Just on the off chance this information is helpful to anyone...
My son's rig is a AMD 3500 (2.29) single core 2 gig of DDR 400 ram 7600GT Video Card 7200 rpm HD Win XP He is getting 25-42fps in most areas on low settings with shadows off. Occasionally he drops to 12-15fps for a seconds or two when entering a new area.
thats actually running pretty good on that spec of PC. im guessing with a little more ram it would be even better.
Yea it is, I dont know how this is. I only get 13fps on low and short range visibility in Tortage and around the same in underhalls
My specs:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2ghz Single
2 Gig of DDR2 800 Ram
8500 GT 512mb Video Card
SATA 7200RPM HD
Windows Vista 32
What the hell is the deal is there that big of a performance difference between Vista and XP?
HARD DRIVE: Extreme Performance (RAID-0) with 2 Identical Hard Drives (148GB (74GBx2) Gaming Western Digital Rapter 10, 000RPM SATA150 16MB Cache WD740ADFD)
Data Hard Drive: 250GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8MB Cache 7200RPM Hard Drive -- Recommended
Gaming cpu for under 3k. Cool if I lived in my parents basement and maybe had never kissed a girl before i coule afford to drop around 3k on a new system to play a game. Instead, I have a wife 2 kids and a mortgage sucking me dry, so I hope conan runs on a system with minimum specs.
Why the hell are we still discussing this? It's been proven that the game runs as good as any other good looking modern game out there - if not better. It's damned good optimized.
Listen: If you got a crap computer you cannot play it in high settings. You have to play it in low, but it will still look pretty darned good. If you got a new computer with a lot of ram and a new gfx-card you can run it in high. If you're somewhere between these extremities you can play it on medium settings. Ok?
If you're still uncertain try to listen to the majority of the posters. It's a minuscule minority that says it doesn't run good. You do the math.
mine plays fine on a pc from Aldi cost £500 ($976) has a 2.4 quad core (intel) 3 gigs of ddr2 a 8600gt 500 gig sata drive and i play with high fps so all this u need a expensive pc is a pile of rubbish people should learn how to tweak thier graphics settings (not hack or overclock) i play aoc on the default high settings lowest my fps dropped i too was about 22 fps when i entered a town and there was about 50 rangers running around naked /shrug
Yea it is, I dont know how this is. I only get 13fps on low and short range visibility in Tortage and around the same in underhalls
My specs: AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2ghz Single 2 Gig of DDR2 800 Ram 8500 GT 512mb Video Card SATA 7200RPM HD Windows Vista 32 What the hell is the deal is there that big of a performance difference between Vista and XP?
from what i found out from multiple posts here and on official forums it seems that people with older gfx cards have less trouble than people running it with the newer value models of both ati (2600, 3600 series and below) and nvidia (8600 series and below).
i also noticed that for these cards a lot tweaks don't work good as these cards have a lot of shader power and also a lto of memory for textures but they probably lack the power to display the ammount of polygons (not completly sure if its the polygons but i guess it is). so the onyl thing you can do is to lower render ranges on these cards.
most people listing older cards with good results are listing cards of older high end series which definitely had good polygon power just not as much shader powers as the new high end cards which would also add to the proof that its probably the polygon number that your card has problems with.
It play's Awesome on My rig... and mind You it's pretty much a basic run of the mill Wal-Mart blue light special...
Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c Memory: 3500MB RAM 3200 DDR (2.5 Case latency G-Skill)
Card name: Radeon X1300/X1550 Series * Current Mode: 1280 x 960 (32 bit) (60Hz) * Display Memory: 256.0 MB * DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Sound Devices: Sound Blaster Audigy
I'm not to sure what the problem is, but I'm sure that it may be just a simple tweak here an there, for You to be able to play it with out to many problems.
oh btw I'm running it on Mid settings with 15-20 FPS in city and 30-50 outside *scrates head*
I'm just curious, but what resolution are you guys playing this game at? Only a couple of posters provided the resolution, and that is probably the BIGGEST factor affecting your gameplay. If you have a terrible computer, but only run the game at 1024x768 (heaven forbid...), your frame rates would be decent. Providing your computer specs and your FPS numbers is great, but without knowing the resolution you are trying to push it is impossible to get a true feel of your performance.
On a side note, is anyone running 1920x1200 here? I'd like to know what it takes to push this resolution.
With the above specs the game runs on low settings but not near as smooth as I consider acceptable. When in town or engaged in much of anything the game runs 8-14 fps which is pretty crappy. The highest fps I have ever seen is around 30. When I did actually see 30 fps the game ran very nicely...but again this almost never happens. I can see that this isn't going to work at sieges or any place where 50-100 or more players are gathered. It would be a lag fest. I'm thinking of bumping up to 4GB of RAM, which maxes out my system. Everything else is up to date (drivers, OS, etc...) and a new video card just isn't an option atm.
It play's Awesome on My rig... and mind You it's pretty much a basic run of the mill Wal-Mart blue light special... Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c
Memory: 3500MB RAM 3200 DDR (2.5 Case latency G-Skill) Card name: Radeon X1300/X1550 Series
* Current Mode: 1280 x 960 (32 bit) (60Hz)
* Display Memory: 256.0 MB
* DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz) Sound Devices:
Sound Blaster Audigy I'm not to sure what the problem is, but I'm sure that it may be just a simple tweak here an there, for You to be able to play it with out to many problems. oh btw I'm running it on Mid settings with 15-20 FPS in city and 30-50 outside *scrates head*
Is that fairly similar to my setup? (atleast the video card). I haven't recieved my game yet and I've been worrying that it just won't be playable.
Here are my specs:
Windows XP
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
2MB Shared L2 Cache
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA1; 7200 rpm
ATI Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 SDRAM (I overclock the core processor and memory speed on this to roughly 500Mhz/500Mhz)
I'm running the EA on a AMD Sempron 3100+ (single core) with an ATI 1300pro 256mb AGP video card and 1.4gb DDR400 ram. Yah, I'm not burning up the fps, but I'm still getting around 10-12fps on average and it has definately been playable.
The game is completely different now then it was during beta. My system is mid range and I can run it on Modified "High" Settings. Meaning I set it to high and then turn shadows to mine only and turn the view distance down a tad.
I get between 45-60 FPS in open Tortage and around 80-100 FPS when I am in solo night instances.
My system:
AMD 64 X2 4200+
4 gigs PC6400 Ram
Vista 64-bit Home Premium
8800GTS (g92 version) 512MB Video Card
This entire system set me back maybe 1100 Dollars. Even with my new Vid card and Vista.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Just on the off chance this information is helpful to anyone...
My son's rig is a AMD 3500 (2.29) single core 2 gig of DDR 400 ram 7600GT Video Card 7200 rpm HD Win XP He is getting 25-42fps in most areas on low settings with shadows off. Occasionally he drops to 12-15fps for a seconds or two when entering a new area.
thats actually running pretty good on that spec of PC. im guessing with a little more ram it would be even better.
Yea it is, I dont know how this is. I only get 13fps on low and short range visibility in Tortage and around the same in underhalls
My specs:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2ghz Single
2 Gig of DDR2 800 Ram
8500 GT 512mb Video Card
SATA 7200RPM HD
Windows Vista 32
What the hell is the deal is there that big of a performance difference between Vista and XP?
As is the case with most games take the recomended specs and use that as a guideline. Anything less than rec specs for this game and you are not going to be happy. You might get ok fps in the open world with few people around but in a siege with 100 people and everything else your going to be watching a slideshow. This is not a game for the bargain pc gamer.
PIV 3.2 / 3 Gig RAM / GTS8800 640 / XP SP2 32 Runs fine by me. Very impressed so far and I have a pretty crappy machine. Defrag you system and trim down those non essential services, make sure no one is running torrents on your network and all that stuff.
This is a good reference point if anyone is questioning how old their system is.
I've heard mixed results from beta testers. Those in closed beta had said there was decent performance on a similar machine yet some with a nearly identicle build said otherwise in relating to the open beta.
I'll be playing the game on an "Aged" system as well and I expect to fully enjoy the game with minimal hitching and frame rate issues. My updated machine's specs are as followed:
P4 2.8 prescott (this is my weakest link) 800mhz bus
ATI "HIS" x1950pro 512mb ddr3 AGP (this card is amazing for an AGP system!!)
XP Pro, 1x 500gb SATA HD (actually a sata2), 2x 80gb SATA HD in RAID+0
I've got very adequet air cooling (I know someone should get a laugh out of this) and have some healthy room for overclocking. In the past I've OC'd the cpu to around 3.6 although it did not support gaming well enough to justify that clock. The most stable I've gamed with it was around 3.2-3.3 ghz; pardon the lack of specifics.
