backtop

Blog: Software Assassin's Creed Will Stealth Kill Your PC
Marcus Yam (Blog) - January 23, 2008 6:47 AM
Print 70 comment(s) - last by jtesoro.. on Jan 25 at 10:10 PM
Assassin's Creed exceeds Crysis in system requirements

While a lot of what I write on DailyTech is centered around console gaming, the PC still commands a significant portion of my gaming time. No, it’s got nothing to do with World of Warcraft (which I am not part of that 10 million), but it’s just that the PC will always have the most advanced hardware to run the same software at smoother frame rates and higher resolutions.

For shooters such as Orange Box, Call of Duty 4 and BioShock, it’s a no-brainer to play on the PC if you have the recommended hardware. Real-time strategies aren’t even a factor on consoles (yet).

Because of my preference of playing multi-platform games on the PC, I haven’t yet touched Assassin’s Creed on consoles – despite the mixed praise – as I’m waiting for the eventual release on PC. I’m sure I’m not the only one holding out for the PC version, though the recent release of the system requirement for it may have had some wishing they had just picked it up for consoles last year.

Believe it or not, the system requirements for Assassin’s Creed on PC eclipse even those of Crysis, which some thought to be the upper ceiling for PC game requirements for 2008. Even more unbelievable is that some of Assassin’s Creed’s minimum system requirements surpass the recommended specs for Crysis.

Copied from Ubisoft’s support site:

In order to play this game properly, your PC MUST meet or exceed these minimum requirements:

Supported OS: Windows XP / Vista (only)

Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)

RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)

Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*

Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)

DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)

DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive

Hard Drive Space: 12 GB

Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)

*Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
ATI RADEON X1300-1950 / HD 2000 / 3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600-6800 / 7 / 8 / 9 series

Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT supported. These chipsets are the only ones that will run this game.

NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives.

Ouch. Something is definitely wrong here. While I won’t pretend to know all the dirty details behind porting Xbox 360/PS3 to the PC, and I do realize that working with a closed system has some distinct optimization advantages, it’s pretty hard to swallow that the PC version of Assassin’s Creed needs 2GB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM to do what the consoles did with 512MB total for both.

At least with Crysis, you knew where those exorbitant system requirements were going. Maybe the PC version of Assassin’s Creed features completely overhauled graphics, but somehow I doubt it. Thankfully, my PC rig is still within the acceptable range requested by Assassin’s Creed, so I won’t rush out to pick up a console copy just yet.

But really, if all PC versions of console games command such stratospheric system requirements relative to their console counterparts, gamers are eventually going to stop seeing the benefits of upgrading their systems when a similar game can be played on a console that costs less than a video card.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Misty Dingos on 1/23/2008 8:39:56 AM , Rating: 5
My computer could play Crysis well enough that I could thoroughly enjoy the game. Twice. I would love to upgrade. I want to upgrade for Fallout 3.

But this isn’t upgrade it is replacement. Perhaps we should count our lucky stars that they didn’t spec a minimum dual video card setup.

I saw a gaming PC priced at over $10,000 recently. Just how much are we willing to pay for a system? Let's be honest here a PC for $10K! I don't know how much that is in Euros or Pounds but the VAT would kill you. How many people are going to spend that kind of money for a PC? This is why the PC gaming market is shrinking. If you can play the same games on a console and a big screen HDTV for $650 and a PC and a 30 inch LCD monitor for let's say even $5000, which one are you going to choose?

I love the PC for playing games but we are dead as an alternative to consoles if we can't figure out how to get more hardware in the hands of more PC owners cheaper. It is just a brutal reality. Would I like a dual video card, quad core 1.2 kilowatt PC beast? Hell yes. Am I going to buy or build one? Hell no.

I purchased my first PC in 1995. I spent all of $2000 on it. It was the best custom hardware that money could buy. It was easily the equivalent of the upper end gaming PCs of today. With inflation calculated from 1995 to last year that PC would cost between $2600 and $3000. While it is true I could get a really good PC for three thousand dollars it would be a serious stretch to think that it could buy the kind of hardware that top end gaming machines have today.

What we have here is that ugly reality. The top end is getting so expensive that it no longer represents a realistic purchase. They are fantasy machines for people that have more money than brains.




RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Schrag4 on 1/23/2008 9:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that anyone who spends 10k on a machine has more money than brains. Or at the very least they have more money than the patience that it takes to figure out what to buy to get the best value.

