sh5 game specs straight from the devs

[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).

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




just to clarify, he wasnt saying it needs windows 7 to run but only that it will be able to run on windows 7

NOTE: this info is all we have to go on as the last word about the game specs straight from the devs but there is no way to be certain they might change this without telling us.


this info has been out there for a while but for some reason the question keeps coming back up so i figured this thread will help get the word out to those who missed it.

[Barman]

Looks like I might want to upgrade my CPU then. Thanks for the info Webster :rock:.

[looney]

I should be able to run it WOHOOO

now only hope it turns out to be a propper sim

[longam]

I bought my dual core with the intention of slapping a quad in it down the road, so this might be the time.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Can you update hardware in laptops?

[FIREWALL]

Can you update hardware in laptops?



You can do anything.... If you have enough MONEY. :haha:

[karamazovnew]

I hope my GTX 275 and 2.4 GHz quad won't fail me :haha:. So far I've played all games on max settings (with no AA). I plan on playing it on 1920x1200. By the way, who plays games at 1280*1024?!

By the way, since this is a game spec thread I'd like to ask something. In SH3 and SH4 all of the 2D graphics were tailored for a 1024x768 resolution. This made some items look bad when stretched to 1920x1200 (such as the periscope backgrounds) and I guess it even forced the devs to disable scaling for most of the items, thus making them very small at high rez. Will the minimum texture resolution in SH5 be for 1280x1024? Or will the textures and 2d graphics have multiple resolutions? And if so, will they give us a simple tool to make modding the interface simpler (I mean the graphics files)?

[Schultz]

I think my configuration will do just fine, there's no need to change it or make an upgrade
ASUS P5Q-PRO
INTEL E8500 3.17 GHz
A-DATA VITESTA EXTREME 4 G
ASUS 4870
WD 640

[Lord Justice]

confirmed what i had read before, no flapping from me. thanx:rock:

[Akula4745]

I'm good to go... let's rock! :rock:

[Wintahs]

I hope my GTX 275 and 2.4 GHz quad won't fail me :haha:. So far I've played all games on max settings (with no AA). I plan on playing it on 1920x1200. By the way, who plays games at 1280*1024?!

By the way, since this is a game spec thread I'd like to ask something. In SH3 and SH4 all of the 2D graphics were tailored for a 1024x768 resolution. This made some items look bad when stretched to 1920x1200 (such as the periscope backgrounds) and I guess it even forced the devs to disable scaling for most of the items, thus making them very small at high rez. Will the minimum texture resolution in SH5 be for 1280x1024? Or will the textures and 2d graphics have multiple resolutions? And if so, will they give us a simple tool to make modding the interface simpler (I mean the graphics files)?

I play games at 1024x768!

[karamazovnew]

I play games at 1024x768!

I can't imagine life without a 24 inch screen. :oops: The next screen I'll buy will be a 30 inch Led TV. Great image, superb contrast and smoothed image even at low fps... My folks have one but don't want to share :wah:

[Akula4745]

I play games at 1024x768!

You should try 1280 x 960 just once... makes a big difference on the plotting table to me. (I was originally at 1024 x 768)

[Schultz]

I have a 22" inch LCD screen

[Hylander_1314]

Cool! My rig should handle it.

QX9650 Quadcore Core2 Extreme 4 cores @ ~3.00 ghz
Two 8800 GTS 512s in SLi
8 Gigs of SLi ready ram
EVGA 780i mobo
Vista x64 bit os
500 Gig Hard drive x 2

Thinking of upping the video cards to the 260 or 275 series x 3 in SLi just to be on the safe side.

Hope it doesn't have AA issues that SH4 has. It would be nice to go higher than 4x and not lose things like the halo around the sun.

Hmmmm, I wonder if anybody figured that one out? :hmmm: Forgot to look into that one.

For those looking into widescreens, be sure to check the specs carefully, as my HannsG 28 inch is nice, it only runs 16 bit, so things look blotchy to some degree, like shading and shadows and hi-lights.
Trouble was the specs didn't list everything, like color support. I found it at the manufacturers website, and was a bit let down when it said the monitor supported 16 million colors. So even if you set your vidcard(s) to run at 32 bits, it won't help if the monitor won't.

All in all though, I think I'm going like this one. The last one I really really liked, was the old Dynamix AOTD. I think I still have cd buried away somewhere. Still in the original case. I'm suprised the case lasted. That one went through 3 hard drives before I switched to XP.

[PL_Andrev]

Do you notice that SH5 will be operating on the same engine as the SH4? This means that the developers will not used DX11+ computer graphics. This is good news, because UBI must create better playablity and allow to use SH5 on slower machines (great!)...

[kptn_kaiserhof]

my monitor is a 66cm tv

[THE_MASK]

Wasnt those specs before they had the what size memory poll.

[Webster]

Wasnt those specs before they had the what size memory poll.


at about the same time or right before it


they never said anything about making any changes so this is all we have to go on as the last word about it straight from them but i'll add a note of caution to the thread.


NOTE: this info is all we have to go on as the last word about the game specs straight from the devs but there is no way to be certain they might change this without telling us.

[papa_smurf]

Looks too like i'll be going the Quad Core route.

[karamazovnew]

Quad Core is like so yesterday... :|\\

Gonna ask my sugar daddy for this: http://www.nordichardware.com/news,8126.html

[Zugfuhrer]

Hello,

I have a i7 920 Do overclocked to 3.2Ghz 6 GB Ram and GTX275. I feel that this would be fine. What do others think?

[tomfon]

Do you think that an ATI 4650 1Gb will do fine?
And what about the X1950GT 512Mb? Thats the card i have on my desktop computer.

[Webster]

guys, just look at the specs listed

if your hardware is equal to it or newer than whats listed then you should be fine


no one will ever know for sure exactly what you "have to have" untill the game comes out anyway

[tomfon]

Agreed.
We'll see.

[Steeltrap]

Meh, trying to get it to run in 256Mb graphics? That's 4-5 year old technology FFS!

Bite the bullet....512Mb should be stretching to play on basic settings.