So, I've concluded I could overclock the CPU or go for a 3.4ghz socket 478. But seriously, why should anyone have to consider a socket478 being an upgrade when it's only increasing the clock speed by 600mhz, seems pointless do go this route when the money could be better spent on a new rig.
What do you all think? I'm using all copper Zalman fans on the CPU and GPU with additional copper BGM sinks. Thanks to my case I get great airflow directly onto the CPU. Should I melt the CPU as an excuse to build a new rig or take out some insurance before my motherboard bursts into flames and burns my house down?
PIV 3.2 / 3 Gig RAM / GTS8800 640 / XP SP2 32 Runs fine by me. Very impressed so far and I have a pretty crappy machine. Defrag you system and trim down those non essential services, make sure no one is running torrents on your network and all that stuff.
This is a good reference point if anyone is questioning how old their system is.
I've heard mixed results from beta testers. Those in closed beta had said there was decent performance on a similar machine yet some with a nearly identicle build said otherwise in relating to the open beta.
I'll be playing the game on an "Aged" system as well and I expect to fully enjoy the game with minimal hitching and frame rate issues. My updated machine's specs are as followed:
P4 2.8 prescott (this is my weakest link) 800mhz bus
ATI "HIS" x1950pro 512mb ddr3 AGP (this card is amazing for an AGP system!!)
XP Pro, 1x 500gb SATA HD (actually a sata2), 2x 80gb SATA HD in RAID+0
I've got very adequet air cooling (I know someone should get a laugh out of this) and have some healthy room for overclocking. In the past I've OC'd the cpu to around 3.6 although it did not support gaming well enough to justify that clock. The most stable I've gamed with it was around 3.2-3.3 ghz; pardon the lack of specifics.
So, I've concluded I could overclock the CPU or go for a 3.4ghz socket 478. But seriously, why should anyone have to consider a socket478 being an upgrade when it's only increasing the clock speed by 600mhz, seems pointless do go this route when the money could be better spent on a new rig.
What do you all think? I'm using all copper Zalman fans on the CPU and GPU with additional copper BGM sinks. Thanks to my case I get great airflow directly onto the CPU. Should I melt the CPU as an excuse to build a new rig or take out some insurance before my motherboard bursts into flames and burns my house down?
WTH are y'all talking about? You have a system so good, its above recommended. My computer barely meets the minimum requirements cept for the 'recommended' 2 GB ram, and does fine. A GT8800 is so far above recommended that OF COURSE its fine.
I'm just going to post this: Minimum System requirements
OS: Windows XP / Windows Vista GFX: Shader 2.0 and 128MB ram, GeForce 6600 RAM: 1GB CPU: 3 GHz, Pentium 4 Resolution: 1024x768 Recommended Specs: CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2,4 GHz or better GFX: nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX or higher RAM: 2 GB
and stop whinning about it, if your computer can´t handle the game go QQ somewhere else.
Wish this poster made "Recommended Specs:" as a bigger text, but yeah, I've been playing Early Access with the above posted minimum specs plus the RAM:2 GB recommended and have had no crashes or lagfests. With all the crap people have been posting, I was very surprised how playable this game is with the minimum requirements.
ATI "HIS" x1950pro 512mb ddr3 AGP (this card is amazing for an AGP system!!)
XP Pro, 1x 500gb SATA HD (actually a sata2), 2x 80gb SATA HD in RAID+0
What do you all think? I'm using all copper Zalman fans on the CPU and GPU with additional copper BGM sinks. Thanks to my case I get great airflow directly onto the CPU. Should I melt the CPU as an excuse to build a new rig or take out some insurance before my motherboard bursts into flames and burns my house down?
WTH are y'all talking about? You have a system so good, its above recommended. My computer barely meets the minimum requirements cept for the 'recommended' 2 GB ram, and does fine. A GT8800 is so far above recommended that OF COURSE its fine.
Shits & Giggles for the win!!
The minimum requirements are for a cpu with 3ghz clock, right? Well, mine is only 2.8 by default. Of course that shinny "HIS" card is a monster which will prove any machine still reliant upon an AGP interface still has some life left in it, but the socket 478 is dead in the water, unless it's overclocked and even then...
I think I paid $140.00 USD for that card not including the additional fan and heat sinks, which replaced the stock cooling immediately!
But, has anyone priced the cost of a high end socket 478 these days? Shoot, look at the prices of a Pentium 4 EE 3.4ghz!!