However, I disagree with your idea that a top-end gaming machine cannot be had for the 2600-3000 dollars that you cite. Just spend 5 minutes and go to Dell's website (or any other site) and you'll configure at least a 2.66 dual core, 2 GB, and Dual 8800GT 512 MB system. That seems top end to me. It certainly exceeds the video specs given above.

This is totally ignoring the fact that you can still build it yourself for less if you just take a little time to figure things out...


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By IGoodwin on 1/23/2008 11:33:38 AM , Rating: 4
The PC will fade as a game platform, especially when the next generation of consoles come around.

The features of a console are getting closer to the PC. The clincher is the software optomized for a static platform of hardware for a given number of years. Realistically, as soon as a student can do their homework on a console then the end is in sight, given the multimedia capabilities, browsing, and communications are already evident.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Xerio on 1/23/2008 11:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
There is no way the PC as a gaming platform is going away for a number of reasons:

(1) Sony has had a hard time selling the PS3 at $600 (less now). Most PC gamers won't bat an eye at spending $1500-$2000 on hardware.

(2) PC hardware will always out perform consoles for the reason above.

(3) PCs will always be more versatile.

Granted, developers know exactly which hardware is in each console and can streamline their software accordingly, but that will not make up for the hardware deficiencies.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By mushi799 on 1/24/2008 12:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
1) Sony sold 8-8.5 mill(not exactly sure) in their first year, that's pretty good. Sony is actually outpacing 360s as of now. The wii is just Insane.

2) PC hardware maybe stronger, but hardware is nothing without software. Console software will always be better optimized. Case n' point, capcom's lost planet. PS2 had a gpu equal to the geforce256, xbox = geforce 3. They had nice looking games for those kind of specs compared to PC counterparts.

3)For now.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By lompocus on 1/24/08, Rating: -1
By DingieM on 1/24/2008 7:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
...last year... :-)


By Ryanman on 1/23/2008 11:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
The consoles are BEGINNING to get close to what a PC has to offer. I think it will be ten years before they truly begin to compete.
And your 3k is not a good PC is WAY off the mark. Right now, you can purchase a PC that has a HD wide screen Viewsonic monitor, and performs better than an xbox 360 for around $1100. Build it yourself and save a buck!
Not only that, but factor in the utility of a PC. Think of buying a high-end machine for business and pleasure surfing... then instead of buying a 360 grab a video card instead. It's not difficult for ME to justify, and i'm a frivolous guy.
Factor in the 10 or 20 or 30 bucks you save on each game. The superior backwards compatibility. The 60 bucks you save on LIVE every year. The money that you save from downloading mods instead of using MS points for maps. And if you truly think about it... which gaming market is more fun to play with anyway? the 12 year old boys and girls on XBL? I think not.
And until consoles come with KB and mouse support, you won't be able to do any of the things not related to gaming that you mentioned (not to mention mouse/KB is better for gaming itself). Your "end is nigh" speech is pretty doubtful at best. I think the real problem is selfish jackasses that steal software from developers : /


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Xerio on 1/23/2008 11:39:04 AM , Rating: 3
I took the time to price out top-end hardware at Newegg and found that you can easily get a great machine that will play ANY game you throw at it for less than $3000. I priced out very top-end hardware and came up with this for about $3900 (feel free to nit-pick my choices):

ASUS MAXIMUS EXTREME LGA 775 Intel X38
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700
ZALMAN 9500A 92mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler
SAPPHIRE 100225L Radeon HD 3870 512MB (x2)
OCZ Gold Edition 4GB (4 x 1GB) DDR3 1333
LIAN LI PC-7B plus II Aluminum Case
LIAN LI Aluminum Card Reader
OCZ GameXStream 700W Power Supply
Western Digital Raptor 150GB 10,000 RPM Hard Drive (x2)
LITE-ON Black Blu-Ray Burner
ASUS 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe
bluegears b-Enspirer 7.1 Channels PCI Interface Sound Card
Logitech Z-5500 505 Watts 5.1 Speaker
Logitech G11 Silver & Black USB Standard Gaming Keyboard
Logitech G9 Black 5 Buttons USB Wired Laser Gaming Mouse
Westinghouse 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor (1920 x 1200)
Microsoft Windows Vista 64-Bit Ultimate


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Xerio on 1/23/2008 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
I realize what I listed is close to $4000, but if you take out the 24" monitor, the Blu-Ray drive, and the speakers, you are at around $3000.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:37:31 PM , Rating: 1
Your specs are rediculous. Trade out both of those loser graphics cards for a single 8800GTX, swap out the raptors for a 500gig western digital, etc... etc.... I can build a quad core monster for around 1500 with monitor. Your going down the road of "enthusiast FUD" rather than the road of "real enthusiast".


