Game News Oblivion sysreqs revealed

[ExMonk]

requirements high? requirements are freakin 4 yr old system components.... reccommended is high, ...

How well do you think the game is going to run on the "minimum" requirements? I am pretty sure anything to be playable will be the recommended specs. Minimum will run the game, but it will be bullshit.

Here's hoping that they've done a passable job of making the game truly hardware scalable this time round. Unlike Morrowind.

 

[Crazy_Vasey]

There we go again... for the price of that new Xbox you "might as well get" you can upgrade your PC to not only exceed the 360 but go beyond it. It's that kind of thinking that always annoys me.

EDIT: Of course this is assuming you know how to upgrade a PC. Otherwise, get a friend to do it. Or learn yourself.

I know exactly how to upgrade a PC. I'm just too damn clumsy to pull it off without damaging something expensive. I'd be a sorry excuse for a CS graduate if I couldn't figure that much out.

Anyway, my PC's in an unfortunate situation regarding upgrades. It's not a slow machine by any standard, really, but the next CPU or GPU upgrade will end up requiring me to upgrade my motherboard, RAM, and other one of the two at the same time. That's expensive. I haven't priced out either components or console comprehensively but I can't imagine there would be much difference in cost with that many components needing to be changed at once and a console would be much less of a pain in the arse in general.

And the last time I tried playing PC games on minimum specs I almost ended up chucking my PC out of the window in frustration. X-Wing Alliance was playable on a 2 meg graphics card only in someone's sick imagination.

 

[Tintin]

Minimum will run the game, but it will be bullshit.

Right..that's why they are called the minimum requirements.

 

[HardCode]

Minimum will run the game, but it will be bullshit.

Right..that's why they are called the minimum requirements.

However, their definition of minimum has equated to unplayable, historically (for all game companies). Minimum guarantees that the .EXE will run. It doesn't mean you can't go make dinner during a map load.

 

[Miral]

requirements high? requirements are freakin 4 yr old system components.... reccommended is high, ...

How well do you think the game is going to run on the "minimum" requirements? I am pretty sure anything to be playable will be the recommended specs. Minimum will run the game, but it will be bullshit.

well considering you can turn off lighting, shadows, etc. I really don't see any reason it wouldn't run well with minimum requirements. I mean, this is a highly customizable pc game, not some piece of crap console port with almost no settings to play with

 

[Levski 1912]

requirements high? requirements are freakin 4 yr old system components.... reccommended is high, ...

How well do you think the game is going to run on the "minimum" requirements? I am pretty sure anything to be playable will be the recommended specs. Minimum will run the game, but it will be bullshit.

well considering you can turn off lighting, shadows, etc. I really don't see any reason it wouldn't run well with minimum requirements. I mean, this is a highly customizable pc game, not some piece of crap console port with almost no settings to play with

Minimum=pretty slideshow. No matter what game, what company, or even what year. You should know if you've played PC games for any length of time, so cut the bullshit. Running Oblivion on minimum will be like watching a snot-nosed kid smear crayons on the wall.

 

[Claw]

That's not true. There was a time when I was confident that every game would run decently on my rig, even if I didn't meet the minimum requirements.

 

[Elwro]

Damn right. E.g. I ran BG fine on a laptop Pentium 120 (the required was P166) with few MBs of RAM. Apart from that, some time ago games were also less CPU-dependent, I think: a good gfx card let you play all the new games even if the rest of your PC was shitty. "Minimum requirements" were "configuration required for the game to run fine = be playable", not "configuration required for the game not to crash at startup". Anyway, I've seen people playing Morrowind on a 700Mhz Riva TnT computers (and having fun), so I hope that Oblivion will also be playable on the "required" configuration.

 

[aweigh]

If I can't run the game in 2048x1536 with 4x4 SuperSampling and 16 Anisotropic-Filtering I just won't be able to see the fear in the Orc's eyes!

 

[Levski 1912]

Oblivion is a game whose appeal is 70% graphical. What's the point of playing it if you have to run it at 640*480 with everything set to low or off?

 

[Araanor]

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/half%20life%202%20cpu%20scaling_01260560148/6035.png

I still find it amazing that an A64 @ 2G can be faster than the top P4 @ 3.8G. I understand why, it's just amazing.

I wonder where a dual Xeon 2.8 box would fit in that chart?

It wouldn't fare much better than other P4's; it's still the same architecture--netburst.

This is how I've understood it: The main reason AMD processors fare so well in games is the integrated memory controller. This makes the latency for communication to the system RAM much lower, and games make many individual calls, which adds up. Pure bandwidth isn't as important.

Why does the P4 have so many megahurtz? Intel designed it to have many MHz (marketability), performance took the backseat. Then they hit a wall. Scaling to 4GHz and beyond proved difficult. Thus, AMD who focused on pure performance rather than on marketability got their chance to spank around the giant for a while, though Intel has wisened up, so we'll see more of a competition soon...

What ever happened to that "double in speed every 18 months" rule?

Too much transistor leakage to take the easiest route: upping MHz to the heavens. Lately, they've had to focus on other features. Dualcores are around however, at speeds equivalent or better than your 3GHz. Anyway, Moore's so-called law is about transistor density, not speed specifically.

 

[Thrawn05]

Why does the P4 have so many megahurtz? Intel designed it to have many MHz (marketability), performance took the backseat. Then they hit a wall. Scaling to 4GHz and beyond proved difficult. Thus, AMD who focused on pure performance rather than on marketability got their chance to spank around the giant for a while, though Intel has wisened up, so we'll see more of a competition soon...

I hope so. People complained about Intel being the CPU monopoly, but an AMD monopoly is just a bad. Competition is good.

 

[Watermark]

Question. What's the difference between GeForce 6600GT and GeForce 6600GT OC and which one is better?

I'm too pretty to grasp the meaning behind those numbers and letters.

 

[Micmu]

OC has the same components as the regular one, but has an overclocked GPU and memory by the manufacturer (heh, nice trick). It's only slightly faster than a regular one. They say it's a good buy for a mid-range 3D card (on AGP).

 

[Araanor]

I hope so. People complained about Intel being the CPU monopoly, but an AMD monopoly is just a bad. Competition is good.

There's no way in hell AMD could get a monopoly -- we're talking 80% versus 20% of the market. And this is *after* AMD has had superior technology for years. These numbers are reflected in the amount of fabs Intel and AMD have, adjusting for the fact that Intel does not only manufacture processors. AMD would need many long years of superiority and investment into manufacturing infrastructure to be able to reverse the positions. I'm afraid we might soon be back at the Intelian near-monopoly again if AMD doesn't keep the fight up.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

There's the nail in the coffin for me. I wasn't really that interested in this game anyway. If I bought it, it was going to be one of those, "I'm somewhat bored, I think I'll buy a game." type sale. Seeing how my specs are either at the minimum(like RAM) or barely above(like processor speed), there's no chance there.

 

[Thrawn05]

I hope so. People complained about Intel being the CPU monopoly, but an AMD monopoly is just a bad. Competition is good.

There's no way in hell AMD could get a monopoly -- we're talking 80% versus 20% of the market. And this is *after* AMD has had superior technology for years. These numbers are reflected in the amount of fabs Intel and AMD have, adjusting for the fact that Intel does not only manufacture processors. AMD would need many long years of superiority and investment into manufacturing infrastructure to be able to reverse the positions. I'm afraid we might soon be back at the Intelian near-monopoly again if AMD doesn't keep the fight up.

Trust me, AMD will kill Intel if Intel continues to spend time and money on other things besides CPU's. Intel is about 2 to 3 years BEHIND AMD in CPU tech. Dell is already dumping Intel chips for their laptops (a dumb move, since AMD doesn't really have a mobile chip).

I also doubt Jobs is going to keep Intel on the Mac for that long (5 to 8 years IMHO). For now Intel has the manufacturing capacity to build for PCs and Macs.

So first off, Intel needs to drop this new slogan they just put up, it's dumb. Second, get out of any area not associated with CPUs and perhaps motherboards.

Until then, Intel chips will only be sold on name brand computers such as Dell, HP, Macs, etc... Trying to build a white box with an Intel CPU costly and plus you're hard pressed to find any store that will sell Intel chips (online stores are an exception). They will slowly lose sales this way.

And lastly, I'm not an AMD user. I had an Athlon, but I was one of the lucky few that got to see what happens to a 1GHz Athlon when the fan dies. Burn baby!

 

[Araanor]

Trust *me* -- Intel will catch up to AMD on the desktop front this year. They never really lost on mobile. They will continue taking a beating in the server segment, however. They will soon dump the netburst architecture completely in favor for something more effective. Watch the Macinteltosh processors, that's the start of it.

Intel is one of the most advanced tech companies in the world, they lost the lead but they have restructured and are now focusing on performance and performance per watt, not marketability.

The only thing that could let AMD keep pushing is some really good tech, and their new architecture is not coming until 2008 or something like that. We'll see minor core revisions in the meantime. It will get tight.

The Dell rumor is still a rumor. The Apple deal is a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger computer market. Intel is just riding them for the cool PR image of Apple.

And lastly, I'm an AMD user, I haven't burned any chips. The latest AMD chips have been cool and have thermal protection. Intel's later P4's and derived CPUs have been friggin hot however.

 

[Spazmo]

Intel will catch up to AMD easily as soon as they adapt their Centrino/Pentium M mobile technology to desktops, because Pentium Ms are shit-hot.

But it's very true that current P4s just suck. Their heat issues are monstrous. I suspect mine (a 2.8 GHz Prescott) is defective, but it overheats in freaking January. Unacceptable. I'm considering a big switch to an AMD chip and corresponding motherboard (for a combination of reasons, mainly because I'm fed up of my shittacular P4, because I can, and because I like rebuilding PCs). I might keep my old P4 and use it as a hot plate to keep food warm when I snack in front of the computer.

 

[kingcomrade]

The chip in my dad's computer is a Pentium 4, it HAS overheated quite a bit and has been damaged a bit by it. My AMD (actually I think it's my motherboard) has an auto-cutoff if the temperature goes above a certain point. Very handy, I don't see it very often, just when my CPU fan gets clogged and I need to use some compressed air to clean it out. Shitty, shitty fan.
Sometimes it happens with older games (Fallout and Starcraft were bit offenders), but I found out that this was because my mobo has integrated sound card (sucks), and I had hardware acceleration in my directx menu set too high so I set it to minimum. This helped my performance in a lot of other games too, I'm glad I tampered with it.

 

[Chefe]

I'm tired of the Intel AMD battle. I hope one kicks the shit out of the other and creates specs that are actually readable. A P4 X.X GHz or an AMD XXXX+? Which is better? WHO THE FUCK KNOWS?

 

[kingcomrade]

or how about the Radeon 6701 B+ Negative vs. the GeForce GX 672 BEP AT&T XTRA.
It would be so much nicer if they called them the-
Radeon 1 Cheap Version
Radeon 1 Medium Version
Radeon 1 Expensive Version
etc.

 

[Chefe]

or how about the Radeon 6701 B+ Negative vs. the GeForce GX 672 BEP AT&T XTRA.
It would be so much nicer if they called them the-
Radeon 1 Cheap Version
Radeon 1 Medium Version
Radeon 1 Expensive Version
etc.

That's too simple. The trick is to make it look good without being too complicated.

i.e.
Radeon 1000 "Lite" Version
Radeon 1000 "Professional" Version
Radeon 1000 "Advanced" Version
etc.

And CPUs should be measured in GHz. None of this 2800+XP-M-Pro bullshit. Is your CPU 2.8 GHz? Then fucking label it 2.8 GHz.

 

[kingcomrade]

e.g. Xbox 360

 

[Chefe]

No.