SH4 Specs

[TDK1044]

While browsing around other sub sim Forums, I found this interesting statement apparantly quoting the SH4 DEV team:


"The minimum requirements to run SH4 would be: 2GHz processor (Pentium
IV or equivalent AMD Athlon), 1GB of RAM, DirectX 9 video card with
Pixel Shader v2.0, Vertex Shader v2.0 with 128MB of RAM, DirectX
compatible sound card and around 5.5-6GB of space on your HDD. The game
options will allow you to activate or deactivate different visual
aspects that can increase or decrease performance. Of course, in the
minimum requirements PC you will run with most options OFF. A
recommended system will have: 3GHz processor, 2GB of RAM, DirectX 9
video card with PS 3.0, VS 3.0 and 256MB of RAM."

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the statement, but I'd say it's about right. I'm surprised that the minimum RAM requirement is stated as 1GB though. I thought they were aiming for a minimum RAM requirement of 512MB.

As I say, although the statement claims to quote the SH4 DEVS, it is only a posting on another Forum and should be assessed as such.

[TDK1044]

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=926972&topic=32479783

FYI: This is where the above quote came from.

[TwistedFemur]

I'm surprised that the minimum RAM requirement is stated as 1GB though.

Probably so it will run on a vista machine

[John Channing]

Those specs are from the Developers.

JCC

[Iron Budokan]

I should be okay with my system....I just bumped it to to 2G of RAM last week. Everything else should be okay, though.

[Rhodes]

"There goes the neighborhood..." and playing the game...:-? :cry: :dead:

[STEED]

I know I will need to do some upgrading first, so when SH4 comes out I will check the spec's then have a chat with my local independent PC shop first, then get the upgrades I need. And when that's all done buy SH4.

My computer is 2 years old so it should not be too much on the cost front.

[TDK1044]

I meet all recommended specs with the excepton being that I only have 1GB of RAM and not 2GB. I don't think that will be an issue though.

[airwolf48453]

For SHIV it syas you need:o
The minimum requirements to run SH4 would be: 2GHz processor (Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon), 1GB of RAM, DirectX 9 video card with Pixel Shader v2.0, Vertex Shader v2.0 with 128MB of RAM, DirectX compatible sound card and around 5.5-6GB of space on your HDD.

The game options will allow you to activate or deactivate different visual aspects that can increase or decrease performance. Of course, in the minimum requirements PC you will run with most options OFF.

A recommended system will have: 3GHz processor, 2GB of RAM, DirectX 9 video card with PS 3.0, VS 3.0 and 256MB of RAM.

AND I have

XPS410
Windows Media Center/WinXP
1GB Memory
256MB nVidia Geforce 7300LE TurboCache(video Card)

So My Question is how can I tell if I have a PS and a VS ?:doh:

[Gizzmoe]

So My Question is how can I tell if I have a PS and a VS ?:doh:

Your card has Pixelshader 3.0 and Vertexshader 3.0, so it´s ok. The only thing is, it´s a very low-end card, you should think about getting a better one.

[TDK1044]

To check the specs on your video card, go to a site like www.newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com) and enter your card in the search field and check the specs for Pixel and Vertex shader support.

[BH]

So much for the thought if your system could handle SH3, it can handle SH4. You will need a top end system to play this game with all features available.

[TDK1044]

So much for the thought if your system could handle SH3, it can handle SH4. You will need a top end system to play this game with all features available.

A decent mid range system anyway. I have a P4 3.0 processor, XFX Geforce 7600GT 256MB video card and 1GB of RAM. It will run SH4 with no problems and it certainly isn't a high end system.

[AVGWarhawk]

Sometimes one wonder is the developers use some overkill when recommending what the best set up would be for a game. I suspect most will be OK with what they have for SH3.

[CCIP]

Doesn't sound unreasonable. Sounds good for a 2007 game in fact.