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Xerio on 1/23/2008 12:47:34 PM , Rating: 3
What I was really doing was going the most expensive route, not the most realistic route. Would I really build this? No. I agree with you whole heartedly.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Ryanman on 1/23/2008 11:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
The real travesty is the LIAN LI case. Why spend 400 bucks on a case when you get get a similar one for 100?
The fact is, you can build a wayyy better PC than a 360+HDTV for a fraction of the price. Whoever said a 360 and an HDTV cost 650 bucks total deserves to be shot.


By Xerio on 1/24/2008 1:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
The Lian-Li case is about $70... :)


By Proteusza on 1/23/2008 1:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
8800 GTS 512 is faster than a GTX - a GTX is just a waste.

And dual 3870's is actually a very good config because CrossFire scales better than SLI.

And there is also the 3870GX2, which beats an Ultra.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Xerio on 1/23/2008 1:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean to spread FUD, ever. I was just trying to show that for WAY less than $10,000 you can build an outrageous machine. Here is what I what I would really build, for just less than $1700 (so cheap, it makes me want to get it now). Please make any recommendations to this list. With my tax return on its way, I might actually build this thing.

ASUS P5K-E Intel P35 Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
ZALMAN 9500A 92mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler
MSI GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB
2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 1066
LIAN LI PC-7B plus II Aluminum Case
LIAN LI Aluminum Card Reader
Rosewill SLI-Ready 550W Power Supply
Western Digital Caviar SE WD5000AAJS 500GB HDD
ASUS 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe
bluegears b-Enspirer 7.1 Channels PCI Interface Sound Card
Acer 22" 5ms DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor
Logitech Keyboard and Optical Mouse
Microsoft Windows Vista 32-Bit Ultimate


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By BMFPitt on 1/23/2008 2:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Given that you can get 4GB for under $200 these days, you might as well just go for it. You'll do it 6 months down the line, anyway...

You might want to go to a 700W PSU just for future expansion.

Why 32bit for Vista?


By PitViper007 on 1/23/2008 3:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given that you can get 4GB for under $200 these days, you might as well just go for it. You'll do it 6 months down the line, anyway...


quote:
You might want to go to a 700W PSU just for future expansion.


quote:
Why 32bit for Vista?


I was thinking the same things. As far as Vista goes, I'd have gone with the 64bit version just to be able to take advantage of the greater amount of ram. Other than that, not a bad system.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By Xerio on 1/23/2008 3:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the input, guys. Although I do have quite a bit of system integration experience, I have not messed with any 64bit operating sytems. I have heard horror stories about driver and software reliability. Have those been resolved? Can I expect everything to run as smoothly as it would on a 32bit system?


By ChronoReverse on 1/23/2008 4:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
Mostly resolved nowadays. Even on the Nvidia camp, gaming performance is within 1%.

The only remaining issues are mostly some pieces of software (I hear some CAD software don't work and iTunes doesn't work) and non-new hardware. Anything with a WHQL driver will have a 64bit driver.


By InsaneScientist on 1/23/2008 8:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
The iTunes issue was fixed with version 7.6, but even before then, it was pretty easy to manually install the x64 driver that was needed.

I've been running Vista x64 for a while, and I'm quite happy with it.
The only possible issue that you might run into now is that of finding the drivers that you need for the system (and if you custom build, you should be fine.)
System manufacturers are still dragging their heels on getting x64 drivers out there. :-S

Still, I have a Dell Vostro 1700 laptop with Vista Ultimate x64 on it, and, though difficult, I was able to find all the drivers I needed even for that.

My desktop is a (recently) custom built machine with similar specs to what you're talking about (Q6600 @ 3.2GHz, MSI IP35 Pro, 8GB RAM, 8800GT OCed far enough that it's faster than a GTS 512 :D ) and I have no trouble finding x64 drivers for it... which is good considering the amount of RAM in the thing. :)


By kristof007 on 1/23/2008 5:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Try to get your hands on some 8800 GT cards. They perform ridiculously well. They are around $250 last time I checked.