Moral of the story, a good card will go a long way.
Comments
thats actually running pretty good on that spec of PC. im guessing with a little more ram it would be even better.
Yea it is, I dont know how this is. I only get 13fps on low and short range visibility in Tortage and around the same in underhalls
My specs:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2ghz Single
2 Gig of DDR2 800 Ram
8500 GT 512mb Video Card
SATA 7200RPM HD
Windows Vista 32
What the hell is the deal is there that big of a performance difference between Vista and XP?
Originally posted by masterjedi
If you are a gamer You should have a good game computer.like this This is under 3k $$$$
CASE: CoolerMaster Stacker Tower 420W Case W/ Mod Side-Panel (CoolerMaster 830 Black Color)
CPU: AMD Phenom™ X4 9750 Quad-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology
MOTHERBOARD: Asus M2N SLI NVIDIA nForce 560 SLI MCP Chipset DDR2/800 SATA RAID PCI-Express MBoard w/GbLAN, IEEE1394, USB2.0, &7.1Audio
MEMORY: (Req.DDR2 MainBoard)4GB (4x1GB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (Kingston HyperX)
VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB 16X PCI Express (Major Brand Powered by NVIDIA)
VIDEO CARD 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB 16X PCI Express (Major Brand Powered by NVIDIA)
LCD Monitor: 24& quot; TFT Active Matrix LCD Display (ViewSonic Optiquest Q241WB WUXGA 1920x1200)
HARD DRIVE: Extreme Performance (RAID-0) with 2 Identical Hard Drives (148GB (74GBx2) Gaming Western Digital Rapter 10, 000RPM SATA150 16MB Cache WD740ADFD)
Data Hard Drive: 250GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8MB Cache 7200RPM Hard Drive -- Recommended
Optical Drive: (Special Price) LG 20X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (BLACK COLOR)
Optical Drive 2: NONE
SOUND: Creative Labs X-FI
Gaming cpu for under 3k. Cool if I lived in my parents basement and maybe had never kissed a girl before i coule afford to drop around 3k on a new system to play a game. Instead, I have a wife 2 kids and a mortgage sucking me dry, so I hope conan runs on a system with minimum specs.
Why the hell are we still discussing this? It's been proven that the game runs as good as any other good looking modern game out there - if not better. It's damned good optimized.
Listen: If you got a crap computer you cannot play it in high settings. You have to play it in low, but it will still look pretty darned good. If you got a new computer with a lot of ram and a new gfx-card you can run it in high. If you're somewhere between these extremities you can play it on medium settings. Ok?
If you're still uncertain try to listen to the majority of the posters. It's a minuscule minority that says it doesn't run good. You do the math.
mine plays fine on a pc from Aldi cost £500 ($976) has a 2.4 quad core (intel) 3 gigs of ddr2 a 8600gt 500 gig sata drive and i play with high fps so all this u need a expensive pc is a pile of rubbish people should learn how to tweak thier graphics settings (not hack or overclock) i play aoc on the default high settings lowest my fps dropped i too was about 22 fps when i entered a town and there was about 50 rangers running around naked /shrug
i also noticed that for these cards a lot tweaks don't work good as these cards have a lot of shader power and also a lto of memory for textures but they probably lack the power to display the ammount of polygons (not completly sure if its the polygons but i guess it is). so the onyl thing you can do is to lower render ranges on these cards.
most people listing older cards with good results are listing cards of older high end series which definitely had good polygon power just not as much shader powers as the new high end cards which would also add to the proof that its probably the polygon number that your card has problems with.
It play's Awesome on My rig... and mind You it's pretty much a basic run of the mill Wal-Mart blue light special...
Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c
Memory: 3500MB RAM 3200 DDR (2.5 Case latency G-Skill)
Card name: Radeon X1300/X1550 Series
* Current Mode: 1280 x 960 (32 bit) (60Hz)
* Display Memory: 256.0 MB
* DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)
Sound Devices:
Sound Blaster Audigy
I'm not to sure what the problem is, but I'm sure that it may be just a simple tweak here an there, for You to be able to play it with out to many problems.
oh btw I'm running it on Mid settings with 15-20 FPS in city and 30-50 outside *scrates head*
I'm just curious, but what resolution are you guys playing this game at? Only a couple of posters provided the resolution, and that is probably the BIGGEST factor affecting your gameplay. If you have a terrible computer, but only run the game at 1024x768 (heaven forbid...), your frame rates would be decent. Providing your computer specs and your FPS numbers is great, but without knowing the resolution you are trying to push it is impossible to get a true feel of your performance.
On a side note, is anyone running 1920x1200 here? I'd like to know what it takes to push this resolution.
My specs:
• OS: Windows XP SP 3
• Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 5400+ 2.80GHz Processor
• RAM: 2GB PC6400 DDR2 800MHz Dual Channel Memory
• Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
• Video memory: 512MB
• DVD-ROM: More than a Quad-speed DVD-ROM drive
• HARD DRIVE SPACE: Way more than 30 GB
With the above specs the game runs on low settings but not near as smooth as I consider acceptable. When in town or engaged in much of anything the game runs 8-14 fps which is pretty crappy. The highest fps I have ever seen is around 30. When I did actually see 30 fps the game ran very nicely...but again this almost never happens. I can see that this isn't going to work at sieges or any place where 50-100 or more players are gathered. It would be a lag fest. I'm thinking of bumping up to 4GB of RAM, which maxes out my system. Everything else is up to date (drivers, OS, etc...) and a new video card just isn't an option atm.
Is that fairly similar to my setup? (atleast the video card). I haven't recieved my game yet and I've been worrying that it just won't be playable.
Here are my specs:
Windows XP
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo
2MB Shared L2 Cache
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA1; 7200 rpm
ATI Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 SDRAM (I overclock the core processor and memory speed on this to roughly 500Mhz/500Mhz)
Does the game take advantage of quad cores, mine is only 2.4ghz so its probably not good enough for aoc, i have a 8800gtx card and can run wow ok.
I'm running the EA on a AMD Sempron 3100+ (single core) with an ATI 1300pro 256mb AGP video card and 1.4gb DDR400 ram. Yah, I'm not burning up the fps, but I'm still getting around 10-12fps on average and it has definately been playable.
The game is completely different now then it was during beta. My system is mid range and I can run it on Modified "High" Settings. Meaning I set it to high and then turn shadows to mine only and turn the view distance down a tad.
I get between 45-60 FPS in open Tortage and around 80-100 FPS when I am in solo night instances.
My system:
AMD 64 X2 4200+
4 gigs PC6400 Ram
Vista 64-bit Home Premium
8800GTS (g92 version) 512MB Video Card
This entire system set me back maybe 1100 Dollars. Even with my new Vid card and Vista.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I think my Inspiron 530 can run it..
Quad6600 2.4Ghz
3GB DDR2
8600GT 256mb.. (i might upgrade to 8800GT if 8600GT doesn't run good)
also a 24inch LCD widescreen.(dual monitor with a 20inch ultra sharp)
Total paid $770..
thats actually running pretty good on that spec of PC. im guessing with a little more ram it would be even better.
Yea it is, I dont know how this is. I only get 13fps on low and short range visibility in Tortage and around the same in underhalls
My specs:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2ghz Single
2 Gig of DDR2 800 Ram
8500 GT 512mb Video Card
SATA 7200RPM HD
Windows Vista 32
What the hell is the deal is there that big of a performance difference between Vista and XP?
No, it's cause your card is alot worse then his 7600gt. Click here for proof.
I'm just going to post this:
Minimum System requirements
and stop whinning about it, if your computer can´t handle the game go QQ somewhere else.
As is the case with most games take the recomended specs and use that as a guideline. Anything less than rec specs for this game and you are not going to be happy. You might get ok fps in the open world with few people around but in a siege with 100 people and everything else your going to be watching a slideshow. This is not a game for the bargain pc gamer.
I just need it to be playable enough on my x1600 that I can level up until eventually the xbox 360 version is released, and I can switch to that.
I've heard mixed results from beta testers. Those in closed beta had said there was decent performance on a similar machine yet some with a nearly identicle build said otherwise in relating to the open beta.
I'll be playing the game on an "Aged" system as well and I expect to fully enjoy the game with minimal hitching and frame rate issues. My updated machine's specs are as followed:
P4 2.8 prescott (this is my weakest link) 800mhz bus
Gigabyte pe-1000 mo-bo
2x 1gb dual channel DDR (pc3200, 400mhz; 800mhz effective)
ATI "HIS" x1950pro 512mb ddr3 AGP (this card is amazing for an AGP system!!)
