I'm nervous about these HDR specs

[archcommus]

So I was reading an interview with Lombardi over at halflife2.net. He's claiming you'll be needing a 2+ GHz CPU, 1 GB of RAM a minimum, upwards of 2 GB, and the latest GPU from ATI or nVidia. What do you think he means by "the latest"? Top of the line, or just the latest series? And 1 GB of RAM a minimum? I'll be quite upset if my just-upgraded system struggles with these HDR levels.

How do you think these HDR levels will stress our systems in comparision to upcoming games like Quake 4, or STALKER? More, less?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

id imagine "latest" means R420 or NV40 (but were talking at least 6800NU/GT perhaps...and at least x800Pro) the HDR implementation is a SM2.0 one (obviosuly since ATI payed valve to make the game better for them) so in theory any SM2 card could do it.

the ram is just rediculous...i dont know many people with 2Gb,

i wonder if the ram size is needed because of the use of SM2?

 

[archcommus]

I don't know, I hope I can hack it well.

I upgraded just recently, and did it modestly. I didn't get any top of the line, but everything was a decent boost for me. I usually don't like to exceed $200 for a CPU and $300 for a video card, and I followed those rules this time, as well. In the past, going by those limit has always gotten me at least 18 months before needing to upgrade again. Will that not hold true this time?

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: archcommus
How do you think these HDR levels will stress our systems in comparision to upcoming games like Quake 4, or STALKER? More, less?

In my sole experience with Far Cry HDR, I think it will stress our systems a lot more than Quake 4 or Stalker alone. HDR is indeed very taxing to your system, I'm just hoping that the coding geniuses over at Valve can make it run a lot better than Far Cry developers did. Of course, every game is different, so we'll see.

Far Cry HDR brought my system to it frickin' knees. 3200+ A64, 1GB of RAM, 6800GT, all at 1024x768..........

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: archcommus
How do you think these HDR levels will stress our systems in comparision to upcoming games like Quake 4, or STALKER? More, less?

In my sole experience with Far Cry HDR, I think it will stress our systems a lot more than Quake 4 or Stalker alone. HDR is indeed very taxing to your system, I'm just hoping that the coding geniuses over at Valve can make it run a lot better than Far Cry developers did. Of course, every game is different, so we'll see.

Far Cry HDR brought my system to it frickin' knees. 3200+ A64, 1GB of RAM, 6800GT, all at 1024x768..........

Pretty close to my system, how does the HDR look? Worth it?

 

[archcommus]

Any other input?

 

[Sniper82]

don't know myself but it doesn't look that much better. Not enough to have to upgrade to the latest video card and more memory.

 

[kd2777]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: archcommus
How do you think these HDR levels will stress our systems in comparision to upcoming games like Quake 4, or STALKER? More, less?

In my sole experience with Far Cry HDR, I think it will stress our systems a lot more than Quake 4 or Stalker alone. HDR is indeed very taxing to your system, I'm just hoping that the coding geniuses over at Valve can make it run a lot better than Far Cry developers did. Of course, every game is different, so we'll see.

Far Cry HDR brought my system to it frickin' knees. 3200+ A64, 1GB of RAM, 6800GT, all at 1024x768..........

Pretty close to my system, how does the HDR look? Worth it?

yeah it is worth it if you can get your FPS up. I just got a new system and played the farcry with HDR and it looked amazing. I had an ATI card before so I wasn't able to experience it until recently.

kd

 

[archcommus]

I'm really surprised it looks that impressive.

I'm sure my system will be alright for next-gen, I think HDR is a bit beyond that.

 

[BFG10K]

1 GB has been the realistic minimum for gaming for a long time; newer games are pushing 2 GB.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
1 GB has been the realistic minimum for gaming for a long time; newer games are pushing 2 GB.

I would agree that games have benefited from 1 GB for a long time (the first game that I saw a LARGE difference in between 512 and 1 gig was HL2), but I still think we're in the era where little performance gain is usually seen from going beyond a gig.

 

[Looney]

Glad i got 2GB for my iXPS2 laptop... and people thought it was overkill. Every game that i've regularly played since i got my laptop performed better with 2GB than 1GB (EQ2, Lineage2, HL2, BF2)

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: BFG10K
1 GB has been the realistic minimum for gaming for a long time; newer games are pushing 2 GB.

I would agree that games have benefited from 1 GB for a long time (the first game that I saw a LARGE difference in between 512 and 1 gig was HL2), but I still think we're in the era where little performance gain is usually seen from going beyond a gig.

We must not be playing the same games... or at least not the same way. Try playing at 1920x1200 and 2GB makes a difference (i've been playing at 1920x1200 for over 3yrs now).

 

[archcommus]

I only play at 1280x1024 and will probably do so for a long time, as well, so yes, that definitely makes a difference.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: archcommus
but I still think we're in the era where little performance gain is usually seen from going beyond a gig.

This all depends on what your definition of "performance" is. If performance is frames a second, then no, 2GB will not help in that department. But if you define performance as the ability to cache all relevent data into the RAM, then 2GB is the only way to go. You can see this with BF2.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: archcommus
but I still think we're in the era where little performance gain is usually seen from going beyond a gig.

This all depends on what your definition of "performance" is. If performance is frames a second, then no, 2GB will not help in that department. But if you define performance as the ability to cache all relevent data into the RAM, then 2GB is the only way to go. You can see this with BF2.

What's the point of "caching all relevant data into RAM" if it's not going to affect FPS very much?

And again, resolution. I think for anyone playing on a 19" or smaller, anything over a gig is overkill.