Official System Requirements

[GI Jas]

Spindry69

Junior Member

Member # 15080

posted September 20, 2006 04:49 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um... my PC is two years old and is a 3.2 ghz. I really don't think the minimum specs are unreasonable for a 2006 game. Please go look at some of those gorgeous screenshots and be honest with yourself what it will need to run.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posts: 24 | Registered: May 2004 |

OK, so what's that have to do with the processor speed? The amount of units and things going on in-game, on-screen at once (to speak in English and not IT talk)is what requires processor power/speed not graphics.

........and "3.2 ghz" or anything above "3.0 ghz" is standard in mid - high range PC's now. I agree with you on that but there's many people out there including me that still have their "older" machines that they bought "3-5" years ago and want to get a year or more worth out of them before having to switch to DirectX-10 and the upcoming Vista OS.

[Melnibone]

It will run well on less than "2.6 ghz" - but you will have to toggle off armour and aircraft so they are not displayed. Think of the armour as "cloaked". It plays out differently, of course, but can be quite exciting.

[Lanzfeld]

Any being that the battles are 90% armour.....

[Bencoder]

It will run well on less than "2.6 ghz" - but you will have to toggle off armour and aircraft so they are not displayed. Think of the armour as "cloaked". It plays out differently, of course, but can be quite exciting.

You are kidding, right?

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Bencoder:

You are kidding, right?

It's all in the FAQ

[Rak]

Wow, they are recommending a mouse and keyboard!

I think system requirements are a bit exaggerated. On one interview I remember a dev saying they could play the game well on a moderate laptop. After all, it's a modified IL-2 engine, and run similiar.

[BFawlty]

Hence the reason for a demo! We can find out ourselves if it will run.

BF

[Redwolf]

The GHz numbers are utterly useless unless you state the processor type.

Pentium-4s always had high clockspeeds but were slower than AMDs. A 2.2 GHz AMD64 is roughly compareable with a 3.2 GHz Pentium-4.

Now that Intel finally ditched that Netburst (Pentium-4) abnomination they have the Core2Duo architecture which is about 20% faster than AMD64s at the same clockspeed.

I really hope things don't get dumbed down to the level of just stating "min Megahertz" for the processor (bad) and "min Megabyte" for the graphics card (even worse).

[Biggan]

Thats just bs, I dont think it will need a 3.2 for rec and mini 2.6, it will be somthing around 2.0ghz mini and rec 2.6ghz.

I am on a p4 3.6ghz ET64 2mb and 3gb of ram with 6800gt 256mb so I am 100% safe :cool:

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

I've got a 1.5G PIV and 2 small children for sale.

Are harnesses included? </font>

[jock curran]

I'm quaking with anticipation and fear.....I love CM (have all three) and intend to buy HW Les Grognards as well, and have every intention of buying ToW, however....having no understanding of what I'm actually playing on the discussion here has left me no further idea on whether my laptop will play ToW.

I'm on a Toshiba Intel Pentium®M 1.60 GHZ, 512 MB Ram with an ATI Radeon 9700 Graphics card.

0h I can also run IL on it.

Please advise, should I continue to look forward to the release in anticipation or buying a better laptop, which is only a year old?

Dazed and confused!

[Bruce70]

A Pentium M 1.6GHz is roughly equivalent to a Pentium IV 2.6GHz, so your system should handle it at minimum settings.

[jock curran]

thanks, i can't wait for the release,,,,,,yipeeeee

[Neskire]

I was wondering if anyone else on this forum is using an Intel Mac and planning to play this game?

My Intel Mac (using BootCamp for the Windows side) has an Intel T2500 @ 2 GHZ with a ATI Radeon X1600. I hope this has enough to run ToW.

[pwncake]

i have a e6600 dual core with a 8800gtx.

maybe i can see some butterfly´s

and 2gigs of ram. so i dont think that a minimum of 2.6ghz is alot now a days.

But i understand that not everybody buys a new system every year.

Personaly i cant wait to play this game and see how the games lookes against cmbb or cmak.

