graphisc card

# 128 MB DirectX 9 3D Video Card (Radeon 9600 / GeForce FX 6600 and above)
# DirectX 9.0c

From the FAQ page.

Does anyone here think that an Intel Graphics Driver would work? I know it is old and outdated, but I don't have the money to drop on an expensive new computer or a video driver, and all of the new thousand dollar computers don't even have a 6600 or above, more like a 6150.

Well, if you have a PCI Express slot for a graphics card in your current machine, you should be able to pick up a decent vid card for $100-200.

What kind of Processor do you have, motherboard? Is it Desktop or Laptop?

I just spent that much and my machine has an 8800GT a 4gb of RAM... If you're talking laptops though, you're going to pay a big premium for portability. Desktops give you a LOT more bang for your buck.

6100 and intel will work imo.

Im using worse and im finding i can still play

One, its a desktop. Two, it has a 1.7 Processor and a Intel Corporation NBGV motherboard.

Yeah, so your whole system is really due for an update. Not sure where you are, but look around for a Dual Core processor at around 3Ghz and an 8000 series Nvidia GPU. In the US it should cost around 800-1000 for a full system with those kind of specs. Its also a decent rig that *should* be viable for 2-3 years.

Don't buy into the $3000 rigs they want to sell you unless you really have the money to burn (glares at 1Spartan). You get very little increase in actual performance for exponentially more $ for all the newest hardware. Best bang for your buck usually comes from stuff thats 6-12 months "old" (if you can really call that old).

Ok, if the family ever gets around to buying a new computer system (which will be sooner than they think) that sounds like a good option.

Anyway, I am going to try and get the game and sit here praying that it will work when I actually get it .

Sins ftw!

No one respects the AMD/ATi setup for a budget rig

If I was putting together a new computer right now I'd get a AMD Phenom compatible motherboard($80) and put an Athlon x2 5000+($99) in it. Then for a GPU go with an ATi Radeon 3850 ($170). It has about the same performance as an 8800GTS 320mb and is cheaper.

Then when you need to upgrade in the future you can just pop a now really cheap AMD Phenom processor in it along with whatever PCI-E 2.0 card happens to have a good price/performance ratio at the time.

Lost_WLd,

Its not that I don't respect AMD, I personally use AMD myself, but their CPUs do tend to run a little warm, and can cause strange effects sometimes. I've also seen some ocmpatability issues with Radeon cards and especially their catalyst driver systems. I've got mine tweaked and configured just right, and am very happy with it, in spite of being a bit dated.

But, since the discussion at hand was obviously with a hardware n00b, I felt it better to steer him away from those kinds of problems for what amounts to a very small change in overall price.

No problem. I just like offering AMD/ATi as an alternative when they have a good product to fit the use. The price wars between AMD, Intel and Nvidia are the only thing keeping personal computers as affordable as they are right now. If AMD goes bankrupt due to lack of sales(they're running in the red right now) then we all get to pay through the nose.

I haven't had any of those "issues" in any of my four rigs I've built over the years though.

Yeah, my Athlon based system works perfectly -- and when I had an ATi card, it worked great. (I only really replaced it because 256MBs of video memory isn't cutting it anymore for high-end games... like Oblivion with texture mods)

I wouldn't worry... even if they go bankrupt I doubt they will dissapear... someone else will just buy them... latest rumor was IBM which would be an interesting development and one I doubt Intel would welcome.

yeah, IBM has really deep pockets and an understanding of business on a big scale that AMD occasionally seems to lack. (Example: to show off Phenom, AMD flew reveiwers out to lake tahoe. to show off their Phenom killer, intel sent it with UPS. Tad less extravagant.)

I dunno if IBM would even dare to set foot back into the PC market... they lost tons of $ back in the 80's for trying to control the whole market, while Microsoft and Intel were more interested in a collaborative effort. Plus, IBMs corporate structure wasn't nimble enough to adjust to an ever-changing business.

To say the least, I would be very surprised to see them jump back in.

if the game requires a minimum of geforce 6600 then i dont think its not a difficult thing to run the game on 512Mb of ram..i have been running games on 512mb ram for a long period of time.... games like witcher, gears of war, crysis and COD4... so whydo people always ask if 512 mb ram will be enough?? in my experience if you can fulfil the processor req and vid req than you can run the game easily

Correct, as you will never really run out of RAM, your page file makes up for it when there isn't enough RAM, you will just experience a bit of a slowdown.

And by a bit of a slow down you reall mean a sevear slow down, and using page file to much actually wears out the HDD
Ram costs very little, like 30 AUD for 2gb, so you may aswell upgrade the ram if need be

The memory requirements exist for a reason.



Depends on the game -- you can run into a lot of slowdown.

yep, but it will still run...

But I wouldn't necessarily call it "playing", if the slowdown is severe enough. (./remembers old-school IronForge on his 512MB machine... nightmare!)

But I wouldn't necessarily call it "playing"...

than wat you call playing??? i mean i have been able to play crysis at merium sttings with no lag at all, same with gears of war, in withcer a mixture of medium and low setting but no lag, COD medium and high settings and no lag...so if am able games at there medium settings without any lag than i say its called playing...also the loading time would be max 1 min..for withcer only....so wat else i need...my remaining PC specs are..

2 ghz processor
geforece 7600 (256mb)
512 mb ram

Because games like Supreme Commander, (being the obvious offender) post thier system requirements as..



Where the minimum req's will "BARELY" play the game and the manufacture "RECOMMENDED" settings require the video settings to be seriously scaled back to low/medium. I think people are a little justified in being unsure as many publishers are obviously not quite being fully up front with what the actual system reqirements are these days. (stardock is not one of them fortunately, but people new to how great this company is wouldn't know that yet)

mind you having said that my current computer with it's Intel Integrated Graphics (which totally suck yes but according to system reqs, shouldn't) can barely play Gal Civ 2 Dark Avatar and by all indications is should be fine.

besides memory size is not always the best indicator of video card performance. my wifes laptop has a 310 Mb integrated Graphics card and the 256MB dedicated card in my new machine has kicks it's butt hands down.

...and why would that be interesting? It would completely kill the desktop processor market as IBM would not want to take on Intel head to head, they would use the AMD fabrication plants for chips in things like the PS3 to keep pace with demand.

They are just looking for a cheap deal thats the good business sense.

I don't know what settings you do -- or don't -- get out of your machine, but its better than I got out of my machine at times with 512 MBs. I don't think its going to be an issue for this game, and my comment was actually addressed at the idea that 128MB or 256MB machine would "cut it" for just about any game these days.