Jack Carr Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Originally posted by David1C: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by scottie: ok to summarise: any P4 1 Gb ram 128mb PCI express graphics card should do the job ? Scott System recommended: PIV 3 Ghz or AMD RAM 1Gb Video Nvidia GF6600 or more Sound Audigy 2 ( best sound) HDD 3 Gb free Minimal configuration PIV 2. Ghz or AMD RAM 512 Mb Video Nvidia GF5700 or more Sound DirectX compatible HDD 3 Gb free </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Originally posted by Jack Carr: If this is correct, then I probably won't need to upgrade. The only component in my rig that is under the optimum spec is the processor. Video, RAM, and sound card all meet or exceed the spec above. My processor is a AMD Athlon XP 3200+ which is 2.2GHZ clock. That's as high as Socket A went, so in order to upgrade, I would have to scrap my motherboard and video card (mine is a 6800GT AGP card and most newer motherboards no longer support AGP). I think I'll wait and see how my rig runs this before I go out and purchase components to upgrade. Top end P4 Extreme or AMD 64 processors are currently between $800-$1000. Hard to believe that those prices are just for the processor. A high end motherboard to put the processor in is $200+. A good PCI Express video card is $300+. Thank God the game only costs $45! Ha ha! AMD's are faster per clockrate and their "3xxx+" ratings are meant to simulate what Intel's clockspeed was with the Netburst processors (aka Pentium-4s). That means an AMD 3200+ (XP and 64) is about as fast as a 3.2 GHz Pentium-4. (This won't be true anymore for Intel Core2Duo processors and is not true for Pentium-Ms, only Netburst CPUs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabe. Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Hmm, i'm confused, my specs are AMD 2000+(1.67Ghz) / 512 Ram / ASUS 9550 GE. Will that configuration run the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boosh Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I'll need to check this out for my laptop. It should run fine on lower settings if I got it this year, right? 80 Gig HD 1 Gig RAM Intel Core Duo Proc T2400 (1.83 GHz) WinXP Pro 256MB ATI MOBILITY RADEON X1400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by Shabe.: Hmm, i'm confused, my specs are AMD 2000+(1.67Ghz) / 512 Ram / ASUS 9550 GE. Will that configuration run the game? I think you'll be able to run it, but it won't be pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: If this is correct, then I probably won't need to upgrade. The only component in my rig that is under the optimum spec is the processor. Video, RAM, and sound card all meet or exceed the spec above. My processor is a AMD Athlon XP 3200+ which is 2.2GHZ clock. That's as high as Socket A went, so in order to upgrade, I would have to scrap my motherboard and video card (mine is a 6800GT AGP card and most newer motherboards no longer support AGP). I think I'll wait and see how my rig runs this before I go out and purchase components to upgrade. Top end P4 Extreme or AMD 64 processors are currently between $800-$1000. Hard to believe that those prices are just for the processor. A high end motherboard to put the processor in is $200+. A good PCI Express video card is $300+. Thank God the game only costs $45! Ha ha! AMD's are faster per clockrate and their "3xxx+" ratings are meant to simulate what Intel's clockspeed was with the Netburst processors (aka Pentium-4s). That means an AMD 3200+ (XP and 64) is about as fast as a 3.2 GHz Pentium-4. (This won't be true anymore for Intel Core2Duo processors and is not true for Pentium-Ms, only Netburst CPUs) </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by Jack Carr: Yes, I remember that. I'm not sure that the AMD XP processors ever really achieved that distinction. As I understand it, the AMD Speed Ratings were technically in relation to T-bird Athlons. They weren't meant to offer direct comparison to Intel products but people used them that way anyway. XP2500+ might have been slower than a 2.4 Ghz P4 in some apps and then faster in games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1C Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by Shabe.: Hmm, i'm confused, my specs are AMD 2000+(1.67Ghz) / 512 Ram / ASUS 9550 GE. Will that configuration run the game? i think it is impossible It is very slow configuration comp. for ToW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabe. Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by David1C: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shabe.: Hmm, i'm confused, my specs are AMD 2000+(1.67Ghz) / 512 Ram / ASUS 9550 GE. Will that configuration run the game? i think it is impossible It is very slow configuration comp. for ToW </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by Shabe.: Hmm, i'm confused, my specs are AMD 2000+(1.67Ghz) / 512 Ram / ASUS 9550 GE. Will that configuration run the game? I think your PC may be a bit underpowered for a game like TOW. I fear mine may be as well, but as I posted earlier, I'm going to buy the game and then see how it runs before I upgrade. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by RMC: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: Yes, I remember that. I'm not sure that the AMD XP processors ever really achieved that distinction. As I understand it, the AMD Speed Ratings were technically in relation to T-bird Athlons. They weren't meant to offer direct comparison to Intel products but people used them that way anyway. XP2500+ might have been slower than a 2.4 Ghz P4 in some apps and then faster in games. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1C Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by Shabe.: In the first time - videocard, I recommend nVidia GF5900 or Radeon 9700 as minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabe. Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Originally posted by David1C: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shabe.: In the first time - videocard, I recommend nVidia GF5900 or Radeon 9700 as minimal. </font>Thanks for the quick reply. Ironically, the videocard is the newest part in my configuration . Just to clear it all, is my CPU covering the minimal requirements (AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67GHZ)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Originally posted by Jack Carr: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: Yes, I remember that. I'm not sure that the AMD XP processors ever really achieved that distinction. As I understand it, the AMD Speed Ratings were technically in relation to T-bird Athlons. They weren't meant to offer direct comparison to Intel products but people used them that way anyway. XP2500+ might have been slower than a 2.4 Ghz P4 in some apps and then faster in games. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: Yes, I remember that. I'm not sure that the AMD XP processors ever really achieved that distinction. As I understand it, the AMD Speed Ratings were technically in relation to T-bird Athlons. They weren't meant to offer direct comparison to Intel products but people used them that way anyway. XP2500+ might have been slower than a 2.4 Ghz P4 in some apps and then faster in games. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Originally posted by Jack Carr: If I should have to upgrade, you recommend the AMD64 over a P4? Of course. It's faster and takes less power. I am looking at a AMD64-FX57 (San Diego). Is this a good processor? Fastest single-core AMD64. How much would you pay? It can be a waste of money if you have multithreaded applications. And compared to Intel's new Core2Duo ("Conroe") that is coming out these weeks. Also, the FX-57 really shines with overclocking. If you don't overclock it's even more waste of money. It requires the old socket 939 platform which you might like (well-debugged) or not (older tech, max 4 GB RAM). To be shiny fast in single-thread applications such as CM it's the right tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts