Unofficial 'PC Requirements' Thread 2

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:02 am

I expect Fallout NV to have worse graphics than Fallout 3 until the HD texture packs come out. I'm going to .ini tweak until my system feels the strain.

AMD Radeon 5970 OC 2GB http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2761-7.html
12GB Corsair DDR3 1600 (Triple Chan mode)
Intel i7-920 @ 2.67Ghz
2 x velociraptor + 3 other hdds
Asus Rampage x58 mb
1kw corsair PSU
Asus Xonar 7.1 D2X w/ sweet AKG cans
Razer Mamba, Logitech G15
Logitech force feedback racing wheel
Acer 24" 1080p Touch screen, Viewsonic 24" 1680x1050, Samsung 22" 2ms 1680x1050
$150 Logitech 5.speaker system :( ok for racing games but crap for music/movies
User avatar
JeSsy ArEllano
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:51 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:34 am

I expect Fallout NV to have worse graphics than Fallout 3 until the HD texture packs come out. I'm going to .ini tweak until my system feels the strain.

AMD Radeon 5970 OC 2GB http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2761-7.html
12GB Corsair DDR3 1600 (Triple Chan mode)
Intel i7-920 @ 2.67Ghz
2 x velociraptor + 3 other hdds
Asus Rampage x58 mb
1kw corsair PSU
Asus Xonar 7.1 D2X w/ sweet AKG cans
Razer Mamba, Logitech G15
Logitech force feedback racing wheel
Acer 24" 1080p Touch screen, Viewsonic 24" 1680x1050, Samsung 22" 2ms 1680x1050
$150 Logitech 5.speaker system :( ok for racing games but crap for music/movies

I'm sorry I don't think your racing wheel is supported by Fallout New Vegas.
User avatar
Latino HeaT
 
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:21 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:50 pm


The X800GTO is going to be the questionable area. It's the lower end video card amongst the X800 series back in the day and is only a Shader Model 2.0b card as well. If SM 2.0b video cards are still allowed to run this game, then the X800GTO could probably pull some low-medium settings. In your case, I'd actually wait before getting the game to see if the Pentium 4 and that video card may pose any potential problems. I don't think it should, but never know.



Actually, the X700, X800, and X850 straddled the SM3 fence. BY having Dx9.0"b", they had a single notch of what SM3 amounted to, which allowed them to handle Fallout 3, and the small textures in Dragon Age. The only reason that either Obsidian or EA went with the 850 instead of something somewhat closer in speed to the minimum Geforce was the fact that AMD dropped the X700 and X800 from their newer drivers, and kept on support for their 850s.

With the Omega Drivers, only the X800 SE and GT were less speedy than a 6800 Vanilla. What isn't clear about the pre-X1n00 Radeon generation versus Fallout NV is whether Obsidian went with a greater depth of SM3 code, and left the older cards behind this time. The X1300 XT and the X1600 Pros, all of them, were slower than X800s were, again with the exception of the GT and SE. It's been too long since I looked at either the X1600 XT, which became the X1650 Pro, or the X1800 GTO, which morphed into the X1650 XT, to be sure I accurately recall where the X1650s overlapped with the X800s.
User avatar
Carys
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:15 pm

Post » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:03 pm

I think the difference between those games is LFD and Civ have alot more independently moving objects, which tend to hog ram...if your vid card had 1gb of ram it would probably not choke up.


Is that going to be a problem while running Vegas or should I be fine? Because upgrading laptop video cards isn't really worth it. So with no upgrades am I good to run it?
User avatar
Sebrina Johnstone
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:58 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:07 am

I'm sorry I don't think your racing wheel is supported by Fallout New Vegas.


Doesn't matter, it's connected all the time anyways just in case a game has a cool vehicle in it.
User avatar
Daramis McGee
 
Posts: 3378
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:47 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:34 am

Doesn't matter, it's connected all the time anyways just in case a game has a cool vehicle in it.

