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:

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.

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.

Hi
 

: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"..:)

:rock:

Thanks for posting that.

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:

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.

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!

Depends
 

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

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)

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. :)

Bottomline
 

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:

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.

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.

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.

first post here..hope this helps
 

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

xp or vista
 

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

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:

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.

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. 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."