SH5 System Req's?

[YukonJack_AK]

I know EVERYONE is all excited about this & that and how they want this feature or that feature included (and I am too :rock:)... but - does anybody have even an inkling of what the basic system requirements are going to be for SH5? I'd kinda like to make sure the new system I'm about to build will handle it... no sense in having to rebuild in less than 6 months...

[papa_smurf]

Haven't got the foggiest:doh: Be patient, i'm sure the requirements will be out soon.

[Fish40]

No news that I know of on that yet, but as for me I have a sneaky feeling my ageing machine has finally met it's match:wah:

[AVGWarhawk]

I would venture to guess if SH4 made your machine struggle....SH5 will go no easier on your system. The time is now to beg, borrow or steal the pieces you need for the new rig:03:

[Fish40]

I would have to honestly say that with respects to SH4, my old gal handels it pretty well! I play with a fairly high res (1280x960), the graphics options on medium-high, and use mods like Real Environment, RFB, RSRD, ect. with no "slide show" effects. Far from it! I do have the occasional slowdown depending on the situation, but so do alot of people. The game is very playable. If the new specs aren't off the charts compared to SH4, I have a real shot without haveing to spend thousands!

[JU_88]

I would venture to guess if SH4 made your machine struggle....SH5 will go no easier on your system. The time is now to beg, borrow or steal the pieces you need for the new rig:03:


Yup that is the nature of the beast (PC gaming) you gotta fork out for a new card at least once every 3 years.

[ETR3(SS)]

My system has done quite well with SH4, I think more RAM would help it along but I usually run at the higher end of graphic settings and can still get a playable 20fps. But my system is long past due for an upgrade, in fact its so past due that I'm just going to build a new one from scratch. But on the bright side I have a comp that I can install Win98 on still for some SH1 action! Oh and it's the nature of the beast of gaming in general. Every 3 years or so you either get a new video card or a new console, meh what are ya gonna do though?

[JU_88]

Cant really complain - as hobbies go; gaming is a reletively affordable one,
200 bucks on a new mid range gfx card (every 2-3 years) really isnt that bad at all.

CPU and Ram tend to last a fair bit longer. (an RAM is SOO cheap now)

[Spike88]

I would venture to guess if SH4 made your machine struggle....SH5 will go no easier on your system. The time is now to beg, borrow or steal the pieces you need for the new rig:03:

Can I blame you and SHV when I get caught trying to smuggle $1,000 worth of computer parts out of tigerdirect? :hmmm:

[Wulfmann]

The new minimum specs are as follows:
Quad core 3,5GHZ
8GB DDR RAM
2GB Video card 512bit 1200 core clock and 2200 clock speed

However, That barely runs it so we shall have to wait for new hardware to run it nicely and oh hey, it will require DX12:rotfl:

Guys, it does not matter what it takes.
UBI will not put out a game that can not be run but by a few wealthy guys in a down economy.

It will likely have some scale to it because they also have to up the eye candy appeal.

Then,what ever it does require that you may need to upgrade, well, that will cheaper next month and maybe something else will have come out, run its course and be bargain priced when you buy this so be assured it will run most mid range systems decently

By Mid range i would say 3.0GHZ Dual core, 4GB DDR RAM and a better 512MB 256bit video card but I would suggest it will need a higher end VC at least a now top of the line 1GB (285, 4870 minimum) to satisfy most of us but all is conjecture at this point.

Ubi is in this to make money and that means it has to look really good but be able to run on a mid level PC

Wulfmann

[FIREWALL]

The new minimum specs are as follows:
Quad core 3,5GHZ
8GB DDR RAM
2GB Video card 512bit 1200 core clock and 2200 clock speed

However, That barely runs it so we shall have to wait for new hardware to run it nicely and oh hey, it will require DX12:rotfl:

Guys, it does not matter what it takes.
UBI will not put out a game that can not be run but by a few wealthy guys in a down economy.

It will likely have some scale to it because they also have to up the eye candy appeal.

Then,what ever it does require that you may need to upgrade, well, that will cheaper next month and maybe something else will have come out, run its course and be bargain priced when you buy this so be assured it will run most mid range systems decently

By Mid range i would say 3.0GHZ Dual core, 4GB DDR RAM and a better 512MB 256bit video card but I would suggest it will need a higher end VC at least a now top of the line 1GB (285, 4870 minimum) to satisfy most of us but all is conjecture at this point.

Ubi is in this to make money and that means it has to look really good but be able to run on a mid level PC

Wulfmann


What is considered a "mid level" PC ? :hmmm:

[danurve]

Cant really complain - as hobbies go; gaming is a reletively affordable one,
200 bucks on a new mid range gfx card (every 2-3 years) really isnt that bad at all.

CPU and Ram tend to last a fair bit longer. (an RAM is SOO cheap now)
What he said.
And make sure you can keep your system cool, and your PSU is up to snuff.

[Cohaagen]

Given this, and replies on other threads, I think Wulfmann has a distinctly singular, personal and amusing definition of what is a "mid-level" PC, perhaps based more on PC tech blogs than the financial reality of his peers ;). I wish I had his money. Others may have families, mortgages, significant others, pets, vehicles, boats, elderly parents, bills, caches of weapons wrapped in cosmoline (looking at you, Subman1), secret lovechilds, etc. to deal with before a (potentially) ace PC U-boat sim.

Incidentally, good to see Ubisoft has gone fullbore for the submarine angle. Despite several suggestions, I really do think that to include an element of control over surface ASW units would only dilute the game and, most importantly, distract developers from the core premise - to produce the best submarine game ever. To quote a brutal, semi-official Valve Software maxim: "It doesn't matter what we cut, as long as we cut it".

Also illuminating to see that virtually everyone wanting a "Fleet Boat" game is American.

[Syxx_Killer]

My aging dinosaur runs SH4 pretty good with the best graphics. I use TMO so that adds even more demand (I think anyway). I even run with good levels of AA and AF. I ran higher AA and AF before I updated my nVidia drivers a while back which seemed to lower my performance in that area. Anyway, since my computer ran SH4 so well, I am hoping it may run SH5 as well. Now I just gotta wait to see how many bugs Ubi decides are sufficient for release. :D

[Wulfmann]

Given this, and replies on other threads, I think Wulfmann has a distinctly singular, personal and amusing definition of what is a "mid-level" PC, perhaps based more on PC tech blogs than the financial reality of his peers ;). I wish I had his money. Others may have families, mortgages, significant others, pets, vehicles, boats, elderly parents, bills, caches of weapons wrapped in cosmoline (looking at you, Subman1), secret lovechilds, etc. to deal with before a (potentially) ace PC U-boat sim.

You do recognize sarcasm, yes no, Ja oder nicht?? I was jerking the chain because while we have absolutely no idea some want an answer for which there is none

Those on a budget and that would likely be 95% or more need to pay closest attention to being patient and waiting until the game is out before buying anything.
Video cards that were $400.00 will be $100.00 at some point.
If it came out today and you were upgrading right now you could get a new AMD MoBo, 4GB DDR2 RAM and a 3.0DC CPU for about $150.00 to stick in your present rig. You could also watch the Newegg sales and wait to get a promo 5-600W PS for $30-50.00 and a 4830 ATI would be about $80.00 or a 4870 1GB would be $144.00

My point is wait until the day you order SH5 to also order new upgrades and you can, with a reasonable budget have a good rig to run it.

Mid range rigs are based on today's availability for a reasonably priced PC tower and for $600.00 you can build a rig that would have been untouchable at $3,000.00 when SH3 was released

I go to this site and ask when I need hardware help:
http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/?category.id=hardware

Also, if i build a new rig I go there and post what I intend and ask for opinions. They often know of what is a problem piece or some tidbit that steers me to something better.

You don't have to be a keek just know enough to admit ignorance and ask from people that are keeks.

Wulfmann

[Blood_splat]

Well I know electricity will be one of the main requirements.:know:

[longam]

All I know is you'll need a PC

https://oagxyg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mbSDRunRk0QcDZ50Id_LoMi1Q_ak_IIn6jSnlgizDsObBINd IvBrg69zaqj0YtNnyXcIETeS3duqeCXtJ5_tbLw9BZQJ9mnlFJ _tXPTAYqK9-EbXzyEGXv9JAjoA6o7lUFDwOyz2BEwwgaR6a09sPkQ

[YukonJack_AK]

UBI will not put out a game that can not be run but by a few wealthy guys in a down economy.


Not to pick on you Wulfmann, but did you see Assassins Creed? The minimums didn't run the game at all and even the recommended specs had a hard time... so please don't even suggest that Ubisoft is "consumer minded".


By Mid range i would say 3.0GHZ Dual core, 4GB DDR RAM and a better 512MB 256bit video card but I would suggest it will need a higher end VC at least a now top of the line 1GB (285, 4870 minimum) to satisfy most of us but all is conjecture at this point.

Ubi is in this to make money and that means it has to look really good but be able to run on a mid level PC


When was the last time you saw a major title from a major developer being released for a sub-par platform? Come on... The state of the economy and what people can afford has nothing ot do with it. Look at Farcry 2, Fallout 3, GTA4, etc... they were NOT dev'd for "mid-level" systems. Matter of fact, some of these games are why I decided on starting a new build.