By DingieM on 1/24/2008 7:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually those 2 HD3870's are pretty good, anything but loser cards.
Pretty much nVidia fanboy eh?
Get over it, its your choice


By aguilpa1 on 1/23/2008 12:36:32 PM , Rating: 1
I would trade out the X38 board for an Nvidia 780i board
Get 8800GT (x2) SLI
You don't need 4GB of ram unless you have 64bit Vista or XP and lots of patience. Get a Q6600 and save more money since it will easily do 3.2Ghz on good air cooling, loose the blue ray burner and go with a 37" Westinghouse 1920x1080 8ms LCD monitor which is a better buy. NOW your gaming and saving money


By murphyslabrat on 1/23/2008 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
OK, here is my list:

Externals -
ASUS TA-982 (Vento) Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 350W Power Supply - Retail (dump that PSU, quick)

RAIDMAX QUANTUM RX-700 ATX12V 700W Power Supply - Retail

ViewSonic Value Series VA2226W Black-Silver 21.6" 5ms DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor - Retail

Trust MI-6950R Black 8 Buttons Tilt Wheel USB Laser Mouse - Retail

Ideazon Merc Stealth Illuminated Gaming Keyboard- ZXP-2000 Black USB Wired Ergonomics - Retail
Subtotal: $540

Real Stuff:
MSI P6N SLI Platinum LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 650i SLI ATX Intel

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz LGA 775 Quad-Core

ZEROtherm Nirvana NV120 120mm 2-ball UFO Bearing / Transparent CPU Cooler - Retail

CORSAIR 4GB(2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TWIN2X4096-6400C5 G - Retail

XFX PVT88PYDF4 GeForce 8800GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail
subtotal: $810

Storage:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250820A 250GB 7200 RPM IDE Ultra ATA100 Hard Drive - OEM

SAMSUNG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black PATA Model SH-S202N - OEM
Subtotal: $95

Total: $1,445
Total Rebates: $194 (some of that consists of instant rebates)

Now, almost every one of those items had a rebate or were Customer Choice Award winners.

You could get a Blu-Ray drive, but I would wait till the prices drop on them.


By Xerio on 1/23/2008 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Nice list. I prefer Intel chipsets as I have found they are more reliable, but that is more personal preference. I also like the Lian-Li case I picked above because it is 100% aluminum and not too crazy in the style department. Other than those things, your list looks good to me.


By NicePants42 on 1/23/2008 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 4
We can post wishlists till the cows come home, but the fact is that most people pay Dell/Gateway/Apple/etc. to put their PCs together, and thus pay a whole lot more (while getting less upgradeable parts) than those of us who can assemble systems ourselves.

In any case, there's a big difference between $350 for an Xbox 360 and $1,400 for a new gaming PC. Even if we assume that we're performing an upgrade, only replacing the critical components, the price tag is still $810 less the resale value of whatever we're replacing. Joe sixpack would rather drop $350 on an Xbox and be done with it.


By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/23/2008 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Okay first off, I'll have to admit I've yet to play Crysis (a friend of mine stole my disc and refuses to give it back now, but I digress). But I have played Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, The Orange Box and Gears of War. All were fantastic games that looked amazing.

I guess I'm one of the lucky people out there who managed to score an Intel Retail Edge bundle (quad-core CPU, motherboard and Vista Home Premium for a smidge over $250) and pair it with some decent RAM and a good video card. For me, it's the most powerful system I've had since I had a Pentium III with a GeForce 2 in it. And to me, that is the real problem with the PC gaming industry.

While consoles will still work just fine with games several years after their release (I still have an Xbox that works perfectly well and looks decent with semi-recent games), your PC gets progressively worse and worse at playing current games because developers are coding for the latest and greatest hardware.

What needs to happen is a shift to much more scalable game engines. Half-Life 2's Source engine was, for me, the epitome of scalability. I could play it on anything from a GeForce 2 to a GeForce 7800 and it played well all the way. Obviously, it didn't look great at the lower settings, but Valve managed to create an engine that looked decent at lower settings (and played well at them) and looked amazing at higher detail levels.

My current PC, all told, cost me about $1700 to build, taxes included, using retail prices (that's just the major components, not counting stuff I poached from old machines). A Q6600, 2GB of RAM, GeForce 8800GT, a high-midrange motherboard, a few hard drives, a good case and a decent PSU to power it all. So while it is much more expensive than a console (even the much-maligned Playstation 3), it does everything I need it to do, and does it all with aplomb.