As an aside: As far as I know, if you don't have a 64-bit OS, there's no point in having more than 4Gb of RAM as the OS is limited to using about 2.9Gb. Even with 64-bit, there's no performance boost in going over 6Gb in 99.99% of cases. It's a way to save money, and that money is better spent on a higher graphics card. Similarly, high-end quad cores without high-end graphics cards (by which i mean 2 in SLI or XFire, or a dual chip single card) is a waste of money....you'll get bottlenecks in the video. People wanting to look at specs and builds etc can do a lot worse than spending a few hours in www.tomshardware.com

Cheers

[PL_Andrev]

Meh, trying to get it to run in 256Mb graphics? That's 4-5 year old technology FFS!

So what?

Bite the bullet....512Mb should be stretching to play on basic settings.

Hi-end graphic is not central point of game, especially in simulation game.
Take a look at the gaming market: almost all games offer advanced graphics ... but what of that, since 99% of the game is weak? After a week of playing this game is in the trash, and people have the impression that the money wasted. The center point of game is playablity and the developers forget about it.

Buy our hi-end graphical game: you need hi-end processor, hi-end OS, hi-end graphic card and your life will be better...
:rotfl2:

[Rothwell white]

With those specs i will have no trouble running SH5 :)

[Webchessie]

I knew that I had to replace my old pc when SH 5 comes out. She'll be towed out and sunk as an artificial reef. But I'm going to wait until the final game specs come out before I buy a replacement.

[Stealth Hunter]

A 3.0 GHz processor is stretching it a bit. If that is indeed the bar-none medium. Most computers still run on 2.4 to 2.8 GHz processors; 3.0 ones are almost always the incredibly expensive ones which have been overclocked- otherwise they're just incredibly expensive quad cores lol.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

A 3.0 GHz processor is stretching it a bit. If that is indeed the bar-none medium. Most computers still run on 2.4 to 2.8 GHz processors; 3.0 ones are almost always the incredibly expensive ones which have been overclocked- otherwise they're just incredibly expensive quad cores lol.

But you are forgetting something. Its 3.0ghz to run SH5 in a single-core cpu. If you have multi-core cpu, any frequency will do.

[PL_Andrev]

But you are forgetting something. Its 3.0ghz to run SH5 in a single-core cpu. If you have multi-core cpu, any frequency will do.

But you are forgetting something. The application must use multicores.

[cjbeattie]

hi

after seeing the new video i know a new card is needed ...

i wonder will this card run sh5 ok?

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/159579

its a ..
Inno3D 9400GT 1GB DDR2


any help would be great

cjb:03:

[Webster]

hi

after seeing the new video i know a new card is needed ...

i wonder will this card run sh5 ok?

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/159579

its a ..
Inno3D 9400GT 1GB DDR2


any help would be great

cjb:03:

i would never suggest you buy that card, for just a little more money you can get a much better 9800 card, i would take a 512mb 9800 card over a 1gb 9400, 9500, or 9600 card any day.


here is a reply i gave a guy who just bought a new computer and the guy who built it for him used the 9500 card

i wasnt saying or trying to imply that you need to or should go buy a new card. (only time will tell if it has issues running sh5 but i hope your ok there)

i only wanted you to better understand how your system builder guy (while he probably thought he was recommending a good card) didnt give you the best recommendation or choice on the card to use.

it was probably a misscommunication where the guy didnt realise there was such a big difference from the 9500 to the 9800 or maybe he just thought that you wouldnt be playing any games that needed a very good card.

depending on the individual the system builder may not "always" know the best hardware to use and sometimes they just use one or two setups that they know work well or they are able to get good deals on and they might make just one or two changes to customise it to fit the customers needs better.

chances are he might have been putting 9500 cards in all his computers unless the customer requests a better card or he just never felt you needed a better card then that.

all the 9000 series cards are just renamed 8000 series cards with more ram added to them so a 9500 is just the 8500 with a new name and more ram added.

to better see where your card stacks up, look at what came after it. here they are in the order they came out, after the 7000 series cards nvidia came out with the 8400 then the 8500, 8600, 8800, then the 9000 series came out but nothing was changed except that they added extra ram to the cards and changed the numbers and released the 9400 (a renamed 8400 with more ram), 9500 (a renamed 8500 with more ram), 9600 (a renamed 8600 with more ram), 9800 (a renamed 8800 with more ram), and then you have the 200 series cards after that which are the first really "new" cards after the 8000 series came out.

the lesson here is even when you turn things over to someone else you think is an expert, you should take the setup they recommend and get second and third opinions to see if you are better off making a few changes before you just go with what they recommend. after all hes just giving you a recommendation so swapping a few things around is no big deal and if there is some reason you shouldnt change something they will let you know why.

[karamazovnew]

A few months ago my good old 8800 UTLRA burned up at 120 degrees (Riva Tuner was off because of bloody Vista during a 40 degree summer day). I decided to stop eating for about a month and get an EVGA GTX275 for about 200 euros at that time. I've yet to lower my settings in ANY game and I hope that SH5 won't be any different. And I play at 1920x1200 (without AA since it's useless at that res, but with full AF). I never check the markets for new cards unless I buy a new PC or vista decides to stop my riva tuner service :damn:. Maybe there's something better out there for this buck, but these were my 2 cents :O:

[cjbeattie]

hi webster

thankyou for your help the cheapest 9800 i can find is 70 pounds...

i realise that the card i suggested isnt a power house but cash is a issue here so i guess i just take a risk and fingers crossed..

thank you for your advice though

:salute:

[Webster]

hi webster

thankyou for your help the cheapest 9800 i can find is 70 pounds...

i realise that the card i suggested isnt a power house but cash is a issue here so i guess i just take a risk and fingers crossed..

thank you for your advice though

:salute:

well i wish you luck but i think you might have issues trying to run sh5 on a 9400

i really really really wouldnt suggest you get less than a 9600 even if you have to get creative with your budget.

this is all just my opinion but i would think a 9500 would be the minimum you could run sh5 at normal settings with

[cjbeattie]

hi webster

i found a...

Inno3D 9500GT 512MB DDR2

for roughly same price... so i might try that one instead...

perhaps you are thinking that sh5 needs more power than it actually do's

my card now is crappy yet just about runs hl2 maxed out

i hope 9500 is better than 9400 for same price just 500 less ram...


9500gt 512mb :03::-?are any good?

[Task Force]

wounder how this with a e 8400 3 ghz and one of the upcomeing 300 series cards.:DL

[Webster]

hi webster

perhaps you are thinking that sh5 needs more power than it actually do's



one thing i learned with sh4 is that the specs they "claim" are good to run the game wont even let you play it on the lowest settings without the occassional CTD. sh4 makes crysis, HL2, and FEAR look like a lightweight games compared to the computer resources that you need to run them.

i am assuming ubi is not telling the truth again and whatever they claim you need is only half of what you will really will need. so when they said you "need" a 8800gt with 512mb video ram to run the game well on medium high settings, i assume that means that card will be the bare minimum you need to run the game at its lowest settings.

in your case you dont have the money to buy another card if this one doesnt run the game so i would say dont buy anything untill you know for sure. let others tell you if their cards run the game and then you will know what to buy.

you dont have money to waste and if you buy a card only to find sh5 runs like crap on it then your stuck with it. waiting is your best option to be sure you buy what you need to run the game.

[Task Force]

I think sh4s issue might have been in the engine/codeing... I understand if I had a S*** load of ai on the screen, and the like but out at sea with just the sea,and yer boat... you should be getting much higher FPS... I dont understant the HUGE fps drop I got from SH3 to SH4... I got well over 100FPS in but under between 70-25FPS in SH4...

[Webster]

I think sh4s issue might have been in the engine/codeing... I understand if I had a S*** load of ai on the screen, and the like but out at sea with just the sea,and yer boat... you should be getting much higher FPS... I dont understant the HUGE fps drop I got from SH3 to SH4... I got well over 100FPS in but under between 70-25FPS in SH4...

i'm not real sure how it all works but i think its because it continues to generate everything everywhere even if your not seeing it so 90% of the stuff its generating and contriolling is for no practicle use to you untill it gets within your range so its running the whole world while you only need the area your in

[Sgtmonkeynads]

So what?

Hi-end graphic is not central point of game, especially in simulation game.



So if ShVI came out and was 100% historically correct, and had all the real life weather patterns, moon phases etc..ect..but had the graphics of an Atari 1700, you would be OK with that?

[cjbeattie]

ok thanks webster

btw is the Inno3D 9500GT 512MB DDR2 much faster than the 9400? i have read mixed reviews.. some saying its fantastic and some saying its crap...

i will restrain from now buying one and wait until you guys say how it runs on your systems..

i have 3 gig of ram

and athlon 64x2 4000+ whatever that is:hmmm:

i hope also once i get my card that will be enough..

now its a waiting game ! u guys better report quickly how your rigs handle sh5 !:doh:

thanks for your help if I'm honest i hope SH5 looks like the pics do on medium,Im happy to play it in medium settings as long as the actual simulation is up to scratch...medium will do me i hope :) as i think the bulk of us are after a the actual sim :) not eye candy

Cjb:o

ps.. as for halflife 2 i map with the source engine and i for one can tell you its very system heavy corridor based engine (even more so when bloom is used) .. as in i can run flight sim X nearly maxed out and i still struggle to do that with Halflife 2 on same system .... overhyped if anything i think the Source engine is but everyone seems to love it lol so shhhhhh be quiet :)

my mod if your interested using source engine:-

http://www.thegate.half-lifecreations.com/pages/gate2homepag.html

and on mod db - http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-gate-2

[Arclight]

one thing i learned with sh4 is that the specs they "claim" are good to run the game wont even let you play it on the lowest settings without the occassional CTD. sh4 makes crysis, HL2, and FEAR look like a lightweight games compared to the computer resources that you need to run them.

i am assuming ubi is not telling the truth again and whatever they claim you need is only half of what you will really will need. so when they said you "need" a 8800gt with 512mb video ram to run the game well on medium high settings, i assume that means that card will be the bare minimum you need to run the game at its lowest settings.

in your case you dont have the money to buy another card if this one doesnt run the game so i would say dont buy anything untill you know for sure. let others tell you if their cards run the game and then you will know what to buy.

you dont have money to waste and if you buy a card only to find sh5 runs like crap on it then your stuck with it. waiting is your best option to be sure you buy what you need to run the game.
To be fair though, it's the devs that gave us the specs, not the suits. It's true that the minimum specs given for a game ussually yield a painfull experience, but if Dan&Co says you should get decent performance on a 8800GT, I trust them on that. :yep:

I've got a 8800GTS 512, and I'm not worried in the least. It runs the latest games perfectly fine, and it's just 1 "step" above a 8800/9800GT.

But yes, best to wait and see. Maybe I'm completely wrong and you're completely right. :)

[PL_Andrev]

So if ShVI came out and was 100% historically correct, and had all the real life weather patterns, moon phases etc..ect..but had the graphics of an Atari 1700, you would be OK with that?

Not exactly, but you have right.
For example in multiplayer games:
the old SH2/DC games are better than SH4 ADV mode.

"Historically correct, and had all the real life weather patterns, moon phases etc, etc" are nice but only additions.
The center point is playablity, not graphics or "historical accuracy".

[Webster]

To be fair though, it's the devs that gave us the specs, not the suits. It's true that the minimum specs given for a game ussually yield a painfull experience, but if Dan&Co says you should get decent performance on a 8800GT, I trust them on that. :yep:

I've got a 8800GTS 512, and I'm not worried in the least. It runs the latest games perfectly fine, and it's just 1 "step" above a 8800/9800GT.

