Specs similar to Wings of Prey?

[machoo]

Graphics wise they look similar , I know physics will be more demanding but as far as I remember I ran WOP demo on full with no problems at all. I have an 8800GT , 4GB Ram ,Intel E7400 2.8Ghz cpu. If I got a new graphics card , what would you get?

[Avimimus]

I'd strongly recommend peripherals (stick and TrackIR), followed by high-speed ram (faster loading times, more aircraft in the air) and CPU - only then will my eyes turn to the video card.

Expect system requirements (in terms of processing) over the first year or two (ie. the next two release will assume 200-300% more power than the minimum requirements - although they will still run without the more power)

[ElAurens]

There is no comparison between that ported console game and a full on PC simulation like Cliffs of Dover.

Map size and draw distances are far larger in Cliffs of Dover, just for starters. Then take into account the far more complex physics, and damage modeling, and the more intricate 3D models and you should see that Wings of Prey is not even in the same league.

Not saying your machine won't run CoD, just that using WoP is not a valid benchmark for estimating computer needs for CoD.

[Heliocon]

As someone who has said many times I think WOP looks graphically better atm then COD from the videos I have seen, keep this in mind:
COD is dx11 compatible, will in the future (if not on release) most likely integrate dx11 features. A consoles gpu power is equivalent to a high end 7800 or so card, I think they might of buffed the graphics interms of AA for the pc version but you will need a much more powerful machine to max COD out IF what they have said its mechanics and features are true.

[BigPickle]

Arma II is probably a good judge on how your system will cope, its one of the most system intensive pc games out there, so if your system runs that I would say its possible it will cope ok with CoD, I gauge Arma II as a high end benchmark for games tbh.

[Tacoma74]

There is no comparison between that ported console game and a full on PC simulation like Cliffs of Dover.

Map size and draw distances are far larger in Cliffs of Dover, just for starters. Then take into account the far more complex physics, and damage modeling, and the more intricate 3D models and you should see that Wings of Prey is not even in the same league.

Not saying your machine won't run CoD, just that using WoP is not a valid benchmark for estimating computer needs for CoD.

Exactly. Absolutely no comparison. And another thing to think about is the amount of room for future expansion. As far as i know there is very little for WoP (if any at all), thus it has no real future. But CoD will have so much headroom for future development that it will last for many years. Give it a couple years, when hardware is much more powerful... the game will follow. As hardware improves, than the game will improve along with it, much like the original IL-2. Oleg has said himself that we can expect it to only get better with time. But I think the reason the game is the way it is now is because of hardware limitations. Much has been left out because of this, but we can all expect it to be added in later, as long as our systems will allow. Its amazing how fast technology is improving, so have faith people. :)

[swiss]

I'd strongly recommend peripherals (stick and TrackIR), followed by high-speed ram (faster loading times, more aircraft in the air) and CPU - only then will my eyes turn to the video card.


Funny, Ram is the only thing I never noticed any change when upgraded - at least if you stay in the same family DDR2-500 vs DDR2-800 f.i.
DDR3(which requires different CPU and Mobo) would bring some advantage, but it can never have the same influence as a new GPU.

And overclocked Ram sticks are a joke imho - they don't perform that much better, but come in handy if you overclock the fsb.

[Tacoma74]

Funny, Ram is the only thing I never noticed any change when upgraded - at least if you stay in the same family DDR2-500 vs DDR2-800 f.i.
DDR3(which requires different CPU and Mobo) would bring some advantage, but it can never have the same influence as a new GPU.

It makes more of a difference than you would think. If you're still running DDR2 ram i do believe its time for an upgrade. The biggest difference between DDR2 and DDR3 is of coarse the potential for higher speeds (hertz) due to the way the architecture of the RAM is designed. These higher speeds are going to be the biggest factor in how your computer runs. The amount of it seems to have a plateau effect though i think. As long as you have enough of it (probably 8Gbs is more than sufficient), than any more than that is almost pointless in my eyes. So what it really comes down to is the speed, latency and the timing rather than the capacity.

