PDA

View Full Version : Can your PC handle Batman?



chip5541
26th Aug 2009, 20:18
I recommend can you run it.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/

gclhoutx
28th Aug 2009, 01:18
Yeah, I like using that site as well. However there are still bugs with that site and doesn't always work correctly.

For instance My PC contains:
CPU = Intel Dual Core E6850 @ 3.00GHz
Os = Vista Ultimate 32bit Service Pack 2
Ram = Maxed at 8GB Ram
Video Cards = Running SLI Mode with 2 BFG 9800 GX2 1GB Cards (Total 2GB Video)
Video Card Driver Version = 8.15.0011.9038

However That plugin only detects that my machine has:
Ram = 1.7GB (Which states it failed minimum specs)


I'm able to run the Demo with everything on the highest settings except for the Anti-Aliasing which is always default set to none. Though when I max the AA to say like 16Q in the demo things start to really start to stall and hang. Which makes no difference to me, can't really see a difference with it in on anyway.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 01:34
Yeah, I like using that site as well. However there are still bugs with that site and doesn't always work correctly.

For instance My PC contains:
CPU = Intel Dual Core E6850 @ 3.00GHz
Os = Vista Ultimate 32bit Service Pack 2
Ram = Maxed at 8GB Ram
Video Cards = Running SLI Mode with 2 BFG 9800 GX2 1GB Cards (Total 2GB Video)
Video Card Driver Version = 8.15.0011.9038

However That plugin only detects that my machine has:
Ram = 1.7GB (Which states it failed minimum specs)


I'm able to run the Demo with everything on the highest settings except for the Anti-Aliasing which is always default set to none. Though when I max the AA to say like 16Q in the demo things start to really start to stall and hang. Which makes no difference to me, can't really see a difference with it in on anyway. well that is all the ram you have available. why would you put 8gb of ram on a pc with a 32bit os? your os cant recognize more than 3.5 then your video cards are taking away from that address space too. not to mention how silly having 2 9800gx2 card are in the first place. those gpus only have 512mb of usable vram so all those modern games that need more will not even be able to actually fully use one 9800gx2 not to mention the second 9800gx2 in there. you have a very odd setup with wasted hardware there and clearly did not get advice before building it.

gclhoutx
28th Aug 2009, 08:07
well that is all the ram you have available. why would you put 8gb of ram on a pc with a 32bit os? your os cant recognize more than 3.5 then your video cards are taking away from that address space too. not to mention how silly having 2 9800gx2 card are in the first place. those gpus only have 512mb of usable vram so all those modern games that need more will not even be able to actually fully use one 9800gx2 not to mention the second 9800gx2 in there. you have a very odd setup with wasted hardware there and clearly did not get advice before building it.

Yeah, well it was a combination of things. First off I got those video cards, ram, motherboard, and CPU when they just came out near the end of 2007. At that time they were supposedly the best card around and everything was SLI compatible. Then the second thing was when I purchased the Windows Vista Ultimate, I got it online straight through Microsoft as a download. Considering at that time I was going to do a multi boot setup and still leave my original Windows XP OS on. Hence in order to do the multi boot Microsoft's website stated I had to use the same bit level as my previous operating system. So then it goes back even further to my existing copy of Windows XP Professional. At the time when I purchased the Windows XP Professional I got from Fry's there was no package difference between 32bit or 64bit it was just one box. Microsoft's website didn't even have it broken out in different bit levels as well. So all in all I wasn't going to pay for another operating system that I had already purchased at a different bit level.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 08:42
well maybe you should pick up an oem copy of Windows 7 64 bit for 100 bucks in October. I would also try and sell those cards and just grab a gtx260 or gtx275. that would give better playability with having more vram and no sli issues. then in about six months or so after the new nvidia cards have come out and prices stabilized grab something from like a gtx360 or so. I also would look towards i7 or i5 after the 32nm shrink next year around late spring. just something to think about...

Nemesis296
28th Aug 2009, 13:56
Yeah, I like using that site as well. However there are still bugs with that site and doesn't always work correctly.

For instance My PC contains:
CPU = Intel Dual Core E6850 @ 3.00GHz
Os = Vista Ultimate 32bit Service Pack 2
Ram = Maxed at 8GB Ram
Video Cards = Running SLI Mode with 2 BFG 9800 GX2 1GB Cards (Total 2GB Video)
Video Card Driver Version = 8.15.0011.9038

However That plugin only detects that my machine has:
Ram = 1.7GB (Which states it failed minimum specs)


I'm able to run the Demo with everything on the highest settings except for the Anti-Aliasing which is always default set to none. Though when I max the AA to say like 16Q in the demo things start to really start to stall and hang. Which makes no difference to me, can't really see a difference with it in on anyway.

How does your computer RUN with 8GB and a 32-bit OS? Unless my math skills deteriorated in the past year, I'm pretty sure that the MAX RAM a 32-bit OS will support is 4GB of RAM. That could be part of your problem. I don't know where you got your computer from, but I know I have a DELL, and though it has 4 memory slots, a max of 1G is supported in each slot. So I have a max of 4GB in my PC on a 32-bit Home Premium Vista Install. Other than that, your rig seems fine, but I think you're confusing the hell out of your own computer with the RAM ;)

Henke123
28th Aug 2009, 14:56
There is nothing wrong with the test, your computer is only using 1.7GB of your RAM.

As Nemesis296 said, a 32-bit operating system can only support 4GB RAM, video memory included.
Since your video card has 2GB Windows is only able to use 2GB of your RAM.

You should install Windows Vista or 7 x64 because 6GB of your RAM is not being used.

1130210
28th Aug 2009, 21:56
All I need is a 2.4 ghz dual core and I happen to have a 2.1 It sucks really bad when your system starts to barely cut it for pc gaming. You say to yourself, what a kick in the head, I have to spend another 200 bucks just to get a small boost in my processor.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 22:29
All I need is a 2.4 ghz dual core and I happen to have a 2.1 It sucks really bad when your system starts to barely cut it for pc gaming. You say to yourself, what a kick in the head, I have to spend another 200 bucks just to get a small boost in my processor. what cpu do you actually have and where do you that it says 2.4 dual core cpu is needed in the first place. also its not the speed that matters its the actually family of cpus. a 2.0 Core 2 cpu is much faster than 2.0 amd X2 for example.

Maherr
30th Aug 2009, 01:32
I hope it could but nope i don't think so.

STOCKMAN
1st Sep 2009, 11:40
Unfronutately no my pc can not run it on max settings:mad2::mad2::mad2:

I have Athlon X2 4400 2,2 GHZ
2 GB RAM DDR 400
8800 GT 512 MB
It runs well on max settings 1280x1024 withour physx but if i enable physx the game becomes unplayble. Will the final version of the game run faster?

Acroma
1st Sep 2009, 14:44
My PC laughs at this game, Even with PhysX maxed.

Core i7 920@3.6
6GB DDR3@1600 T-Chan
Two 9800GTX's in SLI
EVGA x58 Tri SLI mobo
Asus 21.5" HDMI 1080p

Paulley
2nd Sep 2009, 19:11
my new PC plays the game so much faster im finding it hard to keep up.. its making it much harder... kinda miss the 10-15fps i was playing on.

incidentally i was toying around and i upped the refresh rate of my lcd tv/monitor from 24hertz to 50.. im sure i read that could actually make videos and such play faster (like partial fast forward) is that true

W1LL3y3
4th Sep 2009, 19:16
Im currently running :

Q6600 G0 @ 3.6ghz
8GB Kingston Hyper X @ 1066mhz 4-4-4-14
GTX 260, 896mb @ 2250mhz
Asus P5Q Deluxe
LG 47" 1080p TV + LG 22" 1080p Monitor via HDMI

have ran the game maxed settings 1080p rez no problem at all easily 60+ fps on both 22"+47" screens, have played through about 17% of the game not one problem yet :)

got quite a few achievments too, check out my sig link :)

Pbrad08
5th Sep 2009, 03:24
CPU
Recommended: Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4Ghr) or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
You Have: 4 processors running - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz PASS
System RAM
Recommended: XP = 2GB, Vista = 3GB
You Have: 3.2 GB PASS
Operating System
Recommended: Windows XP & Vista
You Have: Microsoft (Build 7600) FAIL: Sorry, your operating system does not meet this recommended requirement. Want to Upgrade? If so click the 'We Recommend'.
Video Card
Recommended: 512 MB 3D Graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or ATI Radeon HD 3870 or better)
You Have: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT (GeForce 8800 GT) PASS
Video Card Features - Minimum attributes of your Video Card Video RAM: Required - 512 MB , You have - 1.9 GB
Video Card 3D Acceleration: Required - Yes , You have - Yes
Video HW Transform & Lighting: Required - Yes , You have - Yes
Vertex Shader Ver.: Required - 3.0 , You have - 4.0
Pixel Shader Ver.: Required - 3.0 , You have - 4.0


Video Card Driver Version (DirectX)
Your driver version number is: 8.16.11.9062 FYI: Your video card driver version is provided for your information, but it is not part of this analysis. But proper video card driver versions are important to the proper operation of your product.
Free Disk Space
Recommended: 9 GB
You Have: 425.3 GB PASS


Oop, apperently windows 7 is a non-existant OS. (7600 = full retail)

SolidSnake_123
5th Sep 2009, 08:55
Pc talk...

kevcampbell
5th Sep 2009, 10:32
yes i can run this game easy

e8400 3.0ghz
hd 4870 512mb
4gb kingston

Rion_cnGamer
8th Sep 2009, 06:13
rig -

pentium dual-core e6300 @ stock clocks
gigabyte ga-g31m-es2c (rev. 1.x)
2 x 2gb ddr2 800 @ dual channel enabled
asus geforce 9600gt 512mb ddr3 @ stock clocks
onboard 8-channel sound

gonna play arkham in this poor rig @ 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution. i think i'm not gonna face any prob even turning PhysX to high. :D

Standovka
8th Sep 2009, 10:13
I also have a problem when you start the game The game reports BmLauncher stopped working I have Vista Ultimate 64 bit
CPU: Intel Core Quad Q9550 2.83GHz
8 GB RAM DDR 3
Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT
DirectX 10
I installed all new drivers which may be the problem?
in my operating system, Vista Ultimate 64 bit?