[General Jay]

Expecting to run a new game on old hardware? Gamers have always needed up to date hi-end hardware, these minium specs are very modest for 2007. I will be using a ~3 year old -water cooled dual CPU Xeon 64bit 2.8 GHz with 2 GB of DDR dual channel ram and a 256 bit IO Vidio card with 256 MB of DDR VRAM--I built this system for CMAK (choosing 2.8 GHz to save money over the premium 3.0 GHz offered at the time) and it was about 30 times faster than my old dual 700MHZ P3 (turns took about 1 minute or so to compute vs the 1/2 hour or more for the old system. I suspect that older systems will work but the play will be very slow and the fluid play quality will be compromised. MIT recently advised buyers to wait on Vista, XP is still the best Windows version for most of us. Memory is very important--my system uses 1.7 GB when playing large CMAK scenarios. Dual or Multi core CPUs tend to increase system stability more than speed (lock-ups are rare). Water-cooling also improves stability (my system --which is always on-- runs the CPU's at room temp and needs a reboot about once a year). I also consider a UPS essential to avoid crashes--I have an APS 1600 VA unit. Some good news is that CPU's probably won't be getting much faster in the next few years--they have reached the limits of the Silicon based CPU (~4 GHz).

[Kettenhund]

I have a Pentium M 780 (2,26 Ghz) @ 3,0 Ghz overclocked on a watercooled system. DDR1 PC4000 Ram running on DDR500 speed (250MHz), with a Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB.

All parts are watercooled.

System is an old AGP-System, but running faster then all new AMD CPUs (incl.64bit CPUs). Only top range Core2 and QuadCore CPU are a little bit faster.

I think i will have no problem with TOW

[Nikki Mond]

Originally posted by iplaygames2:

I've got a 2.6gig processor but am running a Geforce 4 Ti4200. I want to upgrade it with another AGP card due to my mobo, and am looking at around $200US to spend.

I've asked around, but am curious if any of you are tech savvy enough to provide good suggestions. I am NOT... at least not anymore!

Your specs are the same as my father's HP pavillion 2.6ghz intel. I popped in an ATI X1600pro 512mb AGP I bought this week from tiger direct mail order for $175. I can't see what you mean by due to your mobo. Perhaps you can give some more details on your system. Also install some new DDR ram, or add to your existing ram. Pop's had 4 ram slots, 2 empty so I added 2 X 512mb at $45 a stick. He's got a system now that could easily handle this game. MTW2 runs pretty good at a glance.

Just noticed tiger direct also has a Nvidia 7600 AGP with 512mb for the same price, so you wouldn't need to change drivers. So upgrade the Ge4 card it likely has only 64mb I suspect.

[ March 07, 2007, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Nikki Mond ]

[MikeyD]

"I was wondering if anyone else on this forum is using an Intel Mac ... My Intel Mac (using BootCamp for the Windows side) has an Intel T2500 @ 2 GHZ with a ATI Radeon X1600. "

As of yesterday's UPS delivery you and I are in pretty much the same boat. The computer wrapping plastic is still sitting in the trash bin. How does my shiney new Intel 2.33 dual core processor compare with minimum spec of 2.6 Ghz?

As a rule aging mac owner aren't accustomed to number & acronym-filled PC- speak

[pad152]

They already said they would release a demo, so when available see how it runs on your system.

[iplaygames2]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

How does my shiney new Intel 2.33 dual core processor compare with minimum spec of 2.6 Ghz?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but dual core processors should be far and away above the min specs for this game. A 2.33duo is not the same as a P42.33 Ghz..

Right? :eek:

[Schrullenhaft]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but dual core processors should be far and away above the min specs for this game. A 2.33duo is not the same as a P42.33 Ghz..

