| Page 21 of 101 |
thompa
Banned
Posts: 962
Location: Din mamma
|
 Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 15:59 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Glottis wrote: |
Huh? DDR2 is almost free nowadays so stop whining. And don't forget they are recommended requirements. |
Who says he's using DDR2?
Har knullat med Anne Frank.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 16:42 Post subject: |
|
|
wat about ppl using windows xp? its not possible to have 3 gig of free ram.
and no i wont buy vista (like many didnt)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 16:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| thompa wrote: | | Glottis wrote: |
Huh? DDR2 is almost free nowadays so stop whining. And don't forget they are recommended requirements. |
Who says he's using DDR2? |
Who says he isn't? But if by a slim chance he got DDR3 means he is rich enough to get more of that. Or if he is using DDR1 then he shouldn't even be looking at recommended reqs coz his other components most likely are very outdated.
Bottom line is, many people with C2D's and 8800's also got 4GB of ram so I don't see anything wrong with those requirements. Heck even midrange laptops now got 4GB of ram.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 17:11 Post subject: |
|
|
It's not that it requires so much ram as oppose to that it just shouldn't, because it's just a stupid console port.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 17:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: |
Where does it say anything about requiring 768MB of VRAM? Don't make shit up to support your whining. |
No, you stop being such a fucking console fellating fanboy. Besides, by pointing out how much consoles suck, i'm not breaking any rules. So if you don't like it, you can fuck right off! Fascist.
Last edited by Serben on Thu, 17th Jan 2008 17:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yoyoxp
Posts: 567
Location: Dublin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 17:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| hurley wrote: | wat about ppl using windows xp? its not possible to have 3 gig of free ram.
and no i wont buy vista (like many didnt) |
My guess is that people with vista need that 3 gig since their os is so mem hungry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yoyoxp
Posts: 567
Location: Dublin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 19:15 Post subject: |
|
|
That is ridiculous on several levels, first of all this game would be a first for the pc that would require 3b of ram meaning more than Crysis, Coh, Supreme Commander, this means that this game was developed in the twilight zone as I don't see any technical explanation, the graphics is so-so, the map is definitely not bigger than SC and it's rather repetitive with the objects and characters repeating.
Second the xbox has 512mb of ram and that includes the GPU and system ram, I have 2512 (2gb system 512 GPU) the difference between the pc and the console version is that the pc now got keybord support, is that enough for the requirements to suddenly skyrocket from 1gb to 3gb? Yes it is .... in the fucking twilight zone, so forget about this it's a bunch of dog shit or simply a typo this game will work fine on 2gb and probably even on 1gb. Since they mention the xbox 360 controller as recommended maybe they meant 3gb if you are running vista which still doesn't make sense although vista does take around 800mg when running just the desktop (for reasons beyond me) compared to xp's 300mb so yeah, that's 1gb just to turn on the shitty vista and the game requirement would still be 2gb.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 19:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Stop comparing PC to console, it will run and look better on PC that's why it require more numbers.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smeden
Posts: 40
Location: Otsu, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 19:51 Post subject: |
|
|
It will look worse and still require uber hardware - Ubisoft
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | Stop comparing PC to console, it will run and look better on PC that's why it require more numbers. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 20:40 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 20:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Reasonable? Worse then Crysis recommended and * 16 GB free hard disk space, jesus christ..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 21:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | Post count +1 |
No, my dear, I was only conveying the stupidity in that post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shimec
Posts: 1214
Location: Serbia
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 21:46 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 21:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Ubi Montreal were behind RSV and it ran like shit, while looked worse than the 360 version.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 21:49 Post subject: |
|
|
they were behind the vegas port aswell i think, even though it got a few patches its still a mess :/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 22:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Everything looks better on the pc because of the higher resolution but, in terms of the game being upgraded graphically, I think we can consider ourselves fortunate if we get high-res textures and non-console menus anything beyond that is wishful thinking so no, there is no reason for the higher requirements, and the game that is developed for xbox360, well it would be a minor miracle if it runs the same let alone better than the console.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 22:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | Glottis wrote: | | Post count +1 |
No, my dear, I was only conveying the stupidity in that post. |
The stupidity and ignorance is yours.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008 22:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Here they go again!
Is there any clean thread around without this bullshit out of the "useless void"?
Haswell 4771
Z87-D3HP
16 GB DDR3 RAM
Sapphire Vega 64 water cooled
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martar
Posts: 176
Location: USA (sigh)
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Jan 2008 00:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | | hurley wrote: | wat about ppl using windows xp? its not possible to have 3 gig of free ram.
and no i wont buy vista (like many didnt) |
My guess is that people with vista need that 3 gig since their os is so mem hungry. |
I always thought XP would not use a full 4 gb of memory (it would only show like 3.5 or something like that instead).. I hope its what I was thinking because in a week im getting 4gb for my xp/Vista setup, but I dont use Vista that much so I was content with not having the full 4gb in XP..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Jan 2008 00:12 Post subject: |
|
|
It's not XP vs Vista, it's 32bit vs 64bit, if you want full 4GB+ RAM support you need to go 64bit.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 18th Jan 2008 07:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| Glottis wrote: | | It's not XP vs Vista, it's 32bit vs 64bit, if you want full 4GB+ RAM support you need to go 64bit. |
True. I got 32-bit Windows Vista at the moment and I also have 4GB, but Windows is reporting it as 3.5GB which has indeed to do with the max addressable space. I dont care about the 512MB, I might switch later on to 64-bit, but at the moment 32-bit is just fine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weedo
Posts: 1506
Location: Japan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohen
Posts: 7155
Location: Rapture
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008 17:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Xp on default setting uses only 1.5 g per aplication max, you can extend to 3g adding /3gb in boot.ini next to /fastdetect,very handy with 3dsmax maya and other progrmas,you can add more thing without hanging the system also zbrush 3.1 work more well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34974
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 21 of 101 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
Vistas graphics + CPU heavy I've found