But yes, best to wait and see. Maybe I'm completely wrong and you're completely right. :)


im very opinionated but that doesnt mean that i know what im talking about lol, i do have strong reservations about telling anyone who is buying a video card for sh5 to use any video card less than the 8800gt 512mb or better that the devs mentioned they designed the game for.


i have the 8800gt 512mb so im right there on the button so just like you im hoping they are correct but as far as not worrying, im a little worried i might see some slow fps at times but i hope not because i have no budget to upgrade my card.

i never like telling someone anything about what specific card they would need or should get because then i might give bad advice ... :06: after all i dont think anyone knows for sure.

i agree with you in that we can definately trust the devs more than the suits but they (the devs) sometimes arent allowed to tell us everything so things could have changed since they told us that.

[Arclight]

Now you got me worrying too. :lol:

The thing in the back of my mind is that SH has a fairly small audience; it's not in their best interest to have a requirement exceding a 8800GT: they would force half their market to upgrade. Considering the wait-and-see attitude of a lot of people that got burned by SH-woes in the past, they would be commiting suicide (or rather, murder the series).

The problem of course is that these kind of decisions aren't always made by sensible people. :-?

Still, if the suits make the calls, a primary focus is revenue. I have at least some :shifty: confidence even they understand the situation.



And you're right; telling anyone what specific card is best for them is impossible. What I know is that the $100,- bracket is the bang-for-buck bracket. Go lower, and you get only half the card for 2/3 or even 3/4 of the price. Imho that bracket is the minimum if you want to play your games "as intended". Anything above is a matter of preference and exactly how much someone has, or wants, to spend. :-?

*sigh* fingers crossed. Let's hope Dan's predictions are on target. :-?

[Lord Justice]

im very opinionated but that doesnt mean that i know what im talking about lol, i do have strong reservations about telling anyone who is buying a video card for sh5 to use any video card less than the 8800gt 512mb or better that the devs mentioned they designed the game for.

built a good few rigs, played a few demanding sims, but iam with webster on this one, no painc but for my individual concerns i see lots of movement inside sub, and of course all the stunning pictures, as for actuall combat scenarios to what volume of traffic will be facing? how much action ubove and beneath, the elements, etc, na not taking any chances, myself personally nothing below a 1gb fairly fast card. by no means want my card screaming on high settings, i never do, but just for an extra days wage etc complete peace of mind, dont want sticking, and all the crap, errors etc. ok the devs have said their bit, but remember flight sim X ?? struggling frame rates, black patches appearing on screen on low settings etc, classic example of underestimated system requirements. :hmmm:

[TDK1044]

A 3.0 GHz processor is stretching it a bit. If that is indeed the bar-none medium. Most computers still run on 2.4 to 2.8 GHz processors; 3.0 ones are almost always the incredibly expensive ones which have been overclocked- otherwise they're just incredibly expensive quad cores lol.

Mihai is only stating 3.0 GHz processor because that is required in order to achieve maximum time compression in the game.

[ichso]

Maybe I missed this point while reading this thread, but does SH5 fully support multi-core CPUs ?

3.0GHz processors aren't any expensive anymore btw, even the 3.2GHz aren't. At least not as dual cores. But the quad cores aren't that much more expensive either.
Would be great to finally see their power fully used by upcoming games.

[TDK1044]

Maybe I missed this point while reading this thread, but does SH5 fully support multi-core CPUs ?

3.0GHz processors aren't any expensive anymore btw, even the 3.2GHz aren't. At least not as dual cores. But the quad cores aren't that much more expensive either.
Would be great to finally see their power fully used by upcoming games.

My reading of Mihai's quote below is that multi-core CPUs are supported.


"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)"

[Sky999]

Hummm I'm not 100% sure I will be able to play this...

Manufacturer - Dell
Model - XPS XPS_420
Rating: 5.9
Proccessor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz 2.33GHz
Memory (RAM) -4.00 GB
System type: 32-bit operating system
ATI Radeon HD 3870

Maybe getting Windows 7 64 bit would help?

[VirtualVikingX]

Sky, I have the same machine. Its easy to upgrade this CPU to 3 Gigs. Just google it.

I have upgraded my original card (same as you I think) with an GTS250. Works great, I think.

EDIT: Sorry, I have the q6600. FOr info check this link: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=546760

Question: Isnt the screen resolution posted in the first post kinda low, and in 4:3?

[Herz]

I'm reasonably assured I'll be able to run it. My dual core can handle anything! :yeah:

64-bit is recommended for everyone. Glad to see it'll support Windows 7 as well. Love this OS!

[PL_Andrev]

I'm reasonably assured I'll be able to run it. My dual core can handle anything! :yeah:

64-bit is recommended for everyone.

:rotfl2:
Yeah, especially that almost all applications are 32-bit...
I see that MS advertisement department is working for his salary.
:D

My old machine works very good on old, good XP.
OEM license give me no choice: new OS only if new computer.
So, I will wait to Win8/Win9... or SH6+DX11
:haha:

[kapitan_zur_see]

:rotfl2:
Yeah, especially that almost all applications are 32-bit...
I see that MS advertisement department is working for his salary.
:D


eheh, you're damn right ;)
There's but a handful of softwares that makes use of 64 bits, so as for now, it's a bit useless for your everyday users. Mostly a bunch of "artistic" software truly uses it and takes benefits of this architecture. Handy if you're an 3ds max user or things like photoshoping or sound/music editing. That kind of thing... Will takes some time for gaming industry to move to 64 bit

[Arclight]

The only direct benefit to any user is the ability to use 4GB RAM properly. Apart from that, 64-bit doesn't offer much to the average user.

Sky, the first and perhaps only thing I'd look to replace is the graphics card. Maybe the CPU would struggle with high TC, but I'd wait and see how it runs first. ;)

[Sky999]

The only direct benefit to any user is the ability to use 4GB RAM properly. Apart from that, 64-bit doesn't offer much to the average user.

Sky, the first and perhaps only thing I'd look to replace is the graphics card. Maybe the CPU would struggle with high TC, but I'd wait and see how it runs first. ;)


TC?

[Arclight]

Time compression; speeding up time during gameplay. The higher you go, the more demanding it is on the CPU. ;)

[Sky999]

The only direct benefit to any user is the ability to use 4GB RAM properly. Apart from that, 64-bit doesn't offer much to the average user.

Sky, the first and perhaps only thing I'd look to replace is the graphics card. Maybe the CPU would struggle with high TC, but I'd wait and see how it runs first. ;)

I would wait but Christmas is the best time of the year to buy something I suppose.

Also March is a long time to wait personally.

[Arclight]

Nvidia should be coming out with their new series before SH5 release, could see price-cuts across the boards for both camps.

But if it has to be now, a 9800GT or HD 4770 would make a good choice (the Radeon being a bit faster). Below that, and you get a lot less bang for the buck. Anything above you'll need to decide for yourself. ;)

[kptn_kaiserhof]

i have one of the latest i7 pcs with 6gb ram and a 4870 radeon

will this run sh5

[Arclight]

Only if you deposit a respectable sum in my bankaccount. :O:

Yeah, that should do nicely. ;)

[Kaleun_Endrass]

i have one of the latest i7 pcs with 6gb ram and a 4870 radeon
Poser... I would think you can play SH5 and watch fullHD movies at the same time with that rig.

[Lord Justice]

Poser... I would think you can play SH5 and watch fullHD movies at the same time with that rig. Indeed, a repository of wisdom, by our learned member. When one posts hi tech stats and plays dim, it craves a desire of smugness.:03:

[Task Force]

Poser... I would think you can play SH5 and watch fullHD movies at the same time with that rig.

lol... Will SH5 use DX11? I hope it will...

[Reece]

One has to wonder if there will be poorer game performance on my XP Pro, since it's 32 bit and although I have 4gb only 3 is actually used!:hmmm:

[Arclight]

lol... Will SH5 use DX11? I hope it will...
It's not on the list of announced games to use DX11, so my guess is: nope.

Hardly anyone has the hardware for it anyway.
One has to wonder if there will be poorer game performance on my XP Pro, since it's 32 bit and although I have 4gb only 3 is actually used!:hmmm:
Good question. :hmmm:

Something we'll only find out when it's released, I'm afraid.

I have both Win7 64b and Xp 32b installed. Might as well make a performance comparison when the time comes.

[PL_Andrev]

lol... Will SH5 use DX11? I hope it will...

And I hope - not.
:DL

Serious: SH5 is designed for XP or Vista so will not support DX11 and probably not DX10/10.1 (M$ not supports DX10+ for XP). :down:
3 GB RAM is more than games need today - first: XP is still more popular than others and second: low-advanced next OS (Vista, W7) are 32-bit too - they use only 3.2GB RAM max.

But relax, nowadays the thin throat is power of GPU: you need card with about 500 GFLOPS (with 512MB) efficiency for standard resolution or 1000 GFLOPS (with 1024MB) for HD (I suppose) to play full detal SH5...

[Webster]

lol... Will SH5 use DX11? I hope it will...

where would you get a dx11 card?

theres only a couple out there and those cost a bucketload of money and because of that nobody buys them.

add to that the fact that they are all out of stock because nobody wants them on there shelves taking space away from cards people actually will buy.

im not saying dx11 wont be great but its like having a tv before they invented electricity so what good is it?

[longam]

im not saying dx11 wont be great but its like having a tv before they invented electricity so what good is it?

Considering how fast they pump out the next level up of GPU, CPU and Buss Speed, I would bet that you would take advantage of DX11 in the next year or two.

I bet the DEVs don't have DX11 cards, but a bunch of people will have DX11. Windows 7 :up:

[rsslcs]

What do you guys think to my rig? Will my CPU cut it (juuust)?

E5200 2.5ghz
9800GT 1gb
4gb Kingston hyperx RAM 800 mhz
ASUS P5SD2-VM mobo

[Task Force]

It should cut the mustard...:yep:

But I am saying... like some games, I wonder is sh5 will support DX 9/10/and 11... Ex crysis supports DX9 and 10 but 9 just is missing afiew DX10 effects...:yep:

[rsslcs]

Thanks, that's a relief. :)

And BTW, some games have beenpatched prior to release to enable DX11, maybe that might happen with SH5. I can't see any use for it though.

[Arclight]

DX11 games are in development, and some have already been released. I know DiRT2 uses it, and comes bundled with most of the 5000 series cards. ;)

[PL_Andrev]

True that SH5 needs 10k+ card (at 3DMark06) for light and volumetric effects, but...

Are you sure that SH5 REALLY needs DX10+ ?
:o

I don't think so... this is not 3D shooter.

[Leif...]

where would you get a dx11 card?

theres only a couple out there and those cost a bucketload of money and because of that nobody buys them.

add to that the fact that they are all out of stock because nobody wants them on there shelves taking space away from cards people actually will buy.


Nobody buys them? The most powerful single GPU card there is and you think nobody wants them, well think again. They are selling like cupcakes.

[Arclight]

True that SH5 needs 10k+ card (at 3DMark06) for light and volumetric effects, but...

Are you sure that SH5 REALLY needs DX10+ ?
:o

I don't think so... this is not 3D shooter.
Need? Nothing needs DX10.

But from what I've seen I think it's a DX10 engine.

There's a few optimizations in there (ie DX10) to take load of the CPU and GPU. Particularly offloading the CPU is important for SH.

[Lord Justice]

There's a few optimizations in there (ie DX10) to take load of the CPU and GPU. Particularly offloading the CPU is important for SH. Sir Arclight, how do you do? With regard to DX10 or DX11 engine i cannot contrive an answer, i have no understanding on the subject, and to be sure sir, you know this matter much better than i. That said, there is a point i wish to clarify, if i may. Taking the load of the CPU and GPU ? Yes agreeably so, with single, core 2, and the older quad systems. As for the new x58 exp chipset, support 1336 socket i7 one begs to differ. No fsb, QPI = increased bandwidth = shorter route = rapid data transfer rate, between cpu and memory controller, thus giving system bus up to 6.4gt/s and max bandwidth up to 25.6 gb/s. Adding to that the turbo boost tec stabilizing, and managing the workload of all cores. X58 chipset mobo also supports up to 36pci express 2.0 lanes. providing better graphic peformance. Therefore off loading no longer comes into play with said modern tech, higher end market. As for DX11 (ENGINE) i will be investing on the sapphire 5870 for its use and future proof. sorry if i came across as foolhardy. Its certainly not my intention to ransack ones post, on the contrary, it caught my eye and thought it my prerogative, to aid in anyway as you do so consistently. :salute: thankyou. :up:

[Arclight]

I'm fine, as far as possible in this world we have today. How is life treating you? :)

I don't mind any form of comment or remark, my aim is to provide accurate information for others. If I fail at this, I wouldn't want it to go uncorrected. ;)



Perhaps offloading is not the proper term. This is what I was getting at:

Fixed pipelines are being done away with in favor of fully programmable pipelines (often referred to as unified pipeline architecture), which can be programmed to emulate the same.
New state object to enable (mostly) the CPU to change states efficiently.
Shader model 4.0, enhances the programmability of the graphics pipeline. It adds instructions for integer and bitwise calculations.
Geometry shaders, which work on adjacent triangles which form a mesh.
Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.
Predicated Rendering allows drawing calls to be ignored based on some other conditions. This enables rapid occlusion culling, which prevents objects from being rendered if it is not visible or too far to be visible.
Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one

Any system, no matter how fast, has a limited number of resources. A number of those technigues allow for similar or better results while using less resources.

The technigue highlighted in bold above is a nice example: by cutting the CPU out of the loop, it's free to do other things. And no matter how high bandwith the paths are connecting components, there's always a bit of latency to deal with, no matter how small.

I hope this is a clearer explanation. :salute:

[Lord Justice]

I'm fine, as far as possible in this world we have today. How is life treating you? :)

Perhaps offloading is not the proper term.

Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.

Any system, no matter how fast, has a limited number of resources. A number of those technigues allow for similar or better results while using less resources.

The technigue highlighted in bold above is a nice example: by cutting the CPU out of the loop, it's free to do other things. And no matter how high bandwith the paths are connecting components, there's always a bit of latency to deal with, no matter how small.

I hope this is a clearer explanation. :salute: Sir Arclight, Iam doing well, thank you very kindly, glad to hear everything is fine for you.
Now sir, with your permission i shall continue. For your explicit input iam much obliged. Use of the term offloading, it matters not. Texture arrays, without cpu intervention i believe would be indeed very minimal within the modern higher specs, my point. As for lower spec systems, (is a worthy mention and factor), to the casual user with low and mid range hardware ie cpu and ram, looking for higher end card. Latency, i made no refrence to, but accept as i did state on bandwidths, Although was more direct toward cpu bandwidth speed using QPI, on board memory controller, data transfer rates, not so much the lag with actual ram. :) One needs light speed Herr Kaleun. You add to this forum with dilligence, and precision. Thank you it has been a privilege, by your leave sir.:salute:

[HMS Astute]

I'll be fine :)

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz x4
2X 2GB DDR 800 Ram
Nvidia Geforce 9800GT 1024MB

[VirtualVikingX]

I have a quad core @ 3ghz. (OCed Q6600 I think), 6 Gb ram and a GTS250.

Any thoughts on the GTS250?

It runs FSX quite well. The low resolution set forward in the OP worries me. Its low on modern LCDs.

[theluckyone17]

What resolution are you running?

Plainly put, I'm running a 9600GT right now... monitor's native resolution is 1440x900 (19" WS).

The 9600GT should come awful close to giving me the performance I want in SH5. If it doesn't, that GTS250 is going to be my choice to replace it.

[Arclight]

I have a quad core @ 3ghz. (OCed Q6600 I think), 6 Gb ram and a GTS250.

Any thoughts on the GTS250?

It runs FSX quite well. The low resolution set forward in the OP worries me. Its low on modern LCDs.
GTS250 = 9800GTX+

Should be fine. :yep:

[VirtualVikingX]

Thanks guys! Wasnt trying to be smug or anything. Its just that the GTS250 isnt excactly "top of the pops". Good to know. I am restricted by my DELL PSU. (XPS 420)

@Arclight: What/where is that perscope picture from?

@lucky: For now 1680x1050. I am upgrading to a larger monitor soon. Guess the norm now is 1920 x something.

PS: Is quickreply available on this forum?

[Arclight]

You mean the sig? SH4, think with PE4. Scanning for prey off the Japanese shores. :)

It's hard to say what the norm is, if there is one, considering these "modern" flatpanels have fixed resolutions. For my trusty CRT, 1280x960 is the norm (next step up is 1600x1200). That's 1.228.800 pixels: I guess something comparable is the norm for LCD. :doh:

As for quick-reply, I think that's only available for PMs and visitor messages on your profile. :hmmm:

[Steeltrap]

where would you get a dx11 card?

theres only a couple out there and those cost a bucketload of money and because of that nobody buys them.

add to that the fact that they are all out of stock because nobody wants them on there shelves taking space away from cards people actually will buy.

im not saying dx11 wont be great but its like having a tv before they invented electricity so what good is it?

Hmmm, I just bought a new rig with an ATi Radeon HD-5970 card.

My bad, I guess....

[Webster]

Hmmm, I just bought a new rig with an ATi Radeon HD-5970 card.

My bad, I guess....

yes, since i posted that i was bombarded with my mistake, the ATI 5000 series is dx11 but when you have a preference for nvidia and you only look at those cards its easy to make the mistake i made in thinking they werent out yet

i have my eye on a 5770 just in case my card has trouble with sh5 because im not spending over $200 on a card but i think my 8800 will be ok

thats one heck of a nice card you got with it :up:

was it a 2gb? i see they have some of those now too

[Arclight]

Prices on those range from €470,- to €617,- over here. :o

You can buy an average desktop or laptop for 600. :nope:

And all of the models available are 2GB. :hmmm:

[Lord Justice]

Prices on those range from €470,- to €617,- over here. :o

You can buy an average desktop or laptop for 600. :nope:

And all of the models available are 2GB. :hmmm: Yes agreed, over here its around £550 pounds last time i checked, and they had none in stock, like i mentioned in another post going for the 5870, around £330 pounds, perhaps not sure if vapor x series attatched 2gb have to check up more as briefly viewed,as not planning to purchase until march and price drop. But Sir Arclight its crazy i know, the things we do to have a game run smooth near max settings yet at half cards capabilities, and nice temps in case. Its a big leap in card for me, but i see sh5 being a good one. If i hadnt sold my car recently i would not be spending this amount.:)

[Arclight]

5870 should come with 1GB; 5970 is a dual-gpu card iirc, so it comes with twice the memory (note however it still has 1GB effectively, that's just how SLI/CrossFire works).

Prices are retarded at the moment. ATI was having some yield problems with these chips (quite common issue after moving to new manufacturing process), and the enthusiasts are snapping them up where available. Prices should drop once availability gets sorted. :-?

Still not too sure about driver support though. :hmmm:

[Lord Justice]

5870 should come with 1GB; 5970 is a dual-gpu card iirc, so it comes with twice the memory (note however it still has 1GB effectively, that's just how SLI/CrossFire works).

Prices are retarded at the moment. ATI was having some yield problems with these chips (quite common issue after moving to new manufacturing process), and the enthusiasts are snapping them up where available. Prices should drop once availability gets sorted. :-?

Still not too sure about driver support though. :hmmm:Good day, Sir Arclight, read into alot about dx11 last night, one does hope sh5 has this offering, some of the images are astounding, i have a feeling this just might, as not released until march, still going for the 5870, not paying the extra 50pounds for the vapor x model though as no need to oc this card at all and have plenty cooling in my rig. as for the 5970 check again i think its just a single 2gb not 2 way. may have to remove one of my s flex 1200 rpm side case fans to squeeze it in. What you going for in march ?or you keeping present card? :)

[Arclight]

Howdy. :salute:

5970 is dual-gpu. :yep:

Single 2GB would be ridiculous imho; most people still have 512MB or less. Doubt any game out there would know what to do with it. :hmmm:



I'm sticking with this card untill it's warranty runs out, if I can. Not that it matters: took it apart 2 or 3 times to clean it and replace the thermal compound for something better. Darn thing just cost me enough to make me wanna stick with it as long as possible. Oh, and it still does a fine job, not entirely unimportant. :88)

And there's still the option to OC, now that you mention it. :hmmm: :D

DX11 offers more than eyecandy. I think the most important thing is further optimization for multi-core CPUs. Having a quad might finally give some more payoff. ;)


* :rotfl2:
Just looked it up; my warranty expires March 3rd. :lol:
Maybe a DX11 Nvidia if the price is right. :hmmm:
If the card starts to struggle. :yep:

[Lord Justice]

DX11 offers more than eyecandy. I think the most important thing is further optimization for multi-core CPUs. Having a quad might finally give some more payoff. ;)



If the card starts to struggle. :yep: try alot more payoff. Harmonious conjunction lol :up:

[THE_MASK]

I just thought of a great way to blow the dust out of my computer case .
http://huskynorth.biz/2/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/Leaf_Blower_4992f679519fb.jpg
It works a treat .

[Arclight]

It works a treat .
I bet it does! :rotfl2:
try alot more payoff. Harmonious conjunction lol :up:
I'm glad DX11 is being as well received as it is. With games on the way, and buying an OS with DX11 early next year, I think it would be "wise" to get the hardware as well. :hmmm:

That'll be my excuse for getting it, anyway. :88) :lol:

[Kapitanleutnant]

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).

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

Just how official are these specs? I'm thinking of buying a new machine while a lot of retailers have got sales on, but I'd hate to buy something based on this information only to find out the game is much more demanding in reality. :hmmm:

[Méo]

only to find out the game is much more demanding in reality. :hmmm:

Don't forget, mods usually make a game much more demanding too. :hmmm:

[Webster]

[/i]

Just how official are these specs? :hmmm:


well as the thread title says, maerean_m is one of the sh5 devs so who should know better than him?

that said, things could always change by the time the game actually gets released.

[DaveU186]

Running a 2.7 dual core with 2GB of RAM at the moment, and a 256MB Radeon X550 that doesn't even cope with SH3 properly.

I'm looking to put together a system on PC Specialist with a 2.6GHz quad, 4GB of RAM, and a 1GB card.

I shall prevail. :arrgh!:

[Laffey]

Great my computer Can run this game although not at highest graphics but close to it

[Terragon]

Running on a laptop now, and I'm going to have to keep going on a laptop for personal reasons.

Laptop I'm looking at is a ASUS G50VT:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo
2mb Cache
4GB DDR2 RAM
NVIDIA 9800 GS 512MB Card
Vista Home Premium

Shouldn't have a problem, but then I wonder if I can run it decently on my current system:

ACER Aspire 4520

AMD Athlon 64x2 @ 1.8 Ghz
512kb Cache
NVIDIA GEFORCE 7000
4GB of RAM
Vista Home Premium

I don't need the game turned all the way up, I just want to be able to play it at a decent framerate.

Can I?

[Arclight]

You mean GeForce 7000M? No, that's not going to get it running smooth... or at all, for that matter. :)

* even 9800M might be a bit light for SH5. :hmmm:

[Terragon]

Holy hell, that's a lot of money to fork over for mediocre performance. But I want to have a laptop for decent money.

I can build a rig with comparable specs with less money, but I need portability. Crap.

[Arclight]

With laptops you always end up paying for portability instead of peformance. :(

Purely specifications wise, it's lower clocked than a 9600GSO but has a 256-bit memory bus like a 9600GT. I think a 9800M might run it at medium, more likely low to medium-low. Not bad for a laptop, but pretty pricey indeed. :yep:

[Lord Justice]

:oops: laptops, = sigh =:yawn: blow the ballast san. :rotfl2:

[captziggy]

My computer can run COD modern warfare 2 at the highest settings,so it should run SH5.I have a AMD Phenom11 720 triple core black edition running at 3.6GHz,4 gigs of 1066MHz memory,8800GT OC video card,and 550 watt power supply. My moniter resolution is 1920 X 1080. Hope this helps someone to benchmark the game.

[Webster]

as stated in the first post all that really matters is you will need:

3ghz dual core cpu (which should equal a 1.5ghz quad)
2gb ram (but 4gb is what i expect you will really need)
a 4850 or 8800gt or better video card with 512mb of onboard ram (but 1gb of onboard ram is what i expect you will really need)

if you have that, it "should" be good enough to run the game on minimum settings or maybe medium settings if you have 4gb ram and 1gb onboard video ram.

now the only way to judge what you will really need for high or even max video settings is to wait until you can play the game

they were not even close with the specs they gave for sh3 or sh4 so im guessing they will be underestimating what you need for sh5 as well

[psykopatsak]

i think they should start with a small demo to se weather you can run it on your comp or not before buying -.-

[Col. Caldwell]

i think they should start with a small demo to se weather you can run it on your comp or not before buying -.-

Well, there's always the "Can you run it?" test from the System Requirements Lab website. :up:

[psykopatsak]

now that's an awesome site! i made another test to check if i could run CoD modern warfare 2, and it said fail. run perfectly. but this test seem to really know what its up to :D

[Col. Caldwell]

now that's an awesome site! i made another test to check if i could run CoD modern warfare 2, and it said fail. run perfectly. but this test seem to really know what its up to :D

Maybe your system didn't meet the recommended requirements but meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.

[psykopatsak]

that or my graphics card is supposed to have 256mb mem. but has 512 for some reason. my guess is that its because i have 4GB RAM on 32bit XP, and since this is a laptop, memory is shared with grapics card...

[malkuth74]

3.0 GHZ is pretty steep for a modern game since most CPU the Highest ones are 3.6 that cost an arm and a leg.

Lucky I have a DUo 3.0 GHZ but still, this game has the highest recomended settings I have seen in a game yet for CPU.

Funny how everything else is on par with all other game releases though.

Even my same DUO That I bought 1 year ago is still about the same cost it was 1 year ago, which tells you how far they have not come with the new chipsets.

[Col. Caldwell]

3.0 GHZ is pretty steep for a modern game since most CPU the Highest ones are 3.6 that cost an arm and a leg.

Lucky I have a DUo 3.0 GHZ but still, this game has the highest recomended settings I have seen in a game yet for CPU.

Funny how everything else is on par with all other game releases though.

Even my same DUO That I bought 1 year ago is still about the same cost it was 1 year ago, which tells you how far they have not come with the new chipsets.

That is pretty high. I have a 2.5 Core 2 Duo and most of the games I have are nowhere near the requirement of 3.0 gigs. You would think with the advancement of modern technology they would have some technique to make superb graphics with minimal strain on the processors and graphics cards.

[Webster]

well guys even thou the duos are fine cpus they are old and today its all about quads and in terms of quads a 3.0 duo equals a 1.5ghz quad so looking at how many games require at least a 1ghz cpu it "looks" like its following that size pattern

[Col. Caldwell]

Seems to be the trend now. It seems to me that graphics cards (not to mention computer models) are quickly being outdated in less than a year, with newer models coming out in months.

[Terragon]

Well, I'm going with the ASUS G50VT, and hoping for the best.

I'm getting it at a premium at $600.

If I can't run it it, fine. Haven't tried SHIV yet.

[malkuth74]

Yes quads are nice and all but the problem is they still have a hard time making games that use Duel Core let alone quad core.

The I7s are a nice chipset but hardly worth the update and price cost if you already have a 3.0 GHZ DUO.

The fact that I have a 260GTX+ should be enough to keep me ahead in most game well into summer time or beyond.

Which is why the CPU requirments still surprise me, its just a little odd thats all.

[ryanglavin]

Well thank the luck

got a long story for anyone to want to listen:

So about the beginning of '09, i keep on getting the blue screens of death about 3 hours after playing a game. I kept on updating things from graphics cards to rams to cpu's... and it turns out its my Motherboard doing all this after i take it to a specialist and stop being the cocky SOB I am. So the end of the story is I am going to get a new Motherboard right before (2 weeks) the game comes out, with no interrupted gaming and loving SH-5.
Gotta love perfect timing, and I pray to God Sh-3 GWX will never die.... Hell, I'll still have it on my computer, until i die or the end of time.

[Capt.Warner]

Yay Ill be able to play it:D:D

[Lord Justice]

Well thank the luck

So the end of the story is I am going to get a new Motherboard right before (2 weeks) the game comes out, with no interrupted gaming and loving SH-5.
Gotta love perfect timing, and I pray to God Sh-3 GWX will never die.... Hell, I'll still have it on my computer, until i die or the end of time.Sir, thank you for reminding me that their are still optimists with keen desire awaiting the sim.( Most ) nit pickers seem to be sliding beneath the waves of defeatism, even at this stage, without having sailed from base. Good on you sir :salute:

[Webster]

Yes quads are nice and all but the problem is they still have a hard time making games that use Duel Core let alone quad core.

...

Which is why the CPU requirments still surprise me, its just a little odd thats all.


well "maybe" the specs mean they just did create a game that will fully use Duel Core and would benefit from having a quad core :hmmm:

thats how i'm going to be hoping it is untill we find out for certain if its true or not

after all the devs did say it will have a brand new never before seen game engine

[Col. Caldwell]

after all the devs did say it will have a brand new never before seen game engine

Didn't we see the game engine already in the videos? Or did you mean the interworkings of the engine itself?

[JSLTIGER]

Funny how a little problem can actually turn into a big benefit. My old graphics board (the 8800GTS listed in my sig) bit the dust last month, and it would have just barely missed the requirements. Lucky for me, eVGA replaced it with an 8800 GTS 512, which just exceeds the requirements...sweet!

[Arclight]

It's a great card, I'm not worried about SH5 running properly. :) (Of course, I might be proven wrong, but I don't think so :lol:)

thats how i'm going to be hoping it is untill we find out for certain if its true or not
Me too, and I think you're right. :up:

[Steeltrap]

Yeah, multi-core and memory optimisation seem to be issues for a lot of programmers. Empire Total War was an utter joke in this respect when released.

I just got a new rig with a HD5970, so I'm guessing I'm covered....:D