Official system requirements
 

PC CONFIGURATION

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+
(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended)

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended)

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List*

DIRECT X®: DirectX® 9.0c or DirectX® 10 (included on disc)

DVD-ROM DRIVE: 8X

SOUND CARD: DirectX 9.0c compatible

HARD DISK SPACE: 10GB

PERIPHERALS: Mouse, keyboard (joystick with throttle and rudder control recommended)

MULTIPLAY: Broadband connection with 128 kbps upstream or faster


*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:

ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970

NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480

woot

I guess DX11 didn't make the game then :confused:

Thats not to bad at all.....those specs are kinda like a 2010 medium specced computer.....

awsoome....my old 4000+X2 will stil run strong lol....

That sounds logical.

The rig that ran the early version at the Moscow show didnt cope but with a good optimization batch the I5 750 with GTX460 and 2gig RAM may be sufficient.

Superb work by 1C if those recommended specs will be enough for HIGH level of details.

What about latest Nvidia series 5XX?

Planing to get GTX 570 myself...

The amount of games optimized for DX11 in 2011 is not that great.
Im pretty confident that 1C has prepared the game engine for DX11 and future releases and will activate those features when the market is ready for it.

Or is DX11 a deal breaker for you? ;)

Looks good, My machine will still be able to play, at the very least medium. :grin:

Cant wait to see it in March

The broadband connection of 128 kbps is needed for how many players online?

Sorry! Anything newer or better than the cards listed will of course work!

Are Eyefinity triple-screen resolutions supported?

Excellent,lower than I thought they would be! thanks Luthier.

Not a deal breaker mate no, its just Oleg has kept telling us it will be DX11, I guess he got confused. Actually thinking about it this as got to be an oversight in the spec reading Luthier's scalibility comment, a game built for 2013 must include DX11 surely.

Thought so, thanks. :)

Yes, if the engine is supposed to be up to date in 2013 the DX11 will be fully supported and they just have a slot open for that but with a tight schedule, that wasnt top priority right now in 2011.

Luthier: Is DX11 one of those switches you talked about? ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't get an answer to that swede. :grin:

With those minimum system specs I'm guessing the game will be unplayable at anything higher than an 800x600 resolution even with all the eyecandy disabled.

Sorry folks I don't think it would be a great idea for me to list all the things that aren't a part of the release :)

We'll announce things when they are 100% confirmed to be in the game. Otherwise, you know, we'll never hear the end of it. "Remember, back in 2011, those mongrels promised us xxx, and it's 2014 now and we've been patiently waiting for 617 days and counting!"

Luthier please Ati Crossfire will work?

Its not things we are asking about luthier its Dx11, Oleg has said all along it will be DX11, could you confirm that it is within the game engine just not configured at this time?

:grin::grin:

What that was min specs? I thought it was just main specs type of thing. Confused about this direct X 11 thing tbh, most of those cards listed are built to be using DX11, why wouldnt DX11 which is now and not future product not be usable already :confused: My HD 4870 uses DX11 and thats now an old card.
Surely if they made the game for 2013 standards, saying that were are in effect going to make the game, well, worse to suite todays standards or technology is a little ermm whats the word...

It took 6min ;)


Thats a good enough answer. I will personally not miss any of those DX11 features. DX10 is 101% enough for current generation of titles.

Another thing: Why should you even give us everything from the start? ;)
Save the real eye candy for the future.

You can just say if it's also Directx 11, not more not less. Really, that shouldn't be too difficult.
We were told earlier by Oleg that it would look best on DX 11.

No DX11 ? Fail !

Sorry, like I said, I can't comment on any features of the game engine that are not a part of the initial release.

Thanks for your information Ilya.

well the game as been in development for 5 years back then DX9c was the kiddy. DX11 was introduced in October 2009.

Uff, no see multi GPU cards ati 5970,nvidia 295 :-x

That seems to be a 'no' to DX11 initially then.

No worries. Seems my system will be good enough after all.

Well it wasn't really an answer to your DX11 question, more of a swerve round it :grin:

Close enough ;)


Btw, if we all forget the DX11 discussion, if Oleg shows us some DX10 with AA cranked up I think we will be satisfied for at least 6 months or until the next installment arrives.

Read again. ;)

Agreed.

Don't need to, I read it properly the first time. What are you hinting at?


Most companies release the bare minimum system specs required to play the game (usually at a resolution much lower than your current monitor naturally operates on). Some release system spects that are so low it should be criminal.

The minimum CPU requirement is what really sticks out in my mind. A dual 2.0 system is actually a few percent slower than my 5 year old laptop which has issues playing Wings of Prey, although I would chalk that up more to the x1400 video card.

If you tried playing that game with a Intel Dual 2.0, a DX9 video card, and 2GB of RAM I'm sure you could do it, but you probably wouldn't enjoy it given how much eye candy would have to be disabled, and how low the resolution would have to be, and how jumpy the gameplay would be.

List of DX 11 games and when they were developed, and what is coming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ctX_11_support

Anyway, I was probably a bit too quick to cut off all the questions. Obviously Oleg was absolutely correct discussing various game features at the time he discussed them. DX11 however was somewhat buggy when we worked with it last, we ran into issues, and we still haven't sold them. So DX11 support was being worked on, but it's not one of the things that was complete and then turned off. It needs some time, and since it does actually offer a lot of advantages, it's definitely higher up on the list of priorities.

The minimum settings are indeed for runnining the game at a small resolution and with a lot of stuff turned off. We have lots of features to fine-tune, and you don't have to set every single one to Low or Off. You will have to choose a bunch that are less important to you personally, whether it be the amount of buildings on the landscape or the trees or aircraft model quality, etc. But of course, the game will look significantly worse on a minimum machine than any recent screenshot.

DX11 later Im ok ...Im glad they focused on DX10 :cool:

Thanks for that luthier, could you tell us what spec of PC you can currently run COD on with everything maxed up including AA + AF, so the game runs smoothly, that would be most useful to know for those of us who are thinking about investing a couple of thousand pounds into our new systems.

That sentence was very interesting. :)

Im not a graphical guru, not even close so can you just spend 1min of your time to name a few of these advantages that would be useful in a high fidelity sim as CoD?

Thx for the quick answers.

That's the official announcment. It would be unfair competition if DX 11 wasn't in the release version.

Its not like CoD is the only game that ditched DX11 in the initial release. DCS A-10 is another example.

So I don't see a competition Hecke.


When did we see a 800x600 screenshot? Recommended specs in the first post are way below from what I was expecting.

so these are the recommended PC requirements...about how I expected...

This is UBI. :)

Besides we have just heard how DX11 is in the game - amongst one of those 'switches' Ilya was talking about. Read between the lines. Just won't make it in the initial release. My prediction/hope - next tile in order after CoD.

FYI a 4870 is a DX10.1 card not DX11, just in case you didn't realise and got a surprise later.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/deskt...fications.aspx

S!

Luthier, just ONE question. No more "one pony trick" game engine optimized for NV a lá IL-2? I use AMD hardware and I hope the 6970HD will work out of the box without endless tweaking :D Sure AMD and Oleg must have done some co-operation to achieve this and surely have..right?! :D

Who cares which DX version they support? It looks amazing and hopefully with a Quad Core and a 5870 it will rock.

How can anyone be annoyed at the Devs for this??? It's not even out yet, you've paid no money on it. Just let them work on finishing it and you'll see how great it is.

Can't wait.

If you could just tell us what spec PC you run the game on in the office with everything maxed out in high res with AA +Af then i will be very happy, obviously so it runs smoothly without any black death track momemnets.. :grin:

Supporting DX11 and using DX11 Features are 2 pairs of shoes.

We never saw an 800x600 screenshot since I'm assuming they were not using PC's from ~2005 to take screencaps on. Those MINIMUM SPECS are not going to be playing the game at anything like what the weekly updates have been showing.

A quote from Luthier in this thread. . . .

Guess this means that the game will be quite demanding on full settings or even less.

We have a larger graphics team now than we ever did in the olden days. It's very evenly split between ardent ATI and NVidia supporters. The game's been created and tested with equal support for both from day one.

I will be happy in the 1st instance to get a Spit up over the channel against a single 109 and have it smooth and pretty.

The leaked in cockpit shot (the one without sound) just looked stunning.

If I can just run that on my Quad 3Ghz & a 5870 I'll be a happy chappy.

Am sure one you start loading the skies with lots of aircraft, that's when things will need to get turned down.

All speculation anyway.

LOL, that sounds like hardware gospel flamewars during lunchbreak. :mrgreen:

Just as I figured, we had a thread a few months ago where this issue was discussed and I mentioned then that it's so even nowadays between ATi and Nvidia that you just can't afford to "turn your back" -so to speak- on either one. This is good news, thanks Ilya!:grin:

What I see on the first page are both minimum and recommended specs required to run the game.

The question only Luthier can answer here is on what resolution are there requirements based on? (referring to the recommended specs)

Keep on track please Ladies and Gents.

If you could just tell us what spec PC you run the game on in the office with everything maxed out in high res with AA +Af then i will be very happy, obviously so it runs smoothly without any black death track momemnets..

Umm, are you sure that you didn't miss few of them?

Like Luthier said, "small resolution". That might not mean 800x600, but I'm guessing it's not going to be a native resolution of an LCD monitor made in the last 7 years.



These are cards that the game has specifically been tested on. Not the only cards that will work with the game.

DX11 only has certain features that are better than DX10, one of these is tessellation. As mentioned by Oleg in previous posts there is no tessellation in COD. Apart from the improved hyper-threading we do not need DX11.

Cheers for the specs Luthier.

Thanks for clarification. :)
But my HD3600 still won't work right?

Is the HD3600 a DX9 or DX10 compliant card = Yes. "Yes it should".
Is the HD3600 a XD9 or DX10 compliant card = No. "No it shouldn't".

Just hope they'll be able to implement it as they want :)

I'm not really knowledgable on ATI products but seeing that a HD 3600 is from 2008 I severely doubt it's going to be much fun. That card is mightily outdated, I'm afraid. :neutral:

Yes, this is what we need to know! What is needed to run the game with everything maxed out?

Slightly depressed ...
 

Having spent £900 to replace a perfecty capable DX10 GTX295 with two DX11 GTX580s just because I was assured that COD would be enhanced by DX11 I am less than cheerful.
Having said that I am future proofed (for a year at least) but nevertheless :confused:

Thought so...
Lol, no COD for me this year. :D

I doubt the extra grunt your 2x GTX580's have over the GTX295 will be wasted.

I'm sure you'll be ok as long as you're not pushing some crazy resolution with FSAA. You might need to disable a few things, but I wouldn't worry as long as the rest of your system is ok.

Do you play Crysis or ARMA II? That should give you some idea.

There is only one person to blame...

Yes I bought ARMA 2 Combined Ops. But I had low fps with medium/low settings, no shadows, no AA and low visibility distance so I stopped playing it after 2 hours. What a colossal waste of money. :D

Alien Predator and Dirt 2 are the only games I know that support Tesselation.

There are around 20 games that have some support for DX11.

Months ago it was clear DX11 was on the back burner for BOB.

Now that it's not fully supported... back to the darn whining, from the same people.

All we have heard for months is SPECS, SPECS, and SPECS. The nuisance postings are now answered. Read the specs, and adjust your system accordingly.

Well I'm in the same boat. I've got a 5 year old system that used to be bleeding edge, but with a 10 year mortgage right now I'm probably going to wait a while before getting a new system. If you can stand it, wait until Intel/AMD and ATI/Nvidia have each released a next-generation flagship CPU/card so all the current monster CPU/cards drop in price considerably. You'll be playing CoD faster and probably at 1/2 the price of the people who are right now dropping their money on hardware to play it.

nearmiss, you should have kept one of them banned :rolleyes:

What's the recomended and minimum spects regards 6DOF hardware?

Can we use mouse, keyboard, webcams with FreeTrack or FaceAPI, TrackIR solution?

I really like to know that and in this stage of production you devs maybe can finally answer this simple question...

It's the only lack of feedback that really scare me...

S!

Minimum requirements are just that what they say. Settings where the game runs at a relatively low resolution(for today's standards at least) and without any bells and whistles. It is playable but far from high FPS, enjoyable gameplay or anything compared to the screens and pics on a game box, for example.

IMO the devs could put minimum requirements to reflect a game that has say medium settings at a reasonable resolution at the lowest render..in this case DirectX 9(which is not a bad one). A medium range machine that is the most common today. I bet the minority of gamers have a superduper machine but more like a midrange where the GPU/CPU are reasonably priced for the consumer.

Marketing a game with low requirements without telling that the game looks just plain bad then = false marketing. The minimum requirements never say that you miss sometimes a lot of the features that a higher end user will enjoy.

I am confident after seeing the specs that my AMD rig is more than enough for a nice gaming experience at anything except the Ultra settings(or whatever devs have decided them to be).

wot?:confused:

It's been over 15years that the min sys requirement is only to run the game.... if you dont know that by now, you must have been living under a rock for sure............

Minimum is with nearely everything off
and recommended is closer to medium-high

That is exactly what I'm planning to do, but I'll buy COD only when I'll have new computer.

S!

Genbrien..still many fall to the box pics and assume the minimum is same as the pics on the box. For example a parent buying the game to the happy gamer etc. There is always a whiner that why oh why does the game not look this or that even the system is as listed in minimum. Got it?

I do know not to trust the minimum..just for the overkill and you will be fine ;)

I'm confident it will run better on my Q6600@ 3.2/4GB ram/4850 card than il2 did originally on my P4 2.66/512 ram/MX440 card all those years ago...
As in the original il2,I will upgrade as and when necessary as the sim matures,or I want more eyecandy.
Simples

congratulation for the optimisation,
sincerly great job !!! it's a honest config and it's not pressent for me to change my config.

LOL!
You'll still get killer fps.

Why do people buy stuff before they actually need it?

Sh*t! You had a P4 2,66 back at IL-2 launch? If so, that was high-end back then. That GeForce 4 MX440 must have been the bottleneck, castrated Geforce 2 GTS that was. I had (still have and still working!) an Athlon XP 1900+ (1,6 GHz) 1 GB RAM and a super expensive Elsa Gladiac GeForce 3 back then. Anyway, my current setup is Athlon IIx3@2,7GHz, 4GB ram and a 4670. Game will probably run ok but I have a feeling that my 4670 might have to be exchanged. Will test the game first though.

Because they can LOL!

I'm seeing all of this emphasis on Video Cards, which is OK, but if the CPU can't process info fast enough, all of the GPU power in the world is wasted.

I'm curious at to how the game works with MULTI-CORE CPUs.

Will it take advantage of multi-cores, or will it only use one core?

Excellent, lower than expected.

Looks like i'l be playing on High with lots of eye candy!

Dual Core E8400 @ 3.6 Ghz
4 GB (1066) Ram
GTX 480
SSD

Subconsciously believeing that having the system will make the game release faster? I remember around 2003-2004 people were making killer rigs to play the first Stalker game, and then had to wait another 2-3 years for it to come out.

Either way, building a "killer rig" in the last year will probably mean you'll be playing COD with a lot of the bells a whistles enabled and a decent framerate, just not as fast or as cheaply as people who waited.

You can do some multi-core select right now in the conf.ini of IL2 so I would say yes on multi-core. Especially, since Oleg was planning for several years in the future for the BOB COD.

Maybe it's a stupid question but since I have a 3-core cpu I'd like to know if that would leave me better off than a dual core? I know there's a lot more to it than just having a lot of cores, L1/2/3 cache and clock frequency etc.

Hi, Luthier. Do you think that CoD can benefit from a SLI setup like two GTX 580?
Or it is more CPU bound and a I7 2600K OC with a single GTX 580 is a enough at this time paired with 8GB of fast RAM for max settings?
Or even " no system can do max settings at this time" ( that will be really impressive indeed)

Wow huge dissapointment, they really dropped the ball. More people currently use DX11 than dx10 and DX9 than dx10. Big dissapointment :confused:

If you can't run CoD at max settings with that hardware, then God help us all! :)

WHAT?

According to the steam hardware survey, which is about the most comprehensive, the most accurate survey of PC gamer hardware, only about 5% of PC gamers are on a DX11-capable system. About 21% are on DX9 systems, and the rest are DX10.

But apparently 21 + 73 > 5.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

LOL yeah right ;)

Who cares if its DX11. If the game looks as good as it does on the screenshots, who gives a f* if that is achieved through DX7, DX11 or OpenGL?

For those with ATI cards worrying; ATi are notoriously bad with OpenGL drivers, the fact CoD is a DirectX game (unlike IL2 which was opengl) gives you a good chance it will run fine. ATI's directx drivers are usually okay these days.

As for the specs; dont read too much in to it.
For some perspective, if you read the minimum requirements for IL2, they are:

• Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
• 1 GHz Processor Pentium 3 or equivalent
• 512 MB RAM
• DirectX 9.0 compatible 64MB Graphics Card
• 4 GB Free Hard Disk Space Required

I dont think you will enjoy IL2 a whole lot with those specs.

I dont mean to say CoD will be as bad on minimum specs, but there is so much variation depending on settings, maps, that its easy to bring a core i7 with a geforce 580 to its knees, while you can make it rather fluid on a 5 year old Athlon 64 with a geforce 7900. So a few arbitrary "minimum' and 'recommended' configs dont tell us a whole lot, if there is no mention of framerates or resolutions.

I guess we will find out when it ships :)

Are you posting from the future? What does Duke Nukem Forever II look like?

Exactly. Btw DX10 still looks very very good and it will run faster than DX11 even with latest cards in the play.

I didn't see my 4890 listed in there after the 4850 and 4870, so i was momentarily confused.

What you say is probably obvious (anything better/newer than specified should work) but it's funny how excitement can cause us all to go in panic mode at the slightest drop of the hat :grin:


In any case these are VERY reasonable specs, congrats on the optimization process. Sure, i don't expect it to run at full with those settings, but a mid to high end PC purchased in the last two years will probably have no trouble running it at medium or medium-high settings on a reasonable resolution (single monitor). Heck, i don't expect most PCs to be able to max it out as it is, especially if we consider the disabled features. They're disabled for a reason after all...you know, the people who will crank everything up to max even if there's no hardware that can run it yet and then complain that it's a poor job because it stutters ;)

I'm using an i7 920 (no overclocking) with Ati 4890 1GB and 3GB of RAM (i might get another 3 after i test run the sim a few times) and i'm very happy with the specs.



Also,

i'm generally not one to make ironic remarks and whatnot, but this really made laugh out loud :-P

LoL!

So what is the DX 11 support part in the announcments about?
Is it just blahblah?