XP Pro, 1x 500gb SATA HD (actually a sata2), 2x 80gb SATA HD in RAID+0
I've got very adequet air cooling (I know someone should get a laugh out of this) and have some healthy room for overclocking. In the past I've OC'd the cpu to around 3.6 although it did not support gaming well enough to justify that clock. The most stable I've gamed with it was around 3.2-3.3 ghz; pardon the lack of specifics.
So, I've concluded I could overclock the CPU or go for a 3.4ghz socket 478. But seriously, why should anyone have to consider a socket478 being an upgrade when it's only increasing the clock speed by 600mhz, seems pointless do go this route when the money could be better spent on a new rig.
What do you all think? I'm using all copper Zalman fans on the CPU and GPU with additional copper BGM sinks. Thanks to my case I get great airflow directly onto the CPU. Should I melt the CPU as an excuse to build a new rig or take out some insurance before my motherboard bursts into flames and burns my house down?
I've heard mixed results from beta testers. Those in closed beta had said there was decent performance on a similar machine yet some with a nearly identicle build said otherwise in relating to the open beta.
I'll be playing the game on an "Aged" system as well and I expect to fully enjoy the game with minimal hitching and frame rate issues. My updated machine's specs are as followed:
P4 2.8 prescott (this is my weakest link) 800mhz bus
Gigabyte pe-1000 mo-bo
2x 1gb dual channel DDR (pc3200, 400mhz; 800mhz effective)
ATI "HIS" x1950pro 512mb ddr3 AGP (this card is amazing for an AGP system!!)
XP Pro, 1x 500gb SATA HD (actually a sata2), 2x 80gb SATA HD in RAID+0
I've got very adequet air cooling (I know someone should get a laugh out of this) and have some healthy room for overclocking. In the past I've OC'd the cpu to around 3.6 although it did not support gaming well enough to justify that clock. The most stable I've gamed with it was around 3.2-3.3 ghz; pardon the lack of specifics.
So, I've concluded I could overclock the CPU or go for a 3.4ghz socket 478. But seriously, why should anyone have to consider a socket478 being an upgrade when it's only increasing the clock speed by 600mhz, seems pointless do go this route when the money could be better spent on a new rig.
What do you all think? I'm using all copper Zalman fans on the CPU and GPU with additional copper BGM sinks. Thanks to my case I get great airflow directly onto the CPU. Should I melt the CPU as an excuse to build a new rig or take out some insurance before my motherboard bursts into flames and burns my house down?
WTH are y'all talking about? You have a system so good, its above recommended. My computer barely meets the minimum requirements cept for the 'recommended' 2 GB ram, and does fine. A GT8800 is so far above recommended that OF COURSE its fine.
Wish this poster made "Recommended Specs:" as a bigger text, but yeah, I've been playing Early Access with the above posted minimum specs plus the RAM:2 GB recommended and have had no crashes or lagfests. With all the crap people have been posting, I was very surprised how playable this game is with the minimum requirements.
My updated machine's specs are as followed:
P4 2.8 prescott (this is my weakest link) 800mhz bus
Gigabyte pe-1000 mo-bo
2x 1gb dual channel DDR (pc3200, 400mhz; 800mhz effective)
ATI "HIS" x1950pro 512mb ddr3 AGP (this card is amazing for an AGP system!!)
XP Pro, 1x 500gb SATA HD (actually a sata2), 2x 80gb SATA HD in RAID+0
What do you all think? I'm using all copper Zalman fans on the CPU and GPU with additional copper BGM sinks. Thanks to my case I get great airflow directly onto the CPU. Should I melt the CPU as an excuse to build a new rig or take out some insurance before my motherboard bursts into flames and burns my house down?
WTH are y'all talking about? You have a system so good, its above recommended. My computer barely meets the minimum requirements cept for the 'recommended' 2 GB ram, and does fine. A GT8800 is so far above recommended that OF COURSE its fine.
Shits & Giggles for the win!!
The minimum requirements are for a cpu with 3ghz clock, right? Well, mine is only 2.8 by default. Of course that shinny "HIS" card is a monster which will prove any machine still reliant upon an AGP interface still has some life left in it, but the socket 478 is dead in the water, unless it's overclocked and even then...
I think I paid $140.00 USD for that card not including the additional fan and heat sinks, which replaced the stock cooling immediately!
But, has anyone priced the cost of a high end socket 478 these days? Shoot, look at the prices of a Pentium 4 EE 3.4ghz!!
Moral of the story, a good card will go a long way.