[swiss]

It makes more of a difference than you would think. If you're still running DDR2 ram i do believe its time for an upgrade. The biggest difference between DDR2 and DDR3 is of coarse the potential for higher speeds (hertz) due to the way the architecture of the RAM is designed. These higher speeds are going to be the biggest factor in how your computer runs. The amount of it seems to have a plateau effect though i think. As long as you have enough of it (probably 8Gbs is more than sufficient), than any more than that is almost pointless in my eyes. So what it really comes down to is the speed, latency and the timing rather than the capacity.

I switched to DDR3 last year.
However, I think you guys overrate it a lot.

8Gb?
For what?!
CoD would be the first game to show any gains from over 4Gb.
Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?

[Dano]

Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?

I beleive he did confirm there would be an x64 executable.

[Tacoma74]

I switched to DDR3 last year.
However, I think you guys overrate it a lot.

8Gb?
For what?!
CoD would be the first game to show any gains from over 4Gb.
Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?

I said 8Gb is more than sufficient. CoD won't be the only thing on peoples systems. As for me.. i only run 4 because more really isn't necessary in my case. But more and more and more apps are becoming compatible with x64 architecture, so i wouldn't be surprised if CoD will eventually become compatible too someday. But i do remember Oleg saying something about it being x86 only (at least for awhile) a couple months ago in one of the weekly update threads.

[BadAim]

Personally, I'd worry less about minimum specs than what I can afford for an upgrade. I'm planning to spend somewhere between $750 and $1200 in the near future, and to get the most out of that money. You'll have a hard time overbuilding your computer for COD.

[Avimimus]

I agree. I have a hardware upgrade plan in the works. I'll have one machine which is close to recommended specs in critical areas, but closer to the minimum in others and about two-five years later I'll rebuild it to become an "optimal" machine.

Funny, Ram is the only thing I never noticed any change when upgraded - at least if you stay in the same family DDR2-500 vs DDR2-800 f.i.
DDR3(which requires different CPU and Mobo) would bring some advantage, but it can never have the same influence as a new GPU.

And overclocked Ram sticks are a joke imho - they don't perform that much better, but come in handy if you overclock the fsb.

Well, I'm primarily remembering upgrading from one or two gigs to four. I went from being able to have about twelve aircraft in the air with acceptable frame rates to over forty. In addition, missions with loads of ground objects now ran acceptably.

If you have more than 3 Gigs you won't notice an improvement with Il-2. However, it is important to remember Il-2's original system specs from 2001:
CPU: 700Mhz, RAM: 256MB, Video: 32MB (DirectX 8 )

If this is a valid comparison and if CoD requires 3 gigabytes, then the 2018 version of CoD might actually run best with 36 Gigs of ram.

[Oldschool61]

I'd strongly recommend peripherals (stick and TrackIR), followed by high-speed ram (faster loading times, more aircraft in the air) and CPU - only then will my eyes turn to the video card.

Expect system requirements (in terms of processing) over the first year or two (ie. the next two release will assume 200-300% more power than the minimum requirements - although they will still run without the more power)

FYI the "speed" of the ram makes almost no difference. The amount is whats important. Clock speed of ram make hardly any noticable difference your better with more ram than faster ram.

[Avimimus]

Yes, well try flying Flaming Cliffs 2 using a six year old machine (one can literally make toast while it is loading ~ 10 minutes per mission).

[=XIII=Shea]

So would 6gig ddr3 1600MHz Ram be enough?also thinking of getting a hd 6950 in place of my gtx 280

[Sven]

So would 6gig ddr3 1600MHz Ram be enough?also thinking of getting a hd 6950 in place of my gtx 280

A simple and effective answer would be: Wait till it comes out, gives you a much better insight of what you actually need, and what performs best. There is no need at all to waste any money while you aren't sure about something, just wait it out , you'll have no regrets of your too early bought components, and the prices of these components have already been lowered by then.

[Oldschool61]

So would 6gig ddr3 1600MHz Ram be enough?also thinking of getting a hd 6950 in place of my gtx 280

4Gigs of ANY DDR2 ram would be enough

[mazex]

Graphics wise they look similar , I know physics will be more demanding but as far as I remember I ran WOP demo on full with no problems at all. I have an 8800GT , 4GB Ram ,Intel E7400 2.8Ghz cpu. If I got a new graphics card , what would you get?

