Specs similar to Wings of Prey?

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by swiss

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.

Originally Posted by swiss

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by =XIII=Shea

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]

Originally Posted by =XIII=Shea

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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/...clocking-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]

Originally Posted by mazex

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/...clocking-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