Correct. Pentium M's/Centrino's and Core2 Duo CPUs are much more effective/powerful per MHz than the standard Netburst architecture P4's which is what 1C/Battlefront have used as the basis for the 'clock speed' recommendations. If you have any Core2 Duo based computer, you'll be fine for ToW regarding the CPU. I'm sure any of the AMD64 based CPUs should be fine too (including a number of Semperons). Older P4's/Celerons and Athlon/Athlon XPs may have some issues if their 'PR rating' (a rating primarily used by AMD for their CPUs) is below 2600 or their actual clock speed (P4/Celeron) is below 2.6GHz. The game will probably still be playable, but larger scenarios or online play may prove a bit problematic (stutter, lag, other issues).

ToW, as with most games on the market, looks to be more graphically oriented than simulation oriented and therefore the specs for the videocard may be a bit more important than those of the CPU. As with most games a demo should be downloaded and run on the system you intend to play on to see how well it may do. One caveat with that approach though is that occasionally some demos have sound files using lower sampling or possibly downsampled graphics that may not give you a complete idea of how well the actual game will run (especially regarding the size and number of units in some scenarios). However this approach of using downsampled graphics and sound is getting increasingly rare these days with demos running into the hundreds of megabytes.

The GeForce 4 series (4200, 4600 & 4800s) should probably work with ToW, but since these videocards are only DirectX 8.x capable hardware, some lighting/shadowing effects may not be seen. Anything earlier/slower than these videocards probably will not work at all (or extremely slow). The GeForce FX 5000 series supports DirectX 9.x, so most of the effects should be visible with these videocards. However some of the lower end FX 5000 series (such as the 5200s and possibly others) will have very poor performance when running DirectX 9.x effects (basically unusable). The GeForce 6000, 7000 and 8000 series should be fine with the exception of some of the 6200's which might be a bit slow for decent sized games. Any integrated versions of these videochips (motherboards, laptops) may be a bit slow with the exception of the 7600 series.

For ATI (now AMD) Radeons you may be able to run the game with some 9000 series cards. Some 9000s and 9200s might be a bit slow, even with running DirectX 8.x features (some lighting/shadowing effects will not be visible) and probably wouldn't be recommended. Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700 and 9800 series support DirectX 9.x and all lighting/shadowing effects should be visible. Mobility vesions of these chips should work, though 64Mb versions may be a problem. If they used shared memory (common on laptops), they may also be a bit slow. Most of the X1x00 series should be OK (DirectX 9.x support). X700s and X800s should also be fine (with the X800 being faster than most X1x00 cards below the X1800 series). Lower-end X series such as X200, X300 and X600 may be a bit too slow, though they all support DirectX 9.x. The X200s you'll see on laptops and integrated motherboards, so it may be too slow to use.

[ March 08, 2007, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[General Jay]

With Video cards one of the most important specs is the interface bandwidth between the video memory and the graphics processor. Many inexpensive cards with 512MB of memory use a slower 128 bit connection (some even use a 64 bit meager connection) to this memory. A card with 256 MB of memory and a 256 bit interface will out perform a card with 512 MB of memory and a 128 bit interface. Most cards selling in the 100$ range have this limitation, and most cards selling for over 300$ do not. The cards in between may have either connection bandwidth. I am currently using a Geforce "Golden Sample" 5900 that supports directX 9 which was only offered for a short time (the 6000 series came out soon afterward and bumped them from production). So my advice is to look for 256 bit memory interface in the specs, and be cautious about buying a inexpensive card just because it offers 512 MB of RAM, 256 MB will perform very well on a good quality card and 512 MB will normally be under-utilized (but more than 256 MB will be used). Video cards can be a big investment, and some of them are dramatically over priced. It is normally hard to see the difference between a 300$ card and a 600$ card--provided that the 300$ card is carefully selected.

[Wally's World]

This website's chart compares AMD and Intel processors in terms of speed. Though a bit dates, I find the comparsions somewhat interesting. But are the comparisons correct?

Myself, I have an Athlon 64 3700+, 2GB RAM and a 7900GS video card so I should be able to play TOW with no problems.

Processor Comparison

[ March 20, 2007, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Wally's World ]

[pad152]

I don't see Vista listed in the requirements, will it run on Windows Vista?