Hi!

If you are going to keep the computer I would recommend this if you are on a limited budget:

1. Get a decent cooler cheap like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus ($20) if you have the stock one and overclock that E7400 to 3.0-3.3 Ghz which it should achieve with no major risks (check this thread for example http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/251940-11-overclocking-e7400). No warranty ;)

2. Get a new grahics card - more than a Radeon HD6950 for ~$200 feels a bit "to much" for that rig - but a 6950 runs circles around a 8800GT and is good value for your money.

3. The memory should be enough and to only reason I see to swap it for faster memory is to achieve higher FSB for the overclock. I have never seen more than 2 percent increase from faster RAM...

Sum $220 and a rig that is 30-50% faster in most games (my guess!) - and I can not promise the boost for CoD naturally ;)

This statement will naturally be challenged here ;)

[Oldschool61]

Hi!

If you are going to keep the computer I would recommend this if you are on a limited budget:

1. Get a decent cooler cheap like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus ($20) if you have the stock one and overclock that E7400 to 3.0-3.3 Ghz which it should achieve with no major risks (check this thread for example http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/251940-11-overclocking-e7400). No warranty ;)

2. Get a new grahics card - more than a Radeon HD6950 for ~$200 feels a bit "to much" for that rig - but a 6950 runs circles around a 8800GT and is good value for your money.

3. The memory should be enough and to only reason I see to swap it for faster memory is to achieve higher FSB for the overclock. I have never seen more than 2 percent increase from faster RAM...

Sum $220 and a rig that is 30-50% faster in most games (my guess!) - and I can not promise the boost for CoD naturally ;)

This statement will naturally be challenged here ;)

I bet he could get up to 3.2 on stock cooling and voltage

[Heliocon]

I switched to DDR3 last year.
However, I think you guys overrate it a lot.

8Gb?
For what?!
CoD would be the first game to show any gains from over 4Gb.
Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?

Lol I hate to argue so much but this made me LOL
Windows 7 64bit uses 2 gigs of ram all the time (reserved for the system), so thats already 2. That leaves a further 2 gigs for games / whatever else you are running and that is no way near enough. On 32bit xp it would be ok but not on win7/vista.
I have 12gb in, I have got the comp to 50% ram use while playing Metro 2033. So thats 6gb of ram in active use, ram is Patriot tri channel 4gb stick ram, OC to a current 1600mhz.

DDR3 ram is better because of the speed, but also the wider bandwidth makes a huge differance.

[swiss]

Lol I hate to argue so much but this made me LOL
Windows 7 64bit uses 2 gigs of ram all the time (reserved for the system), so thats already 2. That leaves a further 2 gigs for games / whatever else you are running and that is no way near enough. On 32bit xp it would be ok but not on win7/vista.
I have 12gb in, I have got the comp to 50% ram use while playing Metro 2033. So thats 6gb of ram in active use, ram is Patriot tri channel 4gb stick ram, OC to a current 1600mhz.

DDR3 ram is better because of the speed, but also the wider bandwidth makes a huge differance.


http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1162/ram1p.jpg (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/ram1p.jpg/)
Win7 x64u as I'm typing

Are you telling me the standby ram is unavailable?
Where are those 2GB?



DDR3:
That's what I said.
But even though it's twice as fast, here are some numbers:
http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1782_17.gif
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1782/amd_phenom_ii_ddr2_vs_ddr3_performance/index10.html



GB RAM vs fps:
I remember reading a review last year where they benchmarked several games with different amounts of ram, they didn't get any increase in fps when over 4GB.
Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264-3.html
http://media.bestofmicro.com/H/5/193721/original/memory_capacity-04.png
However this may change with newer games, if you have any prove, feel free to post them here. Such stuff is always interesting.








ram is Patriot tri channel 4gb stick ram, OC to a current 1600mhz.

What? Are you trying to show off?

[mazex]

Lol I hate to argue so much but this made me LOL

You really need to work on your attitude of anyone is going to take you seriously on these forums. Starting an answer to someone that has not been rude to you like that is considered bad manners here.

[Heliocon]

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1162/ram1p.jpg (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/ram1p.jpg/)
Win7 x64u as I'm typing

Are you telling me the standby ram is unavailable?
Where are those 2GB?



DDR3:
That's what I said.
But even though it's twice as fast, here are some numbers:
http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1782_17.gif
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1782/amd_phenom_ii_ddr2_vs_ddr3_performance/index10.html



GB RAM vs fps:
I remember reading a review last year where they benchmarked several games with different amounts of ram, they didn't get any increase in fps when over 4GB.
Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264-3.html
http://media.bestofmicro.com/H/5/193721/original/memory_capacity-04.png
However this may change with newer games, if you have any prove, feel free to post them here. Such stuff is always interesting.









What? Are you trying to show off?

Not positive if the 2gb are system reserved or in "use" but it has only 10gb available and 2gb as used upon bootup/all the time.

The reason there was little differance in those BM is because crysis is not made to use more than 4gb of ram (on average) because it was made for 32bit operating systems. It cannot address more than the 4gb cap (depends on OS version, program version etc), therefore the rest is not used and the reason for a tiny performance increase is because the extra ram goes to running other system operations.

Like said, 2 years ago this was true, but not anymore with a 64bit system/software. I just took issue with the flat out statement that you made saying there are NO benefits over 4gb of ram (that have been shown) which is flat out untrue on 64bit systems and especially 64bit software. Also remember that the GPU fps, cpu etc could be limiting the "upper end of the ram" by bottlenecking it. Crysis was demanding on the cpu for physics as an added burden, and the gpu for the lighting, as far as the load it placed on ram that makes cysis stand out, I am not sure.

I agree though that ram speed is less of a dif then people say, this is due to the proportion of ram mhz to cpu mhz (1:2?), although I believe the new intel cpu's are 1.5:1. But DDR3 helps because like said it opens up more "bandwidth" which is the bottleneck, not so much the speed itself.

-For the showing off part, I didnt really intend to try and show off, I posted it to say: These are the ram specs, it uses 6gb of ram, therefore if you were to reduce it from there it would effect performance.


@ Masex: sorry for calling you out, but I think that having the correct facts/information is more important than being 100% polite, which I normally am until someone posts something rediculous. Been wrong plenty of times, dont mind having a debate but you brought the reply to you down on yourself. Also I was more "impolite" than "rude". The reason I responded that way is that for some reason on this forum for all the really intelligent gamers who know about the planes, tactics, history etc, there seems to be a lag interms of comp hardware knowledge (in general). Its in alot of places, I think it is more pronounced here because IL2 being an older game, if thats the forum users primary game, does not use more recent hard/soft tech and therefore people are not as up to date as say on S2TW forums (which are also bad) but there is a core of people who help inform the community.

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/4815-The-Official(Can-my-PC-run-Shogun-2)-Thread(Read-first-post)
Read the title post, in it they used one of my posts about system specs etc. It was pre release of the system specs and everyone was panicking about there PC. Wish there was an equivalent here (although this forum has alot less volume, which is a mixed blessing). So I will try to be more polite, but its frustrating that old info seems to keep bubbling up because the change from XP->W7 is a decade gap.

[Blackdog_kt]

I recently migrated from XP to win7 x64. I have an i7 920 with 3GB of DDR3, almost everything runs better in win7 than it did in XP and it uses up between 800 and 1000MB of RAM in idle. That's right, win7 x64 uses up less than a gig on my system.

As for why i have 3GB of RAM, when i bought my system a couple of years ago there was no win7 yet. Having worked with Vista while serving my army/conscription term i wasn't going to touch them with a 10 foot pole (there's nothing worse than Vista acting up when an air force brigadier with a couple thousand flying hours in mirage 2000s is waiting for his weekly briefing slides :-P ).
As for the alternatives, XP 32 bit couldn't "see" more than a total of 4GB of system RAM+GPU RAM due to address space limitations (XP 64 was out of the question due to driver issues) and i already had a GPU with 1GB of RAM, plus the i7 and mobo have that triple channel capability, so i ended up getting 3 sticks of 1GB each.


Back to idle memory usage, maybe it depends on the amount of total RAM, who knows? Maybe the OS reserves more RAM for system tasks if it detects you have some to spare, could that be possible?

[Heliocon]

I recently migrated from XP to win7 x64. I have an i7 920 with 3GB of DDR3, almost everything runs better in win7 than it did in XP and it uses up between 800 and 1000MB of RAM in idle. That's right, win7 x64 uses up less than a gig on my system.

As for why i have 3GB of RAM, when i bought my system a couple of years ago there was no win7 yet. Having worked with Vista while serving my army/conscription term i wasn't going to touch them with a 10 foot pole (there's nothing worse than Vista acting up when an air force brigadier with a couple thousand flying hours in mirage 2000s is waiting for his weekly briefing slides :-P ).
As for the alternatives, XP 32 bit couldn't "see" more than a total of 4GB of system RAM+GPU RAM due to address space limitations (XP 64 was out of the question due to driver issues) and i already had a GPU with 1GB of RAM, plus the i7 and mobo have that triple channel capability, so i ended up getting 3 sticks of 1GB each.


Back to idle memory usage, maybe it depends on the amount of total RAM, who knows? Maybe the OS reserves more RAM for system tasks if it detects you have some to spare, could that be possible?

Yeo, Vista was a nightmare and I avoided it like the plague after my first experiences with it. I loved xp, but I love win7 far more. I am not sure exactly why its using the 2gb, it obviously then is dependant on some other factor. What version of the OS do you have? Home caps out at 16gb max addressable ram, prof/other versions have a cap over 100gb, that might be the reason... (just speculating).

As for the xp ram, yea it couldnt see more than 4. I had 4 in and it showed up as 3, the missing gig is added as additional system reserve memory, you have to fiddle with the BIOS / OS I believe to get it working. But ram now is so incredibly cheap that you should be able to get 6-8gb of ddr3 for around/under $100. I just went crazy because my last machine went for a good 6 years before the gpu died and since it was time to upgrade, I decided I wanted to plan for a long life span ;)

*oh btw the 2gb number is from a range of sources, but just ones I can glance at now is the Intel CPU/Ram monitoring app + my G15 has a ram/cpu monitoring mode on it which gives me the same numbers (except on CPU's since the KB is a bit old).

[swiss]

Not positive if the 2gb are system reserved or in "use" but it has only 10gb available and 2gb as used upon bootup/all the time.


I still don't get get it.
Where do you see occupied 2 gigs on my screenshot?


The reason there was little differance in those BM is because crysis is not made to use more than 4gb of ram (on average) because it was made for 32bit operating systems. It cannot address more than the 4gb cap (depends on OS version, program version etc), therefore the rest is not used and the reason for a tiny performance increase is because the extra ram goes to running other system operations.

Where does this stand in contrast to my post?
AFAIK will CoD also be 32bit.
So, unless the x64 exe is out, or you play Metro, upgrading to over 4gb is just waste of money - at the moment.


Like said, 2 years ago this was true, but not anymore with a 64bit system/software. I just took issue with the flat out statement that you made saying there are NO benefits over 4gb of ram (that have been shown) which is flat out untrue on 64bit systems and especially 64bit software.


No, I said no gains for CoD.

8Gb?
For what?!
CoD would be the first game to show any gains from over 4Gb.
Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?

But we have the "first game that would".
Yes, there is Metro 2033, which has plain crazy sys requirements(and imho sucks as a game, but that's only my pov).
Got any other games that need over 4Gb?

[Heliocon]

I still don't get get it.
Where do you see occupied 2 gigs on my screenshot?



Where does this stand in contrast to my post?
AFAIK will CoD also be 32bit.
So, unless the x64 exe is out, or you play Metro, upgrading to over 4gb is just waste of money - at the moment.



No, I said no gains for CoD.


But we have the "first game that would".
Yes, there is Metro 2033, which has plain crazy sys requirements(and imho sucks as a game, but that's only my pov).
Got any other games that need over 4Gb?

The 2gig is from "my" pc, it uses 2gb running the OS on bootup. I have disabled nearly all background programs that boot too so thats not it. Its just like said on my machine.

I am confused that you said the ram would not help COD, but then say its the first game that "would"? Isnt that a contradiction?
Even theoretically if the game doesn use over 4gb, you are still limiting yourself because some of the 4gb pie for the game needs to go to running the system and background programs, therefore the game cant access all 4gb. Therefore you get more perf for ram. I am not sure if COD will have a 64bit exe, but since they plan to upgrade it over time it is a necesity.

Also Civ5 late game can use over 4gb of ram.
Shogun 2 total war will use over 4gb (possibly).
Metro 2033, again (even though the graphics engine is horribad for dx11).

ATM the transition from xp to win7 picked up steam only in 2010, so its the start, we will see more and more using more ram as we move forward. Its already confirmed BF3 will not be XP compatible and may well not be dx10/vista compatible either.
Doom 4 will most likely be similar.

Irrespective, the point is if a game uses no more than 4gb, you still benefit by having more that will be dedicated for other os tasks.

[swiss]

Something must be wrong with your w7, it got it on 2 machines, on both it uses under 1gb(7xxMB and 9xxMB).

Back to Cod

I said it's a 32bit exe, therefore you dont need over 4gb.

You said:
indows 7 64bit uses 2 gigs of ram all the time (reserved for the system), so thats already 2. That leaves a further 2 gigs for games / whatever else you are running and that is no way near enough.


We also know Cod was struggling with only 2GB at igromir.

Conclusion:
- it requires more than 2gb
- can't address more than 4GB
- OS needs 1Gb

-> Max 5GB, if it uses only 3Gb your fine with 4GB.

So, no need for 8GB.


Irrespective, the point is if a game uses no more than 4gb, you still benefit by having more that will be dedicated for other os tasks.

What other task would you need while gaming?
Isn't it either the one or the other?

[Blackdog_kt]

Yeo, Vista was a nightmare and I avoided it like the plague after my first experiences with it. I loved xp, but I love win7 far more. I am not sure exactly why its using the 2gb, it obviously then is dependant on some other factor. What version of the OS do you have? Home caps out at 16gb max addressable ram, prof/other versions have a cap over 100gb, that might be the reason... (just speculating).

As for the xp ram, yea it couldnt see more than 4. I had 4 in and it showed up as 3, the missing gig is added as additional system reserve memory, you have to fiddle with the BIOS / OS I believe to get it working. But ram now is so incredibly cheap that you should be able to get 6-8gb of ddr3 for around/under $100. I just went crazy because my last machine went for a good 6 years before the gpu died and since it was time to upgrade, I decided I wanted to plan for a long life span ;)

*oh btw the 2gb number is from a range of sources, but just ones I can glance at now is the Intel CPU/Ram monitoring app + my G15 has a ram/cpu monitoring mode on it which gives me the same numbers (except on CPU's since the KB is a bit old).

I'm running the x64 Pro version. Actually, i got if for free from the local university (a friend of mine uses Linux so he could spare his win7 key that he got from the MSDN academic alliance program) and installed it on a separate hard drive before my XP installation suffered an unrecoverable crash and forced me to migrate. I had win7 for about a year but i was too bored to reinstall everything and kept using XP until it died on me after a power failure that screwed up the file system :-P

Truth be told i was going to migrate to win7 x64 for CoD anyway, since the only upgrade i might do at this point is get another 3GB of RAM to ensure good loading times and the ability to keep other stuff running in the background.
I think the rest of the system will be up the job just fine if i don't run excessive resolutions or insane filters. I'm keeping my i7 920 at stock clock speed (2.7Ghz) and my Ati 4890 1GB i expect will be sufficient for mid to high detail on DX10 at the comparatively low resolution i'm running (1680x1050). I'll just install it first when the time comes, see how it runs then go out and maybe get some extra RAM if i see slow loading times or stutters in missions with a lot of objects.

[kendo65]

Oleg said a while back that a 64-bit exe would be available.

(though given how other statements are now being revised I think it's fingers-crossed time.....)