PC gaming, as an industry, is not dead, nor is it dying. The PC pushes the boundaries of gaming technology in all arenas. From CPUs to video cards and general-purpose usage, the PC still can't be beaten. Give me a PC any day over a console, just make it competitive price-wise.


By dflynchimp on 1/23/2008 8:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
IMO a friend who steals Crysis from you and doesn't give it back is a friend no more.

The problem with developing for PC is that gaming is actually only an extension of the OS, not the main purpose of it. Thus developers have to code around the bloated OSes like vista and the not-so-great-for-gaming types like Mac, both of which were good for everything except gaming. Also because they don't have a unified hardware set they end up writing the program however they see fit (not necessarily the most efficient), and leaves it to the hardware to catch up.

Consoles on the other hand were designed grounds up as gaming platforms. Developers coded their programs *around* the hardware, resulting in more efficient use of the same horsepower. It's like the original xbox's gpu only had specs similar to that of a geforce 2, but you won't even fathom trying to run Halo 2 on a geforce 2 because all you'd get is a slideshow. It's like putting a race-engine in an M1 Abram. That same engine which could propel a racecar to 200+ mph speeds wouldn't even make the Abram crawl because of the M1's weight (that tank takes 1500hp to limp to 42mph). The M1 is too loaded down with other applications (guns, ammunition, armor)

What I want to see is someone who manages to design an exclusive gaming OS for standard PC hardware. Not the proverbial Tank OS's like Vista or Leopard. A grounds up race-car that can truly harness the power of modern PC hardware for gaming.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By DingieM on 1/24/2008 7:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
Just like the Amiga days, to play a game on the PC, reboot it with the game!!

Anyhow, give me a console over the PC. Personally playing games on PC's are for nerds/wacko's. Playing an fps while running in dungeons with mouse and keyboard...sjees!

I find it much more enjoyable to sit on a couch and immerse myself into the gaming world. Thats the added value: playing on you LCD TV with great surround sound.
Believe it or not, those flaky PC speakers albeit they are 7.1 cannot compete with my surround audio setup...ever!

And I have to puke at the utterly INefficient game codes running on the PC. 2 or 3 gigs needed to play a decent game.


RE: I have pain in all the diodes on my left side.
By leper on 1/24/2008 9:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
You can hook up your pc to your lcd tv and your stereo. And I hate to tell you this, but you are a nerd (not that there is anything wrong with that).


By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/24/2008 11:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. And there's a whole whack of gamers who sit on their couches with a mouse and keyboard or at their desk with a controller. So your argument, while you think you're making a good one, is actually not that strong.


By 1078feba on 1/24/2008 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. I think it's stunningly, glaringly logical for MS to release a gamer version of XP/Vista. I know that there has been at least one aftermarket version of XP cobbled together by some enterprising young man expressly constructed with gaming in mind, but seriously, how hard would it be for them to do this? Strip down the OS to the absolute bare minimum, make it easier to upgrade drivers and market it to us. No more slogging through all the services and deciding what to turn off. I have been waiting forever for Redmond to figure this out...


By iFX on 1/24/2008 9:20:54 PM , Rating: 1
More money than brains? Sounds like you are jealous to me.

Just because someone makes more money than you that gives you the right to bash them.

Maybe you should just work harder.


I gave up on PC gaming exactly because of this.
By OxBow on 1/23/2008 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 5
The constant chase to keep your PC upgraded to play the next game got old and expensive. I agree that PC's give a better general experience than consoles, however, the cost of entry is just to high to keep playing that game.

Since, for my purposes, the average $500 laptop will handle all my non-gaming needs, it doesn't make sense to me to keep upgrading a computer to chase game specs when the console experience has become so good for less money.

At this point, there's no reason why the RTS and big MMO's don't also release on consoles. The consoles have the processing power to handle these games and the capability to accomodating the unique input schemes (it's not a big hurdle for someone wanting to play one of these games to plug a keyboard and mouse into their console, much simpler than plugging a new video card is). While I don't think that PC gaming is going to dissapear, I do think it's going to be relegated to a niche that's only inhabited by a small minority of enthusiats.




RE: I gave up on PC gaming exactly because of this.
By darkpaw on 1/23/2008 10:57:46 AM , Rating: 3
I'm pretty much in agreement. I'll still stick to the PC for most FPS/RTS games, but the console has definitely become the better value.

I used to try and keep my PC on the higher end of mid-range, but spending $2k or so every two years really adds up. For that same $2k this year, I managed to buy all three current consoles and a 37" HDTV.

So yah, my PC definitely isn't near top-of-the-line any more, but I can't justify spending as much on a video card thats good for two years at most as I spend on a console I'm going to get at least 5 years out of.

For people like me, it is nice to see that the low-mid range of cards that have just been released actually are respectable. $200 is a lot easier to stomach on a video upgrade then $400.


By ChronoReverse on 1/23/2008 5:12:12 PM , Rating: 3
How do you spend $2k on a computer every two years?

E6750 $190
GA-P35-DS3R $130
4GB DDR2 $95
500GB $100
8800GT 256MB $215
Corsair 500W PSU $100

Total: $830

Surely you can keep your monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers and case. This is already a tremendous gaming computer.


By Ringold on 1/23/2008 7:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Surely you can keep your monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers and case. This is already a tremendous gaming computer.


I've had two LCD models over the last 8 years. A 2000FP, and after that died, a 2001FP. 1600x1200 all along. And guess what? It's hard, and expensive, to get larger panel made with similar image quality (S-IPS); thus, 16x12 is still a gold standard, since not many people shell out for a 30" panel. I feel zero need to upgrade it. It works great, just like it has for years.

As you pointed out, that's some serious power for very little money. That said, if the OP really satisfies his computing needs with a cheap laptop, I think you and I are in a whole different category of user. :\ Laptops drive me nuts.


By darkpaw on 1/23/2008 8:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Those are good options and prices have definitely gone down (especially memory). Still cost same as two of the consoles, but definitely faster.

My last upgrade came out to just under 2k in October 2005

X2-3800
2GB DDR 3200
300GB SATA DRIVE
Case
PS
7800GT
Motherboard

The proc, memory, and vc alone were $1200 in that setup. $200 ea for the HDD, MB, and Case, + tax and it was just under 2k.

Sure can buy a lot more performance for that price now.


By Alias1431 on 1/24/2008 11:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see you alt-tab while playing WOW on your x-box.


RE: I gave up on PC gaming exactly because of this.
By jtesoro on 1/25/2008 5:43:45 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, we need the capability to run stuff in the background like a firewall, antivirus software, antispyware apps, all while downloading the latest security patches.

Oh wait...


By Alias1431 on 1/25/2008 8:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
You sound like an Apple user.


By jtesoro on 1/25/2008 10:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Which goes to show you that reality and perception often don't match.


By therealnickdanger on 1/23/2008 8:21:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just curious, because I can see why the PC reqs are so high. I have it (360 version) and can tell you that just by what I can see and hear (not including AI or underlying physics), the console version of this game is one heavy piece of software... and it runs as smooth as butta (most of the time).

You have to remember that their target on the PC is to meet the visual fidelity and framerate of the console version. I'm not going to say that the 360 is more powerful than a 3GHz quad-core with a 9850GTX, but there's no denying that the PC has to be able to process on the same level as a 3.2GHz, dual-thread per core, triple-core (6 thread) machine with its own custom link to the R500 AND that special "minimal hit" eDRAM for AA/effects. Factor in that the games are fully optimized to run on this hardware... something that can't be done easily on PCs.

I can certainly see where the extra horsepower is required. The console has the finesse advantage - the PC has to use brute strength. Every configuration is different and requirements often overexaggerate. My PC is used for older FPSs and RTSs... I can't remember the last time I bought a new PC game (Act of War?). I still bought a HD3850 to stay somewhat current, though.




By ChronoReverse on 1/23/2008 5:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
Eh. The console version is running at "720p" which in PC terms is the equivalent of 1280x768... a miniscule resolution. And usually with 2xAA at best (the EDRAM in the 360 turned out to be too small to actually give the "free" AA).

The reason why PC's have it tougher is because they run games at 1920x1200 with at least 4xAA (and usually with transparency/adaptive AA on) with a lot heavier shaders than the console versions.


By therealnickdanger on 1/23/2008 9:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
Resolution ain't everything. You have to factor in all the enhancements. I would guarantee that Unreal Tournament 3 with all effects looks better and requires better hardware at 640x480 than Unreal Tournament 1 at 1920x1200.


By ChronoReverse on 1/24/2008 6:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
The shader power of the PS3 is equivalent to a 7800GTX. We had more than that before the PS3 came out. The 8800's have been out for ages now. So no, the PS3 version doesn't even come close to the PC version.

Shader power, geometry, textures, resolution. Consoles cannot compete in any of these arenas.


RE: Have you even seen AC in action on the 360?
By DingieM on 1/24/2008 7:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the shaders are heavier, the textures are heavier on the PC, hence the 2 gigs needed.
360 is pretty much capable of huge and complex shaders due to its very advanced GPU subsystem. I'm absolutely sure you will not see better shaders on the PC, but higher resolution textures.
And it is possible to do 4x "free" AA with the eDRam on 1280x720. But the graphics engines must support it. And do not forget that the UE3.0 engine is bug-laden and underdevelopped on the 360.

And the resolution of 1280x720 is PERFECT to play on a LCD TV.


By ChronoReverse on 1/25/2008 9:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
No. There's no free AA. The EDRAM was found to be too small to do "free" AA at 720P.

As for the shaders, they were similar to the unified shaders specified for DX10, but in terms of power (it's just math) it's not at the level of the previous generation top end (X1950) much less the current generation.


Err supports Windows XP but needs Direct X 10?
By Hokum on 1/23/2008 10:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
Something UBI arent teling us?

I didnt think you could run Direct X 10 on Windows XP?




By djkrypplephite on 1/23/2008 10:53:50 AM , Rating: 2
YOU can't, Microsoft could release it on XP if they wanted to, but they'll never do that, seeing as how they need everyone to buy Vista, and DX10 is roughly Vista's only real selling point.


By Puddyglum1 on 1/23/2008 12:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card
DirectX 10 is optional... although I suspect a lot of people will have DX10 & Vista if they have the 2GB memory and Core2Duo.


RE: Err supports Windows XP but needs Direct X 10?
By Hokum on 1/23/2008 12:22:16 PM , Rating: 1
"DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)"

So they are going to give MS files for XP users or what?


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 3
The libraries will be useless to XP users.


My bet:
By Griswold on 1/23/2008 8:18:59 AM , Rating: 3
Another slackjob port - thats where the requirements come from. Would it really surprise anyone anymore?

I decided to stay miles away from games that appear in the order of "consoles -> PC" after falling for it the second time with GoW after Halo.




RE: My bet:
By Fnoob on 1/23/2008 9:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
Halo port for PC wasn't too bad. GOW on the other hand, just plain sucked. Drek.


RE: My bet:
By The Jedi on 1/23/2008 10:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
Off topic, (what's new?) but what's wrong with Gears of War? I haven't tried it at all yet.


I was thinking this... then u said it
By P4blo on 1/23/2008 8:16:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
gamers are eventually going to stop seeing the benefits of upgrading their systems when a similar game can be played on a console that costs less than a video card.


I'm concerned for the future of gaming on my beloved PC. As mentioned, how can it survive en masse when a single top end 8800GTX dwarfs an XBox 360 in cost? And then gets chugged out by Crysis and Assassins creed within a year.

I think it's time card makers and some developers stopped trying to suck the life out of the PC platform. I will never use a gamepad for an FPS.... never ! :-) God help us if gaming on the PC falls by the wayside. It would be very sad indeed. You can pick up powerful, capable dual and quad core PC's cheaper than ever before. But I dont ever recall performance GFX cards getting cheaper, just more expensive.




By NicePants42 on 1/23/2008 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...a single top end 8800GTX dwarfs an XBox 360 in cost?
Newegg shows that the 8800GTX can be had for around $400, whereas the basic XBox 360 sells for $350. What's dwarfing what? You can argue that two 8800 Ultras cost close to $1.5K, and I'd reply that some people have more money than sense. People without that particular problem might notice that the new 8800GTS (G92) cards have the same number of stream processors as the 8800GTX, higher stock clock speeds, and can be had for under $300 AR currently. The 8800GT is available for $250. By your logic, the price of either card is dwarfed by the Xbox 360, yet PC gaming is on the decline. It might be a little more complex than 'video cards are expensive' eh?

quote:
I dont ever recall performance GFX cards getting cheaper, just more expensive.
You appear to be unaware of the 8800GT and HD 3000 series. Prior to these, I might have agreed with you.

What we all have more right to complain about is the overall cost of maintaining a gaming PC, but even that's not too bad if we moderate our purchases and sell our old gear. Trouble is, most people buy Dell boxes because they don't know or care what goes on under the beige cover.

I think the main issue is not the cost of the hardware itself (although a PC will always be more expensive because it's a more flexible machine) but rather the cost of having someone do the work of assembling/fixing it. A gaming console is essentially a specialized PC with near zero assembly costs due to mass production. If consumers had to pay Dell to assemble their consoles, the gaming scene would be different today.

Economies of scale, specialization, and the fact that people have things to do are the reasons that consoles are on the rise. Misty Dingo's $10K 'Gaming PC' is irrelevant.


Videocard recommendation is a joke
By BernardP on 1/23/2008 8:39:28 AM , Rating: 1
Ubisoft is again going with the old wife's tale that onboard video memory is directly related to videocard performance:

256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*

*Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
ATI RADEON X1300-1950 / HD 2000 / 3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600-6800 / 7 / 8 / 9 series

According to this, the X1300 is as good as the 9800GTX. This is not credible. If requirements are higher than Crysis, it means that a 8800GT is going to be a functional minimum for enjoyable performance.




By Vanilla Thunder on 1/23/2008 12:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to this, the X1300 is as good as the 9800GTX. This is not credible.


Where did you come up with this? It clearly states SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS . It says nothing about the performance you will get from any of these cards, just the fact the they are "usable" with the software.

Vanilla


By QueBert on 1/24/2008 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
huh? I have a 8600gt which is far from a good card and Crysis ran like butter, people with less card than I have also played Crysis fine. I would bet you could play Creed at a decent resolution and some effects turned on on a 8600gt no problem, and that card is far from an 8800gt


Hm.
By protest the hero on 1/23/2008 11:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
The specs aren't even that bad.

2.6GHz C2D doesn't really mean much. Any CPU will function the same, if it has a decent enough speed, it's not like it has to be dual core.

256 recommended video card ? So ?

2GB of ram I call fubar on, Crysis only uses like 700-900MB at 1900x1200 with very high shader/textures, how is this game going to use 50% more.

I wouldn't say that these requirements are higher than Crysis by any means.




RE: Hm.
By Fenixgoon on 1/23/2008 1:30:46 PM , Rating: 3
for a majority of users, you'd be surprised how many are running older machines.

personally, i think the specs are simply due to a half-assed port, plain and simple.


NOTICE: Our head is stuck up our butt!
By murphyslabrat on 1/23/2008 12:39:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives.


Uhm, yeah, so if I have one of these "conflicted drives", I guess I am SOL. Doesn't matter If I bought the game at the store, I still get screwed.

Lets hope this isn't just a subtle way of saying "this won't work in a virtual machine".




By BMFPitt on 1/23/2008 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhm, yeah, so if I have one of these "conflicted drives", I guess I am SOL. Doesn't matter If I bought the game at the store, I still get screwed.
I got that message installing patch 2 for Sims Societies on my fiancee's PC. (I refuse to call it Sim City, as that would defame a franchise I have loved since childhood.) That was my last straw with EA. I chose to purchase their software, and they did not allow me to run it (past patch 1 at least.) I will henceforth no be paying for any EA software that she asks me to get for her until such time as I am assured that these measures have been discontinued.


WTF am I missing?
By mattclary on 1/23/2008 3:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Those specs are not that demanding. X2 3800+? 2Gb RAM?

Seriously?

A DX10 card can be had for less than $100. If you want a GOOD DX10 card, you can spend as little as $200 for a 256mb 8800GT. Or spring for $260 and get the 512mb model.




RE: WTF am I missing?
By Schrag4 on 1/24/2008 3:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're not really missing anything. This is just the same old 'colsoles are cheaper' argument. Yes, console ARE cheaper, but then again Toyotas are cheaper than Vipers too. I fall into the cheap car category because it's not my hobby. Building PCs and playing games on PCs are my hobbies, though, so I, like many, will spend a little more to have a quality PC to do everything from video editing to playing games, the list goes on an on . . .

And no, unless they include a mouse (or some other similar input device) with consoles, I'll never even consider playing FPS games on consoles. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you're not a FPS gamer, period.


By One43637 on 1/23/2008 2:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Most recently two weeks ago.... I feel your pain PC gamers... :(




By fri2219 on 1/24/2008 3:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to taking pride in writing tight code that performed well?




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings













botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki