System Requirements - Slightly Worried

Well the goal is for the cloth map to be playable on netbooks, so you're definetly good there (and I know that isn't what you were asking about). I have a similar laptop, but with a slightly better processor, and the beta has run fine (apart from the memory leaks and stuff ). I'm pretty confident you'll be able to play it. But if you're really concerned, wait until the demo comes out (sometime after release) and see how that runs.

im slightly worried too, my specs are very similar to yours, and during beta 4 ive struggled with graphics, with FPS droping as low as 5, and thats with a ATI HD 4670 1gb card, Im hoping perormance will be better in the release version.....

You can do that or maybe this game will get enough traffic will someone will post specs similar to yours and say how it plays for them. This community is pretty good in the technical department, so I would imagine we'll get a few threads talking about performance sooner than later.

The game had pretty terrible framerates for most betas. It should be vastly improved for release (and this was something Frogboy mentioned). 

This is why beta's aren't that great anymore. So many companies have been doing "demo" beta's that you get people dumb enough to not understand that a real beta can't be used to compare to the final product. At least some of them will realize this after the 24th I guess.

Please don't insult me. Frogboy said something close to 'current beta performance of very close to gold and should not change drastically'. My concerns about beta (which I have not played) are therefore valid.

He's just a troll Praetoriani just ignore him. There's always a blabbermouth like him on every forum.

Indeed. Seeing as I'm only 100 mhz under the recommended requirements, I should probably have a smooth game I'd hope. It would be fantastic if anybody could reassure me, as I'd sooner buy it today rather than tomorrow.

what are the recommended system req's anyway?  all i've seen listed are the min req.

Don't trust any performance reports coming out of the beta. I'm well above the system reqs and the game runs awfully on my PC.

For reference; my specs:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550

6gb Corsair TwinX DDR3

2gb Radeon HD4870X2

So yeah...it's running like crap on a lot of good computers, so I wouldn't worry too much about it at the moment.

And there are always asinine fools on every forum that decide to read too much into a few short sentences. Guess which one you are?

Well, you have a dual core and 4 GB RAM. That's way better than me. I don't know about your graphics card, though.

Athlon 64 3800+ (single core at 2.4 GHz)

2 GB RAM

BFG GeForce GTS 250 Factory OC. (using 251.something version drivers)

And Beta 4 flies for me even in 3D mode and default graphics settings. I don't know if this is a processor heavy or Gfx card heavy game (Beta has seemed more processor heavy than anything else for me). Beta 3X was horrid but Beta 4 was a big jump in performance all around and I can only imagine release will be even better.

(minus texture sizes and perhaps a couple of other settings which i haven't fiddled with) this game seems to just fine on my computer at max and Although my CPU is higher spec, my GPU is the real bottleneck (Ati Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT (3/4 years old!)) and the game hasn't had any noticeable drops in frame rate. the only thing that is really slow (by my eye) is the map generation and after a very long game, due to the memory leak.

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz
4GB DDR2
Ati Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT – or Pro (idk)
For reference the res is also quite high, but not huge by any stretch, 1920x1200.

 

What is your problem? Why are you even in this thread? You've offered absolutely no assistant or even suggestions regarding system requirements.

He is a troll now he just wants to agitate a needless arguement. Just ignore the troll.

Now back to the topic. I have an i7 920 overclocked to 3.20ghz and 6gb ddr3 ram and an ATI 5770 1gb video card and I got no issues at all with performance in the beta. So, most of those bad reports are just with dudes who don't know how to optimize their systems or get rid of viruses they don't even know they have. I love the way so many are ready to blame the program before even checking into their own system issues.

I've noticed a great improvement in performance when turning off  'advanced lighting' .

As is usually the best recommendation for these kinds of questions - wait for the demo. The demo will run off finished code, and since they release it after launch it might even contain some patch optimizations (since the demo build would be based off the current latest game build).

The simple fact of the matter is they are asking an anecdotal question at best.  The clear and apparent lack of logical thinking from them screams ineptitude. The reality of the situation is yes people can tell them how it ran during beta, but other then a brief, archaic reference to a way way out dated version of the game it serves NO purpose. But do their minds grasp this concept? Of course not, they clearly aren't capable of logical thought. (Them, they or their is not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread, I am merely making a point.)

The concise factor here is that the Gold version should run better then the Beta versions did, and all they can get answers for are the beta version. Then factor in that the Day 0 patch should improve upon the performance of the Gold version as well. So you have 2 degrees of separation from any pertinent data anyone other then Brad and the Stardock team can provide. So while his phrasing of the question to be based of the beta is sound. The logic behind it is not.

Yes his computer will run the game, though probably only on the cloth map, or with some of the options turned down.

And you tote a system almost identical to my own, and we both know VERY well its not considered a low end machine. (unless you went dirt cheap on your mobo...) Our High Mid range machines are much better then those of the "average" strategy gamer so your computer and his computer experiences will vary Wildy. And yes I was trolling a little because I see this thread as pointless. But if it helps the one person who wanted the recommended specs heres the specs off of the Impulse preorder that I had posted in another thread a few days ago.

* Impulse must be installed in order to download and update software.

Happy now? I helped, now I am going back under my bridge to wait for more victims.

Indeed, I'm asking for anecdotal evidence. Why should I not? While computer setups and configurations differ wildly, there are only three real variables (CPU, GFX and RAM) that have to be taken into account when you assume said system is well-maintained, like mine is (or should be). In the end, anecdotal evidence is all I can ask for - you can't blame me for not trying my hardest at engaging in a meta-analysis of different studies pertaining how well this game could and should run. As a science grad student, I get enough of that already at my day job.

My question rested on the premise that beta 4 and 0-day performance should not differ greatly, which Frogboy has said earlier. I've said that before - perhaps you read over it. This should make my question 'logical'. Seeing as you only argued that my logic in this was flawed (of course, it isn't) but the question itself sound, it follows that my question is valid.

Also, you might want to check your grammar and overall contextual vocabulary ('archaic reference?') before going all-out and flaming me for no particular reason. Yes, I've read that your post wasn't particularly aimed at anyone, but it sure seemed aimed at me and other people who were very helpful.

To everyone, thanks! Keep those anecdotal accounts coming!

and here  is some beta 4 opinions from several different computers of mine

1 amd athlon 64 x2 5200+ 2.7ghz, 4gb ddr2 800, geforce 7600gs  winxp 32bit , slow playable EXCEPT for tactical due to video card giving FOG only during tactical

2 amd athlon 64 x2 6000+ 3ghz, 4gb ddr2 800, geforce 8800gt, winxp 32bit, slow during map change/creation/loading, but no issues other than ram leaks (minor 150+turns between OOM average)

3 intel 9550 OC to 4ghz, 8gb ddr2 1066, ati 4850, win7 64bit very playable except for ATI ram leaks.

4 intel i7 930 oc to 4ghz 6gb ddr3 2ghz, ati 5850, win7 64bit, extremely playable exept for ati ram leaks.

I underlined the hardware that I find involved in the actual problems for the computer.

harpo

Wow sure are lots of trolls in this thread especially dragoaskani and praetoriani.

Why... why me? I'm the topic starter. I was never offensive.

I'm assuming (like they've repeatedly said) that the beta's performance and the release day 0 will be VERY different.

I'm very much above the listed requirements

8 gb ram vista 64

2gb 5970 ATI Radeon

quad core processor Q6600

I can run multiple new games at max 1920x1200 settings without any dip in FPS but this game brings the FPS down to the teens often and requires restarts frequently to clear it up (once an hour or so)

I have a pretty low-end Shuttle PC with a very modest AMD dual core processor, 4GB RAM, low-end Nvidia graphics card, and Windows 7 Home Premium. Elemental Betas never stutter and the game looks good regardless of zoom level.

I plan on getting Civ V too and while I will hate to dial down the graphics, I figure I can live with it as I don't plan on getting a new PC for some time.

Gary

I'll throw my opinion of your specs in here, since people are posting some pretty high spec'ed computers.

So the minimum requirements are just that I would assume, minimum to get into the game and play it normally. Even a netbook has MUCH lower specs than the minimum specs listed for the game, but it can play it on the cloth map. Ok.

Keeping that in mind, you have a processor that comes close to the recommended. Your RAM exceeds the recommended requirement, and your video card is FAR from terrible; from some some benchmark websites, ranks higher than the 7900gs video card:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

So I think you don't have anything to worry about. Like some people are mentioning, don't compare the beta performance to the gold version. Your specs are not bad at all, and I think you should be fine; you're right up there with the recommended specs.