That was a joke, only thing I could find wrong with your setup for Fallout, since this is a thread about finding out if you can run it. :)

It would be pretty entertaining if you could play it with a steering wheel though.
User avatar
Kelly Upshall
 
Posts: 3475
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:26 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:41 pm

I know my graphics card is built more for media than gaming, but I've been assured by several folks that it'll run the game fine, but I'm wondering how much I'll have to lower the settings (if at all) to get it to run at an optimal pace.


Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
AMD Turion II Dual-Core Processor M500 (2.2 Ghz, rated at 3.74 Ghz)
4GB DDR2 RAM
500GB HDD (374 available currently)
AMD M860G with ATI Mobility Radeon 4100
User avatar
Alexander Lee
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:30 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:18 am

That was a joke, only thing I could find wrong with your setup for Fallout, since this is a thread about finding out if you can run it. :)


Aha, well my response to your joke was also a joke which puts the score at:

cancausecancer: 1
slappy mcpoopy pants: 0
User avatar
SHAWNNA-KAY
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:22 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:02 pm

Aha, well my response to your joke was also a joke which puts the score at:

cancausecancer: 1
slappy mcpoopy pants: 0

:(
User avatar
Kitana Lucas
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:24 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:45 am

Actually, the X700, X800, and X850 straddled the SM3 fence. BY having Dx9.0"b", they had a single notch of what SM3 amounted to, which allowed them to handle Fallout 3, and the small textures in Dragon Age. The only reason that either Obsidian or EA went with the 850 instead of something somewhat closer in speed to the minimum Geforce was the fact that AMD dropped the X700 and X800 from their newer drivers, and kept on support for their 850s.

With the Omega Drivers, only the X800 SE and GT were less speedy than a 6800 Vanilla. What isn't clear about the pre-X1n00 Radeon generation versus Fallout NV is whether Obsidian went with a greater depth of SM3 code, and left the older cards behind this time. The X1300 XT and the X1600 Pros, all of them, were slower than X800s were, again with the exception of the GT and SE. It's been too long since I looked at either the X1600 XT, which became the X1650 Pro, or the X1800 GTO, which morphed into the X1650 XT, to be sure I accurately recall where the X1650s overlapped with the X800s.



....wat.the.hell. in other words, im asking, will it be able to run fallout new vegas or not? and if it does, shall i set it to lowest as possible?
User avatar
Pants
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:34 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:42 am

:(


ok you get +1 score too and a free owl :spotted owl:
User avatar
Add Meeh
 
Posts: 3326
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:09 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:05 am

ok you get +1 score too and a free owl :spotted owl:


I can die happy now.
User avatar
kitten maciver
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:36 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:30 am

My question is not can i run it, but what would it take (besides shadows) to noticeably decrease in FPS for me. (considering that they say that F: NV has enhanced performance with multicore CPUs)

My system:

Manufacturer: Digital Storm
Processor: Intel® Core™ i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (4 CPUs), Overclocked to ~3.8GHz (i have liquid cooling for this)
Memory: 6144MB RAM
Hard Drive: 1 TB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 (two in SLI)
Monitor: dell 24" widescreen flat panel
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600)
User avatar
Natasha Callaghan
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:44 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:48 am

well i preordered it, so shall i just wait and check the system requirements on "can i run it?" then pick it up? or should i wait and just get the xbox version? but like i said i REALLY would want it on the pc, i think its better and yes, i already play on low settings, (yay.....) so should it be ok? and wat shall be my best course of action?
I don't like that site very much (Canyourunit)...it's been wrong on so many occasions. I find that YouGamer's Game-O-Meter to be more accurate:
http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10418/

...but it's also using that dual-core requirement, so i dunno....

But the best place to know is through user experience instead of these tools. Refrain from opening it and find out hopefully at some point tomorrow thatyour system is ok for the game....or you can just try to run it and upgrade if it doesn't work. :shrug: ...either way, it's a wait and see situation.