If I were to make a copuple of educated guesses:
I'd say minimum Quad-Core CPU (it was the recommended for Assassins Creed)...
Minimum of 4.0GB of RAM (WIN7 is lighter - assuming SH5 is WIN7 ok - but Assassins Creed recommended 3.0GB and ran like crap)...
And a video card with atleast 256MB (but I'd recommend atleast a 512 or better... of a decent GPU... no bargain-bin OpenGL crap)

[InFlames666]

i'm going to put my money on; Dx10 gpu, 2 gigs of ram, and 2.0 dual core cpu. thats what most games coming out are needing

[Letum]

Ubisoft have confirmed it:

2x 3.5'' Disk Drive
3MB spare hard drive space
MS DOS 5.0 or later
340x680 Graphics resolution
16 bit graphics
20mhz or greater

[InFlames666]

Ubisoft have confirmed it:

2x 3.5'' Disk Drive
3MB spare hard drive space
MS DOS 5.0 or later
340x680 Graphics resolution
16 bit graphics
20mhz or greater

hahaha sounds like SH I:har:

[longam]

Dont forget the x86 math co-processor

[FIREWALL]

Ubisoft have confirmed it:

2x 3.5'' Disk Drive
3MB spare hard drive space
MS DOS 5.0 or later
340x680 Graphics resolution
16 bit graphics
20mhz or greater

And a partridge in a pear tree. :haha:

[Biggs[CV]]

Ubisoft have confirmed it:

2x 3.5'' Disk Drive
3MB spare hard drive space
MS DOS 5.0 or later
340x680 Graphics resolution
16 bit graphics
20mhz or greater

Damn, I need to upgrade.............:D

[bookworm_020]

No news that I know of on that yet, but as for me I have a sneaky feeling my ageing machine has finally met it's match:wah:


I know the feeling. My machine was stretched thin for SH4 and it can go no further.:wah::wah::wah:

[Iron Budokan]

;1155334']Damn, I need to upgrade.............:D

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Armistead]

I looked at my old P2 custom system that I paid almost 3K for when it first came out. That was about 10 years ago... Prices sure have come down.
I would hate to add up the money on computers and upgrades since I bought my first Tandy....

that and cellphones...gawd, those were expensive in the beginning.

[Hartmann]

Well, i was thinking in change my rig in the next months but now all plans will be halted until receive more information about sh5 :hmmm:

[papa_smurf]

I was thinking of building a new system next year - might have to put in on hold.........

[maerean_m]

My projected configuration to run the game very well (with all graphic options enabled, in 1280*1024) is:
dual core at 3 GHz (quad core is appreciated but not mandatory)
2 gb of ram
nVidia 8800 GT 512mb (ATi 4850 512mb)

512mb on the video card is a minimum to play the game with every option checked. We're trying to make the game to fit into 256 mb of video memory (with the lowest settings).


If I were to make a couple of educated guesses:
I'd say minimum Quad-Core CPU (it was the recommended for Assassins Creed)...
Minimum of 4.0GB of RAM (WIN7 is lighter - assuming SH5 is WIN7 ok - but Assassins Creed recommended 3.0GB and ran like crap)...
And a video card with at least 256MB (but I'd recommend at least a 512 or better... of a decent GPU... no bargain-bin OpenGL crap)

Assassin's Creed was created by a completely different studio with a completely different engine. Those requirements are caused by the fact that their main target is the Xbox 360.

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.

The game will run on Windows 7, even the 64bit edition.

[Jimbuna]

Much appreciate the heads up maerean_m http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[Wulfmann]

[/size]

Not to pick on you Wulfmann, but did you see Assassins Creed? The minimums didn't run the game at all and even the recommended specs had a hard time... so please don't even suggest that Ubisoft is "consumer minded".



When was the last time you saw a major title from a major developer being released for a sub-par platform? Come on... The state of the economy and what people can afford has nothing ot do with it. Look at Farcry 2, Fallout 3, GTA4, etc... they were NOT dev'd for "mid-level" systems. Matter of fact, some of these games are why I decided on starting a new build.

If I were to make a copuple of educated guesses:
I'd say minimum Quad-Core CPU (it was the recommended for Assassins Creed)...
Minimum of 4.0GB of RAM (WIN7 is lighter - assuming SH5 is WIN7 ok - but Assassins Creed recommended 3.0GB and ran like crap)...
And a video card with atleast 256MB (but I'd recommend atleast a 512 or better... of a decent GPU... no bargain-bin OpenGL crap)

I respectfully disagree and maintain my original post specs.

SH has virtually nothing to do with eye candy mass released games. The games yo8 mentioned were made for 360 and then tweaked to PC.

UBI knows there is a much wider age group in SH and also knows many guys (like me) never buy any of the other games.
My specs were based on the real world of everyone not the real world for game keeks.

Again, whatever you view on this wait, you will be doing yourself a big favor if you wait until this releases.

Perhaps few remember how SH3 was designed so called Nvidea compatible but ran better on ATI cards (Corrected n 2006 released cards). If you built to the prereleased hype you bought the wrong card.

Whatever it needs, whichever runs it better waiting will insure you get the best upgrades for the least money.
Build now in ignorance and pay more or build after release in knowledge and pay less.
It is simple math

Wulfmann

[ReallyDedPoet]

Much appreciate the heads up maerean_m http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

Ditto, thanks :yep::up:

[Sub Commander]

1 tb memory 10 gb ram 512 mb nvidia geforce 8800 gt quadcore something lol and I run Sh4 on highest and on 1680X1200 or whatever the highest resolution is

[billyjack]

I think a nvidia GEForce 9800m GS 512/mb video card should take on sh5 as i play sh4 on it with everything set on high with no problem.

[YukonJack_AK]

Assassin's Creed was created by a completely different studio with a completely different engine. Those requirements are caused by the fact that their main target is the Xbox 360.

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.


I do realize that you (Ubi Romania) were not responsible for Assassins Creed. I was just using it as a prime example of a graphics intensive, AI intensive game. Graphics and AI take a terrible toll on system resources let alone involving a realistic physics engine, weather engine, etc etc etc... simulators in general are extremely resource needy. But I was also using it as an example of the tendency of game dev's to 'under-estimate' the recommended specs to run the game 'maxxed out'. I started this thread because I just wanted to know what the requirements were to run the game at it's fullest possible potential. Thank you for answering that question!

And thank you for not porting SH5 over to console... it kills so many good games! (like IL2...)


@Wulfmann -
SH has virtually nothing to do with eye candy mass released games. The games yo8 mentioned were made for 360 and then tweaked to PC.

UBI knows there is a much wider age group in SH and also knows many guys (like me) never buy any of the other games.
My specs were based on the real world of everyone not the real world for game keeks.
EVERY game relased today has to compete in a world of advanced graphics, uber-intelligent AI, and incredible play-ability. Whether SH5 is created for the 'mass-console market' or not... it still has to compete - it has to intrigue people into playing it (mostly by being graphicaly superior to is predessors/rivals thereby making it resource intensive game) so to put it another way - Ubi doesn't give a damn about you or me or any specific end users (No offense Ubi Romania and the Dev Team - I'm talking about the suits). They're looking to make a product as in-expensively as they can, that will sell the most units as possible and to do that it has to be pretty, exciting, and interesting to the average person who has an attention span of about 5 seconds - they don't care how resource intensive it is or isn't... that's on the development team. If the development team can make a good product using 'mid-range' materials then good for them (and great for us) - but if they have to 'pull out the big guns' to make the suits happy, they will and who cares if we have the hardware to run it or not (ie, Crysis). That's why there are so few 'PC Exclusive' titles - it costs far too much to develop for not enough return. Hell, the last time I looked at a sales report of Console Games vs PC Games Sales it was more than 30 to 1 and that was about 2 years ago! The sad truth is that the PC gaming market is dying due to the ease of use and cost effectiveness of console gaming. So simply - if Ubi Romania doesn't make this a blockbuster of release... you probably won't see a SH6... atleast not on a PC.

And yes, the games I mentioned earlier are EXTREMELY resource needy because where initially dev'd for console then ported or re-dev'd for the pc - but that's because the market is dying. Sooner than later, as desktops go the way of the dodo, your home PC will be a laptop or a netbook and your games will only come on a console. Like it or not...

and btw... I'm not a game geek... I'm an IT professional/journalist who enjoys the occasional game - and 90% of the time it's SH3/GWX!

[InFlames666]

I think a nvidia GEForce 9800m GS 512/mb video card should take on sh5 as i play sh4 on it with everything set on high with no problem.
yeah i'm pirtty sure nVidia8600/Ati3850 in going to be the min when it comes to GPUs so with 9800 you should be in the clear

[LiveGoat]

;)Hot damn, those are my specs exactly! I'll probably have my GPU upgraded by launch anyway. Just in case.



My projected configuration to run the game very well (with all graphic options enabled, in 1280*1024) is:
dual core at 3 GHz (quad core is appreciated but not mandatory)
2 gb of ram
nVidia 8800 GT 512mb (ATi 4850 512mb)

512mb on the video card is a minimum to play the game with every option checked. We're trying to make the game to fit into 256 mb of video memory (with the lowest settings).



Assassin's Creed was created by a completely different studio with a completely different engine. Those requirements are caused by the fact that their main target is the Xbox 360.

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.

The game will run on Windows 7, even the 64bit edition.

[skwasjer]

Let's hope they finally have included (some) multicore support (which I've tongue-in-cheek asked for 2 years back). With pretty much everybody running multicore cpu's these days, there a big performance benefit (ie. AI, prefetching/preloading). This all ran on a single core for SH4... If they have, one might get away with a 2-3 year old rig (although you'd likely have to run at lower then optimal resolutions). [edit] whooptiedoooptie, I see maerean_m hinted about multicore \o/

All the new/extra interiors don't worry me too much. So many games are capable of rendering entire worlds that I don't see why extra interior space compared to SH4 would cause a heavy strain on current or somewhat older hardware. I'm pretty sure they have rewritten this part of the engine (I tend to think they redid a whole lot more, pretty much a new engine) just to make it work because the legacy code (SH3/SH4) doesn't seem up to the job.

But it's quite obvious that modern/new hardware is recommended if you want to enjoy the full beauty of any new game...

[Arclight]

YukonJack, I can't be bothered to explain why you are wrong. Give this (http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1005720p1.html) a read, I hope it explains it.

[fallenyggdrasil]

Any chance to get SH V running on this system:

AMD Phenom 9650 quad-core 2,3 GHz,
ATI Radeon HD 3650 512 MB
4 GB RAM
Vista 64 Bit

?

[sharkbit]

If Ubisoft listened to us and put everything that everyone wants in the game, only a HAL2000 will be able to run it.

"Open the torpedo doors HAL."
"I don't think I can do that Herr Kaleun."

:D

[Schultz]

My computer is :
Intel E8500 3.17 Ghz
4 G Ram
Asus 4870 512 Ram.
Hdd WD 640 G
Win xp x64

I think it will handle just fine and I believe all at max

[Jimbuna]

Woah!....connect 4 :DL

[Schultz]

Oh please excuse for that but I had some little problems with the net,it didn't load the page after I pressed submit so I pressed a few times.
I'm sorry 1 million times,can someone delete 3 of them,sometimes it happends to people

[fallenyggdrasil]

you could just use the edit /delete button below your messages

[Trool323]

Ubisoft will only put out a product that the mass public has a chance at being able to play on their home pc. Otherwise no one will buy it because they won't be able to play it. Right now the average computer is a duel core with a gig of ram in it, with an onboard pc express graphic card. I suspect a system like this will be the minimum REQs. If you want the game to run like a champ you'll probably need a quad core with 2 gig..

think back when SH4 was released it used the last of the AGP 8x tech and it took a pentium 4 with 1 gig as a minimum req.. So you have to allmost double that for SH5 I would imagine. But the old sayin goes will just have to wait and C :up:

[Wintahs]

That's the budget standard, not a gamer's standard. I'm you'l be fine with 2GB RAM, a decent Dual Core and a 7600GT(As a minimum)

[Jimbuna]

Oh please excuse for that but I had some little problems with the net,it didn't load the page after I pressed submit so I pressed a few times.
I'm sorry 1 million times,can someone delete 3 of them,sometimes it happends to people

Don't you go worrying.....a simple/genuine mistake. :up:

Funny as hell though :DL

[Platapus]

Ubisoft have confirmed it:

2x 3.5'' Disk Drive
3MB spare hard drive space
MS DOS 5.0 or later
340x680 Graphics resolution
16 bit graphics
20mhz or greater

That reminds me of when I paid extra bucks to get the "new" 386DX with 25mhz processor. ohhhhhh so fast back then.. :stare:

I still have boxes and boxes of stuff on 3.5 inch disks... then I realized that i don't have a single computer in the house with a 3.5 drive. :damn:
:D

[SubV]

Dualcore ~2.5 GHz, ~3 Gb system RAM, video card with 512 Mb of RAM (Nvidia 8800/9600GT).

If SH5 will require anything above that for smooth gameplay, the game would become a commercial failure.

[Jimbuna]

Dualcore ~2.5 GHz, ~3 Gb system RAM, video card with 512 Mb of RAM (Nvidia 8800/9600GT).

If SH5 will require anything above that for smooth gameplay, the game would become a commercial failure.

I'm not so sure of the chances of failure but agree the specs you've quoted should be well sufficient.

I'll definitely need to purchase a new rig :doh:

[Hartmann]

I bet for a good and smooth running ...:hmmm:

A good duo or quad core ,4 gb of ram, and a 1 Gb graphic card
( nvidia 9600 or ati equivalent).

At the time of the release this hardware could be a lot cheaper than now :yep:

No chances for my rig , a 2,4 single core, 2 gb of ram and ati 2600 XT card) despite ir can run well silent hunter 3 and 4 :oops:

[Arrakis]

I'm a bit lost among all these Nvidia graphic cards...

I have on my laptop a Nvidia 9600GT 512 Mo.
Maerean, in his post, is positive that a nVidia 8800GT 512 will be fine to run the game with all options checked.
But, is a 8800GT better than my 9600GT? Will I be able to play the game properly with that one?
Do you think you'll change your graphic card to play SH5?

[Webster]

I'm a bit lost among all these Nvidia graphic cards...

I have on my laptop a Nvidia 9600GT 512 Mo.
Maerean, in his post, is positive that a nVidia 8800GT 512 will be fine to run the game with all options checked.
But, is a 8800GT better than my 9600GT? Will I be able to play the game properly with that one?
Do you think you'll change your graphic card to play SH5?


the 8800gt is no longer sold, i have one and its great but its hard to say what it is equal to in the newer 9000 series cards. the newest cards are the 200 series but they are also the most expensive too.

my guess (and its only a guess) is a 9500gt or 9600gt would be about the same as the older 8800gt were.

i have found its very hard to get unbiased opinions on video cards so keep this in mind when people give you recommendations. pay more attention to the specs like ram and series number of the cards then do your own shopping for the best value you can find. (newegg.com is my choice)

i will make some people gasp for saying this but there often isnt that much difference in the cards that you will be able to see if they share simular specs so the difference in a 9400 from a 9500 or a 9600 are different on paper but in what you can see and tell on your computer you probably wont notice much difference unless your comparing bench tests. dont get me wrong, there will be a drop off from one card to the next but the lesser card will do the job in most cases so you just have to decide if you want to spend a little more for a little better performance from your card.

now if you are a serious hard core gamer looking for the most fps you can get then the tiny difference between cards may be worth it but not for most average gamers.

when you figure out what you want, look for a brand name that you have heard of before and preferably one with a lifetime warranty and get that. also pay attention to the cooler on the card so its not too loud and noisy or not too quiet so as to let the card run hot on you. reading the customer reviews are your best way to find this info.

ps- if you have a micro computer or something with a small compact case you really need to take care to be sure it fits in your box. some cards have coolers that need a lot of room or they wont fit so again, read the reviews carefully and see if anyone mentions clearance issues.

this is a link for a website where you can get what i consider good advice and info about building and fixing computers and about buying computer components and hardware. http://forums.techpowerup.com/index.php

[maerean_m]

I'm a bit lost among all these Nvidia graphic cards...

I have on my laptop a Nvidia 9600GT 512 Mo.
Maerean, in his post, is positive that a nVidia 8800GT 512 will be fine to run the game with all options checked.
But, is a 8800GT better than my 9600GT? Will I be able to play the game properly with that one?
Do you think you'll change your graphic card to play SH5?

9600GT is the same as the 8800GT.
You'll be just fine as long as you don't exagerate with the resolution (keep it at 1440*900 or below)

[THE_MASK]

For those of us that are going to upgrade to say 4 gigs of ram , 1 gig ati video card and 3 gig dual core cpu just for this game . Will i be stunned at the level of graphics on full res .

[The Bandit]

I'm a bit lost among all these Nvidia graphic cards...

I have on my laptop a Nvidia 9600GT 512 Mo.
Maerean, in his post, is positive that a nVidia 8800GT 512 will be fine to run the game with all options checked.
But, is a 8800GT better than my 9600GT? Will I be able to play the game properly with that one?
Do you think you'll change your graphic card to play SH5?


This is the main reason why Nvidia changed its naming scheme (its not that hard to get confused with it). The first digit (as in 9xxx) is the GENERATION of the card (they really only started doing this with the 5000 series) the second digit (as in x6xx) is the Performance of the card so the x3xx is slower than the x4xx and so on. Both Nvidia and to a lesser extend ATI are bad for re-branding cards (the Nvidia 9800GT and 9800GTS were little more than renamed 8800 cards, same with the GTS 240 and GTS 250 which are again essentially 8800s as well).

Another very important thing to mention is that you should probably go download a program called GPUz and check what kind of memory your GPU uses. DDR2 is not very good in graphics cards, GDDR3 is about the norm now, and GDDR4 and GDDR5 are best (ATI and IIRC Nvidia too now uses GDDR5 in their best stuff. Also I don't mean to rain on your parade but an Nvidia 9600GT in a laptop and one in a desk top are two VERY different animals. The graphics in your laptop have much more in common with the 8600mgs than they do with the desktop 9600. Deceptive marketing on Nvidias part but ATI is just as bad (4650 in a laptop is a way different chip than a 4650 desktop card) still chances are you SHOULD be able to RUN (as in playable maybe with some of the graphics settings turned down a little) it unless Ubi have gone off their rocker.

[THE_MASK]

Its 2009 , i think its time for up to date graphics run on up to date hardware .

[FIREWALL]

Any chance to get SH V running on this system:

AMD Phenom 9650 quad-core 2,3 GHz,
ATI Radeon HD 3650 512 MB
4 GB RAM
Vista 64 Bit

?




Did you ever bother to read the SH4 requirements.

Who ever sold you a computer should'a had their head examend. :doh:

Come on. Who do you think your kidding with that post. :roll:

[Webster]

For those of us that are going to upgrade to say 4 gigs of ram , 1 gig ati video card and 3 gig dual core cpu just for this game . Will i be stunned at the level of graphics on full res .


some may disagree with me on this but i think the difference you'll see is like comparing the grafics in stock sh3 with sh4 + real environments :woot:

[fallenyggdrasil]

Did you ever bother to read the SH4 requirements.

Who ever sold you a computer should'a had their head examend. :doh:

Come on. Who do you think your kidding with that post. :roll:

I´m not kidding anyone with that post. Very sorry if I my question is that stupid....
Yes, I read the SH4 requirements:

recommended sys:
WinXP/VISTA
DirectX 9.0c
Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon, 3 GHz
2048 MB RAM
DirectX 9.0c Grafics with 256 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 2.0

but this doesn´t help me - Why do you think I am kidding?

[Webster]

I´m not kidding anyone with that post. Very sorry if I my question is that stupid....
Yes, I read the SH4 requirements:

recommended sys:
WinXP/VISTA
DirectX 9.0c
Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon, 3 GHz
2048 MB RAM
DirectX 9.0c Grafics with 256 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 2.0

but this doesn´t help me - Why do you think I am kidding?


nothing to be sorry about so no worries but untill we actually see what the specs really are for sh5 we cant say for sure whats really good enough.

your specs are:
AMD Phenom 9650 quad-core 2,3 GHz,
ATI Radeon HD 3650 512 MB
4 GB RAM
Vista 64 Bit

so i would have to believe you are fine with that system but your video card is really weak compared to todays cards so that would be my only upgrade recommendation for you even though it might run sh5 ok just like it is.

[maerean_m]

your specs are:
AMD Phenom 9650 quad-core 2,3 GHz,
ATI Radeon HD 3650 512 MB
4 GB RAM
Vista 64 Bit
The video card (3650) is not that good. I believe it would struggle with maximum details in 1280*1024.
The rest is really good value.

[Tarnsman]

The main thing Ive found in re performance and longevity in a system is the Front Side Bus. I got a 3.2mhz PIV running a 800fsb and it only cost me a few months and a few extra dollars over the 533mhz fsb. Im so glad I got it I cant tell you. My single core rig is still competitive after 3+ years,with Gpu upgrades.

A limited fsb will be a bottleneck on the cpu, ram, gpu everything. So next rig will be 1600mhz fsb for me.

[JU_88]

I still have a Core duo E8500 which isnt too bad, I really see no need for a quad core just yet.

Have 4GB Ram, but im on Win xp which can only handle 3GB :-/
Trouble is, I really really HATE Vista, it a horrible OS!
Im wating for Windows 7, and even then I'll set up a duel boot with XP on another partion or drive.
(while they patch up 7)

For graphics I have a 9800GT which is (lol) a rebagded 8800GT - they are the EXACT same card,
I knew this when I purchased it, but it was still rather rather Decpetive of Nvdia none the less.
Any way, Im thinking of upgrading to '200' Series card around Christmas.

[gdogghenrikson]

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.

maybe the devs should fix that! :haha:

[Arclight]

No, no they shouldn't. :O:

[fallenyggdrasil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by WEBSTER http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1166732#post1166732)
your specs are:
AMD Phenom 9650 quad-core 2,3 GHz,
ATI Radeon HD 3650 512 MB
4 GB RAM
Vista 64 Bit

The video card (3650) is not that good. I believe it would struggle with maximum details in 1280*1024.
The rest is really good value.



Ok, let´s say my budget is very low at the moment, but I really would like to upgrade my video card.

I thought of buying a Radeon 4670 with 1GB DDR3 as I could afford it. Would this be a good choice as replacement for the 3650?

[kapitan_zur_see]

Ok, let´s say my budget is very low at the moment, but I really would like to upgrade my video card.

I thought of buying a Radeon 4670 with 1GB DDR3 as I could afford it. Would this be a good choice as replacement for the 3650?

It would, and speaking of SH5, would be far sufficient enough!
People that can already run SH4 very good, will have no that much trouble running SH5, it looks pretty similar so far and way behind tech demo FPS game such as crysis and the like. So if you can run quite decently enough the later, you will get very good fps count with SH5.

People shouldn't worry like that!!

[FIREWALL]

Any game company that says you need a Quadcore cpu to play their game better be....

Really sure of their audience or have the Balls of an elephant. :har:

[Webster]

Ok, let´s say my budget is very low at the moment, but I really would like to upgrade my video card.

I thought of buying a Radeon 4670 with 1GB DDR3 as I could afford it. Would this be a good choice as replacement for the 3650?


one of the devs had mentioned the target specs for sh5 were 8800gt or equal with 512mb onboard video ram was what they wanted to be the base minimum card to run sh5 on high settings with very reasonable fps rates.

but if i were you i would wait until sh5 is released an you know for sure, the price of video cards will be getting steadily cheaper as well so its a win win if you wait. after all another 5 months wont matter and there is no real reason to rush out and buy something in advance.

[Jimbuna]

one of the devs had mentioned the target specs for sh5 were 8800gt or equal with 512mb onboard video ram was what they wanted to be the base minimum card to run sh5 on high settings with very reasonable fps rates.

but if i were you i would wait until sh5 is released an you know for sure, the price of video cards will be getting steadily cheaper as well so its a win win if you wait. after all another 5 months wont matter and there is no real reason to rush out and buy something in advance.

Agreed http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[U-5000]

I just had a quad-core 9400 built with a Asus P5n72-T motherboard with 3 way SLI ,but only had a 1 gig card Geforce GTS 250 put in at the moment. has a built in audio card which sounds great. Only able to hear my sound through my headphones can't seam to get my sound through my speakers, at the moment going to have it checked out. Anybody have any answers. Ran the Bench Mark test with a 512 video card and scored 13200 score on it 3dMark06

[Webster]

I just had a quad-core 9400 built with a Asus P5n72-T motherboard with 3 way SLI ,but only had a 1 gig card Geforce GTS 250 put in at the moment. has a built in audio card which sounds great. Only able to hear my sound through my headphones can't seam to get my sound through my speakers, at the moment going to have it checked out. Anybody have any answers. Ran the Bench Mark test with a 512 video card and scored 13200 score on it 3dMark06

on my gigabyte mobo there is a hi-def audio sound controller and a regular sound controller and they are completely seperate so you switch to the one you want.

i would check your audio control panel to select the correct speakers but also check you have the right jack plugged in and maybe your bios is set wrong.

i never had one on a video card before so maybe it needs to be plugged into the mobo to work right

[cappy70]

Everything depends,,everythings depends, on what "line" of PC usage you're crossing.:hmmm:

If you cross; like I always have been doing, the 'gamers' line, then a Mid range system can kinda look like this; Intel i7-940, 4 GB Corsair DDR-3 1333 memory, 500Gb HD, Geforce GTX 295. (This is by the way a take out from what PC Gamer thinks is a mid range system, but they are pretty "head-on"):up:
Now this is for the gamer, a mid range in that world might not be mid range in the world of let say a musician or photoshop guy, where huge amount of memory is important and other factors are less important to them compared to a gamer.

My experience with computer/PC gaming since 25 years back is just to balance the system to a stable level and you can run pretty kicked up.

....on the other hand a PC can never be too:arrgh!::arrgh!: big,,,

[Arclight]

That's not midrange, by any standard. GTX295 was top of the line, effectively "enthousiast", for some time. i7 is high end as well. :-?

[cappy70]

This is a highend card.
PNY VCQFX5800-PCIE-PB Quadro FX5800 4GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 SLI :D

[Webster]

This is a highend card.
PNY VCQFX5800-PCIE-PB Quadro FX5800 4GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 SLI :D


will someone please tell those idiots at nvidia to stop using the same damn numbers all the time?

the last 5800 card i had was a 128mb agp version lol, i dont think they still make it the same way today :har:

[cappy70]

Soon there will be so many # that it will take a computer to read them out loud:rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Webster]

if they just stop using hundreds and thousands then start with #10 or even #100then go 1 number or 100 at a time.

they would never run out of new numbers that way but thats too easy to do i guess :O:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

LOL!

No way in hell you'll run SH5 with a 9600gt and all graphic options checked! You'll need a 260gts or better, depending on what resolution you want. If you have a 22" LCD monitor, you better buy a 260 or 270gts, 1gb, to run it all maxed out. But if you dont mind running it in 1024x768 all option in "medium", a 9600gt will do the trick.

With 4gb ram you'll play it, and don't worry about CPU... the game will suport multicore CPU, so anything above 2.4ghz Dual Core will do. Any Quad Core or I7 will have power to spare.

And you bet you'll need around 10gb of free disk space.

@Cappy70, QUADRO videocards are for 3D rendering, and not for games. They wont run SH5.

[TDK1044]

I think you'll find SHV will play very nicely on most mid range rigs. The only people who will have issues will be people currently playing SH4 on a mid range rig with a 256MB video card. SH5 will require a 512MB card.

[cappy70]

:arrgh!:Yes,,I know the Quadro's are Cad/Rendering mainly,,but I do have to differ though on one thing; They can run games,with right drivers ( and I think the one guy using the PNY Quadro is gaming on it) just that about $2600 is waaaay up there for a game/s, one doesn't need it .....(yet).:D:D:D

(Hmmmm,,what does the text read below my pic? My japanese is for the moment somewhat "weak"..:)

[onelifecrisis]

My projected configuration to run the game very well (with all graphic options enabled, in 1280*1024) is:
dual core at 3 GHz (quad core is appreciated but not mandatory)
2 gb of ram
nVidia 8800 GT 512mb (ATi 4850 512mb)

512mb on the video card is a minimum to play the game with every option checked. We're trying to make the game to fit into 256 mb of video memory (with the lowest settings).



