My guess is that they just realized that they gave out the specs of an unoptimized beta; having 8 cores and 2GB of VRAM is something that few PC gamers, even those with powerhouse rigs, can barely meet.sid said:Did they just crowd pressure themselves into worse specs? Does that work?
A reasonable case could be made for disliking Vista and especially 8. But XP is too old, and 7 is too good; if there are still people clinging on to the past at this point, it's for reasons beyond... well, reason. Time to kick that irrational fear of change and/or cripplingly overbearing nostalgia!spwatkins said:I would have to disagree with that (somewhat). While Vista was terrible and Windows 8 seems unnecessary, I think that Windows 7 is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has come out with so far (and I've used most of them, including a Windows 2.X release).Sgt. Sykes said:Geez they really are trying to get people to DOWNgrade to that Vista/7/8 trilogy of crap!
Or wait... Would it work on 64-bit XP? Maybe I could get those.
Valve needs to hurry up with that gaming Linux of theirs. I'm tired of all these broken windows.
Nah.Rack said:Damn it, I knew when I bought that i5 2500k last year it would become obsolete fast.
I have Windows 7 64bit and it runs older games without issue, dual booting is a waste of space (and slows your system down if youve got your HDD partitioned, not so bad if its on seperate drives.Xan Krieger said:Helps to run older programs. I know windows 7 professional has an XP mode but the rest don't so it would help to have an actual copy of windows XP on the system.Steven Bogos said:Dear god why would you dual boot a 32 bit os?votemarvel said:Damn and I've only just upgraded to a Intel i5-3330.
I do have a dual boot system though. 32-bit Windows XP where I spend most of my time and a 64-bit Windows 7 for when I want to take advantage of the 8gb of RAM in my PC.
Also on that note some places use older operating systems because the newer versions of the programs they use would be crazy expensive. Was fixing a computer at an embroidery place and they were using windows 95 (this being about 2 years ago).
I dunno, with that much memory, surely it would be more efficient for him to run a virtual machine on his Win7 OS rather than dual booting.Xan Krieger said:Helps to run older programs. I know windows 7 professional has an XP mode but the rest don't so it would help to have an actual copy of windows XP on the system.Steven Bogos said:Dear god why would you dual boot a 32 bit os?votemarvel said:Damn and I've only just upgraded to a Intel i5-3330.
I do have a dual boot system though. 32-bit Windows XP where I spend most of my time and a 64-bit Windows 7 for when I want to take advantage of the 8gb of RAM in my PC.
Also on that note some places use older operating systems because the newer versions of the programs they use would be crazy expensive. Was fixing a computer at an embroidery place and they were using windows 95 (this being about 2 years ago).
i saw plenty of prebuilt pcs with 8GB and 16GB of ram being bundled with 32 bit Win 7. i shit you not they do that and unknownign people buy them.Clive Howlitzer said:People still use 32-bit systems? Come on, get with the program!
I also have windows 7 64 bit and i can tell you you wont be able to run the likes of Dungeon Keeper, old total wars, return fire, and plenty of other games that werent "fixed" by GOG will have problems. trick is, they dont have these problems on 32 bit XP, so simulating that sometimes is a good way to deal with it. Personally i just created a virtual machine for that but i can see how dualbooting is nice (XP look better anyway!)RicoADF said:I have Windows 7 64bit and it runs older games without issue, dual booting is a waste of space (and slows your system down if youve got your HDD partitioned, not so bad if its on seperate drives.
If graphics is what you want from games then its not worth playing any game on current gen console thats going to come out on PC or next gen console.Xman490 said:Doesn't Watch Dogs look as detailed as GTA IV with the Ice Mod for improved lighting or something? I heard that the game is going to run at no more than 32 FPS on next-gen consoles. Is that true? If so, doesn't that mean that it isn't even worth playing this game on current-gen consoles?
A reasonable case can be made for XP as well, as it did a lot of things right. but as you siad, its getting too old. plenty of things completely dropped support for it, including most drivers, so using one would work great unless you want to actually do modern things. hence why im kinda forced into updating to win 7, and so far its been treating me well (compared to VISTA, 7 is god reincarnate)Crazie_Guy said:A reasonable case could be made for disliking Vista and especially 8. But XP is too old, and 7 is too good; if there are still people clinging on to the past at this point, it's for reasons beyond... well, reason. Time to kick that irrational fear of change and/or cripplingly overbearing nostalgia!
As for SteamOS, it's being made for living-room devices designed for Big Picture, not for PCs. You wouldn't want to use SteamOS for a fully functional computer any more than you would Android.
Funny thing is we see intels 4 cores outperform AMDs 8 cores in real situations, which gaming is.DarkhoIlow said:I have a feeling that the "8 core processor" requirement is just AMD showing that they threw money at Ubisoft to make us buy AMD instead of an intel. Kinda the same that M$ did when they've put Windows 8 as a requirement as well.
With that said...I bet it will run on a i5/i7 Intel just fine.
Win7 is actually pretty okay (even more so when you realize you don't have to reinstall it and reformat the disks every two years). Though you won't know until you've switched, and you won't because you're stubborn and "fine where you are". I know. I was like that once.Sgt. Sykes said:Geez they really are trying to get people to DOWNgrade to that Vista/7/8 trilogy of crap!
Or wait... Would it work on 64-bit XP? Maybe I could get those.
Valve needs to hurry up with that gaming Linux of theirs. I'm tired of all these broken windows.
well, im a fan of AC and enjoyed so far every title. and from the looks of it, part 4 will be pretty neat as well since cruising on ships was really fun in part 3. thats why i have pre ordered it with the nice figurine.Mcoffey said:If their franchises going out is as easy to ignore as the Assassin's Creed Franchise, I think you'll be okay. I stopped buying the games after 2, and only played the others when I got around to it, which was usually much later. I don't expect to find myself playing Black Flag any time soon, if ever.Metalrocks said:i have everything from the recommended settings except my quad core cpu.
but it wont matter to me really since i dont want it anyway. since ubi wants to make franchises only and i dont want to get dragged in to this.
But really, this game has never grabbed me like it seemed to grab everyone else. It looks neat, yeah, but I know it'll most likely be Arkham Asylum-like melee combat or Gears-of-War-style cover shooting, coupled with some hacking "spells" to aid the fighty bits. Maybe I'm just cynical though. I'd love to be surprised.
Good to see that Q6600 still holds up. I used to have that. It was a beast. Though you might want to consider upgrading soon. The good thing about upgrading is that most of the newer tech that's coming out actually uses less power and produces less heat, so you already know that you probably won't need a new PSU. And of course a new PC case. That's two essentials already gone. And if you take the optical drive (if you still have one) and the HDD from the old PC, then all you need is a new mobo, CPU, GPU and RAM. GPU is compatible with everything, so you can hold on to that for now and just get the other 3 components. And then when the really demanding games start to come out, all you will need is a new GPU. Possibly a new PSU if you go with a higher-end GPU.Rellik San said:Q6600,
8Gig Ram,
Radeon 6670HD,
I bet at a resolution of 1920x1080, with no motion blur on and no AA I can run it at high settings smoothly. Hell I can run Witcher 2 at around 55fps with that on ultra. I think a lot of people will be far too quick to write off older machines with the new console generation coming out so soon, but in truth, you'll often find turning off some of the more intrusive post processing (i.e. Motion Blur) and having no AA (which very few games need at 1080p anyway), you tend to find they can still hold up.
Not particularly interesting, no, since I'm pretty sure everyone already knows this. Pretending to have 8 cores is not the same as actually having 8 cores. If Ubisoft actually meant that a quad-core is fine, that's what they should have said. Your claim that this is what they meant doesn't appear to be supported by any evidence, as far as I can tell it's entirely baseless speculation.Arif_Sohaib said:Its interesting you use the word "virtually" here because that is exactly how the core i7 fits in. Its Quad Core with Hyperthreading(i5 is Quad Core without Hyperthreading, except one or two models which are Dual Core with Hyperthreading) so each of the four cores 'virtually' work as two.
Utter nonsense. There are plenty of 8 cores around, they're just generally only used in servers and workstations because they're completely pointless for the general consumer. There are virtually no programs that can use all 4 cores to their full potential, so what would be the point in having any more? At work, I easily max out a pair of 8-core Xeons. At home, I rarely see any core go over 50% usage. Heating, physical size, and so on are problems for fitting more cores in. Synchronising isn't going to significantly change whether you have 4, 6 or 8. All of which have been commercially available for a long time in entirely stable and affordable packages, just not always ones home users have any use for.The reason there aren't many actual 8 core ones is that synchronization would be a nightmare, I am sure some PHD designers are working on making it stable and affordable.