Severin Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I was looking forward to CMSF, looks like my Gefore 5200 ain't gonna do the trick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Actually, that card should work, I just can't predict how well. The specs currently listed on the order page are still *best guess* based on our internal testing and I was a little more conservative than maybe I should have been but CMSF does like a powerful system, that much is for sure! Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zoidberg Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm actually rather surprised at how low the minimum specs are. Can't imagine real time would be much fun if you barely creep above the minimum (perhaps with settings on low), but fortunately I nearly match the suggested specs. Fortunately video cards are pretty cheap nowadays. A serviceable 6600/6800 should only run you about $60. Quite a step up from the FX line. System Requirements MINIMUM: Operating System: Windows XP Processor: Pentium IV 2.6 GHz or AMD Athlon 2.0 GHz Video Card: GeForce 5700 or Radeon 9600 (128 Megabyte VRAM or better) Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card System Memory: 512 Megabytes RAM Hard Drive Space: 1 Gigabyte Other Requirements: CD Drive (not needed for download version) System Requirements SUGGESTED: Operating System: Windows XP Processor: Pentium IV 3.2 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor or better Video Card: GeForce 6800 or Radeon x850 (256 Megabyte VRAM or better) Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card System Memory: 1 Gigabyte or more RAM Hard Drive Space: 1 Gigabyte Other Requirements: CD Drive (not needed for download version) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerF Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Well its a little to much for my antique system 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 The specs were actually based on the same ones posted for ToW since on comperable systems, they seem to run about the same. As with any CM game though, the size of the map and battle affects performance more than anything so if you create some massive bloodbath, your performance is going to suffer more than a smaller platoon level firefight. Keep this in mind because the scale of CMSF was designed to be far smaller than earlier CM titles. Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 And most of the scenarios are not huge, especially for those wanting to play RT. I have run it on a P4 with a 128MB video card and its just fine, and on a 96MB shared mono-vid card that ran it but occasionally slowed unless I went to low detail specs. Then it ran fine but wasnt as pretty. But the comp I play it on is a Core 2 Duo/ 3Gig with an ATI Radeon x600 256 MB card with 1 gig of RAM with all Best details and it runs just fine. So since that is a lower end comp, most of you guys should be fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Heh, Sixxkiller, you're machine isn't exactly "low end" for most wargamers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 So I'm guessing a 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, and a ATI x1600 should be good enough then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Well I have a Celeron 2gig/ 512MB Ram 64MB SiS Vid Card that refuses to run CMSF. In fact it Starts, then Laughs at me in a evil Kathy Griffen kind of way. And says Dude, You Got a Dell (You asshole) Originally posted by Cameroon: Heh, Sixxkiller, you're machine isn't exactly "low end" for most wargamers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I have a AMD Athlon 2GB, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6600 GT. The game runs well, although the thing is, like in CMx1, you can build scenarios that bring the performance down, and so a better system can run even bigger things and with more detail. In converse, even a lowly rig could run the game, but would it run most of the scenarios smoothly? No. So nothing absolute can be said about requirements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Originally posted by Sixxkiller: Well I have a Celeron 2gig/ 512MB Ram 64MB SiS Vid Card that refuses to run CMSF. In fact it Starts, then Laughs at me in a evil Kathy Griffen kind of way. And says Dude, You Got a Dell (You asshole) </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon: Heh, Sixxkiller, you're machine isn't exactly "low end" for most wargamers </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT_56M Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 In my sig are my system specs... It took me a while to build a scenario that brought my box to it's knees. I also have been testing on my laptop which is closer to the min spec and it has run nicely. the difference in performance between the two is not very noticeble. (Good news for RT TCP players with lower spec systems. You won't be punished like those playing online FPS.) When you get a good look at the graphics for this game, and see the detail plus all the calculations running in the background you will see that the specs are quite spectacular for what you are getting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 But it does seem to make a difference in more RAM and the better the Vid card. I think 1Gig RAM and having a 256mb vid card is the important part. P4 and C2D doesnt make much difference IMO for CMSF. 1 of the 128MB cards I have used is a shared onboard Intel and it did just fine. The editor took longer to load and all but this was also like 2.5 months ago, so the game runs much better now. I can only imagine how it would look and play on a top end system. Wonder if Alienware would consider me being a beta tester for thier rigs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severin Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Well I can run TOW ok on the _VERY MINIMUM_ settings. So, I'll prolly be ok on CMSF? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FI_Macca Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Lads, will it run well on a laptop with 1.66 Ghz Core2Duo, 1 GB RAM and 7300 Nvidia Go with 512 MB DDR? M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Originally posted by FI_Macca: Lads, will it run well on a laptop with 1.66 Ghz Core2Duo, 1 GB RAM and 7300 Nvidia Go with 512 MB DDR? M You shouldn't have a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 FWIW, I just played a game with no major worries, my PC is an old 1GHz with 256MB RAM, albeit with a new GeForce 7600GS with 256MB RAM. It was a smallish scen force wise, and open rural terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 JonS, I find it perverted that your video adapter has as much memory as your system. Talk about wasting a good card! So, how about you send it to me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazzi Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Well my PC will be able to run it, but I thought the recommended system requirements would be lower. I am worried about my RAM since ToW was a slideshow for me ( it even took like 5 min to load!). I'm glad that the size of the game is relatively small compared to today's game, where they need like 5 gigs of hard drive space! AMD Athlon XP 2000, 512 MB RAM, Nvidia Geforce 6800 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Bleh I'm still running Win2k. Other than that I'm rocking... Gawd I hate giving Bill gates money for nothing when is the Linux version coming . Maybe it'll run on my wife's laptop, though it does have a crappy ATI M200 video *card*. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicdain Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 A question for the developers: in which amount the following components of the PC influence game performance: processor, graphic card and RAM? I mean, I have a Pentium 4 3.00 Ghz with 1 Gb RAM and a Geforce 5200: if I don't want to change the whole PC, I can only upgrade the graphic card to a GF6800 or better (I have to check the compatibility of newer AGPs with my motherboard) and the RAM to 2 Gb. Will then the game play smoother even if the processor is still 3.00 Ghz? Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Originally posted by Nicdain: A question for the developers: in which amount the following components of the PC influence game performance: processor, graphic card and RAM?That's something that not even Tom's Hardware could give an answer to! Don't expect the developers to know, they do software, not hardware. And there's not just the amount of memory, but also the speed of it to consider. Originally posted by Nicdain: I mean, I have a Pentium 4 3.00 Ghz with 1 Gb RAM and a Geforce 5200: if I don't want to change the whole PC, I can only upgrade the graphic card to a GF6800 or better (I have to check the compatibility of newer AGPs with my motherboard) and the RAM to 2 Gb. Will then the game play smoother even if the processor is still 3.00 Ghz? Thanks It's impossible to answer such a specific question without testing it (and every other possible combination that might be asked about). But my guestimate would be 'yes'. I would suspect that the main bottleneck in your system is that Gf5200. Now, the hard question is: is the difference worth the price tag? Would it in the end be better to go straight to a new MoBo+processor? I don't know. But video cards are cheap, as is memory. And that processor is faster than mine, so it should have no serious problems with the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicdain Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 thank you for the reply Sergei. I will probably upgrade the video card and the ram, also to satisfy the needs for my job 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 As a general gamer, I would suggest you spend money on a new AGP video card. just about anything is going to be better than a 5200... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I am just going to go with the fact that my PC (purchased in late 2002/early 2003) can run both Warcraft III, WoW, and LotR: BfME II without slowdown, so it should be up to the task. 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.