Assassin's Creed was created by a completely different studio with a completely different engine. Those requirements are caused by the fact that their main target is the Xbox 360.

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.

The game will run on Windows 7, even the 64bit edition.

:rock:

Thanks for posting that.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

IMHO...

No way in HELL you'll be able to run the game with 2gb ram, in satisfatory conditions. It's a pain even to run SH3 with 2gb ram, using vista. Actually, to be honest, forget running any 2009/2010 game in vista with 2gb ram, its just a headache.

And the videocard performance matters more than VRAM, speaking in terms of graphical options you'll want to enable ingame. In another words: a 1gb 9600gt will run the game crappier than a 512mb 250gts.

Based on what I've seen from other games, from what SH3 and SH4 uses from computer performance, and from those screens, I would go for 6gb ram if you're using Vista/7. I'm not even sure if SH5 will support XP, probably not. And most likely, SH5 can be purelly DX10.

Of course, ubisoft can choose to make such option ranges enough for you to run SH5 with a 7800gt, 1gb ram and a simple dual core processor, but when it comes to run it all maxed out, in a 1680x1050 (which most people use nowdays), in a very satisfatory framerate, Im sure the nvidia 9 series wont manage to do it, neither 2gb ram.

If you think about the jump on system requirements we had from SH3 to SH4, it was huge. And don't forget, SH3-SH4 interval was shorter then SH4-SH5. Based on today's avaliable hardware and the pictures/videos from SH5, I'd say its much likely they'll push the limits of nowdays hardware, when running the game with all graphical options maxed out.

But, too soon for worring about changing rigs. Let's just wait for the game to be released, and possibly try to run it on what we have right now, so we can have a better idea on what to buy, what not to buy. Plus, by doing that later on, we'll have better hardware for a lower price.

:up:

[Arclight]

Not sure where you're getting that from, but it strikes me as wildly inaccurate. :-?

Not run on XP? I think it's pretty safe to say it will run on XP.
6GB RAM is totally unnecessary, it's limited to 2GB max by the OS anyway. 2GB will do fine, but 4 will be better.
DX10 is not mainstream enough for them to not enable the game to run in DX9.
I think SH5 will run fine on a 8800/9800GT, medium settings @1280x960 or comparable widescreen resolution.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Thats why I said, at the beginning of the post, "IMHO".

What I've said was based on all 2009 games I've tested. SH5 is going to be released in 2010.

You can be right, tho. They can decide to release a more machine friendly game.

But based on what I've seen in this year so far... 2gb? nope!

[cappy70]

If you take 'Crysis' for example that game was made so much ahead ,at that point in time regarding hardware, so it still give some setups trouble running even at a highend level,but at the same time it was still backward friendly enough so you could get a good game experience even on a fairly low-level PC.

Now that said SH5 (of course pure guessing here) will probably be made backwards-compatible friendly, but still with enough horsepower in the graphic-engine-department, that if somebody want to "choke" their PC, "be my guest" so to speak.

No softwarehouse/publisher want to completly cut any part of hardware/software market out of the equation that is still in "mainstream-mode".
So I think that DX9 will be the start level and then the sky is the limit....:D
The Gb? well...I think it will be 1GB minimum and 2GB recommended,,and if you have more,the better of course....:D:D

[Philipp_Thomsen]

I agree with you.

But so far all I posted is in reference for a post of someone saying what should you have to play the game with all graphical options maxed out, in a good resolution.

Im sure you`ll be able to run the game in mild conditions and slow framerate in avarage computers, yes. But come on, decent computers are cheap these days.

And what`s the point in saying that you can get 25fps in your computer while in 1x tc? Nobody plays the patrol at 1x tc. If you don`t get a good processor and ram, you wont be able to go into a decent tc, making the patrol REALLY boring.

Unless of course that you're already retired and have all the time in the world.

(tc = time compression)

[TDK1044]

Ubisoft's definition of a mid range rig and the definition that a hard core gamer would use are two totally different things.

As I understand it, SHV is being optimized to be more efficient than SHIV, and 2 GIGs of RAM will run it perfectly smoothly. A dual core processor at 3 GHz running with a mid range 512MB video card will also run the game smoothly... at the lower end of the screen resolution scale (1280 X 1024)

Ubisoft knows that about 90 percent of the people who purchase this game are not members of Forums like this, and they are not going to upgrade their computer in order to play it. So in order for Ubisoft to make money, the specs for this game will be a little higher than SHIV, but not radically higher.

Simple as that really. :)

[cappy70]

Yes exactly, a lot of people will not upgrade a computer just for one game and/or hardcore gamers upgrade in "cycles"...so if Ubisoft want that extra "tji-ching" they must balance the game so that when it the shelves, anybody with a setup that is "normal", i.e. the average PC one finds at your local mall:D:D, will be able to run the game.:ping:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Agreed.

Except that the avarage pc nowdays is dual core, 4gb ram, geforce series 7 and above.

At least everybody I know have that sort of computer. Which is pretty normal, based on nowdays computer prices. You can get that configuration for $500 or less.

I might be wrong, but I think its kinda high hopes to think you'll run the game satisfatorily with 2gb ram.

I explain why.

They said the recommended settings to run SH3 was 512mb ram. Im having trouble running with 2gb. Sure we have add lots of mods and such, but still.

They said SH4 was based on SH3, an improvment. They also said SH5 is based on SH4. Unless it have a new spetacular code that is able to use the computer in a MUCH MORE reliable way. If they really improved the code, yes, 2gb ram will do. If they don't, and if you're running vista, and if its basically an improved version of SH4, I bet my ass that you won't be able to run it satisfatorily with 2gb ram. Ram makes such a difference nowdays. Its useless to have a good processor and a good videocard if you dont have enough ram. The computer will start using the pagefile, and we all know how things get sloooooowww when that happens.

[Webster]

a big thing with your systems ram is the opperating system you use,

xp uses 512mb ram just to run it so your 2bg ram = 1.5gb usable ram.
(when used with a 1gb video card this would be ok but not for highest settings)

vista/win7 uses 1gb ram just to run it so your 2gb ram = 1gb usable ram.
(when used with a 1gb video card this would be bare minimum for running on low settings)

so xp users should be ok with 2gb ram as long as they have a 1gb video card but 4gb would definately be much better for sure especially since ram is so cheap now.

vista/win7 users have no real choice because 1gb usable ram isnt enough so vista users "have to" have 4 gb ram and 6 or 8gb is my choice for vista.

i would say a good 90% of people who build their own computer or have one built for them will still use xp and not go with vista or win7 but they also will most choose to go with 4gb ram unless its a dedicated gaming rig.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

I really don't see any reason why don't go for vista.
Soon softwares wont support XP anymore.
Considering that changing OS is cost zero for most people.
Vista is so much better then XP.

[darkone999]

Hi all..been lurking here for a while..here is a good site to check charts and stuff for cpu,video cards,etc..(http://www.tomshardware.com/us/) hope its ok to post link..I run a AMD athlon 64x2 duel core 5600+ with 4gig ram and 8600gt with 256 meg ram(I oc video card gpu about 140mhz and memory about the same) 750 gig sata2 HD..I use win xp with sp2..I run all the latest games on medium settings even crysis.....the only thing here i will need is a new video card like 9600gt with one gig of ram.Tiger direct is selling them for about $100.00 usa money..I should be set for another year or two then..Anyway check the site above you may be surprised to find the duel cores do great at gameing my amd athlon 64x2 5600+ out preformed several of the higher priced quad core cpu's on the gamring front..My point here is do some research and save some money..

Tim

[darkone999]

The thing to remember is windows XP is fine with duelcore cpu when it come to quadcore u need vista or win7..Here is what I would do.. if like me u still love window XP.

1.buy two drives and make one vista/win7 and the other xp..thats what I do.
-----or----
2.Make two partitions on one drive with one having vista/win7 and one with xp..

you then can use bios or software to pick what drive/partition u want to boot from.Its easy to do...

...philipp Thomsen... is right when it comes to gameing vista/win7 will out preform windows XP now and even more in the future..Vista/win7 are higher bit OS systems and they handle duelcore and the new quadcore and above cpu's like a charm...win xp is fadeing so us windows XP lovers will have to get used to it..

TIM

[Webster]

The thing to remember is windows XP is fine with duelcore cpu when it come to quadcore u need vista or win7..TIM


welcome to the forums, and we also welcome your opinions but whoever told you that was smoking something illegal lol

if a cpu is a 1 core, 2 core, or 4 core it doesnt matter what operating system you use.

cpu's and motherboards are matched, motherboards and ram are matched, but operating systems and cpu's have nothing to do with each other and never did and never will.

you might see a difference in speed but thats because vista/win7 is a ram hog and is slower than xp with the same amount of ram not faster so maybe if you said vista "needs" a quad core so its not so slow then i might go along with that idea but not that you need vista to use a quad core.

i've been running a quad core on xp for 5 years so is it going to blow up tomorrow? :har:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

But have you been using XP 64 bits?

If not, you're taking just half the speed ur processor can generate. So each core is working at 50% capacity tops.

