legend42 Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Has BFC stated what the specs might be for CMX2 or can anyone guess at what they might be?Im about to buy a new computer, can anyone give me some good specs that might last me 3-4 yrs from now?I'll be playing 2 games CMX2 and Silent Hunter 3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Simply as fast and as graphics capable as possible I'd guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 I'd just go with the SH3 requirements, CM will mostly likely have less requirements in 2006 than SH3 has in 2005. Obviously all this depends on how much you want to spend, if you get a FX-55 with dual 6800 Ultra today that'll do CM for 20 years or so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 There was mention by Steve G. of the requirements. A search for them just now was unsuccessful, but, he did say CMx2 would not be that demanding.Something along the lines of a decent P4 CPU and a good mainstream vid card. My guess, P4 3 gig and a 6000 series Nvdia card(or equivalent ATI) will be more than enough. KC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Steve wrote "We are also mindful of hardware demands. Current systems should be able to handle it OK. Stuff from before might have problems. Anything as old as my creaky G4 400GH or a 1GH Pentium will likely be in trouble. The good news is that with Game #2 following Game #1 so quickly one system upgrade should be good for at least 2 games, if not 3, since the core game technology won't be changing within that timeframe." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I'm thinking my GF4 4200 with 128 MB RAM may not do too well. I'm preparing my wife for the vid card upgrade. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 As long as it runs on an iMac G5 with 64MB VRAM.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: I'm thinking my GF4 4200 with 128 MB RAM may not do too well. I'm preparing my wife for the vid card upgrade. Treeburst155 out. Hmmmm...I'm running A GF4 Ti4600 with 128MB RAM. The video card isn't all that bad. My concern is the processor. Because of a recent system disaster, I'm now running an AMD XP 3200+. I wonder if that will be enough. If it isn't, I have nowhere to go except to Intel P4's and a new motherboard, RAM. Ahhhhhh! Much cash will be required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liddell-Hart Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Hmmmm...I'm running A GF4 Ti4600 with 128MB RAM. The video card isn't all that bad. My concern is the processor. Because of a recent system disaster, I'm now running an AMD XP 3200+. I wonder if that will be enough. If it isn't, I have nowhere to go except to Intel P4's and a new motherboard, RAM. Ahhhhhh! Much cash will be required. [/QB]I refuse to believe that the next gen CM will need more than a Athlon 3200, even the latest generation FPS's didn't go beyond that. Though you may miss some of the graphics effects if they're going to go with the latest DX9 or Open GL, having just bitten the bullet on a Radeon 9800XT from a GF4, there are some fairly impressive graphics effects (in later games) that DX8 cards like the GF4's won't display. It's probably fair to say that at the moment, Processor and Graphics processors are getting ahead of themselves, the new graphics cards are largely faster incarnations of existing technology (ie all DX9) and processors are getting faster and faster for no real reason as yet, beyond 3 Ghz when no software I've seen requires beyond 2 yet. Why the PC world can't take a leaf out of the console book and wring every drop out of existing technology rather than keep inventing newer kit is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.