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.

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:

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

SH5 specs
 

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.

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

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:

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.