Thats why I think vista is better. Cos vista 64 rulez, while XP 64 sucks badly.

[Adriatico]

if a cpu is a 1 core, 2 core, or 4 core it doesnt matter what operating system you use.

cpu's and motherboards are matched, motherboards and ram are matched, but operating systems and cpu's have nothing to do with each other and never did and never will.

you might see a difference in speed but thats because vista/win7 is a ram hog and is slower than xp with the same amount of ram not faster so maybe if you said vista "needs" a quad core so its not so slow then i might go along with that idea but not that you need vista to use a quad core.

i've been running a quad core on xp for 5 years so is it going to blow up tomorrow? :har:

Win7 ( Dx11 ) should be better for Quad core utilisation, according to announcements...

"Essentially, it enables DirectX for the first time to actually make full use of multiple cores and multiple program threads, without developers having to employ a kind of flagging technique to accomplish it. The best illustration of this I've found is a beautiful rendering test by game developer Rory Driscoll (http://www.rorydriscoll.com/2009/04/21/direct3d-11-multithreading/). Here, after explaining why DirectX's existing multithreading support can actually slow processing down due to the crazy way it handles scheduling, Driscoll demonstrates how the new architecture lets game developers plan out a more sensible schedule of rendering threads, with some "immediate" and others "deferred," with DX11 marshalling the distribution of the sequence automatically."

[Webster]

you might see a difference in speed but thats because vista/win7 is a ram hog and is slower than xp with the same amount of ram not faster so maybe if you said vista "needs" a quad core so its not so slow then i might go along with that idea but not that you need vista to use a quad core.



making better use of the quad core is not the same as saying you need to have vista to use a quad core :shucks: , thats my only point

[JU_88]

While Vista is a bit of a resource hog, Windows 7 is much more effcient.
remember that Vista and Windows 7 do have one distinct advantage over XP, they can cope with larger amounts of RAM
I have 4GB in my system, but as far as XP is concerned I only have 3! (It can only handle 3GB) :damn:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Has nothing to do with Vista or XP.

Has to do with being 32 or 64 bits.

Any 32 bit OS will only support 4gb total, including your vga mem.

Any 64 bit OS will support 17.2 billion gb. Yes, BILLION.

A 64 bit OS can do whatever a 32 OS can do, only better, including hardware usage.

I don't see ANY reason why to stick with a 32 bit OS.

I have a computer in the living room to run blu-ray movies I download. The computer is plugged into a Sony Bravia 40", which is 1920x1080 resolution. The sound is 5.1. When I first tried out, it had Vista 32 installed. The video sometimes would get choppy, and the audio was absolutly choppy, you couldnt distinguish a word. I thought I would need a faster processor and more ram, but after installing Vista 64 in the same computer, it runs all the movies and encodes audio 5.1 on-the-fly like a charm, with the processor usage always below 25%. Same computer, only different OS.

If the new SH5 can take advantage of a 64 bit OS (and probably will), and if you have a 32 bit OS, any software you install won't be able to use the 64 bit capability of your processor, hence not running at full cpu capacity. What's the purpose on buying a V8 if you will disable 4 cilynders as soon as you get home?

[vedrand]

...

The game will run on Windows 7, even the 64bit edition.

Is there any reason to believe this will not be the case? I am asking because I want to order the game but not until I am certain about the 64bit part!

[cappy70]

Most new games that at least go back some years ( 3 - 6) run 90% of the time "no problems" on Vista, due to the "x86 Folder" ( I'm simplifing explantion here on purpose) where the game install like a back compability in the Vista enviroment.
Now, if it runs in Vista it will run to 99,5% in Win 7.:salute:
For example; see the Nvidia drivers in 64-bit that has the same v. numbers in both Vista and Win7 versions.

So bottomline: Be sure that SH5 will run just fine in Vista or Win7.
I think this will be the "easy" back compability, that it will run just super on both Vista and WIn7 32 bit or not and/or 64 bit or not.:woot:

Now, 32 bit and/or 64 bit will be another storyline when it comes to taking advantage of what hardware and usage of the enviroment where the hardware operates. The more games that hit the shelves, (read:"newer releases" ) will of course take more and more advantage of the 64-bit enviroment and handling.:ping:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Come on... we are talking about ubisoft here.

Of course they will use mutiple cores and 64 bit architeture.

If there is any game on the planet that really needs the 64 bits, its sh5.

Its just too many things to process at 4096x tc.

[JU_88]

Games support 64bit now as the norm.
3 years ago getting most games to run on 64bit OS and drivers was a freaking joke! but alots changed since then...
I did not like Vista at all (having to purchase 32 & 64 bit licences seperately, WTF?)

I will by by Windows 7 in a few months and I will still keep partiton for XP (as i will likely need it for some legacy stuff.)

I am certainly not upgrading to quad core just for SHV, talk about 'overkill' - core duo will do just fine.
With games - if you got a cpu that matches the recomended specs on the box, the difference in performace between that and something in the high end is BARELY NOTICABLE.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/Far-Cry-2-1.0.1,1401.html

GPU and RAM far more important for gaming, but for high end 3d / video ending its totally different matter.

[Webster]

I have 4GB in my system, but as far as XP is concerned I only have 3! (It can only handle 3GB) :damn:


recheck your setup because i also have 4gb ram but xp home sees 3.5 gb on my system and it can handle and does make use of all 3.5gb of it.

if your system is only showing 3gb of 4gb ram then your ram or your system has a problem.

i dont know for sure about that last .5gb but people who sound smart and are supposed to know what they are talking about have told me xp still uses the other .5gb but its just not showing as being recognised.

according to them, while its true that xp can only handle 4gb max, it will only display that it sees 3.5gb of that 4gb so many people mistakenly believe thats all it can use.

none of this is all that important anyway because people will use the operating system they have. i never heard of anyone going buy a new operating system because some game needed it in order to work.

the only time you have to have a vista/win7 OS is if you want to run over 4gb ram and the full use of quad cores is silly because NOBODY will ever use the full ability of dual cores so the notion you need access to all 4 cores output is silly. but just because we dont need or use all the power from a v8 doesnt mean we dont still have to have one when we go buy a new truck.



when it comes to dual core vs quad core cpus: (to use the v8 vs v4 example)

well games barely use half of a dual cores ability now (if that even) so that dual core is like the v4 and is more than any game will ever use so my quad core is like a v8 when games can be run on half the power of a 4 cylinder so my quad will never be touched by the game and its never going to get used fully any time soon or in the next 5 years. quads are great for multitasking and running software apps but for gaming they arent any super duper improvement over dual cores.

i bought a quad myself because it was cheap and fast but the "gaming" aspect isnt why i bought it.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

There's a big difference between WORKING on 64 bit and SUPPORTING 64 bit.

So far the only game I saw running in 64 bit was Crysis.

[JU_88]

recheck your setup because i also have 4gb ram but xp home sees 3.5 gb on my system and it can handle and does make use of all 3.5gb of it.

if your system is only showing 3gb of 4gb ram then your ram or your system has a problem.

i dont know for sure about that last .5gb but people who sound smart and are supposed to know what they are talking about have told me xp still uses the other .5gb but its just not showing as being recognised.

according to them, while its true that xp can only handle 4gb max, it will only display that it sees 3.5gb of that 4gb so many people mistakenly believe thats all it can use.

none of this is all that important anyway because people will use the operating system they have. i never heard of anyone going buy a new operating system because some game needed it in order to work.

the only time you have to have a vista/win7 OS is if you want to run over 4gb ram and the full use of quad cores is silly because NOBODY will ever use the full ability of dual cores so the notion you need access to all 4 cores output is silly. but just because we dont need or use all the power from a v8 doesnt mean we dont still have to have one when we go buy a new truck.



when it comes to dual core vs quad core cpus: (to use the v8 vs v4 example)

well games barely use half of a dual cores ability now (if that even) so that dual core is like the v4 and is more than any game will ever use so my quad core is like a v8 when games can be run on half the power of a 4 cylinder so my quad will never be touched by the game and its never going to get used fully any time soon or in the next 5 years. quads are great for multitasking and running software apps but for gaming they arent any super duper improvement over dual cores.

i bought a quad myself because it was cheap and fast but the "gaming" aspect isnt why i bought it.


Do you have a 512mb video card? if so thats why.
I had the same with my 9800GT now i have a gtx 275 (890mb)
xp shows mr RAM as 3.2GB
As for weather a 32bit OS only reports 4GB max - or will not use more than that, I have heard mixed interpretations of it, though I have come to belive that it is the latter of the two.

[Arclight]

P_T, there are so many inaccuracies on this page it's impossible to correct them all without my head exploding. :doh:

For example; 1) running a 32-bit OS doesn't effectively halve your CPU speed. 2) Dispite theoretical support for an astronomical amount of memory, actual support is a lot lower. 3) Win7 is a lot less of a resource hog than Vista, regardless of what version you're running (matter of fact, 64-bit systems need more memory for the same operation).

Imho you're misleading or misinforming a lot of people. :-?

[Philipp_Thomsen]

P_T, there are so many inaccuracies on this page it's impossible to correct them all without my head exploding. :doh:

For example; 1) running a 32-bit OS doesn't effectively halve your CPU speed. 2) Dispite theoretical support for an astronomical amount of memory, actual support is a lot lower. 3) Win7 is a lot less of a resource hog than Vista, regardless of what version you're running (matter of fact, 64-bit systems need more memory for the same operation).

Imho you're misleading or misinforming a lot of people. :-?

What I meant to say is that a 64-bit application running in a 64-bit OS will be twice (or more) faster then a 32-bit application. So far we don't have many applications in 64-bits, but its going to change in 2010. So far, all the 64-bit applications I've tested, perform absurdly faster then the 32-bit version. Take Winrar for instance.

So, what is the actual memory support in 64-bit os?

And yes, 64-bit OS uses more memory to do the same thing. But considering today's memory prices and application needs, which is better? To have 12gb and 64-bit OS, using the double amount of memory for the same application, or having 3.5, or 3.0gb ram, with 32-bit?

I'd dare to say that 2010 holds some very good surprises for 64-bit users.
And its obvious that instead of buying a better processor to be able to run something, its better to invest in 64-bit for the future, since applications will start using this 64-bit plataform better, taking the true performance out of it. Videogames had a HUGE leap in performance once their processor was changed from 32 to 64 bits. But if we don't have applications to take the use of it, how the hell will we be able to see the difference? Once we have every single application we use in 64-bit, people will begin to notice the difference.

SH5 may not take use of 64-bit architeture. But I really hope it does. I'll be pretty upset if they (dev) don't make the game take full advantages of something that EVERYBODY already have in their homes: a 64-bit processor. Of course, it will depend on people having 64-bit OS too. But what's the point in sticking with 32 if 64 will run anything aswell?

[Arclight]

Going from 32 to 64-bit isn't like flipping a magic switch that makes everything twice as fast; it highly depends on the application. Not every operation benefits from a 64-bit architecture. Compiling can see a boost of 500 or 600%, while everyday stuff liking browsing the web sees no benefit at all.

There are speed gains to be had, but saying everything suddenly is twice as fast is just plain wrong.

Actual support depends on the hardware; I'm running a 64-bit system, but the board can't handle more than 16GB (which is the case with most consumer boards).

When I said 64-bit uses more memory, I meant a little bit, not 2x as much. :lol:




I agree that it's a bright future though, but a problem I see is the fact a lot of companies supply 32-bit OS with their systems. You only get a 64-bit one if you buy one of their higher end PCs. 32-bit is still "mainstream", which is why I think SH5 will be 32-bit, though it certainly would be nice to see a 64-bit .exe as well (like Crysis).

Not sure it will improve anything though, Crysis actually performs worse when I run it in 64-bit, not to mention the fact it crashes every 5 mins ,while I played through several times without a single crash on 32-bit system. :-?

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Crysis 64 performance worse!?!?!

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

Scroll down the page.

About memory...

"I believe the answer is more fundamental:

64 bit numbers are twice as big as 32 bit numbers and therefore consume double the memory.

each 32 bit reference costs 4 bytes, 64/8 = 8 bytes. An OS maintains a lot of references.

the 64 bit architecture is faster because of the extra core registers and the increased size of the base registers. (registers are the fastest storage in a cpu)

32 bits processors have to do a lot of 64 bit math and they do it inefficiently."

Quoted from a Vista research site.

Although I don't think he's 100% right. It may allocate the double memory for its references and pointers, but that does not mean its going to use all of it. Vista 32 loads up with 700-800 mb ram, while Vista 64 loads up around 1.2gb ram.

[Arclight]

Just telling you my experience with Crysis, was a bit surprised myself. Keep in mind though it's on a Win7 "beta" OS with drivers that were designed for that beta OS. :-?

I noticed they had to come up with a work-around to keep it from locking up; like I said it's terribly unstable for me when running the 64-bit .exe, maybe I'll give that fix a try sometime (if I ever get round to it, way too much to play at the moment :lol:). :salute:



Not too sure about the memory thing, but I think just some data types are larger. But I guess it depends on how the OS handles it, I dunno. :doh:

Reminds me a bit of allocation size for HD or stripe size on RAID array, wonder if it works the same way. :hmmm:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

:DL

Don't worry, Im not fighting you... Im having a nice conversation!

Kinda puts a smile on my face when I see you replyed to the topic... :up:

But back to the topic... YOU'RE WRONG AND IM RIGHT!!! :arrgh!:

When I had Crysis some time ago, I always used the 64bit executable and never had problems with it... never crashed or locked.

[Webster]

let me offer some links that speak directly to the 32 bit vs 64 bit question:

What’s the difference between 32-bit Windows and 64-bit Windows? (http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2009/01/07/32-bit-vs-64-bit-windows/)

A Closer Look at 32-Bit vs. 64-Bit Windows (http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709)

How to determine whether a computer is running a 32-bit version or 64-bit version of the Windows operating system (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/827218)

The difference between 64 and 32 bit processors (http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/windowsxp/articles/581/1/The-difference-between-64-and-32-bit-processors)

Differences and Advantages Between 32-bit (x86) VS 64-bit (x64) Windows Vista (http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/06/04/differences-and-advantages-between-32-bit-x86-vs-64-bit-x64-windows-vista/)

As was stated earlier in the thread, the max ram your system will display depends on your hardware configuration so very often we can see a slightly different number on our own computer than on someone elses, see more about it in the link below.

How To Know Your System's Maximum RAM Usage And The Issue Of Windows XP Not Recognizing Full RAM Capacity (http://www.megaleecher.net/Windows_XP_PAE)

[JU_88]

Going from 32 to 64-bit isn't like flipping a magic switch that makes everything twice as fast; it highly depends on the application. Not every operation benefits from a 64-bit architecture. Compiling can see a boost of 500 or 600%, while everyday stuff liking browsing the web sees no benefit at all.

There are speed gains to be had, but saying everything suddenly is twice as fast is just plain wrong.

Actual support depends on the hardware; I'm running a 64-bit system, but the board can't handle more than 16GB (which is the case with most consumer boards).

When I said 64-bit uses more memory, I meant a little bit, not 2x as much. :lol:




I agree that it's a bright future though, but a problem I see is the fact a lot of companies supply 32-bit OS with their systems. You only get a 64-bit one if you buy one of their higher end PCs. 32-bit is still "mainstream", which is why I think SH5 will be 32-bit, though it certainly would be nice to see a 64-bit .exe as well (like Crysis).

Not sure it will improve anything though, Crysis actually performs worse when I run it in 64-bit, not to mention the fact it crashes every 5 mins ,while I played through several times without a single crash on 32-bit system. :-?


^^This is spot on :up: (Apart from the bit on Crysis which I have never played)

[Philipp_Thomsen]

lol...

everybody is aiming at thomsen...

[prowler3]

Regarding system specs and SHV.

My new system I consider pretty "hefty":
Windows XP Pro (SP2, 32 bit)
ASUS Rampage Extreme x48
Intel C2Q 9650 3.0ghz
4gb OCZ RAM
BFG GTX260, 896mb
(C:720, S:1480, M:1220, mhz)
SoundMAX X-fi
ASUS VW266H lcd flat panel

And, yet, I still find performance to be "less than I expected" with older sims I use, namely SH3+GWX3 and FS9. FS9 always runs at my FPS "lock" of 40...but AI aircraft textures load slowly, when there is a lot at a busy airport. this causes a "stuttering" effect as the textures come into view (say, as I'm turning into the runway and the main terminal, and all those AI, come into view). SH3+GWX3 causes the exact opposite...no stuttering but a drop in FPS, especially when the lame AI TypeIX is sitting there, not really diving, while the escorts and armed merchants just fire away at it as I approach (or even look in the direction of) the convoy that is "dealing with" the Type IX. I've even had system freezes while viewing this rather silly drama...since resolved by dropping the OC somewhat.

I'm guessing FS9 and SH3 use 2 different graphics engines and this leads to the different "issues" I see. More importantly, I've always been under the impression that newer games would have their graphics and computing "needs" optimized, and be better able to use the computing power of newer systems.

My point is this...after seeing the less than stellar improvements in the older sims I've mentioned with this new machine...I'm a bit worried that something like SHV will be even worse for me? I don't play any newer stuff...I'm a simmer, through and through, and I won't try FSX (Eye-candy over everything else) as it does nothing for my simming. I have no "new" game to compare my performance with.

I'm obviously no 3D or computer guru so I speak in very general terms.

Vic

[kiwi_2005]

The new minimum specs are as follows:
Quad core 3,5GHZ
8GB DDR RAM
2GB Video card 512bit 1200 core clock and 2200 clock speed

Wulfmann

Had me fooled there for a second. Those are the min specs! Oh noes i wont be able to play SH5!!! :oops:

[Arclight]

:DL

Don't worry, Im not fighting you... Im having a nice conversation!

Kinda puts a smile on my face when I see you replyed to the topic... :up:

But back to the topic... YOU'RE WRONG AND IM RIGHT!!! :arrgh!:

When I had Crysis some time ago, I always used the 64bit executable and never had problems with it... never crashed or locked.
Didn't try to pick a fight, I'm just a smartass. :oops:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/th_interwebswrong-11.jpg (http://s268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/?action=view&current=interwebswrong-11.jpg)
The whole 64-bit thing is making my head spin though.
(Thanks for the links Webster, forgot the OS can (or rather; Windows does) limit the max amount of memory as well. :up:)

I guess I would describe the difference as; the possibility to move twice as much data around, but how much this benefits a given application depends on the type of application.