Windows 7
i5-450m at 2.4ghz
4gb ddr3 RAM
plenty of HDD space
GeForce 310m 512mb gddr5 with optimus (can share some memory)

My laptop that swings all over the place performance wise, it runs mass effect 2 and far cry 2 fine but chugs on L4D2 and Civ5 (dx10/11 version, not dx9 version). It meets all the requirements but I'm worried about the mobile graphics card because i only know about full size GPU's. I'm fairly certain I can run it, but guesses at what settings for a 1366 x 768 resolution would be helpful.

You'll probably get low-medium settings.

I know my graphics card is built more for media than gaming, but I've been assured by several folks that it'll run the game fine, but I'm wondering how much I'll have to lower the settings (if at all) to get it to run at an optimal pace.


Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
AMD Turion II Dual-Core Processor M500 (2.2 Ghz, rated at 3.74 Ghz)
4GB DDR2 RAM
500GB HDD (374 available currently)
AMD M860G with ATI Mobility Radeon 4100

It'll probably run, but you're looking at low settings.
User avatar
Heather Stewart
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:04 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:35 pm

....wat.the.hell. in other words, im asking, will it be able to run fallout new vegas or not? and if it does, shall i set it to lowest as possible?


Personally, I don't think that Bethesda ever tests more than a very few video cards. Whether Obsidian is as lax as that or not, I'm not certain, but their last major effort, NWN2, really had useless video card naming for requirements, so I don't think they are any more knowledgeable about hardware than Bethesda's VERY LOW standards. Honestly, however, you've gotten a lot of miles out of a five year old card that was never hugely expensive that I can recall, unless it was one of those GTO2 cards that was so easily reflashed into something better, like an XL.

In your shoes, I wouldn't gamble. I would include some sort of "full SM3" upgrade in my budget for playing FalloutNV. Same thing for anyone arriving late to the party who has never played Oblivion or Fallout 3 and is about to be bamboozled by the foolishness of naming an entire generation that has scads more junk in it than decent cards. The 6200s never could run Oblivion, or NWN2, or Fallout 3 correctly. I certainly wouldn't expect that to chane.

The 6500s were always just as bad as the 6200s. That won't change. The 6600GT ws never sold with more than 128 MBs of VRAM, and it needed the full 256 for FO3. The 6800 SE and 6800 XT often had plenty of RAM but never had enough speed. I can only imagine one card that might shift from an also-ran to being useful, which is the 6600 Vanilla, with 256 MBs of RAM on it, if there has indeed been a little bit of graphics optimization.
User avatar
Daddy Cool!
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:34 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:24 pm

I have an Asus G50 VT-X5 with the following specs:

Processor:
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU P7450 @ 2.13GHz
Memory:
4096MB RAM
Hard Drive:
308 GB
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS

Love my laptop, runs all the latest games on high to highest no problem :celebration:
User avatar
Natasha Biss
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:47 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:29 pm

Personally, I don't think that Bethesda ever tests more than a very few video cards. Whether Obsidian is as lax as that or not, I'm not certain, but their last major effort, NWN2, really had useless video card naming for requirements, so I don't think they are any more knowledgeable about hardware than Bethesda's VERY LOW standards. Honestly, however, you've gotten a lot of miles out of a five year old card that was never hugely expensive that I can recall, unless it was one of those GTO2 cards that was so easily reflashed into something better, like an XL.

In your shoes, I wouldn't gamble. I would include some sort of "full SM3" upgrade in my budget for playing FalloutNV. Same thing for anyone arriving late to the party who has never played Oblivion or Fallout 3 and is about to be bamboozled by the foolishness of naming an entire generation that has scads more junk in it than decent cards. The 6200s never could run Oblivion, or NWN2, or Fallout 3 correctly. I certainly wouldn't expect that to chane.

