Indeed

I have a Radeon 4550 512mb card, and can run Fallout 3 just fine in 1024x768 without AA, I expect New Vegas to be no different

But I also intend to go for a new graphic card soon whenever the 6xxx series arrives.

Fallout 3 was also Optimized for Dual Cores, and to an extent, Oblivion was too. It may require a small tweak to the ini depending on how many cores you do have.

However, any machine that could run Fallout 3 will run New Vegas.

I have been searching around for a while and have not been able to see if my 1gig mobility radeon 5650 can run the game. All my other specs i know are fine but I can't find any info on my video card. Do you guys know if it will work?

Yes

Awesome, thanks a million, looking forward to mods on the pc.

It will run, although I would stay away from high resolution texture mods. They can be pretty demanding.

My specs are as folow

1.8 Ghz intel duel core
Nvidia 8500Gt according to dxdiag it has1265 Mb of ram. WTF?
2gb ram

i have read the official system requirements and noticed i was .2 Ghz lower than it says. are the ones out now recommended or minimum requirements?

Also will my graphics card make up for the cpu or will i have to work something else out?

Thanks

I'm not an expert or anything, but you are probably going to have to run it on Mediumish settings. My computer originally had a Nvidia 8500, so trust me when I say don't expect any sort of eye candy.

I am happy if i can run it and am quite fine without any of the fancy graphics. i have played some games with quite frankly appalling graphics.

Thanks for your help

Cool ranking list. I can,t believe my card is ranked three(a sapphire model) and FO3 still can studder with marts mod.

I've some concerns....I notice a lot of replies stating that if you can run FO3 you can run FNV, but I have my doubts since a lot of the posts here have somewhat newer computers.

I'm running FO3 right now on a P4 processor (no cores to duo with!), granted, it's a Nice P4 (3.2 GHz with 4GB RAM running Windows XP Pro), but still a P4.

And my video card is a Radeon X1300 with 256MB RAM - I can run FO3 in MEDIUM textures or lower, and it seems to work fine.

But again, I have my doubts.

So, can anyone lend me an opinion here? I would REALLY like to get this game for PC since I STILL play FO3 (I've more than 200 downloaded user created MODS running on it right now), but if the video isn't going to cut it, I'll save my pennies for a couple of years to get this - after all, I had to wait 7 months to play MORROWIND when it first came out because the RECOMMENDED specs were the ONLY Specs for the game - the "minimum" specs I had, but when I bought it and tried to play it MORROWIND would run for about 3 mintues of playing time then crash the computer outright. Not a very fun way to play - so I saved until I could get a box powerful enough to met the Recommended Specs. gamesas, while making great products, does tend to be a little vague on system specifications and I've found that "minimum" is usually not good enough.

So, any thoughts? Hit? Double Down? Pass?

Thanks in advance

Wouldn't put so much faith in that video since it's indoors. Indoor playability is always far less stressful than the outside world with Bethesda games. With a Radeon 4550, I can't see you getting more than medium settings.

I don't consider an Athlon 64 3000+ to be a fast single-core CPU. Sure it beat out quite a few of Pentium 4's back in the day up to the Pentium 4 @ 3.2GHz, but the Athlon 64 3700+, 4000+, FX-55, and FX-57 were the fast ones. That's a terrible bottleneck you have there pairing a Radeon 3850 with that chip too...you're holding that card back.

That site sure does get a lot of things wrong to the point I would never suggest it.


If you don't mind low settings...then go ahead. But your card should run the game...maybe even at the settings you currently have with FO3, but that depends on resolution too.

COOL! That takes a load off of my mind. I really worried about spending the $70 bucks to get this game - I've been unemployed for more than a year now and money is tight, to say the least! I wondered about the processor,also - most stuff now pretty much require Dual Core and that's just not going to happen for me for some time to come. Heck! One of the computers I still use daily is a old Dell P3 running Win98! I'm very much in the "have to make do" world.

