I recently purchased a cheap(by computer standards) alienware desktop. It has a 3.0ghz processor, a gig of ram, and has a 128MB or 256MB DDR1 memory configurations Radeon X600 XT. The motherboard and videocard are PCI Express. If it does work, would it have hick-ups here and there or can you recommend a resolution that would run it fine? Recently I read a review at ign.com and the reviewer said that he had an alienware system with 3.0gig processor, a gig of ram, and a 9800pro and could run all of the games video options on "very high". Especially talking to a guy who works for Ubisoft said he'd seen the game run at 1600x 1200, yet had never seen anyone pull off the game with all the detail cranked up, i'm very happy to know that I can
You have the system -- you tell us what resolutions run fine! Trial and error will be the best indicator
I have a P4 2.5ghz with 512m memory and an Nvidia TI 4600. Far Cry runs fine for me at the mid level texture detail. It gets jerky if I turn the textures up to full. You should be able to play it with that system. Worst case is that you might have to do like me and tune some of the eye candy down.
Hmmm what resolution there Xian? I've been itching to put my system up against FarCry -- i simply refuse to believe it's more "compelx" than UIT2004 details to max, 32 players, 1280x1024 on a huge map ... not until i see the FPS drop like a rock.
1024x768 is the resolution I run it in. I can turn the textures up to full and it looks great, you can see each individual blade of grass, however it slows down and is very jerky. It runs fine with medium quality textures. Its the first game I have run into that my TI4600 wont handle, but I never played UT 2004 either.
yea I have UT 2004 and if I run it on some other computers I have, it'll look fine even with a 64 mb nvidia with a 512mb of ram, and a 2.4ghz processor.
Far cry has got to be the most demanding game out today. If you want to run it on full detail with no slow down then you are going to need the best pc going. UT 2004 isnt that demanding and i have seen ppl run it quite easily on high detail. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Xbox v1.0 with X-ecuter2 lite,EVO-X DASHBOARD,40Gb HDD, ps2 with magic 3.1 3200+ AMD ATHLON XP BARTON wItH wInDoWs XP, asus A7V600-X MOTHERBOARD, 120GB HDD,256dDDR memory, pioneer 106D dvd writer, ASUS 16x DVD Drive, radeon 9200se gfx card,6 usb 2.0 por[/small]
i would argue Thief eadly Shadows is more demanding than the FarCry game...but thats just my opinion. It doesnt even support MX cards or anythng less than those. my 9200 barely runs it...and i mean BARELY...can hardly go through the game menu buttons. and thats b4 i even start a game...very beautiful graphics though.
Ye well the radeon 9200 isnt a very good card. I have one, but i have the 128mb one whereas you have the 64mb one(in your sig). Thief deadly shadows isnt too demanding, far cry is easily the most demanding on high detail on everything, also has the best graphics out to date.
With the exception (shocking) of the foliage at close range everything does look spectacular -- for dissapointing that the leaves in the bushes look all 2D and untextures and flat while everything else, including the grass is seeminglingly volumetric (All details to max, resolutions tested at 1024, 1280 and ... higher ) As for demanding ..... the detail (bushes aside) is there no doubt and there is a lot of terran to see but the thing is, a only so much of the detail is realistically shown per any given frame because of the range aspect -- trees and people 1KM away arent rendered with the same precision as those 50 feet away -- and in many cases the stuff is a long distance away. I'll have to play some more to get a better feel for it but while very very impressive, I would think UT2004, 32 players, large map (say..... SkaarjAssault or TokaraForest) is more demanding.
i know the 9200 is a pretty crappy card.(my MX card blew so this was all i could get for $50) i was just using it as an example. having never owned FarCry i might be wrong...but i would think the 9200 would at least not lag in the game menu...as it does TERRIBLY in Thief game. has anyone tried FarCry with my card???
Ye i have tried it and is ok on medium settings. If i turn the detail up to high then it stars getting jerkey but not on the menu. Maybe your game is dirty or scratched.
What double post? ;-) Some games (most noteably the DirectX8.1 games for some reason) have fany menus that budget cards just choke on -- Jedi Knight 2, CnC Generals and Thief are three good examples. They've fixed that up with the newer games though ... the game will run choppy but the menu will be fine (interesting think about JK2, the menu was choppy as hell but if you could get a game started, it would play smooth heehe) Huh?
I just though his game may be dirty or scratched as he said it was jerky on the menu. Thief deadly shadows is a kind of new game so it should be ok, as plder games did tend to be jerky on the menu.
game runs fine on my friends 3.2ghz intel..so its not scratched. its just the menu (directX like you said i imagine)and the fact that i have a 64mb card and its pretty old technology. i also used to play JK2 and it lagged terribly in menu on older card i had but would run ifne ingame. i thought it was just me lol...didnt know it was a directX issue. thnx for the fix praetor _X_X_X_X_X_[small]AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ (2420MHz) ABIT NF7-S Rev 2.0 (220*11) 512MB OCZ-EL PC-3200 Dual Channel Platinum FIC RADEON 9200 64MB 8X AGP[/small]
I play farcry on my p4 2.6wHT and a radeon all in wonder 9000 pro 64meg card at 1024 res without any slowdown issues. the menus work fine and so does the game