The 6500s were always just as bad as the 6200s. That won't change. The 6600GT ws never sold with more than 128 MBs of VRAM, and it needed the full 256 for FO3. The 6800 SE and 6800 XT often had plenty of RAM but never had enough speed. I can only imagine one card that might shift from an also-ran to being useful, which is the 6600 Vanilla, with 256 MBs of RAM on it, if there has indeed been a little bit of graphics optimization.

so then, what is it really that you think i should get if i want to play this game?
User avatar
BRIANNA
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:04 pm

I have an Asus G50 VT-X5 with the following specs:

Processor:
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU P7450 @ 2.13GHz
Memory:
4096MB RAM
Hard Drive:
308 GB
Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS

Love my laptop, runs all the latest games on high to highest no problem :celebration:


I have the same exact laptop. I love the thing except for the cheezy decal.
User avatar
Matt Terry
 
Posts: 3453
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:58 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:43 pm

Im running:

ASUS: G60 laptop

OS: Win 7
RAM: 4 Gb DDR3
Gfx Card: Nvidia GTS 360M 1Gb Vid. Mem. CUDA
Processor: i5 430M @ 2.27GHz 2.27GHz

*runs crysis at ultra very smooth*

Ran Fallout 3 at default on Ultra setting with only half of the processor power.

Now im worried that i am going to have a problem with the game actually running with this type of processor... did anybody else using the i series experience a problem where the game would just complety freeze in fallout 3...

*well i just bought this through steam and now im gonna actually find out... wish me luck
User avatar
Sophie Miller
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:35 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:38 am

I don't like that site very much (Canyourunit)...it's been wrong on so many occasions. I find that YouGamer's Game-O-Meter to be more accurate:
http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10418/


That site tells me I can't run at least three games (Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Left 4 Dead 2) that I've run at medium settings on my computer. Not sure of its accuracy, to be honest.

But the best place to know is through user experience instead of these tools. Refrain from opening it and find out hopefully at some point tomorrow thatyour system is ok for the game....or you can just try to run it and upgrade if it doesn't work. :shrug: ...either way, it's a wait and see situation.


That's my only issue: I can play most modern games just fine, but I got Fallout 3 for 360 rather than PC, so I've no clue how exactly New Vegas will run. Low settings, I can deal with just fine. I'd just like to know that it'll run without kicking my computer in the groin every five minutes for its presumption.
User avatar
LuCY sCoTT
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:29 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:04 am

I have the same exact laptop. I love the thing except for the cheezy decal.


I have the g50a version, nice laptop except I got the 9700 and not the 9800 and a faster cpu
User avatar
Emily Jeffs
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:27 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:15 am

Proc: AMD Phenom 2 x2 550 Black Edition
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4870
Ram: 4 GB

Mo'bo': MA79OX-UD4P Gigabyte

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

19" LCD HP monitor
User avatar
Josee Leach
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:50 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:04 am

Most sites are saying that it's unable to check my hardware. I assume I'll be able to run New Vegas on my PC on low quality at least since I've had no trouble running Fallout 3 on that setting.
User avatar
Maria Garcia
 
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:59 am

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:05 pm

Hey All!

Last minute decision.... Xbox 360 or PC.
Of course, I would prefer PC... but even though my laptop is pretty good, I made the silly decision to opt for a 1920x1080 HD display which is pretty taxing for gaming. So let me know how high detail you think I could fun F:NV.

It's a Dell Studio XPS 1645 with...

Intel Core i7 CPU Q 820 @ 1.73 GHZ
4 GB RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670 1GB

Also, I have the Samsung 250 GB SSD Hard Drive, which definitely helps with loading times.

Anywho, I'm waiting in line tomorrow morning for Future Shop to open and I'm hopefully snagging a collector's edition. Just haven't fully decided on a system yet. If my laptop can run it smoother and prettier than my xbox, I'd definitely go that route no matter the DLC situation.

Thanks!
User avatar
butterfly
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:20 pm

Post » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:32 am

so then, what is it really that you think i should get if i want to play this game?


Three things to work with:

1. Your budget
2. Your display screen default resolution
3. Your preferred image quality level

With those, we can try to arrive at a compromise you can live with.
User avatar
Juliet
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout: New Vegas