I am very sad stack I wanted to buy this game

William
8th Sep 2009, 10:26
Cool site. I have a laptop and passed the minimum requirements but failed the recommended. So will I be able to play this game without any problems?

trek554
8th Sep 2009, 11:00
Cool site. I have a laptop and passed the minimum requirements but failed the recommended. So will I be able to play this game without any problems?
well have you tried the demo?? also without knowing your exact specs we cant even guess at how it would run.

Inzane
8th Sep 2009, 20:01
I think the question could also be "Can Batman handle my PC" :D

Octavian
9th Sep 2009, 19:17
Hi I wanna ask you something trek554! I have a problem with the demo so I don't know how batman arkham asylum will work for me! I hope that the full game will work for me. I went to can you run it and I almost am betwen the minimum and recomended. I passed all of them except the RAM! I have 2 GB RAM! Here are my full computer specs:
Widows Vista 32 Bit
Processor:Amd Athlon Dual Core 4600+
Memory:2 GB RAM
Direct X 10.0
Graphic Card:NVIDIA GeForce 8600GS
HDD:360 GB(170 Gb Free)

What do I have to do to make it work at its full speed?If I disable physx or put it on medium will it work full speed?PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!

Sorry 2 botter u but I'm desperate!!!:wave::)

lanceacarlisle
10th Sep 2009, 21:25
I thought I had a decent enough system ... but even with these specs I still have very low fps rating. Anyone have any ideas?

x64 vista
duo cpu t9600 @ 2.80ghz
8 gb ram
2x nvidia geforce 9400m g 1gb. adaptter ram 256 mb

the adapter ram something I dont understand....I got 2 vid cards with 1 gb each

this is for the demo

trek554
10th Sep 2009, 21:49
I thought I had a decent enough system ... but even with these specs I still have very low fps rating. Anyone have any ideas?

x64 vista
duo cpu t9600 @ 2.80ghz
8 gb ram
2x nvidia geforce 9400m g 1gb. adaptter ram 256 mb

the adapter ram something I dont understand....I got 2 vid cards with 1 gb each thats okay for low end notebook gaming but overall the 9400 is horrible compared to decent graphics card. it has half the power of an 8600gt which is a 3 year old low end card. you need to have physx off and then you should have no trouble with medium settings at 1280 or below.

rebelphoenix
11th Sep 2009, 05:42
The better question is can Batman handle my PC?

CPU :You Have: 2 processors running - AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000
RAM: You Have: 3.2 GB
OS: You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Professional (Build Service Pack 32600)
Video Card: You Have: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (GeForce GTX 260)

trek554
11th Sep 2009, 05:53
The better question is can Batman handle my PC?

CPU :You Have: 2 processors running - AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000
RAM: You Have: 3.2 GB
OS: You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Professional (Build Service Pack 32600)
Video Card: You Have: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (GeForce GTX 260) cpu is a little slow to be paired with such a fast card. an Athlon 64 X2 at 3.0 is like a current Core 2 duo(E8xxx) at 2.0 so it will hold you back especially in games that like cpu power like Far Cry 2. even in the Batman game your cpu is only going to allow your gtx260 to do about 65-75% of what its capable of even at 1920. here are some runs I did last week to show how much Batman likes cpu power.


1920x1080 all very high settings, no AA and high physx

E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 576/1188/1990

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2092, 63045, 21, 42, 33.183


E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2086, 61778, 21, 40, 33.766


a gtx260 is clearly bottlenecked in this game by a cpu equivalent to a 6000 X2 even at 1920 with very high settings. overclocking this 192sp gtx260 did nothing with a cpu like that holding it back.


now lets put the cpu back at stock 3.16 and see what happens.

E8500 at 3.16 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2742, 66301, 31, 53, 41.357

a stock E8500 provides a whopping 50% increase in minimum framerate and 25% increase in average framerate over what a cpu like a 6000 X2 could do. thats a pretty huge difference considering the game settings and res.

jammy2232
11th Sep 2009, 10:38
Yea I tested mine and I have above the recommended. But my graphics drivers were not recognised. Just updated them there though. This game looks fantastic.

lanceacarlisle
11th Sep 2009, 16:28
What I dont understand is why the game is only recognizing 256mb of video memory when I have 2 gb of video memory

trek554
11th Sep 2009, 20:26
What I dont understand is why the game is only recognizing 256mb of video memory when I have 2 gb of video memory what video card do you have that has 2gb of vram?

DarthGuybrush
12th Sep 2009, 00:29
Have only tried the demo (come on September 19!!!) and it looks great but might have to tweak some settings.

Walkearth
12th Sep 2009, 19:41
I am NOT going to play it with PhysX turned on, that's for sure. My 9800GT can't handle them properly :/

Spammitt
14th Sep 2009, 21:12
Minimum: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 3500+
You Have: 2 processors running - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6420 @ 2.13GHz
PASS
CPU Speed
Minimum: 3.0 GHz
You Have: 2.13 GHz Performance Rated at 4.79 GHz
PASS
System RAM
Minimum: XP = 1 GB, Vista = 2GB
You Have: 2.0 GB
PASS
Operating System
Minimum: Windows XP & Vista
You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (Build Service Pack 22600)
PASS
Video Card
Minimum: 128 MB 3D Graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 6600 or ATI Radeon X1300 or better)
You Have: ATI Radeon HD 4650 (ATI display adapter (0x9498))
PASS

out of ten how good is my PC?

trek554
14th Sep 2009, 21:33
Minimum: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 3500+
You Have: 2 processors running - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6420 @ 2.13GHz
PASS
CPU Speed
Minimum: 3.0 GHz
You Have: 2.13 GHz Performance Rated at 4.79 GHz
PASS
System RAM
Minimum: XP = 1 GB, Vista = 2GB
You Have: 2.0 GB
PASS
Operating System
Minimum: Windows XP & Vista
You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (Build Service Pack 22600)
PASS
Video Card
Minimum: 128 MB 3D Graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 6600 or ATI Radeon X1300 or better)
You Have: ATI Radeon HD 4650 (ATI display adapter (0x9498))
PASS

out of ten how good is my PC?

1-10? thats hard to say because everybodys definition of a 10 is different. overall your pc is pretty balanced but on the lower end as for as gaming goes. the 4650 is a mediocre card for gaming although it will easily handle many games on higher settings if using a lower res. your cpu is okay but again a little slow if it was a pure gaming pc. without physx Batman AA is not a very demanding game. you should have no trouble running it on very high settings without physx at 1280.

Kain88
15th Sep 2009, 07:04
I have the recommended system req. but when i play after 5 minutes the game starts for a minute to move very slow and the sound has interferences. It dose this from 5 to 5 minutes. Can some one help PLS

trek554
15th Sep 2009, 07:49
I have the recommended system req. but when i play after 5 minutes the game starts for a minute to move very slow and the sound has interferences. It dose this from 5 to 5 minutes. Can some one help PLS list all your specs

TGG_89
16th Sep 2009, 10:29
Batman should run great on my pc:D.
-E8400@3,66GHz
-4870
-4Gb DDR2
-P5Q-E
-windows vista 64bit SP2
-creative x-fi xtreme gamer

Looking forward to great experience when my game arrives...

trek554
16th Sep 2009, 11:04
Batman should run great on my pc:D.
-E8400@3,66GHz
-4870
-4Gb DDR2
-P5Q-E
-windows vista 64bit SP2
-creative x-fi xtreme gamer

Looking forward to great experience when my game arrives... without physx yes.

BatFan89
16th Sep 2009, 13:16
Well I won't know yet. I finally have Batman: Arkham Asylum on PC. Oh but wait! I accidentally corrupted my hardrive after I accidentally clicked uninstall on something on my laptop and now I have to wait 2-3 days for a new hardrive to get here and to play the game. F**KING GREAT! FAN-F**KING-TASTIC!!!! Oh and this just in, I have the worst luck known to ******* man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BatFan89
16th Sep 2009, 17:15
Just to let everyone know installing the game DID NOT cause my hard drive to crash. REPEAT: INSTALLING THE GAME DID NOT CAUSE MY CORRUPT HARD DRIVE!

Gho5t Outlaw
17th Sep 2009, 01:22
9800GTX/8100 (On-Board 720a Biostar Mobo) With The SLI update for Nvidia.
4gb ram
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000 Oc'd 3.3 (from 3.1 not much but does wonders)
X-fi Extreme Gamer
W7 7600
X-Box 360 Controller
.............................One hell of an experience!!!! I'm savin up to get a 295 though and a phenom but this setup plays crysis like a childs play toy. :-)
As for the can u run it thing, it does show random errors like video drivers need an update blah blah bs, but overall it's pretty accurate. On to Re5 and Red Faction after I shred some Bat and watch Harley Quinn...mmmm.....Harley...yummy. Oh wait... where was I. lol.

Jayronathon
17th Sep 2009, 04:29
Hell yeah it handles it, it handles this game a thousand times better than it handles GTA IV

G51VX-RX05
Intel® Core™2 Duo processor P7350 2.0 Ghz
4GB PC2-6400 DDR2 memory
320GB SATA hard drive (7200 rpm)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M 1GB
Windows Vista 64 bit
Retail edition of GTAIV

GFWL Gamertag- Johnny Pessetti

LordReserei
17th Sep 2009, 11:08
I've been playing the demo no problem on medium with my somewhat outdated PC (need an upgrade)

OS: Windows XP Pro SP3
RAM: 2Gb DDR
Video Card: ATI X1650 Pro 512Mb DDR2
CPU: Intel Core2Duo 1.6Ghz

But for some odd reason, http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl reads my CPU as a single core and tells me that it doesn't meet the minimum requirements. O.o

Guess I'll just go with my gut, since I've tried and tested out that I in fact can play it.

BatFan89
17th Sep 2009, 13:38
Should be playing the game on my laptop soon :D

Badmagic
17th Sep 2009, 14:23
Anyone able to say, what (if any) chance does this have of running any level of PhysX off the CPU?

O/S: Vista 64U
CPU: Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2
RAM: 8192 4x2048 DDR3
VID: Radeon HD 4890 1024MB GDDR5

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 16:20
Anyone able to say, what (if any) chance does this have of running any level of PhysX off the CPU?

O/S: Vista 64U
CPU: Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2
RAM: 8192 4x2048 DDR3
VID: Radeon HD 4890 1024MB GDDR5 even normal physx will not be very playable on any current cpu. you would get about 15-25 fps with normal physx and mostly single digits on high physx.

Badmagic
17th Sep 2009, 16:59
even normal physx will not be very playable on any current cpu. you would get about 15-25 fps with normal physx and mostly single digits on high physx.

Thanks for the clarification.

BatFan89
17th Sep 2009, 17:30
even normal physx will not be very playable on any current cpu. you would get about 15-25 fps with normal physx and mostly single digits on high physx.

What's that mean?

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 17:42
What's that mean? what are you confused about? he has an ATI card so he asked if physx would run okay on his cpu so I told him what to expect.

BatFan89
17th Sep 2009, 17:50
what are you confused about? he has an ATI card so he asked if physx would run okay on his cpu so I told him what to expect.

um most of what he said.

angelus0901
17th Sep 2009, 17:51
Yes, I can run the game...

But tell me, before I buy it, is it any good?

What's the rating of it?

;)

deders
18th Sep 2009, 15:54
I found that running it in XP as opposed to vista makes for smoother gameplay, meaning I can have 4x anti-aliasing instead of 2x and it still runs smoother even if i don't overclock my graphics. Plus all the physx debris on the scarecrow levels runs much smoother even on very high @1680x1050.
Also being able to calibrate the monitor using nvidia's display optimisation wizard in XP (something you can't do in Vista) makes the colours that much richer.
apart from that the only graphical difference I can see is the ambient occlusion seems more subtle in XP, which in turn makes the lack of anti-aliasing on ambiently occluded edges less noticable.

Athlon64x2 5200 @3010
Nforce590
4GB DDR2 800
X-FI Xtreme Gamer
2x 9800GTX+ SLI off

deders
18th Sep 2009, 16:35
Yes, I can run the game...

But tell me, before I buy it, is it any good?

What's the rating of it?

;)

yeah it's well worth playing, id give it a high 8/10 overall. if it was a bit more challenging I'd probably give it a high 9

BatFan89
18th Sep 2009, 20:31
I take Batman: Arkham Asylum to get installed on my laptop and I wait. BUT NO! My video card can't support the game and I can't replace it because its build right into my laptop. This is what I get for all the **** I had to do with my laptop? Once again I get ****ted on and jipped. Why is it so hard to ask for one f**king thing to go right for me? I'd love an answer! I gotta return this game. All the money I've spent, repairing my OS, and the waiting all for nothing! ALL FOR NOTHING!!!

deders
18th Sep 2009, 20:40
batfan89
What is your graphics card?

BatFan89
18th Sep 2009, 20:41
the video card is what's the problem as the people at my local computer shop told me

angelus0901
18th Sep 2009, 21:02
BatFan89, did you run a test to see if your card is the problem?

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

BatFan89
18th Sep 2009, 21:08
BatFan89, did you run a test to see if your card is the problem?

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

obviously not

trek554
18th Sep 2009, 23:39
I take Batman: Arkham Asylum to get installed on my laptop and I wait. BUT NO! My video card can't support the game and I can't replace it because its build right into my laptop. This is what I get for all the **** I had to do with my laptop? Once again I get ****ted on and jipped. Why is it so hard to ask for one f**king thing to go right for me? I'd love an answer! I gotta return this game. All the money I've spent, repairing my OS, and the waiting all for nothing! ALL FOR NOTHING!!! you took it to someone to install it for you?? look if you dont understand hardware or even how to install your own game then pc gaming is not for you. not trying to sound mean but somebody like you would be would be much better off with a console.

Ifteqar0918
18th Sep 2009, 23:47
i'm currently runing it on
core 2 quad 2.66 Ghz
4 GB Ram
Nvidia 9800 GT 1 GB
And its runing amazingly on high details......cool

STOCKMAN
19th Sep 2009, 17:46
I am playing it on my Athlon X2 4400+ 2,2 GHZ socket 939 2 gb ram ddr 400 8800gt 512mb. I am playing it on max settings 1280x1024(wtihout Physx) and it works perfect. But if i enable Physx it is runs slow like a turtle! Why?? Why it works perfect on max settings without physx but runs so slow with physx enabled. My pc is very powerful it can ran 99% of games with no prolbem...:):)

bbb
19th Sep 2009, 17:59
STOCKMAN - do you have an ATI graphics card? The extra PhysX content requires an NVIDIA card for hardware acceleration.

deders
19th Sep 2009, 19:04
STOCKMAN - do you have an ATI graphics card? The extra PhysX content requires an NVIDIA card for hardware acceleration.

8800gt is nvidia

deders
19th Sep 2009, 19:23
I am playing it on my Athlon X2 4400+ 2,2 GHZ socket 939 2 gb ram ddr 400 8800gt 512mb. I am playing it on max settings 1280x1024(wtihout Physx) and it works perfect. But if i enable Physx it is runs slow like a turtle! Why?? Why it works perfect on max settings without physx but runs so slow with physx enabled. My pc is very powerful it can ran 99% of games with no prolbem...:):)

Eidos recommend either a single 260 for normal physx or a 260 for rendering and at least a 250/9800gtx+ dedicated to physx for smooth rendering and i can say this is pretty accurate. I have 2 9800gtx+'s and if i turn everything up and play in XP instead of Vista I get smooth frames (30+) most of the way through the game. I think if one or both of my cards were 260's i'd get smooth frames all the way through. unfortunately for you most the 112 shader cores on your card are already working as hard as they can to make the game look great, which doesn't leave much headroom for anything else to be calculated on them, like Physx.

I've just read on another thread that someone was having similar problems in the scarecrow levels, when the physx is used to full effect. He had a single 260 but found when he updated the drivers for his realtek soundcard, the framerates vastly improved to around 30-40fps, might be worth checking if all your drivers are up to date.

deders
19th Sep 2009, 21:05
Considering at that time I was going to do a multi boot setup and still leave my original Windows XP OS on. Hence in order to do the multi boot Microsoft's website stated I had to use the same bit level as my previous operating system. So then it goes back even further to my existing copy of Windows XP Professional. At the time when I purchased the Windows XP Professional I got from Fry's there was no package difference between 32bit or 64bit it was just one box. Microsoft's website didn't even have it broken out in different bit levels as well. So all in all I wasn't going to pay for another operating system that I had already purchased at a different bit level.

the bit level makes no difference when dual booting, I dual boot XPpro32 and Vista 64 with no issues whatsoever, the 2 operating systems are completely independant of each other (mine share a partition for programmes and another for storage but the actual OS's are on separate partitions and never the twain shall meet)

trek554
19th Sep 2009, 22:41
I am playing it on my Athlon X2 4400+ 2,2 GHZ socket 939 2 gb ram ddr 400 8800gt 512mb. I am playing it on max settings 1280x1024(wtihout Physx) and it works perfect. But if i enable Physx it is runs slow like a turtle! Why?? Why it works perfect on max settings without physx but runs so slow with physx enabled. My pc is very powerful it can ran 99% of games with no prolbem...:):) your pc is okay but it is far from "very powerful". that cpu of yours is actually pretty slow and is keeping even a card like your 8800gt from doing much more than 70-75% of what it is capable of. also if you actually look at what is recommended for running physx you are not even close.

pleomax
20th Sep 2009, 12:56
I take Batman: Arkham Asylum to get installed on my laptop and I wait. BUT NO! My video card can't support the game and I can't replace it because its build right into my laptop. This is what I get for all the I had to do with my laptop? Once again I get ted on and jipped. Why is it so hard to ask for one f**king thing to go right for me? I'd love an answer! I gotta return this game. All the money I've spent, repairing my OS, and the waiting all for nothing! ALL FOR NOTHING!!!

Lappys are so popular, and they get told that their lappy is the **** by dixons or whatever.

They put a game on it and it has a heart attack. It happens on every forum.

The people that have a comp that can run the game well, know exactly what they have and what it's capable of.

thetonyg
20th Sep 2009, 16:08
pleomax, you are correct sir. it's not even so much the cpu or the hard drive that holds laptops back from being good mobile gaming machines... it's the graphics cards and the juice they need. my laptop (which I do think is badass) only needs 130w, at least that's the psu it came with. my gaming rig has a corsair 1000w psu. that extreme aside, even modest gaming rigs tend to have at least a 500w psu, so it becomes quite clear why laptops that are built to daintily sip juice can't keep up with a computer that is gulping juice through a funnel and a beer bong like it's on spring break.

more on topic, I'm interested in who IS running Batman AA on a laptop and on what settings (and what's inside the laptop).

badboy64
20th Sep 2009, 16:53
My system can handle it with max setting at 1900x1200(see sig) plus using a GTX280 for PhysX card.

deders
20th Sep 2009, 20:18
My system can handle it with max setting at 1900x1200(see sig) plus using a GTX280 for PhysX card.

Would be interesting to know how the 285 performs on the scarecrow levels without the 280

thetonyg
20th Sep 2009, 20:32
Would be interesting to know how the 285 performs on the scarecrow levels without the 280

I can tell you with two 280s that the majority of the 'Crow levels are fine (45-60fps), but there are a couple of places where they do drop to about 25-35fps. PhysX on high. If I only had one 280 I think PhysX would have to be off to make the Crow levels play fine.

deders
20th Sep 2009, 23:09
I can tell you with two 280s that the majority of the 'Crow levels are fine (45-60fps), but there are a couple of places where they do drop to about 25-35fps. PhysX on high. If I only had one 280 I think PhysX would have to be off to make the Crow levels play fine.

you would have thought that with almost twice the number of cores of the 8/9800s at it's disposal it would be able to do it all by itself. What res are we talking here?

thetonyg
20th Sep 2009, 23:42
you would have thought that with almost twice the number of cores of the 8/9800s at it's disposal it would be able to do it all by itself. What res are we talking here?

1920x1080. Maybe the PhysX just isn't optimized very well since it was tacked on after the fact? Some of the Nvidia PhysX demos I've seen are mind blowing compared to what we see in game. Regardless I still admire how smooth the entire game has run so far.

