What PC hardware is going to be best for running Brink? I'm putting together a new PC in the new year, and I might as well optimize for Brink in addition to 3d modeling. I'm going to assume Windows support....does anyone know if there will be support for Linux? (doubtful I know) DirectX? What graphics cards are people looking at for best performance?

Hasn't been realized but it has been said that you won't be needing an Uber PC just to play Brink.

Graphics are OpenGL, nVidia cards have historically been better than ATI/AMD for OpenGL. If you want to do 3D modelling, bigger, faster is always better

Thanks for the prompt replies guys!

@Wraith: I understand that as Brink is being optimized for console games, even a middle-of-the-road PC gaming system will be up to snuff. I am looking for specific rig recommendations however.

@Nail: I've traditionally stuck with nVidia Quadro FX series for 3d modeling, and in the past nVidia GeForce cards have traditionally been better for gaming. Thoughts?

Anyone looking at hexcore vs quadcore processors?

If a hex core is able to boost half its cores when needed, then I like them. Otherwise, they are mainly for multitasking, rather than gaming. Fortunately, both AMD and Intel have some form of boost on most of their new processors. You should also note that AMD and Intel aren't able to be compared directly by clock speed. Intel tends to be better at the same clock speed in my experience, but AMD has higher speeds at lower prices. AMD are easier to upgrade, due to the more standardized AM3 socket.. AMD chips are also a bit easier to overclock in general, but Intel has a handful of chips that are easy to OC. AMD is at a bit of a disadvantage for OCing though, because they run a bit hotter. In general, I prefer AMD for gaming rigs, and Intel for most other applications. Because you're looking for a 3d modeling computer, I would probably go for Intel.

But anyway, I would compare a quad core's speed vs a hex core's boosted speed, and get the higher one.

Graphics card choices are a bit harder to put in a nutshell, as there are a lot more variables. The first thing I usually look for is a GDDR5 card, and then compare how many bits each card I'm looking at has.

Also, there are no hardware recommendations for Brink what-so-ever, as the code is still being optimized. But, if you make a gaming rig, it will be able to run it. You don't need to be worried about specific recommendations. Any computer you build is going to have better specs than the consoles.

I would suggest quad core w/nVidia graphics, anything better than a GTX 470 would likely be over-kill

Definately wait for the second generation of Sandy Bridge (Intel) / Bulldozer (AMD) processors, I say. They will most likely be really, really awesome. Also at this point Nvidia will probably have squezed 110% out of the GF104-chipset, so you can expect some really good graphics as well.

Thanks everyone for your input so far!

The id tech4 engine isn't known to be too demanding.
Thus i can see them optimizing the game looking somewhere around the likes of doom 3 and running a bit better for lower settings..but that depends on how they altered the engine..could have made it look and run better or just make it look better and run worse.
However I believe it's safe to say a gt240 and a dual core sitting around 2.8 ghz should be able to run this game 1024x768 on low with 60 frames+, easily

True, but they mentioned that they made so many changes to it that they "Would be surprised if any of the original coding is still in place"

Dual core at 3 ghz, 4gb ram, 2 ati 5770 in crossfire hope i get constant 60 fps with 1400 * 900 .x

That i did not know...still, i have faith that SD was smart enough to follow the you don't fix what isn't broken mentality, as in they made sure the game was properly optimized rather than making it look next gen on a previous generation engine.

The engine was broken. Ever played Wolfenstein or ETQW, it has some kind of lag/stuttering.

In later builds id fixed it for their games. (d3 q4)

Do you mean Doom 3 and Quake 4? (Those games are older than ETQW and Wolfenstein)

Yeah i do, but they are on the same engine, which means new additions were put in by id on a more recent build of the engine that weren't so...good. Wolf was a pure console port, ETQW i can't justify for, however larger maps may have had something to do with it.

Close, the order is Wolfenstein: ET, Doom 3, Quake 4, ET: Quake Wars. But the fact that there are problems that are the same in both W:ET and ET:QW means that the engine was never totally fixed in the games between.


There were problems in W:ET that were common to all platforms, so you cant just blame the port. The large maps weren't the problem in ET:QW, as Megatextures is an intended part of the programming.

nononono, he means Wolfenstein, the console port.
W:ET is fine, lol..in fact, its on a completely different engine..
Also, megatextures are used to optimize ram usage for rendering textures.

Yes Indeed. W:ET ran on the good old quake3 engine.

Ah, well that explains why the conversion seemed so confusing to me, ill just go sit in a corner now. :spotted owl:

No, you don't have to. ^^ You know a lot more about various stuff than me.

Isn't SD just using their ETQW release of id tech 4 for this game? With changes specific to this game that is.

The game can't require too much hardware-power anyway, because it still has to run on the current consoles. Hooray for console-restrains! (Not.)

SD said they aren't going to hold back PCs just to make that version of the game look the same as the console versions. What multi-platforming does is force the Devs to actually figure out how to optimize their code. Many many PC games are very bad when it comes to efficient use of hardware.