Far Cry did not use large amounts of textures, it had huge amounts of LOD proceduring. Remember how crappy those hills off in the distance looked?
Anyway, this is nothing new. The 2GB era was expected to start this fall/this coming spring anyway. Anyone who isn't already at 2GB is ready to move up again soon.
I myself will try BF2 at the settings I just starting using since I got my 19" CRT a few months ago which is 1280x1024 max settings(no FSAA and stuff). I might even try my old settings with is 1024x768 max detail. If it isn't playable(don't care what FPS I get) I'll upgrade. But I think I will be fine unless I start playing in 64 player servers. But personally I prefer no more than 16-24 player servers.
Pr0d1gy
Diamond Member
- Jan 30, 2005
- 7,774
- 0
- 76
Same here. I seriously doubt you'd need more than a 6600gt unless you want to play with AA & AF on & max detail. I figure it could handle max details at 1280x1024 with AA & AF off as long as your system is strong on the CPU, RAM, mobo end of things.
I'm sure 1GB will be fine for most users. However, if you want to max the etxture quality, you will need that extra RAM.
What about vid RAM? Will 128MB be enough? I am probably going to upgrade my system to get this game...probably will buy a 6600GT with 128.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: OzzieGT
Guys, I can't believe nobody pointed out that mdchesne quoted server specs...derrr....the minimum requirements are 512...so 2x that will probably be good.
And yes I am pissed I have to upgrade my ti4200 to play
I'm still on Win2k. I hope it works ok, I've really been putting off upgrading to XP Pro.
According to this it doesn't work on Win2k/ME so you will have to upgrade:
http://www.bfnation.net/bf2/sysreq/
If that site is accurate then I think 1gb will be enough. What worries me is the recommended requirements calls for a 256mb video card(high end and no crap). But I am sure the recommended requirements is for everything on or almost on max. I think a 256mb video card would give better performance then going with another gb of memory.
What is all this talk of 64 player servers? You do realize the player limit is now raised to 100 right?
And don't underestimate the requirements - remember what a hog Battlefield Vietnam was.
And don't underestimate the requirements - remember what a hog Battlefield Vietnam was.
I don't buy it not running on Win2K for a second. When I tried to get the Dungeon Siege 2 beta it told me it required WindowsXP. So I told it I had WindowsXP and the damn thing ended up running perfectly fine on Win2K.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,756
- 600
- 126
There's virtually no difference between the nuts and bolts of 2k and XP. It makes no fvcking sense at all that it wouldn't run fine on win2k. Don't tell me it needs windows firewall or the XP theme to run.
Thats gotta be some kind of bullsh|t, or at the very least it'll just run anyway like you said.That said, if it doesn't run on 2K...I'm prefectly happy just not purchasing the game to begin with. Sounds like it'll run like a pig on my machine anyways.
The 2gb of ram seems odd...but BF1942 does pretty much take as much ram as you throw at it and puts it to use so I guess its not that great of a stretch.
Win2K and WinXP are 95% identical code anyway. They probably just don't support Win2K so that if anyone calls tech support with a problem on 2k, they can say "You need XP" and not have to waste any more time on it.
I think it'll do just fine on 2000.
So youre saying the NTFS kernel in XP which is DIRECTLY based on the NTFS kernel in windows 2000, just with a ton of workstation/server features taken out, and dumbed down a couple hundred dozen grades for the Dell "users" is vastly different than win2k?
Can you explain why almost all XP drivers also work on 2k with identical code?
I don't know what crack you are smoking skippy, but yes, their codebase is almost exactly the same.
Why do you think all recent drivers are for Win2k/XP? They're both based on the Windows NT 5.x kernel.
Gamespot put up a hands on preview and they said the game ran smoothly on a 3Ghz P4 and 9800Pro on high settings. I'm not sure what resolution they were using though. However, they also suggested more than 1GB of RAM, and their test systems were >1GB. I'm going to see how it runs before I upgrade though.
HAHA, you never played BFV did you?
You can't comfortably run everything on max on BFV with a 6800U. My x800pro could only muster high (not "highest") graphics at 1280x960 4xAA / 8xAF.
Setting graphics to "highest" would TANK FPS in certain situations (mostly zooming with a rifle). You could be going merrily along at 60 FPS average, zoom in on someone running through a rice paddy and BAM, unplayably choppy FPS in the TEENS. It was ridiculous. Setting graphics to 'high' instead of highest made things MUCH better in terms of the minimum FPS vs. the average FPS.
I don't know if BF2 will be better, but I wouldn't necessarily assume it will be better. When BFV first came out, 9800XT was the best card available and it was barely capable of running highest settings at 1024x768. It could do "medium" graphics pretty well at higher resolutions, but highest + 1024 would give you rates in the low 20s when zooming. This is something that wouldn't show up in normal review sites "Average FPS" and while a fairly specific issue, made the game unplayable at highest settings.
HardOCP was the only hardware site that I ever saw even allude to this issue:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjA2LDc=
At these settings we only dropped to 32FPS in our test. It is noteworthy though that performance did drop into the 30?s to upper 20?s on occasion at this setting, and it only happened when zooming into the forests with your gun.
I would take the BF2 recommended hardware very seriously. If past performance is any gage, this is not going to be a Doom3 engine that scales nicely to lower end hardware... it is going to be a sloppy and hardware hungry engine.
I want to believe it's not, but realistically I don't believe it will run max settings well until the next gen video cards are out. But at this point, I fully admit that it's pure speculation.
Well hopefully its coded better because the way BFV looks it has to be coded poorly. But no I've never played it. I remember BF1942 playing perfectly fine at max setting 1024x768(no FSAA and stuff) on a 8500/GF4 Ti4200(can't remember which I had) and 512mb. BFV doesn't look much better than BF1942.
But we will see when/if the demo is released in the next few days or so.
But we will see when/if the demo is released in the next few days or so.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
Rumors, Im tired on all this rumors ( In the words of Linsday Lohan)
It better not, cause I only have 384MB
It better not, cause I only have 384MB
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter