Pixel shading capabilities in your graphics card.Fat Man Spoon said:
Might be worth looking into.
I've never had a problem with system requirements, although for some reason my computer had a ballache playing red orchestra:Osfront.
The game wasn't even on full graphics and it struggled but I could play CoD4 fine. =/
Indeed, im running an Athlon x2 2.2ghz, 2gb 800mhz RAM and a slightly overclocked 8800gt. Ranvthe demo fine on low to medium settings, cranked everything up to high and it was choppy in places but reasonably playable. Dont know the FPS, and cant check now as im on my lappy, but i will test it and get back to you.Arachon said:
Have you tried updating your graphics drivers sniper?
EDIT: Ah, didnt notice you said you tried the demo and it runs better, but the driver update might be worth a try anyway.
The 9800 was not a significant jump, I skipped it. It actually only offered improvements on the order of 3-5% over the 8800 with no new technologies present in the card itself. Basically the 9800 would have been the 8900 in past generations (the 7000 series etc). In the best of categories it only improved things roughly 10% but that was mostly due to the faster clock speed, and you could just over clock your 8800 a bit.The Rogue Wolf said:
Most games do not support multiple threads. You get some benefit out of dual core because the game can hog one core leaving the rest to run the background processes on the system. But you will not see any additional benefit from a quad core except for the ability to raise the clock multiplier in some of Intel's processors (limited to 9x on the dual core versions, still locked on most quad cores, all extreme versions are unlocked).
Extra RAM can never hurt, but you cannot even use all of that gig stick that was recommended. With the system specs it looks like you are running XP, or at the most basic vista. 32 bit OS's can only recognize 3.2 gigs of RAM, this includes your video memory. So if your card has 512MB you only have 2.75 GB that can be recognized by the system. More video memory less main memory that can be recognized, and video memory has a priority over main memory.
Lucky for me, I have a awesome computer that can run anything in today's market at a good frame rate. but I know what you're going through. My old computer used to chug down to a nice 3 FPS on Halo 1.