Cynthetiq

So I'm being advertised to by Steam on the new games available.

I see the game Iron Man to correspond to the hot movie....

I look at the system requirements and scratch my head.



So I look to see what processors I can buy nowadays as my machine is almost 2 years old, it was one week after they released the new dual core chips, it is an Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 / 2.13 GHz ( 1066 MHz ).

I call up the newegg.com page of processors and look to see if I can find a 3.4 Ghz processor because who wants to be Iron Man with herky jerky graphics???? I have a 7900GT so my video is good, I'm just worried that my proc won't be up to spec....

I look ALL over newegg and find not a single 3.4Ghz processor of any kind, not P4, P4HT, no 3.4 number whatsoever...

I don't expect the game to be all that great, movie tie in games historically and usually suck balls, but seriously are you going to tell me I have to have a fucking extraordinary machine in order to play a subpar game????

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Redjake

Most of those requirement lists don't take into account the other factors besides clock speed that truly make up a processor's performance. Items such as front side bus frequency, L1 and L2 memory cache, and amount of cores make a much larger impact than clock speed. I'm pretty sure they have 3.0+ GHz Celeron procs......

Just like how they used to (and some still do) say "256 MB graphics card recommended" whenever the RAM doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to performance on a graphics card.

My processor is only 2.66 GHz, but it's a Core 2 Duo E6750, and it will tear up anything that is thrown at it for the most part (besides Crysis on full detail). I run Call of Duty 4 on max detail at 50 FPS - I have an 8800GT, that certainly helps too, but the CPU is "no where near 3.4 GHz" and I seriously doubt Iron Man touches COD4's graphics.

You are good man!

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

LoganSnake

The game sucks. I played the PS3 demo it it wasn't even worth the download. Also, those specs are bullshit. It's called lazy programming if the development team can't optimize a game such as Iron Man to smaller specs.

__________________
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

Lasereth

Your CPU will be fine in any game. The recommended and minimum specs on PC gaming boxes are usually bullshit. I mean they're somewhat indicative of what you need but the CPU rating is usually wrong. They're referring to single-core Pentium 4 speeds in that rating, as in 3 year old CPU terms.

Your CPU is still fine for any game.

Halx

If your computer has a dual core chip, 2gb RAM and a 512mb vid card, it can run pretty much any game on the market, regardless of the specs.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

xepherys

Las and Halx are spot on. You MAY not be able to turn all settings to max (see Crysis as an example) but you should have no problems. Do you run Vista or XP? If you run Vista, what is your Performance Index? It's far more telling (oddly, one of the nicest features of Vista).

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

ObieX

Yea honestly its not the best game. Its not terrible but i wouldn't buy it for PC if you have a 360 or ps3 (so you can return it). If they had maybe.. 3 more moths of work on the game and maybe added some kind of multiplayer it wouldn't be that bad. But the way it is now there's just not much to it.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Jinn

I like knowing that any game I buy at the store will work identically on my (console of choice) as everyone else's copy of that game. I also like not having to update drivers and kill every non-essential process just to play games.

I moved away from PC gaming lately, simply because of these insane hardware requirements. My laptop, also bought at the core duo times, barely plays a game released last year. I'm tired of buying peripherals just to play random game X that came out, even if it means any FPS I play will suck a little bit more than the PC version without mouse+keyboard.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Lasereth

Jinn it sounds like your frustration stems from the nature of laptops, not PC gaming in general.

I do agree with these sentiments though -- PC gaming can be unbelievably frustrating, just look at the threads I've started here trying to troubleshoot PC gaming woes. CTDs, blue screens, random restarts, installer issues, etc. all this crap makes PC gaming annoying, not even counting the hardware requirements. But once your PC is running totally stable and smooth and you know how to get power for little $$$ it becomes fun as hell. I do believe that console games are superior to PC in every aspect except FPS though.

Jinn

My desktop does the same shit.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Lasereth

Midrange desktop hardware typically lasts 2-3 years. High-end hardware lasts 3 years easy, more if you're ok playing at medium settings. If your PCs get outdated as fast as you say then something is bottlenecking them. I do agree with the rest of your points though.

Baraka_Guru

I've had mind for five.

Seriously, I'm going to start focusing on the Wii. I know they're completely different right down to the games, but I don't care. I'll have my fun anyway.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

xepherys

Las, I used to agree regarding all but FPS, but now I'm a 100% convert to console gaming. Halo = better on 360, CoD4 = better on 360. The biggest reason to go pro-console is also the biggest reason that FPS' are better on console... everyone's hardware (the important specs at least) are identical, everyone's platforms are identical, everyone's setup (more or less) is identical. No macros, no background software, no hacked patches, no better video cards allowing faster framerates, longer fields of view or more details.

When you jump into CoD4 on XBL, you are guaranteed to be having ALMOST exactly the same experience as someone else. Maybe they have a 3rd party controller that works better for them, or a larger screen to view it on, but it's going to RUN the same on their 360 as it runs on yours. Makes a big difference.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Lasereth

I agree about the "everyone gets the same experience" part of consoles. That is a major plus. But if you are into computers (specifically computer hardware) then an FPS on PC is gonna be better than the console version. For the average computer user the 360 version is clearly better because the PC version requires knowledge on how to make a good gaming PC to get it to look good. But if you do have that knowledge, the PC experience is great.

I also agree about Halo because the Halo PC ports are crap.

Willravel

Does that requirement take into account dual cores? A 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo has more computational power than a single core 2.8GHz.

blahblah454

I have an AMD 2800 with 1.5 gigs of ram, and a radeon x800XTX graphics card and I can play pretty much anything out there just fine. Load times are a little long, but I can run mostly everything on mid graphics fine. I have had this computer for about 4 or 5 years so far.

I can not wait for my new computer! I am on the road for the next two months, so wont be settled in again until August so I decided to wait until then to purchase my PC.

xepherys

Well, this is partly true. So, you have SLI'd 8800GTX cards... does having a 80fps frame rate improve your experience that much over having a 70fps rate? Obviously preventing the frame rate from dropping below 30fps is important, moreso than average framerate, but on a console with a properly coded game, you'll always be above 30fps.

Yes, the overall experience in a single player game (or from your POV in a multiplayer game) can be nicer... though I've played CoD4 on my 360 at 1080p and on my PC at 1080p and see very little actual difference. *shrug*


Tsk tsk... also only partly true. If the software is not coded to take advantage of multithreading across CPUs, a dual-core or quad-core is not very helpful. Surely the OS itself can offload some tasks to the core that is not being used by the game, but the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in gameplay and when it is, it's not usually due to OS overhead anyhow. For MOST games a 2.8GHz dual-core and a 2.8GHz single-core is going to perform within a very tiny margin of difference.

EDIT: To clarify, Will is technically correct, the dual-core has more computational power. The issue is whether your game is designed to take advantage of that additional power. It'd be like upgrading from a V8 to a V16, but having the fuel injector control only actually providing fuel to 8 pistons. The engine is surely capable of producing more power... but isn't properly configured to do so.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

It's a shame that more games don't take advantage of said computations power. I would think that would be a no-brainer. Is it more difficult?

blktour

i know AGE OF CONAN takes up alot of what a computer can do. about 90% of the AOC players will have to upgrade their graphics card.

I know i had to, and i have a bad arse dell XPS.

Lasereth

COD4 has an amazing frame rate on console but the frame rate isn't what I'm referring to. The image quality, antialiasing, and effects that are allowed in a decent gaming PC is superior to a console. My $100 videocard and $70 CPU I was using last year ran Bioshock embarassingly better than the 360 version, and I witnessed the 360 version in 1080p on a 42" LCD TV that had absolutely no ghosting. The 360 version looks horrid in comparison to even a low-end by today's standards PC. The gap in COD4 isn't nearly as big, but it's there.

This is flat out wrong. 2 years ago you'd be right, but nowadays almost all PC games use dual core CPUs. Tom's Hardware published an article about this exact issue this past week, check it out! It tests a midrange videocard with a single core and dual core CPU and the results are as expected: single core CPUs have no place in PC gaming nowadays, even in games made last year.

CyCo PL

I guarantee a 3.0ghz core2duo could run this game without breaking a sweat (if you have a good video card as well). PC minimum/recommended requirements on boxes are pretty stupid nowadays.

Catdaddy33

Here is a website I've used in the past to see what I can run on my laptop.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

Cynthetiq

well see that just plays into the reasons that Jinn posted.

I open the case, drop in the disc, turn it on, and play. Boom! Tat-tat-tat---- zoooom! crash! bang!!!!

that's how it ALWAYS is on a console.

PC is a crap shoot....when your machine is new... it's 100% but over time that drops significantly and exponentially.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

CyCo PL

Yeah, consoles are definitely simpler, but there's a bit of a trade-off. PC's can potentially handle much nicer graphics at a much smoother framerate than current-gen consoles. I gameflied Assassin's Creed for PS3, and although I loved the game, the framerate constantly dipped below 30 into the teens, and sometimes even single digits. Yeah, there's not an FPS counter on PS3, but I can tell when frames are dropping dramatically.

After building a new computer, I bought Assassin's Creed on PC. It's really like night and day. The graphics are much smoother and more crisp, resolution is much higher (PS3 is 720p, or 1280x720, my PC runs 1680x1050) and the framerate NEVER drops. I get a constant 60+ frames per second at all times, with no noticeable framerate dips (not even when overlooking the whole city). Although I prefer playing with mouse and keyboard, you can hook up a PS2 controller to your PC via USB and it's just like playing on console.

Downside is, I spent a little under $1200 to build it, but it was well worth it. I don't just use my PC as a game station, but also for programming, word processing, internet surfing, recording music (and programming fake drums), managing my media collection, maintaining contact with friends and relatives, and the list goes on. A new PC improves performance in all of those fields.

Wyodiver33

Remember, Bill Gates said at one time that a home PC would never need more than 640 kb of RAM. The reason we have dual/quad core CPU's and 2+ GB of RAM is because the software requires it. Why does the software require such "horsepower?" Because the hardware folks love it. It's all about getting my money. Software folks could write much tighter code for PC games. But they never will. They will always release a Beta for $55 or so and patch it later. Oh, new game is out! Yay! I'll buy a new vid card! It's a joke. Tight code, for an example, Greeting cards that sing. Windows Vista? Like a huge, fly-through asshole. Pardon me, have to order another two Gigs of Ram from New-Egg.

__________________
I like stuff.

xepherys

Wyo, you're partly right. The crappy code is often due more to laziness or timelines that propping up the hardware industry. Vista is only as bloated as it is because they STILL support 16-bit operations and older Windows code because they fear alienating people with old SOFTWARE (not hardware). Frankly, Windows would be remarkably better if they went 64-bit strict with no back support for 32-bit and earlier and with no back support for "antiquated" operations. Bet that won't happen any time soon. In fact, Vista was SUPPOSED to drop all 16-bit functionality. It didn't.

Games? Well, that's different, too. Look at Age of Conan. A 30GB install out of the box... insane! But, the graphics, scope of the world and models involved are impressive and assorted. THAT is what gamers want these days. That takes more horsepower, more drive space, more RAM and higher throughput of pixels and polygons.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

CyCo PL

I'm sure it's also harder for PC game developers to write universal code that runs on many different types of hardware configurations. Consoles have the advantage in that developers basically have one hardware configuration to develop for, and can focus compatibility on that console's specific hardware. That being said, my PC still runs games faster than my PS3