Think I'll have another look at Crysis this weekend, I had kinda given up hope. :hmmm:

[JScones]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/th_interwebswrong-11.jpg (http://s268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/?action=view&current=interwebswrong-11.jpg)

:rotfl2:
Just saw this - it's PRICELESS!!!
:rotfl2:

FWIW I'll just wait until SH5 is released. Once I install and run it, then I'll determine whether I need to update and if so what I need to update. It's just not worth stressing about at this time.

[JU_88]

:rotfl2:
Just saw this - it's PRICELESS!!!
:rotfl2:

FWIW I'll just wait until SH5 is released. Once I install and run it, then I'll determine whether I need to update and if so what I need to update. It's just not worth stressing about at this time.

:haha::haha:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

[quote=Arclight;1195687]Didn't try to pick a fight, I'm just a smartass. :oops:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/th_interwebswrong-11.jpg (http://s268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/?action=view&current=interwebswrong-11.jpg):rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::ro tfl2:

Best picture ever... so true!

[kptn_kaiserhof]

my rig is up to date mine is as follows:

2.79 ghz processor cpu - i 7

8gb ddr3 ram

1010 watt power supply

2x pioneor 32 speed dvd-rw roms duel layer roms

x58 motherboard

vista ultimate 32 bit -self modded

66cm tv -moniter

[Philipp_Thomsen]

You won't be able to run SH5 with that rig.



You need a videocard! :P

[JU_88]

You won't be able to run SH5 with that rig.



You need a videocard! :P

Yeah - Depends on graphics Card which he doesn't seem to mention.
The rest looks fine.

[kptn_kaiserhof]

oh ps guys i forgot to mention my video card


1gb ati radeon 4870

[Webster]

my rig is up to date mine is as follows:

2.79 ghz processor cpu - i 7

8gb ddr3 ram

1010 watt power supply

2x pioneor 32 speed dvd-rw roms duel layer roms

x58 motherboard

vista ultimate 32 bit -self modded

66cm tv -moniter

oh ps guys i forgot to mention my video card


1gb ati radeon 4870


well it all looks ok but sh5 was supposed to be needing a 512mb 8800gt card minimum to run the game on moderate to high settings so a new card wouldnt be a bad idea since they always seem to underestimate what you really need.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Don't worry, Kaiserhof, you'll be able to run SH5 in low settings with that computer!

:up:

[Lopo]

Hi, I'm running Windows XP sp3, Intel Core Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz, 3.25 RAM, Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT. Which video card will be necessary to play SH5 in high settings? Thanks for answer Take care

[Webster]

Hi, I'm running Windows XP sp3, Intel Core Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz, 3.25 RAM, Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT. Which video card will be necessary to play SH5 in high settings? Thanks for answer Take care

i have almost the exact same rig and was assured by the devs i will run sh5 just fine on low to med settings and on high i will have minor reduction in fps.

mine rig is a Win XP, Q9550 @ 2.83GHz, 3.5 RAM, Nvidia 8800 GT 512mb (i just upgraded from the Q6600)

i was told by the devs that you want 8800gt or equal in a 1gb video card for using high settings without slower fps

but as i also said in the other post they always seem to under estimate what you really need so....

[Lopo]

i have almost the exact same rig and was assured by the devs i will run sh5 just fine on low to med settings and on high i will have minor reduction in fps.

mine rig is a Win XP, Q9550 @ 2.83GHz, 3.5 RAM, Nvidia 8800 GT 512mb (i just upgraded from the Q6600)

i was told by the devs that you want 8800gt or equal in a 1gb video card for using high settings without slower fps

Thank you. I will ask for Christmas a ATI R4890 TURBO... Take care

[Webster]

Thank you. I will ask for Christmas a ATI R4890 TURBO... Take care


you might try to sell your 6600 and move up to the 9550 like i did, its only $250 and you should be able to sell your 6600 and get $100-150

what i did was give my dad the 6600 and completely upgrade his P4 ide hdd computer into a quad core sata hdd computer for around $400 and upgrade my cpu at the same time so if you are creative you might be able to work out a simular sales pitch :salute:

so in order to justify me getting a new cpu i built pops a new computer, but at least i know he got what he needed this xmas

[Lopo]

you might try to sell your 6600 and move up to the 9550 like i did, its only $250 and you should be able to sell your 6600 and get $100-150

what i did was give my dad the 6600 and completely upgrade his P4 ide hdd computer into a quad core sata hdd computer for around $400 and upgrade my cpu at the same time so if you are creative you might be able to work out a simular sales pitch :salute:

so in order to justify me getting a new cpu i built pops a new computer, but at least i know he got what he needed this xmas

You have got a good idea. I'll see what I can do here. For information a ATI HD5770 with 1Gb costs less than 200$ in Switzerland. So, i will think...
BTW, thanks for all

Take care

[spiksy]

is this enough


pentium 4 3.2 ghz @ 3.6 ghz 800 LGA 775
i945gzm-s2 mbo
2x 1 gb ddr 2 800 mhz memory
GIGABAYTE GeForce GTS 250 512 mb ddr 3
200 gb HDD
chieftec550w PSU



I am running silent hunter 4 on max 1680x1050 and i get arround 50 fps
Would this game require much of a CPU speed

i am asking because my video card could handle it but cpu is very sensitive and bottlenecking

[Philipp_Thomsen]

is this enough


pentium 4 3.2 ghz @ 3.6 ghz 800 LGA 775
i945gzm-s2 mbo
2x 1 gb ddr 2 800 mhz memory
GIGABAYTE GeForce GTS 250 512 mb ddr 3
200 gb HDD
chieftec550w PSU



I am running silent hunter 4 on max 1680x1050 and i get arround 50 fps
Would this game require much of a CPU speed

i am asking because my video card could handle it but cpu is very sensitive and bottlenecking

Not sure about the CPU, but you'll be able to at least run the game.

SH5 might require a dual core.

[Webster]

here are your game specs straight from the devs:

Originally Posted by maerean_m http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1155576#post1155576)
My projected configuration to run the game very well (with all graphic options enabled, in 1280*1024) is:
dual core at 3 GHz (quad core is appreciated but not mandatory)
2 gb of ram
nVidia 8800 GT 512mb (ATi 4850 512mb)

512mb on the video card is a minimum to play the game with every option checked. We're trying to make the game to fit into 256 mb of video memory (with the lowest settings).



Originally Posted by YukonJack_AK http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1155217#post1155217)
If I were to make a couple of educated guesses:
I'd say minimum Quad-Core CPU (it was the recommended for Assassins Creed)...
Minimum of 4.0GB of RAM (WIN7 is lighter - assuming SH5 is WIN7 ok - but Assassins Creed recommended 3.0GB and ran like crap)...
And a video card with at least 256MB (but I'd recommend at least a 512 or better... of a decent GPU... no bargain-bin OpenGL crap)
Assassin's Creed was created by a completely different studio with a completely different engine. Those requirements are caused by the fact that their main target is the Xbox 360.

Silent Hunter has nothing to do with the Xbox 360.

The game will run on Windows 7, even the 64bit edition.

[darkone999]

WEBSTER..thanks for pointing out my error...Windows xp does support quadcore cpus...It did sound like I was saying it wouldnt on XP..My point was vista and win7 along with future games and apps will operate quadcores better than xp..

Software/OS does play a big roll in how well ur PC uses duel and quadcore cpus..here is just one of several articals from microsoft.............
----------------------
From microsoft website
"Computers that are equipped with multiple processors that support processor power management features, such as Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) processor performance states, require Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). Additional updates are available to optimize performance and behavior on computers that are running Windows XP SP2. Without these updates, computers that are equipped with these power management-capable, mobile, dual-core processors may experience decreased performance or unexpected behavior.

Note This problem also applies to x64-based versions of Microsoft Windows Server 2003. However, this article and its associated private hotfix are not intended to resolve timing problems in games and other applications that run on AMD dual-core computers. For more information about performance issues on dual-core computers, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
909944 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/) (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/ ) (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/ ) Game performance may be poor on a Windows XP-based computer that is using a dual-core processor ...Game performance may be poor on a Windows XP-based computer that is using a dual-core processor.---------------------

here is the link to this artical...http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/
--------------------
Follow the link above for more info and links to hotfixes from amd/intel/microsoft for those useing windows xp and duel/quad core cpus....

...Not only does an OS such as windows xp effect the use of duel/quad core cpus so the does the apps/games you use...so in the end software and operating systems plays a major role in how well ur PC uses duel/quad core cpus....

hope this helps
Thanks
Tim

[Webster]

WEBSTER..thanks for pointing out my error...Windows xp does support quadcore cpus...It did sound like I was saying it wouldnt on XP..My point was vista and win7 along with future games and apps will operate quadcores better than xp.


yea im sorry for saying it the way i did, i had to go back and reread it to remember the post and my comments to you look like im being carcastic, i say things the wrong way sometimes so i offer you an apology for that.

its amazing how when your trying to get your point accross, if you mix up a few words here or there or say things in the wrong order the whole meaning of what we say can change the way people understand it.

thanks for adding the info too, it helps everyone to understand it better including me. :salute:

[Zieker]

Lots of great input Submates !

Personally I enjoy playing at maximum graphic settings... Still using the same liquid cooled system from Q4 2008...

9550 Quad @3,604 MHz (overclocked)
PC Power & Cooling 750 Quad
Asus Rampage X48
4GB DDR ll (Mushkin)
X-FI Gamer Sound Card (Creative Labs)
ATI 4870 X2 (crossfire)
52x DVD/Litescribe (Samsung)
1 TB SATA ll HD (Samsung)
:yeah: