Systems Requirement

  Marko797 15:46 15 Aug 2008

Not sure if everyone knows of this great site facility where it can determine if ur PC can run certain games which u might be considering buying.

Could save u some money, which u'll probably end up spending on an upgrade, before u go and spend the money on the game...if u get what I mean?

Hope this is of use:

click here

  citadel 19:41 15 Aug 2008

I take the recommended spec as the minimum.

  Si_L 23:39 15 Aug 2008

The only games I ever have problems running are older ones, the new ones work a breeze on my machine (8600gt)

  Armchair 12:17 16 Aug 2008

I know my PC won't run any of the recent cutting edge 3D games, so I don't need to chaeck any more, lol. Anything beyonf F.E.A.R. is a waste of time, unless I want to watch a slide show.

  crosstrainer 23:48 16 Aug 2008

I had seen this before, but took a passing glance at it. It informs me that I can run everything flat out (which I knew) but it's a bit misleading when it claims that you can run Crysis on a 6600GT (ok, I haven't tried it on one) but I really can't see that being a great frame rate can you?

Could be useful as a rough guide for some, but I doubt it's really that reliable....Isn't it time that we had a proper spec. guide on the games cases (we here all know that the minimum will be useless and disappointing) but many people buy games in good faith, relying on those specs.

If it needs 2GB ram say so. If it needs a high spec Graphics card, print it on the box. Many people who have looked forward to a new game, have come home eagerly inserting the DVD, only to find that jerky slo-mo is all that's available to them.

In the long run, telling the truth will help the gaming and hardware industries combined.

  Spook Tooth 03:28 17 Aug 2008

It's a potentially useful tool I feel, that is if it remains objective and non-partisan.

Despite the loading error bugs (reporting systems spec as unknown for each category after previously determining hardware type correctly) it definitely seems more useful than Futuremark's Orb spec comparison service, click here, though perhaps it errs too much on the side of caution regarding the minimum spec you'd likely get away with. It doesn't appear to appreciate that CPU clockspeed alone (in gigahertz etc) is no longer the best performance indicator either. A Core 2 processor clocked at 1.66GHz is a little more powerful than an old AMD Athlon for instance (clockspeed to clockspeed). At least that's how it looks to me.

The first game I bought and played on a PC, after reading a review in the PC Advisor mag (no less) was Max Payne and that prompted my first upgrade in PC ram and graphics card, to Geforce 3 Titanium 200 or whatnot if I remember correctly. Then of course I was hooked into the upgrade cycle, like the rest of the gaming world, moving on to a 2500 Athlon processor (socket A), even more ram (still just DDR mind) and a more powerful graphics card - the midrange GF 4400.

Next was an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (softmodded to XT speeds), then a whole new Core 2 system that I've performed minor upgrades to since building it and basing it on a GF 7950GT graphics card. I'm now using a 9800GTX just to turn the eye candy up even higher and still get acceptable frame rates. It was almost worth it just for Bioshock alone. One day I'll upgrade my CPU but will probably have to get another motherboard just to support the 45nm Yorkfield/Wolfdale Core 2s or perhaps see if I can wait for Nehalem/whatever it's called. For now, I'll struggle on with my lowly Intel 965 chipset that limits me to 65nm processors.

I'm sure we've all got a similar upgrade story to tell. I should have added that the games that really brought my system to its knees were the main incentives to upgrading. Being fond of the Battlefield series of games, the games in question are loosely: Battlefield Vietnam (requiring the 9800 Pro for all that jungle foliage) and then BF2 and BF2142. Then of course, along came Crysis (and to a lesser extent the desire for greater visual effects in Call of Duty 4 and Bioshock I suppose). The allure of high(er) definition settings for use on a widescreen monitor was another factor. I used to be happy with 1024x768, now I'm aiming for 1680x1050 at least!

  Armchair 10:36 17 Aug 2008

Far Cry educated me on game system requirements. Played it with three GPUs now, with the same CPU and RAM. Back of the box has a list of specs., with no indication of how well the game will run using such a set-up:-

CPU - 1GHz
RAM - 256MB
GPU - 64MB GF2/Radeon 8500

I wouldn't like to try it with that. I imagine quite a few poor folk were ignorant enough to try it and ended up disappointed and downhearted about PC gaming.

  Marko797 13:46 17 Aug 2008

I think it's useful as a rough guide to what games your machine can run.

I'd rather use this than review every spec on the boxes of games which I might be interested in. It definitely saves time in this regard. It's a one-stop-shop to some extent, imho.

Like u indicated, the specs on boxes are a little unreliable, but the developers aren't really so much interested in ensuring ur machine can run the game, rather they just want u to buy it, and maybe let u find out the hard way if it runs or not. The decision to buy or not is yours, of course. This is where I find this SRL useful, as it gives me a degree of confidence that what I buy, my machine will run. It hasn't let me down yet.

As for its accuracy, well can't comment on this, but it does provide info on whether u meet the minimum, and also the recommended, requirements.

If u just about meet the minumum spec, then it's ur decision on whether to go buy the game or not.

If u meet the recommended spec, then there's a reasonable chance that ur rig will run it.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

Illustrator Charles Williams on how to create magazines and book covers

iMac Pro review

Les meilleures prises CPL (2018)