OK, I think I'll get it then....FO3 was such a great game, and FNV looks pretty cool - and I don't mind low graphics - I have to run OBLIVION on low (especially outdoors) to keep it from hiccuping, and I still think it looks pretty good even in Low graphics mode.

Again....thanks!

I'm happy my computer will have no problems with any game, for years.

I must mention though...at this point, I can only go off the blog post left by gstaff, who is an admin here that speaks for the devs of the game. The blog can be read here:
http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/10/01/new-vegas-news-its-done-plus-pc-reqs-and-cake/

quote:
if you’re able to run Fallout 3 successfully on you machine, it’s unlikely you’ll have issues running New Vegas.

...that is in response to a person with a Pentium 4 a bit slower than yours. At this point, performance expectations is still all an educated guess until we get the real thing in owners' hands and have solid benchmarks and user reviews. I myself do wonder why the CPU requirement of 2.0GHz "dual-core" is now being used as minimal because the lack of cores should not prevent a person from playing this game, but more rather the speed and raw power. And if what gstaff says is true, then the single-core CPU you have should not be a problem. If it's any consolation, your CPU does support Hyperthreading (albeit it's pretty terrible in implementing it) meaning it gives your CPU an extra thread (single core, two threads)...kind of like a fake dual-core.


As the release date approaches, perhaps we'll see more word and detailed breakdown of official min and recommended requirements. If you're feeling that unsure, then allow the game to be out for a day or two before getting it and see what the user comments are for those running close to similar systems as yours....or for those using ANY single-core CPU. This goes for anyone reading this and has a borderline machine.

System Requirements can be found here: http://fallout.gamesas.com/eng/games/fnv-faq.html

You can also listen to the podcast http://www.bethblog.com/podcast/ About 10.45 Minutes into the podcast they tell you they bumped up the spec a little but if you can play FO 3 then you'll be able to play FONV in some way.

Another good site to see your pc hardware rankings...

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

If yours isn't listed it can check your system and upload the results to compare.

If you're still using a single core, it's probably time to start thinking about upgrading. Those are obsolete processors with many people already moving on to quad cores and above. It probably won't be long before dual-core is the minimum standard for new games, and you don't really want to wait until that happens and you're left out in the cold.

Ahhh I can't wait to run New Vegas on my system, fallout3 ran great.


Specs:

Intel i7 core 860 CPU
ATi Sapphire Vapor X 5850 256-bit
8GB of Kingston HyperX RAM
Intel H55 Mobo
1TB Western Digital Black Cavier HD
Samsung Blu-Ray player
Azza Solano 1000
25 inch H-Inc 1080p Monitor

heres the difference between fallout 3 video card specs on recommended and FONV minimum system specs

FO3: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)


FONV: Video card: NVidia GForce 6 series, ATI 1300XT series


ATI 1300XT series looks bigger than ATI X850 but i cant find any information on ATI 1300XT, so i have trouble comparing it to my card ( ATI HD 5550 1024 MB)

Just because it's bigger doesn't necessarily mean it's better. The X850 was a high-end card for the original Radeon X series, but only supported Shader Model 2.0b at best. The X1300XT was on the lower spectrum of the X1K series, but it supports Shader Model 3.0. For games where SM 2.0b and lower is necessary, the X850 destroys the X1300XT all across the boards. For games requiring SM 3.0 and up, the X850 just won't run it...but the X850 is a MUCH more powerful card overall

Now for your question, the X1300XT is MUCH slower than your Radeon HD 5550. The Radeon 5550 is a bit faster than the 9500GT and is on par with the Radeon 4650. Figure around mediumish settings for this game.

amazon said in an order update that the game will deliver to my house between oct 26th-30th lol.. i svck

But imagine, how good the game will taste, once it arrives
Those few days of delay will boost your appetite :drool::P

lol of course i cant come to these forums for a while as i dont want to run into a gold mine of spoilers