|
This are my PC specs
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E7500
MB: Intel DG41RQ
RAM: 2 GB DDR2 800mhz kingston
Video: Point of View GeForce 9500GT.
Sound: on board.
Monitor: 17" CRT
I know its a really shitty one, but ive got it more than a year ago for like $350 dollars total, so i tought it was a good deal. I can run SC2 in medium settings at 60+ FPS (FPS capped manually at 60, and shadows off and shaders on low)
My goal its to be able to run it at the lowest settings posible, at 800 x 600 and get 40+ FPS, I really dont care about how it looks, or how cool the graphics are, all I want in a game is the gameplay, I dont want to have a uncomfortable and laggy gameplay.
I know my specs are for sure in the minimum requirements given, but I want to know if its worth it for me to buy it, taking into consideration that I have only $95 and the game + 2 months game time its $90, so any kind of upgrade to my PC its not possible.
Thx in advance for anyhelp possible
BTW: this is the blizzard beta profile dunno might help some
Operating System:
Windows 2.5.1.2600 (Service Pack 3)
CPU Type:
Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz
CPU Speed:
2.95 GHz
System Memory:
1.99 GB
Video Card Model:
NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
Video Card Driver:
nv4_disp.dll
Desktop Resolution:
1280x1024
Hard Disk Size:
203.58 GB
Hard Disk Free Space:
115.72 GB (57%)
Download Speed:
127.66 kB/s (1 mbps)
EDIT: since i was probably getting a new computer, I just went ahead and buy the game anyways. So people can have some idea about it:
I run it on every graphic setting low/off in 1024x768. Game runs perfectly in small spaces (50-80 FPS)
In outdoors it varies depending on the amount of players/NPC (15-35 FPS to 25-45 FPS)
It was exactly what i wanted/expected out of my 9500gt. So if you have a card with similar specs, then you know what to expect.
|
they have minimum requirements for a reason...
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Edit: I just looked at your Graphics card again, and it MAY NOT cut it. Needs 512 and yours seems to be 256 or 512. Pretty much simple as that. Wait till somneone more savvy comes along
|
outdated.
sorry, but you will have to upgrade ure computer.
|
totally off topic. but it will run kotor+kotor2. two much better games, sorry had to get that out :D
on topic, you internet connection should handle it no problem
|
On December 27 2011 02:41 isleyofthenorth wrote:
totally off topic. but it will run kotor+kotor2. two much better games, sorry had to get that out :D
on topic, you internet connection should handle it no problem
His processor should be perfectly fine as well his ram lol. Graphics card seems to be the bottleneck at the moment. Internet connection looks extremely low, maybe even too low. might be just me.
|
Yes your computer can. Might not get the best fps but you SHOULD be able to run it.
|
Thanks to all who didnt say what i dont need, upgrade your PC. Now, all I want to know if its worth it for me to buy it. I am completly fine running it at the most caveman/low settings ever, as long as i have 40 or so FPS, u know, that the game runs smooth. I know my graphics card its old and not top end class, but according to most sites ive look trhough it should be AS good as the 7800gt which is in the minimum reqs in the website
@Puph My GPU is 9500gt with 1gb ram not 256mb but it is DDR2 i think or DDR3 ill have to check that
|
Your card is roughly equivalent to the 7800gt card recommended in the minimum specs. So the game will run. Smoothly? Probably not. I have a computer with the same graphics card and trying to run BC2 on lowest at 1024x768 does not work for me, way too choppy (and it has the same gpu requirements). Could have been a cpu bottleneck though... only had a C2D oced to 2.9gHz too, and there were a lot of particle physics in that game.
On December 27 2011 04:37 MadJack wrote:
@Puph My GPU is 9500gt with 1gb ram not 256mb but it is DDR2 i think or DDR3 ill have to check that
The 1GB versions are actually worse than the 512mb versions for some applications because the memory bus is too small to access all of the memory very quickly. Just as a point of interest, more is not always better! 
|
the game should run, not extremely well
i'm amazed they would recommend a gtx 465 though
|
@Rollin I know more ram doesnt mean its a better card, not that noob and i know my card its barely as strong or lil less than the 7800gt, but I always tought (and most likely been accurate about it) that minimum requirements are suppoused to be smooth on the lowest requirements. 4ex what I mean is my laptop Its much below SC2 requirements, but it still can run it, thing is at like 15-20 FPS when above 50 supply, which its bad to enjoy the game obviusly, but if u have the minimum requirements u can play the game at the lowest settings smoothly.
I guess im probably waiting for that guy that has a slightly better card than mine to tell me how smooth or how bad hes running the game, so i make my decision about buying it. Again, my goal is to run the game at 800x600 on lowest setting posible giving 40 fps or so.
|
updated for people that might have been interested on results
|
On December 27 2011 04:51 Rollin wrote:Your card is roughly equivalent to the 7800gt card recommended in the minimum specs. So the game will run. Smoothly? Probably not. I have a computer with the same graphics card and trying to run BC2 on lowest at 1024x768 does not work for me, way too choppy (and it has the same gpu requirements). Could have been a cpu bottleneck though... only had a C2D oced to 2.9gHz too, and there were a lot of particle physics in that game. Show nested quote +On December 27 2011 04:37 MadJack wrote:
@Puph My GPU is 9500gt with 1gb ram not 256mb but it is DDR2 i think or DDR3 ill have to check that The 1GB versions are actually worse than the 512mb versions for some applications because the memory bus is too small to access all of the memory very quickly. Just as a point of interest, more is not always better!
i ran into that trap. felt like a retard when I found out :/
|
I would recommend using canyourunit.com. Itll tell you if you meet the minimum or recommended requirements. If you do not meet either then I wouldnt recommend trying to play it. Your computer might boot up the game but it's not gonna run any where near how it should.
|
Russian Federation114 Posts
Your specs might have enough power to run certain parts of the games where there are very few players / visual effects, but it will be unplayable in any place where there are lots of players, or explosion effects. If you manage to launch the game and pass the starting area, I am afraid you won't be able to do anything in capital cities.
I remember trying to play Age of Conan with my old PC back in the days, it was barely powerful enough to level up to 12 but I felt like it could be enough. Then I entered the capital city and discovered that the FPS counter could show SPF (seconds per frame) in some circumstances...
|
|
|
>_> Funny that you say that and then post links that say that SC2 has way lower requirements
Also to the OPs question, no it won't run properly. Maybe 10 fps but it won't be enjoyable at all. Unless you maybe force a 800x600 somehow
|
I should've clarified requirements/recommended. Either way, the term "requirement" is one of those things that varies from game to game. We know full well a Pentium IV is not going to provide a good experience with SC2, so I don't even know why they listed that as a requirement. So I'm going by the "recommended" which really should be the requirement.
SC2:
Dual Core 2.4Ghz
2GB
8800 GTX or HD 3870
SWTOR:
Dual Core 2.0Ghz
2GB
nVidia 7800 or ATI X1800
I know a couple of friends who play it on Sandy Bridge + Integrated graphics just fine.
Intel E7500 runs at 2.93Ghz + 9500 GT shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I have no idea how you think it's going to get 10 FPS on that hardware.
|
On December 31 2011 13:09 jacosajh wrote:
I should've clarified requirements/recommended. Either way, the term "requirement" is one of those things that varies from game to game. We know full well a Pentium IV is not going to provide a good experience with SC2, so I don't even know why they listed that as a requirement. So I'm going by the "recommended" which really should be the requirement.
SC2:
Dual Core 2.4Ghz
2GB
8800 GTX or HD 3870
SWTOR:
Dual Core 2.0Ghz
2GB
nVidia 7800 or ATI X1800
I know a couple of friends who play it on Sandy Bridge + Integrated graphics just fine.
Intel E7500 runs at 2.93Ghz + 9500 GT shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I have no idea how you think it's going to get 10 FPS on that hardware.
Hm, well recommended isn't for low though afaik. I was running decently on low with my super old AMD 64 4000+ singlecore processor. I also think 8800 GTX is way overkill for low as well so.
Also I don't believe those would be accurate for a second, maybe for absolute min requirements but there's no way 7800 is going to run the game decently.
|
The last friend I saw playing was playing on Medium @ 1080p with an i5 2500 + IGP. I actually thought the i5 2500 had HD 3000, but upon double-checking it's only got HD 2000.
It could've been low/medium. And I didn't stick around long enough to see how it did throughout the game, but it seemed pretty smooth wherever he was playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
