PDA

View Full Version : Batman Arkham Asylum how well will my new pc run this game?



josephfelice
25th Aug 2009, 18:04
AMD Athlon II X2 250 (Dual Core 3.0GHz )

Geforce 8800gts 320mb card

4 gigs of ram



I originally had a amd athlon 3500 but it wasn't even strong enough to run batman at the lowest resolution on my computer. So, I had to update the cpu for this game. I looked on youtube and saw people with weaker computers and weak video cards than the one I just ordered and they had 1200 x resolution with everything maxed out and physx running. So I'm assuming I should be able to run it atleast at 1600 with everything maxed out or is that wishful thinking? Are pc's only for rich people or will my computer be able to run this game pretty good now?

That computer that ran it at 1200 x res was like a intel something 2.5 ghz dual processor with an 8600 series card.

Maxii
25th Aug 2009, 18:07
www.systemrequirementslab.com

This should help :)

josephfelice
25th Aug 2009, 18:12
www.systemrequirementslab.com

This should help :)

That won't help at all because the cpu is in delivery process. :lol:

And that website sucks, that is the same website that said my amd athlon 3500 was enough to run the game yet when I played the demo it couldn't run it from my amd athlon 3500. :lol:

Rockatansky
25th Aug 2009, 20:39
You might struggle a bit with the PhysX set to High.
PhysX switched off or on Normal would be better.

josephfelice
25th Aug 2009, 21:01
man, I better be able to run PhysX... Theirs no other point owning or playing the pc version if I can't run PhysX. I mean I can run PhysX right now on my crappy cpu and it slows it down a bit more but not alot more... Idk, it better work. When you need a 3,000 grand computer to play the newest games that is quite ridiculous in my opinion. With everything added up, I think I spent like 2 grand on my pc over the years. I know my ****s budgeted and stuff but I think that a 2 grand computer should still be enough to be able to play physx especially since I have the nvidia graphics card that physx was made for. Pc gaming meant only for the rich and not middle class? Who here is going to spend 5 grand on a gaming pc.

andytofun
26th Aug 2009, 02:48
could some one tell me how this phyx programme will effect the game? on the demo a see only papers on the floor that can be move. I dont have a ps3 or a 360 so i wonder if that it ? papers that move or every objects will be able to move ...or else???

iceman0124
26th Aug 2009, 03:21
Your going to have trouble with the 320 ram at high settings. You'll want a card with at least 512. I ditched my 320 GTS with assasians creed, it ran the game great, until you faced open water, then it was a slide show, weaker cards with 512 mb had no problems. The 320 frame buffer is just too small for todays games at high settings. You can find new GTX260's with Batman AA included for well under $200 after MIR on newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130433

The card is baically $100 counting the game you plan to buy plus the rebate....just be sure you have enough room in the case and your PSU can handle it.

I have the original 192 core version with a healthy OC and I can run the demo maxed out with 16xAF enabled in the CP, core2 E8400 @4ghz at 1680x1050

trek554
26th Aug 2009, 03:22
man, I better be able to run PhysX... Theirs no other point owning or playing the pc version if I can't run PhysX. I mean I can run PhysX right now on my crappy cpu and it slows it down a bit more but not alot more... Idk, it better work. When you need a 3,000 grand computer to play the newest games that is quite ridiculous in my opinion. With everything added up, I think I spent like 2 grand on my pc over the years. I know my ****s budgeted and stuff but I think that a 2 grand computer should still be enough to be able to play physx especially since I have the nvidia graphics card that physx was made for. Pc gaming meant only for the rich and not middle class? Who here is going to spend 5 grand on a gaming pc. that 8800gts 320mb is a fairly old card now and even $75 cards can keep up with or beat it. you only have 96sp on that card and it has fairly low clock speeds and only a tiny(for modern games) 320mb of ram. my gtx260 is well over twice as fast as 8800gts 320mb at higher resolutions. I can just barely(around 40-45fps) get by with having very high settings and physx on high at 1920x1080. if you are at a lower res then maybe you can turn phsyx on normal without too much issue.

right now physx is a little bit of a joke. it takes way too much gpu power to do effects that are done in other games without a prob. besides the cloth effects there isnt anything that cant be done on a similar level without physx. Nvidia clearly gimps the games when you have physx off to make you think that those effects could never happen without it which is misleading. Red Faction and other games have destructible environments and Far Cry has swaying trees all without physx and all without taking a big burden on the cpu or gpu.

I dont see how could have spent 2000 bucks on that pc. the one in my sig was right at $1000 including the monitor. you certainly dont need a $5000 pc to play any game out there.

trek554
26th Aug 2009, 03:33
Your going to have trouble with the 320 ram at high settings. You'll want a card with at least 512. I ditched my 320 GTS with assasians creed, it ran the game great, until you faced open water, then it was a slide show, weaker cards with 512 mb had no problems. The 320 frame buffer is just too small for todays games at high settings. You can find new GTX260's with Batman AA included for well under $200 after MIR on newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130433

The card is baically $100 counting the game you plan to buy plus the rebate....just be sure you have enough room in the case and your PSU can handle it.

I have the original 192 core version with a healthy OC and I can run the demo maxed out with 16xAF enabled in the CP, core2 E8400 @4ghz at 1680x1050 only prob is that his cpu is a little weak for a card like that. the X2 250 is about like a 2.5 E5200 in games. that would be like putting our E8000 series cpu at 2.2 and believe me that is a very noticeable bottleneck with a gtx260 even at 1920. the op is looking to play at 1600 so that even way more of its performance down the drain. in fact I have some benchmarks from running this game with my E8500 at just 2.0 and the framerate took a massive hit even at 1920 on all very high settings and high physx. again the OPs cpu would only be a touch faster than that so it would certainly be wasteful to have a gtx260 at just 1600 with his cpu.

iceman0124
26th Aug 2009, 16:45
That arguement does hold some water, but your ignoring the physx aspect that OP is wanting to use. The latest version of physx for the GTX series cards "supposedly" can tell when the card is data starved and puts the wasted power to work on physx where applicable.

For the record based on tests from anand,guru3d and some parrot sites a ways back, its been concluded that our E8xxx chipsstart to become cpu bound below around 3.5- 3.6 ghz with a stock clocked original flavor GTX260, might want to think about a mild OC om your machine, especially if you game at 1920 to get the most boom for your bucks, your cooler should eaily handle a small bump wit no problems, I've been running 4ghz + for a year and a half with no problems on my gigabyte EP35CDS3R and xigmatek S1283. EVGA GTX260FTW clocked at 36 hour stable ATI Tool artifact tester run @ 710 core, 1496 shader, 1270 mem fams at 75% . I add my evga prescion profile to engage with my games shortcuts, in windows I keep the card moderately underclocked for reduced heat and fan noise.

I run at 1680x1050 and my GTX260 has yet to let me down, on my old A64x2 3800+ oc'ed to 2.5 I think? My jump from a 7900GT to a 8800GTS 320 was overkill for my CPU....BUT, I still had a considerable perfromance increase well worth the expense of the card IMO. If the OP can get the card for around $100 counting the game and rebate, I see it as great purchase, and onet that could possibly carry over to a new platform. I do agree that some upgrades just dont make any sense, but you gotta look at the whole picture,cost,performance, useage, and potential to carry over with other upgrades.

Cadman
26th Aug 2009, 17:47
I just played the PC Demo and it looks great! My system is...

Core i7 Processor @ 2.67ghz
12 Gigs of DDR3 Memory
2 9800gt's with 512 megs per card running in SLI mode
1440x900 Resolution
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit



Cadman

Pbrad08
26th Aug 2009, 21:13
Pc gaming meant only for the rich and not middle class?

This is batman....not politics.

josephfelice
27th Aug 2009, 09:33
I was doing it all added up, I bought my whole computer system several years ago. Meaning back in 2005 or so, and Amd Athlon 3500 were kind of expensive back then atleast my whole computer added up was. It was like 800-1 grand for that part. And I bought my 8800 gts 320 mb card like 1 year and a half ago and at that time it was like 350-400 dollar card. Now, i just bought this cpu which is like 225(the 4 gb ram I bought with it are the good kind cuz it cost more). Amd athlon 250. Then add the price-tag of my 25.5 inch screnn montior with 1900 x resolution. Thats like a 250-300 dollar computer screen.

josephfelice
27th Aug 2009, 09:34
This is batman....not politics.

Politics has a part in the price-tag of gaming. :wave:

josephfelice
27th Aug 2009, 09:37
That arguement does hold some water, but your ignoring the physx aspect that OP is wanting to use. The latest version of physx for the GTX series cards "supposedly" can tell when the card is data starved and puts the wasted power to work on physx where applicable.

For the record based on tests from anand,guru3d and some parrot sites a ways back, its been concluded that our E8xxx chipsstart to become cpu bound below around 3.5- 3.6 ghz with a stock clocked original flavor GTX260, might want to think about a mild OC om your machine, especially if you game at 1920 to get the most boom for your bucks, your cooler should eaily handle a small bump wit no problems, I've been running 4ghz + for a year and a half with no problems on my gigabyte EP35CDS3R and xigmatek S1283. EVGA GTX260FTW clocked at 36 hour stable ATI Tool artifact tester run @ 710 core, 1496 shader, 1270 mem fams at 75% . I add my evga prescion profile to engage with my games shortcuts, in windows I keep the card moderately underclocked for reduced heat and fan noise.

I run at 1680x1050 and my GTX260 has yet to let me down, on my old A64x2 3800+ oc'ed to 2.5 I think? My jump from a 7900GT to a 8800GTS 320 was overkill for my CPU....BUT, I still had a considerable perfromance increase well worth the expense of the card IMO. If the OP can get the card for around $100 counting the game and rebate, I see it as great purchase, and onet that could possibly carry over to a new platform. I do agree that some upgrades just dont make any sense, but you gotta look at the whole picture,cost,performance, useage, and potential to carry over with other upgrades.

I like this post, it shows most of us pc users aren't rich. Were middle class, so money does effect us. Yes, we want good graphics but at a decent price. I'm just worried about not being able to run PhysX at a decent resolution. I'm hoping my computer is good enough to run atleast at 1600 x with physX. My highest resolution on my computer is like 1900x or something, but it wouldn't bother me much if I played the game at 1600x with physX if I can't play it at 1900x with physX

iceman0124
27th Aug 2009, 19:53
I like this post, it shows most of us pc users aren't rich. Were middle class, so money does effect us. Yes, we want good graphics but at a decent price. I'm just worried about not being able to run PhysX at a decent resolution. I'm hoping my computer is good enough to run atleast at 1600 x with physX. My highest resolution on my computer is like 1900x or something, but it wouldn't bother me much if I played the game at 1600x with physX if I can't play it at 1900x with physX

There are always deals to be had....kinda wish I had an SLI board with that EVGA card I reccomended to you being so cheap counting the game and rebate, granted it would be overkill but it would give me a boost and allow extreme max settings and hacks on just about everything plus physx and folding.

I still highly urge you to upgrade, the 320 mb GTS will likely disappoint, just not enough onboard memory. Did some checking, the card I reccomended first counting game and rebate is cheaper than the GTS200's and close to 9800GT cards including rebates, plus they dont come with BAA, just wow and the cheap blue and red lese 3d glasses....theres some good cheaper radeon cards, but no native physx support so I wont bother with those.

lostsomething
27th Aug 2009, 20:17
If you don't already have the game preordered somewhere the GTX 260 + Batman game bundles would be a great way to get a powerful card for an effective price of around $100.

I wouldn't worry so much about bottle necking either, it's always better to be a bit heavy on the gpu end than the cpu side since you can turn the extra rendering power into higher resolutions, better graphic settings, aa, or etc without hurting your framerate.

Double edit:
This might do for you,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150329

Other one was one of the old 192 core 260s, I thought they'd all dried up by now?