I'm up to recommended except video card. Will manage I think :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, I'm sporting a AMD 3200+, Nvidia 6200OC 256MB 3.0 shader and 1 gig RAM. I might up the RAM and see how it goes. During the second development video that was offered to us a few noticed the game loading quite quickly...perhaps that was the answer to the quick loading....all the recommended hardware was being used.

[LeafsFan]

Here is hoping I won't have to upgrade to keep up with the bleeding edge of technology.

HB

[AVGWarhawk]

Here is hoping I won't have to upgrade to keep up with the bleeding edge of technology.

HB

I feel your pain man:cry:. I be in the same boat and it is sinking fast:cry:

[AVGWarhawk]

AMD320+ runs at a what 2.2GHz? This is what I'm reading anyway. I have a feeling that a large majority will not be up to recommended specs. I'm certainly not going to buy a new computer to run this game.

[Gizzmoe]

AMD320+ runs at a what 2.2GHz? This is what I'm reading anyway. I have a feeling that a large majority will not be up to recommended specs. I'm certainly not going to buy a new computer to run this game.
Don´t panic, your CPU is within the recommended specs. The 3200+ is a bit faster than a P4 3.2 GHz even though it only runs at 2 GHz.

[AVGWarhawk]

AMD320+ runs at a what 2.2GHz? This is what I'm reading anyway. I have a feeling that a large majority will not be up to recommended specs. I'm certainly not going to buy a new computer to run this game.
Don´t panic, your CPU is within the recommended specs. The 3200+ is a bit faster than a P4 3.2 GHz even though it only runs at 2 GHz.
I thought the AMD were somewhat under rated in speed as to what was actually the true speed. So you think a bump to 2 gig RAM with my lower end vid card should work well? My card is a 256mb and 3.0 shader. Not the top of the line but not too shabby either.

[Gizzmoe]

The amount of memory and the pixel shader version says nothing about the speed of the card. What´s the exact type?

[AVGWarhawk]

The amount of memory and the pixel shader version says nothing about the speed of the card. What´s the exact type?

Nvida 6200OC (overclocked). I believe 375MHz with the overclocking. Not a Corvette but not a Yugo either:D

[Gizzmoe]

Well, it´s pretty much a tuned Yugo. :D MHz alone means nothing, you also need to look at the memory bandwidth, the number of pixel shader engines, vertex shaders and so on. You won´t be able to use the PS3.0 features of SH4, the card is way too slow for that.

[Sulikate]

It will run smoothly on my rig (at least I think so):

Athlon 64 3000+
1.5GB RAM DDR
GeForce 7600GS 256MB

:arrgh!:


One question: is my processor faster than a P4 3.0Ghz?

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, it´s pretty much a tuned Yugo. :D MHz alone means nothing, you also need to look at the memory bandwidth, the number of pixel shader engines, vertex shaders and so on. You won´t be able to use the PS3.0 features of SH4, the card is way too slow for that.
So perhaps my money is best spent on a better card? Yeah, Yugo three cylinder of monster motor madness;)http://www.bfgtech.com/6200OC.html

Here is the card I have. I have the 256mb memory. I not to knowledgable with cards.

[TDK1044]

The type of RAM is also important. The original posting I found doesn't specify GDDR3 or whatever.

[AVGWarhawk]

The type of RAM is also important. The original posting I found doesn't specify GDDR3 or whatever.

Click on link one post up for the 6200OC card.

[Gizzmoe]

So perhaps my money is best spent on a better card?
Yes, but you should wait until SH4 is out, cards will be cheaper then.

[AVGWarhawk]

So perhaps my money is best spent on a better card?
Yes, but you should wait until SH4 is out, cards will be cheaper then.

Well, I will use the card I have and see how she does. If it is not good then I will get another card. I appreciate the help:up:

[TDK1044]

The type of RAM is also important. The original posting I found doesn't specify GDDR3 or whatever.

Click on link one post up for the 6200OC card.

No, I was referring to the posting by the DEVS on the other Forum. They specify 1GIG of RAM is required, but they don't specify the type of RAM. Not an important distinction if you're system is mid to high end, but could make a big difference for those struggling to meet the minimum requirement.

[AVGWarhawk]

Gotcha! Good point on the RAM question! Whatever the case, I think a lot will be digging in the savings for some new hardware;)

[TDK1044]

Yeah. I'm hoping to get away with using 1 GIG of RAM, but I'll upgrade if I have to and I'll do it when my wife's out shopping!

[AVGWarhawk]

I have one GiG and it will just have to tow the line for now. I got other things in life that need to come first. Then again, my tax returns......hmmmmmmmmm.....

[Gizzmoe]

They specify 1GIG of RAM is required, but they don't specify the type of RAM.
1GB RAM is 1GB RAM, games don´t care if it´s DDR-133 or DDR2-1066.

[TDK1044]

I've learned something then, Gizz. I thought it mattered. Thanks. :D

[d@rk51d3]

Just went to the Alienware site and priced up a new laptop. Came in at just under 6 grand!.

When I went and told the wife, lets just say the look I got was........... interesting.


I guess that's off the cards for the moment:cry:

[Godalmighty83]

my rig meets those recommended specs easily yet still drops to a crawl at max tc in sh3.

just as well iam not buying sh4 i don't feel like throwing money away to keep up with pc developers poor optimization.

[TDK1044]

my rig meets those recommended specs easily yet still drops to a crawl at max tc in sh3.

just as well iam not buying sh4 i don't feel like throwing money away to keep up with pc developers poor optimization.

I think the 'under the hood' changes implemented by the DEVS in SH4 will produce an improved game in that regard. I think SH3 and SH4 will be very different games both to look at and to play.

[Wulfmann]

Rule #1; do not buy it until you have to have it because it will be cheaper later or something better will be available. It is not like stocking up on canned goods for the winter.

Rule #2 all new games require more to run than they claim and even if you can "technically" run the game you know darn well you will be annoyed when it does not run decent and/or you must use lower setting while others rip the game.

I am not sure I will be happy enough with my rig and must consider the need to upgrade my VC from the X850XT 256MB(oced to 625/1200) and I have a AMD DC 4600 with 2GB DDR400 RAM.

However, I will not buy anything until I give it a good go so when I do it will be based on reality and not projected conjecture.

It does seem this will be less intensive than other new games but that does not mean it will not require moderate 2007 technology to run it or at least we should not assume anything until we have it in our hands (and asking God for a big favor on it!)

Remember, the lower the actual settings required the lower the actual quality potential. We can't have both (We can dream but when we wake up, well!:damn:

Wulfmann

[LeafsFan]

I have a Pentium D 820 processor (2.8ghz) . 1 gig of ddr2 SDram, and a ATI 1300pro video card. Where am I on the spectrum I wonder.

HB

[TDK1044]

Based on the stated specs, that rig would put you on the lower end of the spectrum. You should be able to run the game but not at the highest graphical settings.

As others have stated, we won't really know until the game is released. I think you'll be OK with SH4 though, as long as you're not expecting to run the graphics settings at max.

[geetrue]

So perhaps my money is best spent on a better card?
Yes, but you should wait until SH4 is out, cards will be cheaper then.

I like that advice, plus I hope ram memory comes down in price ...

Intel P4 3.0 CPU
MB
1 GB DDR 1
Maxtor 100GB SATA HDD
Ati 1600 Pro Pcie
Creative SB

I only have 1 gig of old DDR1, but my motherboard takes DDR2 or
DDR1 ... DDR2 400 runs about $220 for two (2) sticks of 1 gig each.

[TDK1044]

Keep in mind, folks, that this game will run on a 2GHz processor (Pentium
IV or equivalent AMD Athlon), 1GB of RAM, DirectX 9 video card with
Pixel Shader v2.0, Vertex Shader v2.0 with 128MB of RAM, DirectX
compatible sound card and around 5.5-6GB of space on your HDD.

You would only be running at low to mid range graphical settings and the game may stutter from time to time, but it would be playable.

I ran SH3 on an ATI 9600 video card with 128MB of RAM, a 2.0 GHz processor and 512MB of RAM. I was pretty near the minimum specs and the game ran fine. It struggled a bit with high levels of TC and with large convoys, but other than that it was fine.

So if your system is near the minimum specs for SH4, I wouldn't give up any hope of being able to play the game.

[The Renegade]

Well, I meet all those recommended stats except the RAM, and possibly the GPU, since mine is an pretty good X800 XL, but its only got 2.0 shaders. Yippee.

To all those who don't meet the requirements and are considering upgrades, I can't help but mention the whole DX10 deal coming up. There is a lot of emphasis being put on the arrival of DX10 and the new cards coming to take advantage of it. Thing is, it puts people (like me) in a bit of a predicament. When the DX10 cards do start coming out, all the DX9 cards will have huge price drops and you'll be able to get a powerful card for not much money, which I would really like to do. But then, I think about DX10, and all these games coming out that perform substantially better on DX10 video cards. It's pissing me off, because DX10 cards will be expensive for a while, and if I buy one, it will cost me my education ;) , but if I wait for price cuts, I won't be able to play these new games in all their glory with my X800 XL.

It really is pissing me off. I would really like to just get a X1900 or something when its cheap, but then I'm thinking I'll regret it when I see all those DX10 games. Now, don't get me wrong, you can still play those games with an older card, but I've been hearing that DX10 makes quite the difference.

Plus, there's all the talk of the necessity to have dual-core processors. Another costly upgrade, ho hum....

So anyway, just make sure that you're sure about upgrading, cause I'm definitely not.

[Bum]

They specify 1GIG of RAM is required, but they don't specify the type of RAM.
1GB RAM is 1GB RAM, games don´t care if it´s DDR-133 or DDR2-1066.

Don't different kinds of Ram have advantages, such as speed or responsivness?

[Gizzmoe]

They specify 1GIG of RAM is required, but they don't specify the type of RAM.
1GB RAM is 1GB RAM, games don´t care if it´s DDR-133 or DDR2-1066.
Don't different kinds of Ram have advantages, such as speed or responsivness?

Yes, modern DDR2 RAM for example is much faster than older DDR. Your mainboard needs to support a certain RAM type, you can´t put a DDR2 RAM into a DDR slot and vice versa.

Although a DDR2-800 RAM chip has twice the bandwidth of a DDR-400 you won´t notice a big difference in games. It´s much more important to have a fast video card and, depending on how CPU-intensive a game is, also a fast CPU.

[AVGWarhawk]

Keep in mind, folks, that this game will run on a 2GHz processor (Pentium
IV or equivalent AMD Athlon), 1GB of RAM, DirectX 9 video card with
Pixel Shader v2.0, Vertex Shader v2.0 with 128MB of RAM, DirectX
compatible sound card and around 5.5-6GB of space on your HDD.

You would only be running at low to mid range graphical settings and the game may stutter from time to time, but it would be playable.

I ran SH3 on an ATI 9600 video card with 128MB of RAM, a 2.0 GHz processor and 512MB of RAM. I was pretty near the minimum specs and the game ran fine. It struggled a bit with high levels of TC and with large convoys, but other than that it was fine.

So if your system is near the minimum specs for SH4, I wouldn't give up any hope of being able to play the game.

TDK has a good point here. When I purchased SH3 when it first came out, I ran the game on a Pentium 3, 512 RAM and Nvidia 5200 64mb card. It ran fine(of course vanilla version). I did not fuss with any graphic things. Just loaded up and sailed away. I suspect what I currently have will work just fine and probably not to many if at all, tweeks. I will however get more RAM. That never hurts....

[IRONxMortlock]

Just went to the Alienware site and priced up a new laptop. Came in at just under 6 grand!.

When I went and told the wife, lets just say the look I got was........... interesting.


I guess that's off the cards for the moment:cry:

If you'd really like to pay three times the going rate then Alienware is for you. Why don't you try the local PC shop for their price on a generic computer (make sure you compare the price of a laptop with a desktop too - do you REALLY need to be playing games on the road?) and then check back with the wife? After you've given the shock price of $6K she just might go for something more reasonable.

As for me?

Well my P4 2.6, 1.5GB, 6600GT 128 system will probably run the game on low/medium settings. There's no way I'm going out and buying a new system to play a game until my system stops being able to run games at all.

I really don't see why game developers have to go for these high performance requirements. The vast bulk of PC gamers have computers similar if not of lower specifications than mine (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html ) yet game companies continue to try to force these people to upgrade or get out the market. Seems like madness to me. Why try to alienate this huge segement of their market?
________
StrCpl (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/StrCpl)

[Gizzmoe]

I really don't see why game developers have to go for these high performance requirements.
That question comes up every now and then for like 20 years now. It´s called "progress"! If you are not willing to upgrade a PC every few years then PC gaming isn´t for you.

[IRONxMortlock]

I really don't see why game developers have to go for these high performance requirements.
That question comes up every now and then for like 20 years now. It?s called "progress"! If you are not willing to upgrade a PC every few years then PC gaming isn?t for you.
Please, there's no need to be patronising.

I am quite willing to upgrade my computer as it becomes outdated and I've done so more times than I can remember (I have my old 286 laying around somewhere). My point is that game system recommendations are becoming far and beyond what is possessed by the average gamer. Developers should push the envelope, but take it too far and they will suddenly find themselves developing console games as PC gaming becomes too expensive for large numbers of people to consume. As a sim fan this is the last thing I want to see!
________
HOW TO ROLL A JOINT (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Gizzmoe]

Please, there's no need to be patronising.
I´m not patronising, I´m just saying it like it is. "Upgrade or die" is an age-old fact of PC gaming. People that are not willing or able to upgrade their PC regularly are better off with a console or at least they shouldn´t complain when a certain game runs too slow or maybe even not all. By the way, hardware upgrades today are not that expensive, years ago certain upgrades costed more.

The devs and publishers know that if they push the envelope way too far a game probably won´t sell well. Everyone has a different understanding of what "pushing the envelope too far" means. When I look at the Valve survey then "game requires 1GB RAM" is already "way too far". But you can´t have progress if you write games which 80% of the target audience can run on their machines. Upgrade or die.

[TDK1044]

I think both of you Guys have valid points.

There's a very fine line between pushing the envelope so that new ideas and technology can be incorporated into new games, and pushing it so far that people who can't afford to upgrade their system on a semi regular basis don't therefore buy the games and sales drop as a result.

In the end it's a game of numbers. Silent Hunter 4 sales will be interesting to observe, because there are a lot of folks out there who are not hard core gamers but who would purchase SH4 and can't because they're only running 512MB of RAM. The answer to them from our Forunm would be that they need to get with the plan and at least upgrade to 1GB of RAM, but let's not forget that the total of all WW2 subsim Forum members constitutes about 3 to 4 percent of total sales based on the SH3 figures. Most of the other 96 percent who purchased SH3 were regular folks purchasing in a retail store or on-line.

My bet is that Ubisoft are anticipating that the drop in sales as a result of increased minimum specs with SH4 will be countered by the fact that more people in the 'non Forum' world will purchase SH4 because it's an American sub this time.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Bloody hell. I had to upgrade my computer for SH3! :damn:


This thing will end up having more changes than Michael Jacksons face :(

[TDK1044]

Bloody hell. I had to upgrade my computer for SH3! :damn:


This thing will end up having more changes than Michael Jacksons face :(

You highlight the precise problem that the DEVS face....they want to improve the overall graphical feel of the game as well as game play elements without pushing the specs so high that a significant number of sales are lost.

[Sailor Steve]

Only if it takes an autocrit torpedo hit.

[TDK1044]

I wonder if my machine will explode when playing this game? I have P4 3.2Ghz, 1Gig Ram, GeForce 6800Gt 256meg :hmm:

Similar specs to mine, only I have a GeForce 7600GT. The game should run OK on your system.

[Wulfmann]

They specify 1GIG of RAM is required, but they don't specify the type of RAM.
1GB RAM is 1GB RAM, games don´t care if it´s DDR-133 or DDR2-1066.

Sorry, that is so far from reality it must be disputed for the sake of, well, reality!

It does care, your PC.
Obviously it must be what your set up requires but the higher the second number the more RAM, in effect, you actually have. DDR800 will improve FPS by about 10% over DDR400 with all else being relatively equal.
Not only that but what type of latency etc can slow or speed up the movement of data. There is a reason for RAM of the same spec value (seemingly) being 3 times as much in cost.

Ironically, even the same RAM is not the same. When a batch of RAM sticks is produced they are tested to determine their performance relative to their expected specs.
They are (usually) lumped into three categories with the ones performing at top levels costing much more.
Sometimes, when buying the cheaper versions the problem is not the individual sticks but with dual channel mother boards the fact these not so close to specs are slightly different causing seemingly unknown problems.
Better grades are in closer specs and will perform better for that reason.
This is less important in older non dual channel Mobos.
When using a newer dual channel Mobo one should be sure every friggin number is exactly the same as the other stick or better, sell the one you have on eBay and buy two new ones of the same specs. (However, paying more for a “set” is usually overpriced)
May I suggest asking tech questions at tech forums to decide for yourself. Ted’s and FiringSquad are two good places
Here is Firing Squad’s link for hardware
http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board?board.id=hardware

Wulfmann

[Godalmighty83]

I really don't see why game developers have to go for these high performance requirements.
That question comes up every now and then for like 20 years now. It´s called "progress"! If you are not willing to upgrade a PC every few years then PC gaming isn´t for you.

pc gaming isnt for many any more due to ever increasing demands, take for instance the ps2 with its same old 300mhz processor and 32mb of ram it went from

http://www.redfaction.com/images/screenshots/030201/ps2/03_02_01_03.jpg

to

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/305/920901_20051101_screen001.jpg

if that change can take place on a machine that struggled with a dodgy half life port then i feel no guilt in saying that the silly rises in required equipment and funds that are killing pc gaming lies at the developers doors.

[Gizzmoe]

They specify 1GIG of RAM is required, but they don't specify the type of RAM.
1GB RAM is 1GB RAM, games don´t care if it´s DDR-133 or DDR2-1066.
Sorry, that is so far from reality it must be disputed for the sake of, well, reality!

It does care, your PC.
The only point was to make it clear that when a game requires 1GB it doesn´t matter what kind of RAM it is, that´s why we don´t see system requirements like "requires 1GB of DDR2-800 RAM". I´ve also already pointed out in post #47 that there are performance differences in RAM.

[Gizzmoe]

if that change can take place on a machine that struggled with a dodgy half life port then i feel no guilt in saying that the silly rises in required equipment and funds that are killing pc gaming lies at the developers doors.
The PS2 is a highly-specialized machine, its CPU (a very powerful RISC processor) and video system aren´t comparable to that of standard PC. It´s a dream for devs, they have a standardized system that they can write highly optimized code for, that´s a luxury PC devs don´t have. What PC devs can do if they have the time and resources is to write scalable graphics engines, like Valve did for Halflife 2, which runs fine even on old DX7 cards.

By the way, guess how often people in the past 15 or so years said that something is killing PC gaming... :)

[Wulfmann]

Yes, modern DDR2 RAM for example is much faster than older DDR. Your mainboard needs to support a certain RAM type, you can´t put a DDR2 RAM into a DDR slot and vice versa.

Although a DDR2-800 RAM chip has twice the bandwidth of a DDR-400 you won´t notice a big difference in games. It´s much more important to have a fast video card and, depending on how CPU-intensive a game is, also a fast CPU.

Sometimes I use such a statement to answer broader questions.
I certainly agree with the above quote. What is important is balance. Adding more RAM with a weak VC will do little if anything, for sure.

It must always be asked of one's PC, Where is the bottleneck??? What is not allowing certain superior components to function at their max?

However, if one is contemplating a new system or major rebuild (Mobo, VC, CPU, RAM) then opting for DDR2 (800) would make sense. If one has a good 939 system then upping the CPU to DC and maybe a better VC (after SH4 releases to get the best price) would make sense.
It does not hurt to post one's intentions here and at a Tech forum so others can offer advise!

Wulfmann

[codmander]

100% realism doesn't tax pc's as much:hmm: if you can run sh3 i see no problem running sh4

[TDK1044]

Looking back at Silent Hunter 2, look at these specs. and I remember being just above the minimum required!

System Requirements
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">Windows 95/98/Me or XP <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">Pentium 266MHz (600MHz recommended) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">64MB of RAM (128MB recommended) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">650MB free hard disk space <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">24x CD-ROM <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">DirectX 8 or higher <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">3D video card (DirectX 8 compatible with 16MB of RAM (32MB recommended) <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">DirectX Sound Card <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in">Mouse
Internet/LAN connection for optional link to Destroyer Command http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4072/logo.jpg

[TDK1044]

It should have read:
Windows 95/98/ME or XP
Pentium 266MHz with 600MHz recommended
64 MB of RAM with 128MB recommended
video card with 16MB of RAM and 32MB recommended
24X CD ROM

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4072/logo.jpg

[AJ!]

lol those are some pritty demanding specs :-?

[TDK1044]

Yeah. Those specs wouldn't get you out of the dock in SH4.

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4072/logo.jpg

[Wulfmann]

:rotfl: If you try and install SH4 with similar specs I suggest you have a fire extinguisher in your hand as it tries (and fails) to load!:rotfl:

Wulfmann

[TDK1044]

Maybe that could be what crew management is in SH4. The emergency crews run around with fire extinguishers for players who are playing the game on computers with the minimum required specs.

Alarmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4072/logo.jpg

[THE_MASK]

I will bet my last dollar that like SH3 , the minimum specs for SH4 will realistically be the recommended specs .

[TDK1044]

I know what you're saying, Sober. I meet the recommended specs in every area except RAM where I meet the minimum with 1 GIG. I see no need to upgrade my RAM. I think my rig will run SH4 just fine.

I think the crucial area in running a game like this is not system RAM as most people think, but the quality and speed of your video card. A good video card can easily make up for a RAM deficiency. :D

[Seth8530]

I say let er rip. Watch in horror as smoke pours from your computer. Try in horror to turn the computer off only to find out the comuter has reached a critical state where it wont turn off and blow up half the house in a thermonucleur explosion.


In eccence the higher the specs the better.= hopefully a better looking game.

[TDK1044]

I say let er rip. Watch in horror as smoke pours from your computer.


"Smoke on the horizon, Sir. Looks like a Compaq sinking!"

[Seth8530]

I say let er rip. Watch in horror as smoke pours from your computer.

"Smoke on the horizon, Sir. Looks like a Compaq sinking!"
Or my Nvidia burning :lol:

Or a subatomoic time irrelivent overclocked caused time space jump. Looks dumb founded as video card dissappers and leaves green smoke

[Hartmann]

:doh:

i´m in the limit of the specs or out i think.

AMD 2.4+ cpu (at 2000 mhz)
Gf 6600 gt 128 mg
512 Ram

first i want to buy more ram to 1gb or more and see what performance has sh4...:roll:

[BooBooLovesAll]

Am I alright?

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.41ghz
1.5GB of Ram
Geforce 7800GS

?

[AJ!]

Am I alright?

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.41ghz
1.5GB of Ram
Geforce 7800GS

?

Your specs are fine to run the game on high with a great fps, no worries there

Im still confused on the differences between SH3 and SH4s graphics though.
Some of the realism effects like bubbles and underwater particals which would explain the game requirements have only been seen in the games promotional screenshots and not in any of the ingame videos :-?

[TDK1044]

:doh:

i´m in the limit of the specs or out i think.

AMD 2.4+ cpu (at 2000 mhz)
Gf 6600 gt 128 mg
512 Ram

first i want to buy more ram to 1gb or more and see what performance has sh4...:roll:

I would certainly upgrade your RAM. When this game is about two or three weeks away from release, I'd be very surprised if the minimum RAM specs will be 512MB. With SH3, Ubisoft posted the minimum RAM as 256MB and then changed it to 512MB a few weeks before release. If you can afford it, upgrade to at least 1 GIG of RAM.

[Hartmann]

Yes, i was thinking about buy a 1 gig stick before i know the release data of SHIV.

also is useful in sh3 GWX and other computer games.

[Pit]

I'm not worried about my specs much...

AMD Athlon 64 FX60 939 socket Dual Core 2.8Ghz
2MB RAM
BFG Nvidia GeForce 7950 GT OC PCIe 512MB GDDR3

MY concern is if it will run on a 64bit system... which this one is...
SHIII does not!!!! :o :cry:

[Roads88]

I'm not worried about my specs much...

AMD Athlon 64 FX60 939 socket Dual Core 2.8Ghz
2MB RAM
BFG Nvidia GeForce 7950 GT OC PCIe 512MB GDDR3

MY concern is if it will run on a 64bit system... which this one is...
SHIII does not!!!! :o :cry:


What is your operating system?

[Pit]

I'm not worried about my specs much...

AMD Athlon 64 FX60 939 socket Dual Core 2.8Ghz
2MB RAM
BFG Nvidia GeForce 7950 GT OC PCIe 512MB GDDR3

MY concern is if it will run on a 64bit system... which this one is...
SHIII does not!!!! :o :cry:


What is your operating system?

That would help huh!!! :damn: Oh and that was supposed to be 2Gigs RAM :oops:
Windows XP Pro x64

[Farside]

Mine might be ok

Pentium 4 2.15 GHz
1.5 Gig RAM
Geforce 6200 OR i could change to my Radeon 9800X which is best?

[Gizzmoe]

Geforce 6200 OR i could change to my Radeon 9800X which is best?

The 9800 is the far better card.

[RickC Sniper]

Anyone know if SH4 might support a widescreen? The last game I purchased did.(Medievel II Total War)


Rick

[Pit]

I need to find out if it will work on a 64bit system... if it doesn't.... well I guess I won't be able to get it until it does... I was suprised to find out SHIII wouldn't...:hmm:

[Farside]

Geforce 6200 OR i could change to my Radeon 9800X which is best?
The 9800 is the far better card.

forgot to mention giz, the 6200 is 256MB and the 9800 Pro is 128... what you think?

[Gizzmoe]

forgot to mention giz, the 6200 is 256MB and the 9800 Pro is 128... what you think?
The 9800 is faster.

The 6200 is a crippled 6600, they have disabled four of the eight pipelines. What you could try is to unlock those four extra pipelines. It also seems that the 6200 can be overclocked very well. Read this thread for more information:
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=162368

If all that works keep the 6200.

[Farside]

ty for your help giz need to use the 9800, oh well... all change!