GuedesTDK
22nd Sep 2009, 22:03
A question guys: wich ATI cards run good the game? Thanks!

deders
22nd Sep 2009, 22:08
A question guys: wich ATI cards run good the game? Thanks!

what resolution is your monitor?

GuedesTDK
23rd Sep 2009, 01:02
1024 X 768 I think...

trek554
23rd Sep 2009, 01:09
1024 X 768 I think... you think? if you dont even know the res of your monitor then I hope you wont be the one installing the video card. at that ridiculously low res any $50 card such as the 4650 will do. are you actually even buying a card though because you mentioned you were getting a 9600 at one time too?

deders
23rd Sep 2009, 09:41
1024 X 768 I think...

ok then how big is your monitor? (diagonal inches) is it widescreen or normal?

right-click on the desktop and select personalise from the menu that comes up,
then under the bottom tab find the slider and see what the maximum it will go to and that you can apply.
if the screen stays blank when you apply then just wait for 15 seconds for it to return to normal and try the next one down. the top one should be the max one that your monitor supports but sometimes on older ones the plug and play isn't implemented properly. for instance my secondary monitor is an old 1024*768 but for some reason windows sometimes allows it to go up to 1600*1200 which of course it can't display so it just stays blank. if you think this is happening to you when testing resolutions, tell me how big your monitor is and I'll tell you whereabouts the resolution should be.

angelus0901
23rd Sep 2009, 22:15
Hey guys, just tried the demo and the game is awesome!! I'm definitely buying it!!!! ;)

Beren
24th Sep 2009, 06:04
I'm running a Core2Duo E4500 2.2GHz, L2 2MB, 800 MHz. 8600GT 512MB, 2 GB DDR2 800MHz. Vista Business (32 bit). 19" monitor. The monitor is old, IBM G94, but it works perfectly, even after 10 years.... !

I've been addicted to the demo for a over a month now and waited to buy the game until I upgrade.

I have played the game at its highest settings effects-wise (rez only second-highest at most tho, and mostly in 1064X768) and it worked, including PhysX, albeit with some serious lags here and there. (how do I determine frame rates?)

I was going to go from 2GB to 4 GB RAM, get a Core2Duo E6300 2.8GHz, L2 2MB, 1066 MHz.

Will that make a difference? I was going to get a GTX as well but not that fluid right now, so I may hold off. I will play this game for years, I'm a Batman-fan, so I can look forward to replaying the game in fullest glory when I upgrade further.

Would it make more sense to upgrade RAM and CPU or rather take that money and get a GTX?

Thanks!

Beren

trek554
24th Sep 2009, 06:29
I'm running a Core2Duo E4500 2.2GHz, L2 2MB, 800 MHz. 8600GT 512MB, 2 GB DDR2 800MHz. Vista Business (32 bit). 19" monitor. The monitor is old, IBM G94, but it works perfectly, even after 10 years.... !

I've been addicted to the demo for a over a month now and waited to buy the game until I upgrade.

I have played the game at its highest settings effects-wise (rez only second-highest at most tho, and mostly in 1064X768) and it worked, including PhysX, albeit with some serious lags here and there. (how do I determine frame rates?)

I was going to go from 2GB to 4 GB RAM, get a Core2Duo E6300 2.8GHz, L2 2MB, 1066 MHz.

Will that make a difference? I was going to get a GTX as well but not that fluid right now, so I may hold off. I will play this game for years, I'm a Batman-fan, so I can look forward to replaying the game in fullest glory when I upgrade further.

Would it make more sense to upgrade RAM and CPU or rather take that money and get a GTX?

Thanks!

Beren no that cpu and mem upgrade will not do anything for you with the 8600gt in there. and running physx even on normal is not remotely playable on the 8600gt. what gtx are you talking about? if you do get a gtx260 then all you need to do is oc that cpu a bit and get more memory if you want. I would get a modern widescreen monitor before spending anything to upgrade that pc.

angelus0901
24th Sep 2009, 09:18
So I said my PC can handle the game, so I thought of posting the specs of my system... ;)

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 BOX, 4×2.33GHz, 1333MHz, 775-pin, 4MB
Gigabyte Radeon HD4850 w/Zalman, 512MB DDR3
4 GB of RAM
Monitor LG LCD widescreen 22"

P.S. What is Physx?

trek554
24th Sep 2009, 10:19
So I said my PC can handle the game, so I thought of posting the specs of my system... ;)

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 BOX, 4×2.33GHz, 1333MHz, 775-pin, 4MB
Gigabyte Radeon HD4850 w/Zalman, 512MB DDR3
4 GB of RAM
Monitor LG LCD widescreen 22"

P.S. What is Physx? if you are seriously asking what physx is then you must have been living under a freaking rock. also during your rock living period a thing called google emerged and will allow you to find info on anything you desire . :nut:

angelus0901
24th Sep 2009, 10:36
if you are seriously asking what physx is then you must have been living under a freaking rock. also during your rock living period a thing called google emerged and will allow you to find info on anything you desire . :nut:

Dude, calm down... I ask cause I bought my new PC a month ago and haven't played any of the new games (so how could I have known about it)... And it's easier to ask you guys then search for it on Google...

trek554
24th Sep 2009, 11:02
Dude, calm down... I ask cause I bought my new PC a month ago and haven't played any of the new games (so how could I have known about it)... And it's easier to ask you guys then search for it on Google...
well I thought you were partly being sarcastic because you have an ATI card. and no it would actually be easier just to google it and get some real info. this is just a game forum and based on my time here there are only 3 or 4 people that know anything about pc stuff. physx discussions turn into arguments too since there are clearly some animosity for the way Nvidia is doing things? you have an ATI card so you will not be able to use hardware accelerated physx anyway. if you try to run it with your ATI card it will be ran on the cpu which will result in the game being unplayable even on normal physx setting.

deders
24th Sep 2009, 12:20
Dude, calm down... I ask cause I bought my new PC a month ago and haven't played any of the new games (so how could I have known about it)... And it's easier to ask you guys then search for it on Google...

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=96363
the video on this thread is the short answer, let me know if you want the long one.

Beren
24th Sep 2009, 14:30
no that cpu and mem upgrade will not do anything for you with the 8600gt in there. and running physx even on normal is not remotely playable on the 8600gt. what gtx are you talking about? if you do get a gtx260 then all you need to do is oc that cpu a bit and get more memory if you want. I would get a modern widescreen monitor before spending anything to upgrade that pc.

Hi thanks for the input.

I've been runnung dual 19" monitors for 10 yrs now, so I feel like if I upgrade monitors, I'm looking at buying two... and I can't justify that (yet), if there is nothing wrong with the ones I have...

so you'd suggest add 2GB RAM, and a GTX 260 vs a 2.8GHz DuoCore CPU... ?

Or even a GTX 260 instead of added RAM and 2.8GHz/1066 vs 2.2/800?

I've played the demo on High Settings at 1024X768 and PhysX at Normal. Played decently but when the tiles break at the Zsasz-incident, it slowed down to a crawl.

Thanks,

Beren

deders
24th Sep 2009, 15:01
Hi thanks for the input.

I've been runnung dual 19" monitors for 10 yrs now, so I feel like if I upgrade monitors, I'm looking at buying two... and I can't justify that (yet), if there is nothing wrong with the ones I have...

so you'd suggest add 2GB RAM, and a GTX 260 vs a 2.8GHz DuoCore CPU... ?

Or even a GTX 260 instead of added RAM and 2.8GHz/1066 vs 2.2/800?

I've played the demo on High Settings at 1024X768 and PhysX at Normal. Played decently but when the tiles break at the Zsasz-incident, it slowed down to a crawl.

Thanks,

Beren

If you want the Physx effects you will want a better GPU or 2, the extra ram will only really be worth it it for games in Vista as XP32 is limited to the amount it can use and doesn't use anywhere near as much (my XP32 install can only see 2.5GB out of my 4 because a gig of the total addressable memory is taken up by 2x512MB graphics cards, (i'm stil not entirely sure where the other 512MB goes)) when playing the game through on max settings it only ever uses 2 thirds of this, which is just over a 1.6gb (I have a program that monitors of this kind of information on a second monitor). Vista 32 may benefit from extra memory because it uses much more when compared to XP, but only a 64 bit operating system will be able to make use of all of it.

If you are going to invest in a graphics card It's probably worthwhile waiting a bit because a whole new generation of cards is just on the horizon, in fact Ati's have just landed, all of which means this generation will be cheaper soon. Also you may want to weigh up whether it is worth buying a card just because physx effects which aren't in many games right now (although i'm sure you will benifit with better graphics in general and Physx would be like Icing on an already delicious cake (mmm cake)). As for which one, I'd be interested to know how Trek554's GTX260 can handle the game with physx on high. the developers themselves say it would need this and an additional 9800gtx+ for smooth gameplay at these settings, in which case the minimum i'd recommend would be a GTX275.

for the performance you'll get for the price of a cpu that is already so close to what you already have, you'd be better off investing in the graphics card and if the CPU is still a bottleneck you can overclock it, Like Trek554 says. It is rarely worth upgrading to another cpu that is the same class as the one you have. If you were to go for a quad core on the other hand, it may be worth it, but for this paticular game you'll only really see any benifit from a better graphics card.

for the record my dual 9800gtx+'s also slowed to around 10-15fps for a second at the Zsasz tilebreak scene.

Update: with the new 191.03 beta drivers the same tilebreak scene now only goes as low as 24fps for a split second making it smooth as far as the eye can tell. although one particular physx scene doesn't work as it should so i'm waiting for the next whql drivers.

trek554
24th Sep 2009, 15:35
If you want the Physx effects you will want a better GPU or 2, the extra ram will only really be worth it it for games in Vista as XP32 is limited to the amount it can use and doesn't use anywhere near as much (my XP32 install can only see 2.5GB out of my 4 because a gig of the total addressable memory is taken up by 2x512MB graphics cards, (i'm stil not entirely sure where the other 512MB goes)) when playing the game through on max settings it only ever uses 2 thirds of this, which is just over a 1.6gb (I have a program that monitors of this kind of information on a second monitor). Vista 32 may benefit from extra memory because it uses much more when compared to XP, but only a 64 bit operating system will be able to make use of all of it.

If you are going to invest in a graphics card It's probably worthwhile waiting a bit because a whole new generation of cards is just on the horizon, in fact Ati's have just landed, all of which means this generation will be cheaper soon. Also you may want to weigh up whether it is worth buying a card just because physx effects which aren't in many games right now (although i'm sure you will benifit with better graphics in general and Physx would be like Icing on an already delicious cake (mmm cake)). As for which one, I'd be interested to know how Trek554's GTX260 can handle the game with physx on high. the developers themselves say it would need this and an additional 9800gtx+ for smooth gameplay at these settings, in which case the minimum i'd recommend would be a GTX275.

for the record my dual 9800gtx+'s also slowed to around 10-15fps for a second at the Zsasz tilebreak scene. well since you doubt me here goes. this is for the fight scene at the beginning of the demo so its action for nearly the entire benchmark. at no point in demo was it sluggish and I could even run AA if I wanted but I would rather keep a higher framerate. btw thats just an old 192sp gtx260 that I have.

1920x1080 all very high settings, no AA and high physx

E8500 at 3.16 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200 Windows 7 64bit

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2742, 66301, 31, 53, 41.357

deders
24th Sep 2009, 15:44
well since you doubt me here goes. this is for the fight scene at the beginning of the demo so its action for nearly the entire benchmark. at no point in demo was it sluggish and I could even run AA if I wanted but I would rather keep a higher framerate. btw thats just an old 192sp gtx260 that I have.

1920x1080 all very high settings, no AA and high physx

E8500 at 3.16 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200 Windows 7 64bit

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2742, 66301, 31, 53, 41.357

yes for most parts of the game this would be fine, have you tried it on the scarecrow levels where there is much much more to calculate?

trek554
24th Sep 2009, 15:58
yes for most parts of the game this would be fine, have you tried it on the scarecrow levels where there is much much more to calculate? no I have not and I assume that is the full game you are talking about. I dont have the game yet and that benchmark was from the demo like I said. I tried my old 8600gt for dedicated physx and it was very inconsistent. after a dozen runs I had numbers all over the place most of which were worse than just using the gtx260 for everything. without the gtx260 my numbers are very consistent for that fight scene at the beginning of the demo. I know they recommend the 9800gtx for dedicated physx and I knew 8600gt would be pretty poor but I just wanted to see if it helped. 8600gt for physx=fail. lol

deders
24th Sep 2009, 16:10
no I have not and I assume that is the full game you are talking about. I dont have the game yet and that was from the demo like I said. I tried my old 8600gt for dedicated physx and it was very inconsistent. after a dozen runs I had numbers all over the place most of which were worse than just using the gtx260 for everything. without the gtx260 my numbers are very consistent for that fight scene at the beginning of the demo. I knew the 8600gt would be pretty poor but i just wanted to see if it helped.

yeah, parts of the full game are much more demanding, hence the recommend specs.
If you want to see what i'm on about check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw
but beware of a few slight spoilers, I'd just watch up to the end of the scarecrow bit if I wanted to play the full game.

interesting, the 8600gt would have done fine for Mirrors Edge (but then so would the 260 on it's own). I'm begining to think the drivers aren't very well optimized for physx as I get great variations in performance during the scarecrow scenes, sometimes I can go through a scene fine, the if I die and restart the same scene it can slow to a crawl, as if it's not using the second card for physx.

Beren
25th Sep 2009, 03:56
So I bought an extra 2GB RAM today, held off on a CPU and was looking at GTX cards.

Never mind which one(260, 275, 280 (295 too pricey for me right now)) but then I discover in the store that there are GTX cards from ASUS, EVGA, BFG etc...

Help? Which one should I go for?

And from your experience, Trek554, I should take out the 8600GT and let the GTX card go it alone? Rather than keep both in?

Are there cards bundled with BAA? I thought I read that somewhere.

Thanks,

Beren

P.S. I can't believe I don't have the game yet but I wanted to play it right. Also, IS there limited installs in place? That's why I've also been waiting, don't want to install, then reinstall after each upgrade...

trek554
25th Sep 2009, 04:39
So I bought an extra 2GB RAM today, held off on a CPU and was looking at GTX cards.

Never mind which one(260, 275, 280 (295 too pricey for me right now)) but then I discover in the store that there are GTX cards from ASUS, EVGA, BFG etc...

Help? Which one should I go for?

And from your experience, Trek554, I should take out the 8600GT and let the GTX card go it alone? Rather than keep both in?

Are there cards bundled with BAA? I thought I read that somewhere.

Thanks,

Beren

P.S. I can't believe I don't have the game yet but I wanted to play it right. Also, IS there limited installs in place? That's why I've also been waiting, don't want to install, then reinstall after each upgrade... you dont have to buy a new cpu. just overclock the one you have now. what res are you going to play at? leave the 8600gt out and just use whatever new card you get. 8600gt is not consistent or very good for dedicated physx card.

deders
25th Sep 2009, 12:40
So I bought an extra 2GB RAM today, held off on a CPU and was looking at GTX cards. Never mind which one(260, 275, 280 (295 too pricey for me right now)) but then I discover in the store that there are GTX cards from ASUS, EVGA, BFG etc...

Help? Which one should I go for?

Are there cards bundled with BAA? I thought I read that somewhere.

Thanks,

Beren

P.S. I can't believe I don't have the game yet but I wanted to play it right. Also, IS there limited installs in place? That's why I've also been waiting, don't want to install, then reinstall after each upgrade...

the make of card doesn't matter as much as the chipset (260/275 etc) there should be plenty bundled with Arkham Asylum, look online if you can't find any in the shops.

If you buy a DVD copy of the game then there won't be any limit on your installs, there are limits on downloaded copies.

I'd wait until prices come down (should be soon) and either buy a 260 for physx on medium, or something more powerful for physx on high.

Beren
25th Sep 2009, 14:51
What would you suggest?

1) Two GTX 280 cards for $450 (may get it for $400) or

2) $475 for a GTX 295?

Thanks for your help, Trek and Deders :)

Also, does it make any difference whether I use Vista (Business) 32 or 64?

deders
25th Sep 2009, 15:40
What would you suggest?

1) Two GTX 280 cards for $450 (may get it for $400) or

2) $475 for a GTX 295?

Thanks for your help, Trek and Deders :)

Also, does it make any difference whether I use Vista (Business) 32 or 64?

I would go with Vista 64 as it will be able to see all the available ram that you have. 32 bit operating systems have a 4GB limit which includes your graphics cards and anything else that needs the address space, so with a 32 bit OS and 2x1GB graphics cards you will be limited to only 2 of your now 4GB ram, maybe less.

In terms of Graphics cards, with your current configuration you would probably wouldn't see much difference between the two, especially if you play games below 1920x1200. in the long run with a powerful enough processor and a big enough monitor, the 2x280sli would win by a reasonable margin, but would also use more power to do it, probably around 100w extra which would lead us on to another whole can of worms, Power supply.

http://uk.slizone.com/object/slizone2_build_uk.html#certified_powersupplies

If you scroll down to the certified Power supplies section of this page, you will see that Nvidia recommend you get a PSU of around 1000w, for 2x280's which can be expensive. these are PSU's that Nvidia have tested and can certify will work with the configuration you specify. Others that are not on the list cannot be guaranteed to work. without getting too in-depth, just because a PSU is rated at 1000w doesn't mean it can use 1000w all the time, or send it to the right places. also because the efficiency of components deteriorate over time, a psu that may initially work fine may not work 6 months to a year down the line.

So in the long run, If you are prepared to make an investment as large as this now as a long term solution, it may be worth waiting for the next generation of Nvidia products as they will be more powerful and have more features like DirectX 11. both the options you are looking at use SLI (the 295 is 2x275's on the same board) which (and I cannot stress this enough) will only really benefit you if you play games at or above 1920x1200, anything less and you may as well get a single 280 for now and use the money you save to put towards the next Upgrade.

If you do decide to go with one of these, the 2x280's although faster, will need a beefier PSU and will limit your motherboard upgrade options, as you will need to get one that supports SLI (not all do, and those that do tend to be more expensive) wheras the 295 can do it all in one slot.

trek554
25th Sep 2009, 15:42
What would you suggest?

1) Two GTX 280 cards for $450 (may get it for $400) or

2) $475 for a GTX 295?

Thanks for your help, Trek and Deders :)

Also, does it make any difference whether I use Vista (Business) 32 or 64? a gtx295 would be a complete waste of money at this point and they dont even make gtx280 cards anymore. first you need to oc that cpu and then get a single gtx260 or gtx275 depending on what res you are at. so what res are you going to play at??

Beren
25th Sep 2009, 16:22
a gtx295 would be a complete waste of money at this point and they dont even make gtx280 cards anymore. first you need to oc that cpu and then get a single gtx260 or gtx275 depending on what res you are at. so what res are you going to play at??

I think I'd play at 1280X960...

Now I found this:

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15601/1/

I don't know how much longer I can wait for this game. LOL

I was going to get the Collectors Edition but they don't have it for PC here in North America apparently! (WTF?)

I'm thinking of getting a used GTX280 for $200-$250 or wait on this bad boy. :whistle:

Or just play it without PhysX for now, it's been out 11 days! And I'm trying to stay spoiler-free!

deders
25th Sep 2009, 16:27
I was going to get the Collectors Edition but they don't have it for PC here in North America apparently! (WTF?)


Check out the reviews on Utube, for me it's not as desirable as it sounds.

deders
25th Sep 2009, 16:28
I think I'd play at 1280X960...

Now I found this:

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15601/1/

I don't know how much longer I can wait for this game. LOL

I'm thinking of getting a used GTX280 for $200-$250 or wait on this bad boy. :whistle:

Or just play it without PhysX for now, it's been out 11 days! And I'm trying to stay spoiler-free!

Either one would be fine for now. The free copy of Arkham Asylum will probably be a digital version, not DVD, which may give you limited installs, probably worth finding out before buying.

trek554
25th Sep 2009, 16:35
for 1280x960 a gtx285 would be beyond silly especially without a high end cpu. at that very low res a gtx260 is MORE than enough.

deders
25th Sep 2009, 16:41
for 1280x960 a gtx285 would be beyond silly especially without a high end cpu. at that very low res a gtx260 is MORE than enough.

you are right in that any of these options would be overkill in most situations now at this resolution, my only concern would be that a 260 wouldn't handle the Physx on high all the way through the game, whereas a 275 and up would have more shader cores to play with. Also the 280/5 would be more suitable if Beren was to upgrade his monitor or the rest of his computer. It would also last him longer before he would need to upgrade to a new Gfx card.

"Think about the future" Jack Napier

deders
25th Sep 2009, 17:46
Just browsing through a few forums reveals that a 275 can handle physx but not at the same time as Anti Aliasing, but a 280 can handle both at the same time.

trek554
25th Sep 2009, 23:47
Just browsing through a few forums reveals that a 275 can handle physx but not at the same time as Anti Aliasing, but a 280 can handle both at the same time. if he doesnt oc that cpu by quite a bit he will never see the difference with anything above a gtx260 anyway.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 00:05
if he doesnt oc that cpu by quite a bit he will never see the difference with anything above a gtx260 anyway.

yes general performance would be about the same but the improved parallel processing (number of shader cores) and internal bandwidth (512bit memory interface) would mean you could enable physx on Arkham Asylum.

Overclocking your CPU would indeed unlock more performance from a more powerful card.

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 00:16
yes general performance would be about the same but the improved parallel processing (number of shader cores) and internal bandwidth (512bit memory interface) would mean you could enable physx on Arkham Asylum.

Overclocking your CPU would indeed unlock more performance from a more powerful card. I doubt he would get any better performance because the cpu would be the limitation at that point. his 2.2 E4500 would be even slower than me lowering my E8500 cpu to 2.0. the E8xxx are about 15-20% faster clock for clock than the E4xxx. now with my E8500 at 2.0 overclocking the gtx260 even at 1920 did ZERO. if overclocking the card cant even add 1 fps then having a faster card when his cpu is the limitation will do nothing.

1920x1080 all very high settings, no AA and high physx

E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 576/1188/1990

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2092, 63045, 21, 42, 33.183

E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2086, 61778, 21, 40, 33.766

a gtx260 is clearly bottlenecked in this game by a cpu like his even at 1920 with very high settings. overclocking this old 192sp gtx260 did nothing with a cpu like his so having a faster card than a gtx260 will do nothing. now lets put the cpu back at stock 3.16 and see what happens.

E8500 at 3.16 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2742, 66301, 31, 53, 41.357

now he would be at even lower res and his cpu would actually be a little slower than the 2.0 example I used. in other words he would be even more cpu limited than what I just showed you.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 00:29
I doubt he would get any better performance because the cpu would be the limitation at that point. his 2.2 E4500 would be even slower than me lowering my E8500 cpu to 2.0. the E8xxx are about 15-20% faster clock for clock than the E4xxx. now with my E8500 at 2.0 overclocking the gtx260 even at 1920 did ZERO. if overclocking the card cant even add 1 fps then having a faster card when his cpu is the limitation will do nothing.

Ah but you miss my point. It's not how much brute force it can produce that matters, its the amount of cores that would be the limitation as to whether he, you or anyone could enable physx on high. this is purely dependent on the graphics card because in this case it takes the burden off the cpu, and i'm afraid to say with a 260 he could only run Arkham Asylum with medium physx.

but like i've said before you are right in general, you don't want to be bottlenecked but in this case the first bottleneck would be the number of shader cores on the card, without enough of them he won't be able to play with high physx on any machine.

And, like i've said before, he'll be better off when he does upgrade.

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 00:52
Ah but you miss my point. It's not how much brute force it can produce that matters, its the amount of cores that would be the limitation as to whether he, you or anyone could enable physx on high. this is purely dependent on the graphics card because in this case it takes the burden off the cpu, and i'm afraid to say with a 260 he could only run Arkham Asylum with medium physx.

but like i've said before you are right in general, you don't want to be bottlenecked but in this case the first bottleneck would be the number of shader cores on the card, without enough of them he won't be able to play with high physx on any machine.

And, like i've said before, he'll be better off when he does upgrade. it doesnt take the burden off the cpu because it was never being processed by the cpu. you know that using hardware physx on Nvidia is a gpu only affair. when he is at the point where his cpu is stopping his gpu from performing any better then having a gpu with more "cores" isnt going to help. lowering the gpu clockspeeds simulates a slower card and raising them simulates a faster one. if the numbers dont budge when you raise the gpu clocks or lower the res then its completely cpu limited.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 01:10
it doesnt take the burden off the cpu because it was never being processed by the cpu. you know that using hardware physx on Nvidia is a gpu only affair
That's kind of my point, it does the processing that the cpu would otherwise be doing. (it can run on a cpu, just a lot slower)

when he is at the point where his cpu is stopping his gpu from performing any better then having a gpu with more "cores" isnt going to help.
It will when you are talking about parallel processing

lowering the gpu clockspeeds simulates a slower card and raising them simulates a faster one.
not neccesarily. you couldn't raise the clockspeed of an 8 pipe 6600 and expect the performance of a 16 pipe 6800 ultra

if the numbers dont budge when you raise the gpu clocks or lower the res then its completely cpu limited.
your benchmarks work the way they do because that point in the game doesn't use more cores than you have. If you were to add a whole load of extra physx calculations and there weren't enough spare cores to run them on, they would have to wait for a core to become free before they could be calculated, making some cores do twice a much work before the frame could be rendered and slowing the framerate down. much like a game that is designed to run on 4 cpu cores would suffer if it only had 2 to play with.

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 01:24
That's kind of my point, it does the processing that the cpu would otherwise be doing. (it can run on a cpu, just a lot slower)

It will when you are talking about parallel processing

not neccesarily. you couldn't raise the clockspeed of an 8 pipe 6600 and expect the performance of a 16 pipe 6800 ultra

your benchmarks work the way they do because that point in the game doesn't use more cores than you have. If you were to add a whole load of extra physx calculations and there weren't enough spare cores to run them on, they would have to wait for a core to become free before they could be calculated, making some cores do twice a much work before the frame could be rendered and slowing the framerate down. much like a game that is designed to run on 4 cpu cores would suffer if it only had 2 to play with. you still are wrong. if you take two gpus of the same architecture then having having half the specs (shaders/tmu/rop) at 500mhz would be the same as having twice those specs at just 250mhz. just like having a 256bit bus width with 4400mhz memory results in the same bandwidth as having a 512bit bus with 2200mhz memory. also if your were in a memory bandwidth limited situation and overclocking the memory did nothing then having a larger bus width would do nothing either.


even your cpu comment is flawed. if you had a 6200 gpu which would make you completely gpu limited then having a 2.4 Core 2 quad is not going to do anything more for you then having a 2.2 Core 2 duo. in the example that I gave he is completely cpu limited so more gpu speed or more gpu cores isnt going to help. period. I spend more time testing games then I do playing them so I know what I am talking about. ;)

deders
26th Sep 2009, 01:52
now you're picking hole in things that aren't quite to the point. I really hope this doesn't get into arguing for the sake of arguing as I respect pretty much all you had to say so far. I do understand the argument you are making and up to a certain point it is a valid one. but you seem to be failing to understand the point i'm trying to make.


you still are wrong. if you take two gpus of the same architecture then having having half the specs (shaders/tmu/rop) at 500mhz would be the same as having twice those specs at just 250mhz.
yes theoretically if you were to push a 6600 way beyond its regular frequencies to twice as fast as a 6800 ultra it should run as fast as a regular 6800 ultra, but when is that ever going to happen? by that logic you'd have to double the shader clock speeds of a 260 to be able to run arkham asylum on high physx (remember the thread is about this game)

even your cpu comment is flawed. if you had a 6200 gpu which would make you completely gpu limited then having a 2.4 Core 2 quad is not going to do anything more for you then having a 2.2 Core 2 duo.
again you are missing the point of the comment. remember I was talking about a game that was designed so it needed four cpu cores at minimum spec. In your example, if you turned down all the graphics so it could run on a 6200, then it still wouldn't play smooth on a 2 core cpu, it would need a 4 core because that is the way it was designed.

I completely understand that the CPU plays a part in the GPU's performance and one can bottleneck the other but the point I'm trying to make is (and i've made it before) is in order for anyone to even have a chance of playing Arkham Asylum with high physx, they will need around 240 shader cores at their disposal, either on one or 2 cards (not including dual 9/8800gt's)

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 02:25
now you're picking hole in things that aren't quite to the point. I really hope this doesn't get into arguing for the sake of arguing as I respect pretty much all you had to say so far. I do understand the argument you are making and up to a certain point it is a valid one. but you seem to be failing to understand the point i'm trying to make.


yes theoretically if you were to push a 6600 way beyond its regular frequencies to twice as fast as a 6800 ultra it should run as fast as a regular 6800 ultra, but when is that ever going to happen? by that logic you'd have to double the shader clock speeds of a 260 to be able to run arkham asylum on high physx (remember the thread is about this game)

again you are missing the point of the comment. remember I was talking about a game that was designed so it needed four cpu cores at minimum spec. In your example, if you turned down all the graphics so it could run on a 6200, then it still wouldn't play smooth on a 2 core cpu, it would need a 4 core because that is the way it was designed.

I completely understand that the CPU plays a part in the GPU's performance and one can bottleneck the other but the point I'm trying to make is (and i've made it before) is in order for anyone to even have a chance of playing Arkham Asylum with high physx, they will need around 240 shader cores at their disposal, either on one or 2 cards (not including dual 9/8800gt's) since you still want to talk theoretical nonsense I will end it right here by using a friends gtx280. he has 2 so he wont miss it. lol. I will run the same exact benchmark that I always use and use the same clock speeds as the gtx260.


E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2086, 61778, 21, 40, 33.766


E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2132, 68428, 20, 41, 32.857

well would you look at that? the gtx280 did NOTHING just like overclocking the GTX260 did nothing. I have wasted too much time tonight proving to you what I already knew just from common sense.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 02:29
since you still want to talk theoretical nonsense I will end it right here by using a friends gtx280. he has 2 so he wont miss it. lol. I will run the same exact benchmark that I always use.


E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2086, 61778, 21, 40, 33.766


E8500 at 2.0 GTX260 at 666/1392/2200

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2132, 68428, 20, 41, 32.857

well would you look at that? the gtx280 did NOTHING just like overclocking the GTX260 did nothing. I have wasted too much time tonight proving to you what I already knew just from common sense.

ok, now buy the full game and try benchmarking the scarecrow levels with a 260 vs a 280. the reason you didn't notice any difference there is because there weren't enough calculations being made to make use of the extra cores.

did you see the begining of the physx comparison video?

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 02:36
ok, now buy the full game and try benchmarking the scarecrow levels with a 260 vs a 280. the reason you didn't notice any difference there is because there weren't enough calculations being made to make use of the extra cores.

did you see the begining of the physx comparison video? you have to be ******* kidding me. I just proved to you that overclocking and even going to a gpu with more cores did nothing while being completely cpu limited. the same thing will hold true for the retail game as well. whatever the gtx260 does in retail the gtx280 will do no better with the cpu at the speed I tested at for those runs. at that cpu speed it is 100% cpu limited with even a stock clocked gtx260. :rolleyes:

deders
26th Sep 2009, 02:46
you have to be ******* kidding me. I just proved to you that overclocking and even going to gpu with more cores did nothing while being completely cpu limited. the same thing will hold true for the retail game as well. whatever the gtx260 does in retail the gtx280 will do no better because with the cpu at the speed i tested at it is 100% cpu limited with even a stock clocked gtx260. :rolleyes:

you didn't answer my question.

Have you seen the physx comparison video? when you do you will understand there is vastly more physx calculations being done during the scarecrow levels than in your benchmark.

Do you understand how GPGPU/Cuda/accelerated Physx work? by using programmable cores in parallel (many at the same time) to make calculations.

Your argument is sound up until the point where we introduce massive amounts of parallel calculations and you start running out of cores to run them on. something which your benchmark does not do. If you are going to make a fair comparison on the point i'm trying to make, then do it on the part of the game i'm trying to make the point about.

You would understand if you played the full game.

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 02:56
you didn't answer my question.

Have you seen the physx comparison video? when you do you will understand there is vastly more physx calculations being done during the scarecrow levels than in your benchmark.

Do you understand how GPGPU/Cuda/accelerated Physx work? by using programmable cores in parallel (many at the same time) to make calculations.

Your argument is sound up until the point where we introduce massive amounts of parallel calculations and you start running out of cores to run them on. something which your benchmark does not do. If you are going to make a fair comparison on the point i'm trying to make, then do it on the part of the game i'm trying to make the point about.

You would understand if you played the full game. yes I have seen the video. that doesnt change the fact that the gtx260 even at stock clocks hits the wall with a cpu at the speed I tested at. the full game is still using the same engine and just because it has some more physx effects doesnt change that fact. the game will still need a faster cpu than the E6400 to take advantage of a card faster than a stock clocked gtx260. if the demo budged one bit while raising the gtx260 clocks you might have a valid theory but it doesnt so you dont. I will gladly prove this to you next week when I get the retail game.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 03:12
yes I have seen the video. that doesn't change the fact that the gtx260 even at stock clocks hits the wall with a cpu at the speed I tested at.
when you are talking about normal graphics your argument is sound but...


the full game is still using the same engine and just because it has some more physx effects doesnt change that fact. the game will still need a faster cpu than the E6400 to take advantage of a card faster than a stock clocked gtx260.

yes it does. you are failing to take into account the way physx is calculated. lets say for arguments sake each physx object needed 1 core to run it. if you have 192 cores, 120 of them are used for shaders leaving you with 72. If you had 120 physx calculations on screen then it would take around twice as long to make all the calculations as it would with a card that had 240 shaders, regardless of what cpu was powering it. resulting in poor perfomance.


if the demo budged one bit while raising the gtx260 clocks you might have a valid theory but it doesnt so you dont. I will gladly prove this to you next week when I get the retail game.

Its not about the clocks, think sideways instead of forwards. please buy the game and play it, you will see what i mean, and when you do you will owe me a pie:)

deders
26th Sep 2009, 03:16
I spend more time testing games then I do playing them so I know what I am talking about. ;)

I also spend a large proprtion of my time testing, benching, tweaking games to get them as smooth as possible before i enjoy them, so i too know what i'm talking about.

and changing what you said in previous posts isn't going to help make your point.

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 03:24
I also spend a large proprtion of my time testing, benching, tweaking games to get them as smooth as possible before i enjoy them, so i too know what i'm talking about.

and changing what you said in previous posts isn't going to help make your point. you made your theory earlier and I showed through testing that you were 100% wrong. now you say test the full game and using common sense I can tell you that you will be wrong again. when I test the full game with that cpu speed and gtx260 and the framerate doesnt budge when overclocking it then neither will it budge with a gtx280. if it does happen to go up when overclocking the gtx260 then and only then will a faster gpu be of any benefit in this game at those cpu speeds. in other words the same rules apply which are if you are completely cpu limited and overclocking the video card doesnt increase performance then neither will a faster gpu that is a FACT that you need to understand. although every game is different, I can find the cpu limitation in ever modern game and easily prove that.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 03:30
you made your theory earlier and I showed through testing that you were 100% wrong. now you say test the full game and using common sense I can tell you that you will be wrong again. when I test the full game with that cpu speed and gtx260 and the framerate doesnt budged when overclocking it then neither will it budge with a gtx280. if it does happen to go up when overclocking the gtx260 then and only then will a faster gpu be of any benefit in this game at those cpu speeds.

your not listening, its not about the clocks, its about calculations in parallel. Play the game with a 260 till you've got to the bit where the tiles start falling off the wall like in the video. make a copy of the savegame, then play through till the end of the scarecrow sequence with the 260. then repeat the same section with a 280 and you will see why the extra cores make the difference.

the point i'm making is about the need for extra cores in certain parts of the game, not clocks, how can you prove me wrong if you don't test what i'm saying?

the demo doesn't even come close to representing what goes on in the parts i'm on about, I could probably run the demo on a single 9800gtx+.

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 03:31
your not listening, its not about the clocks, its about calculations in parallel. Play the game with a 260 till you've got to the bit where the tiles start falling off the wall like in the video. make a copy of the savegame, then play through with the 260. then repeat the same section with a 280 and you will see why the extra cores make the difference.

the point i'm making is about the need for extra cores in certain parts of the game, not clocks, how can you prove me wrong if you don't test what i'm saying?

the demo doesn't even come close to representing what goes on in the parts i'm on about, I could probably run the demo on a single 9800gtx+. read my edited post and your basic theory is completely wrong and its the SAME rules no matter what game you are talking about. IF you are 100% cpu limited and overclocking the gpu doesnt increase performance then neither will a pu with more cores. the cpu limitation will be different in every game but once you hit thats it and no more gpu power whether in the form of faster speeds are more cores will change that. PERIOD

deders
26th Sep 2009, 03:32
read my edit post and you are 100% wrong. if you are 100% cpu limited and overclocking the gpu doesnt increase performance then neither will a faster gpu. PERIOD

it's not the faster gpu (clocks) its the amount of shader cores:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2:

deders
26th Sep 2009, 03:38
when I test the full game with that cpu speed and gtx260 and the framerate doesnt budge when overclocking it then neither will it budge with a gtx280. if it does happen to go up when overclocking the gtx260 then and only then will a faster gpu be of any benefit in this game at those cpu speeds.

Unless you are going to double the clocks of your shaders, how is overclocking going to prove the point i'm trying to make about needing more cores?

trek554
26th Sep 2009, 03:39
it's not the faster gpu (clocks) its the amount of shader cores:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2::mad2: you dont ******* GET IT. the cpu limitation will be different in every game but once you hit that is it and no more gpu power whether in the form of faster speeds OR more cores will change that. PERIOD

we are done here because you do not know what you are talking about.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 03:42
you dont ******* GET IT. the cpu limitation will be different in every game but once you hit that is it and no more gpu power whether in the form of faster speeds OR more cores will change that. PERIOD
.

that is how it used to work before calculations were made on extra shader cores.

This is probably the first game that uses physx to this extent. you've tested it yourself, your 8600 isn't powerful enough to be used as a physx accelerator and that's just the demo where there aren't many calculations being made, the recommended physx card is a 9800gtx+. ask yourself, what part of the card is it that physx is calculated on? its the shader cores, so it only stands to reason that in order to run physics on high, what are you going to need? yes more shader cores!
Don't get me wrong, at no point have I disagreed that in most cases a slow CPU will be a bottleneck to games, but it's not the only thing that can be a bottleneck, and if you run physx on High, it won't be the first bottleneck. And because they are being calculated on the shader cores, this takes the CPU out of the equation, so parts of this game that use this many calculations that are made on the shader cores will benefit most from.... one more time everybody, you should know it by now:D


and you've not answered my previous questions, choosing to avoid them and saying we are done?

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 04:58
I'm ordering a computer with this setup. Will this run the game well?

Intel Core i7-920 processor (8MB L3 Cache 2.66GHz)
8GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz
Dell 21.5 inch S2209W Full HD Widescreen Monitor
Nvidia GeForce GTX 260
750GB Serial ATA 2 Hard Drive 7200 RPM
Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Home Premium 64-Bit

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:10
I'm ordering a computer with this setup. Will this run the game well?

Intel Core i7-920 processor (8MB L3 Cache 2.66GHz)
8GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz
Dell 21.5 inch S2209W Full HD Widescreen Monitor
Nvidia GeForce GTX 260
750GB Serial ATA 2 Hard Drive 7200 RPM
Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Home Premium 64-Bit

that setup will run nearly every game well, although you may want a better graphics card if you want to run the in game physx on high. I'd recommend losing 2gb of ram so it will run in triple channel (3x2GB) making the memory faster (you won't miss the 2gb as 6gb is more than enough, i've never needed more than 4) and spending what you save on upgrading the gtx260 to at least a gtx280 or even a gtx285 if you can. even if you've already ordered it you may be able to ask them to change a few components around.

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 05:21
that setup will run nearly every game well, although you may want a better graphics card if you want to run the in game physx on high. I'd recommend losing 2gb of ram so it will run in triple channel (3x2GB) making the memory faster (you won't miss the 2gb as 6gb is more than enough, i've never needed more than 4) and spending what you save on upgrading the gtx260 to at least a gtx280 or even a gtx285 if you can. even if you've already ordered it you may be able to ask them to change a few components around.

I only got the 8 GB because that was the lowest configuration for the sale on the pc. I can't lower the amount of ram without physically taking it out of the machine. I'm no tech whiz so I'm not sure how less ram equals more speed. Its a Dell XPS 9000.

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 05:24
The 260 was the best card they offered. BTW dell lists it as having 1792 MB, but I also see it listed as 896 MB.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:24
I only got the 8 GB because that was the lowest configuration for the sale on the pc. I can't lower the amount of ram without physically taking it out of the machine. I'm no tech whiz so I'm not sure how less ram equals more speed. Its a Dell XPS 9000.

is it fourth one along on this page?

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/desktop-studio-xps-9000/pd.aspx?refid=desktop-studio-xps-9000&s=dhs&cs=19

If so then it uses 8gb in dual channel instead of 6 in triple, the 6 will be faster, i'd say it's worth contacting them if they've not already shipped it and asking them for the same computer but with 6gb in triple chanel instead of 8, and a 1024MB (1GB) GTX280. like i said you won't notice the missing ram. whatever you do don't get the gtx240 that they've advertised with it, would be a huge bottleneck.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:29
The 260 was the best card they offered. BTW dell lists it as having 1792 MB, but I also see it listed as 896 MB.

Tbh, I don't think the 260 will be any better off with 1792mb than with 896

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:44
The ram is ddr3 not ddr2. Does that mean it's triple channel?

ddr3 means it the next generation up from ddr2, ddr3 can be configured in either dual or triple channel, (triple being faster) depending on the motherboard. all motherboards that support that processor are capable of tri-channel memory.

Basically dell is using extra large numbers to impress when in this case less is more.

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 05:46
Dell wont let me change it since ive already placed the order

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 05:47
ddr3 means it the next generation up from ddr2, ddr3 can be configured in either dual or triple channel, (triple being faster) depending on the motherboard. all motherboards that support that processor are capable of tri-channel memory.

Basically dell is using extra large numbers to impress when in this case less is more.

Does that mean i can get my 8GB to run in triple channel?

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:50
Does that mean i can get my 8GB to run in triple channel?

if you take out one of the chips and make it 6gb, but you'll have to consult the motherboard manual as to which slot to remove it from. also it will probably void your warranty if you do it yourself, which is a shame because it should be an easy operation.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:51
Dell wont let me change it since ive already placed the order

have you asked them?

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 05:52
I guess it's not a huge deal if I can't play this game on high physx. I have it for my PS3.

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 05:54
have you asked them?

They say on their website that once an order is placed that it cannot be changed

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:56
I guess it's not a huge deal if I can't play this game on high physx. I have it for my PS3.

It's not a major thing that affects gameplay, just extra eyecandy. will still look slightly better than the PS3 version. also dual vs triple memory isn't the end of the world either, it's still very fast. you should get years of enjoyment out of it.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 05:59
I guess it's not a huge deal if I can't play this game on high physx. I have it for my PS3.

still might be worth trying it on high, i've just been having a debate on here as to whether a 280 would be neccesary to do this. I think it is but I'm open to proof otherwise. try it on high and see what it's like when you get to the scarecrow sections of the game, if it's slow then turn physx down to normal and let me know what happened.

Ultimatum
26th Sep 2009, 11:04
Hi,

my specs are:

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz
MEM: 4 GIG of RAM DDR2 Dual Channel
GPU: 2 9800GTX+ (SLI Enabled)
OS: Windows Vista 64 Bit

My settings is all on high including my PhysX on High and 8xAA and my FPS is between 30 and 60. Only bummer is that the game crashes at sertain moment in the game:confused:

grtzz

deders
26th Sep 2009, 12:53
Hi,

my specs are:

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz
MEM: 4 GIG of RAM DDR2 Dual Channel
GPU: 2 9800GTX+ (SLI Enabled)
OS: Windows Vista 64 Bit

My settings is all on high including my PhysX on High and 8xAA and my FPS is between 30 and 60. Only bummer is that the game crashes at sertain moment in the game:confused:

grtzz

When does it crash?

bakerman23
26th Sep 2009, 15:48
if you take out one of the chips and make it 6gb, but you'll have to consult the motherboard manual as to which slot to remove it from. also it will probably void your warranty if you do it yourself, which is a shame because it should be an easy operation.

Lol. Do you mean that if I take out a RAM module that it will void my warranty? That's dumb. I don't think that they ship the motherboard manual with the pc.

deders
26th Sep 2009, 16:02
Lol. Do you mean that if I take out a RAM module that it will void my warranty? That's dumb. I don't think that they ship the motherboard manual with the pc.

yeah, usually if you do as much as open your pc's case then that will void the warranty. they are just protecting themselves from inexperienced 'techicians' who could unwittingly damage chips by the static from not grounding/discharging themselves (that's not as rude as it sounds) before venturing within. but it does mean you can't upgrade without sending the machine back. It's one of the reasons I don't go with large computer companies like Dell. Nothing against them, they do provide a good service for those who don't know much about computers and would rather have a warranty to fall back on.

if you can find out the model of your motherboard you should be able to find the manual online. it may even be on one of the cd's they supply with it.

Ultimatum
27th Sep 2009, 07:40
When does it crash?

well the wierd thing is that i do not have the problem. I thought that i had enabled SLI but it didn't seem to be. So i enable SLI go through that certain point and the game doesn't crash:confused: so i realy whant to know what it could be

deders
27th Sep 2009, 18:45
well the wierd thing is that i do not have the problem. I thought that i had enabled SLI but it didn't seem to be. So i enable SLI go through that certain point and the game doesn't crash:confused: so i realy whant to know what it could be

it seems that some of the piracy prevention tactics employed in this game have affected legitimate users, one of which could be random crashes, on the other hand it may be a bug. sometimes mine crashes during transition screens between exiting the game to the menu and to the desktop, other times just before the dying screen when the enemy comes to gloat. Sometimes i can play through for ages without crashes. if it does crash (and this may be superstition but it has worked every time so far) I go into a profile I have completed the game in and have access to the armoured batsuit, then switch to whichever suit i'm not using at the time, then go back to the profile i was playing in. I noticed that for the entire time I played the first time through, I had no crash issues, it was only after I completed the game and unlocked the armoured suit that the crashes started.

sridhartheking
28th Sep 2009, 08:31
Hello there,
I am going to buy AA tomorrow. So I thought I would clarify whether my laptop could run it. The SR test is unreliable. When I tested for FIFA 10, it said it wouldn't run on my laptop. But it did work.

I don't have a powerful laptop, so I could settle with low settings

Intel Dual Core Processor rated at 3 Ghz
2 GB RAM
Intel Express series 4 chipset 797 MB (it doesnt use system RAM)
Win Vista

deders
28th Sep 2009, 09:18
Hello there,
I am going to buy AA tomorrow. So I thought I would clarify whether my laptop could run it. The SR test is unreliable. When I tested for FIFA 10, it said it wouldn't run on my laptop. But it did work.

I don't have a powerful laptop, so I could settle with low settings

Intel Dual Core Processor rated at 3 Ghz
2 GB RAM
Intel Express series 4 chipset 797 MB (it doesnt use system RAM)
Win Vista

Your processor is fine, ram may be a little low with vista, but this may not be a problem as you will have to play with low settings because of the graphics chip. Intel graphics chips are never great. here's what I found on the intel website.
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-030556.htm
Arkham Asylum runs on the Unreal 3 engine so perfomance can be expected to be similar. The settings Intel recommend here are very similar to the settings I had to play Unreal 3 at initialy with my 6600gt, which just so happens to be the minimum recommended graphics card for Arkham Asylum so it's quite possible it will run, just not very well. It may be worth waiting to see if anybody else has had experience with playing the game with your particular chipset. It may be worth checking the SR test anyway in case it does say it is compatible, in which case go ahead. sorry I can't help you any more than this.

(ps. I wouldn't be at all suprised if it did use system memory. 797 is an odd number for graphics memory. have a look here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=347484)

sridhartheking
28th Sep 2009, 10:42
Your processor is fine, ram may be a little low with vista, but this may not be a problem as you will have to play with low settings because of the graphics chip. Intel graphics chips are never great. here's what I found on the intel website.
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-030556.htm
Arkham Asylum runs on the Unreal 3 engine so perfomance can be expected to be similar. The settings Intel recommend here are very similar to the settings I had to play Unreal 3 at initialy with my 6600gt, which just so happens to be the minimum recommended graphics card for Arkham Asylum so it's quite possible it will run, just not very well. It may be worth waiting to see if anybody else has had experience with playing the game with your particular chipset. It may be worth checking the SR test anyway in case it does say it is compatible, in which case go ahead. sorry I can't help you any more than this.

(ps. I wouldn't be at all suprised if it did use system memory. 797 is an odd number for graphics memory. have a look here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=347484)

thanks for the help. I will buy it anyway. If it doesn't work, I will buy a graphic card.

deders
28th Sep 2009, 10:54
thanks for the help. I will buy it anyway. If it doesn't work, I will buy a graphic card.

I wouldn't expect to be able to upgrade a laptops' graphics card, for various reasons:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=86864

sridhartheking
28th Sep 2009, 13:14
I didn't know that. Well then, I have to try it out on my uncle's computer. (if it doesn't work)

Cheers.

deders
30th Sep 2009, 19:48
this may be a bit obvious but why not try the downloading the demo first?

Doodad
1st Oct 2009, 13:39
I run games on ati 4650 X2 crossfire x
AMD dual core 3.1 ghz 8MB memory
Creative Audigy Pro 5.1
XP Pro
Gigabyte 2oz copper crossfire x mboard
Sunbeam full tower transformers case with six fans
SATA Seahate 7200 rpm 16mb cache HD
I had a blast playing this game and I am an old fart. Eidos has redeemed some of their past screw-ups with this one.
I beta tested windows 7 and I will be switching up as soon as the retail ver. comes out.
Benchmarks were higher on 7 for every single game I tried on high.

Stein7922
1st Oct 2009, 22:55
I have:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 (2.5GHz, 4MB)
6GB DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2X2GB+2X1GB
1024MB nVidia GeForce GT220
500GB NCQ Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM) w/ 16MB DataBurst Cache

Will it run on my system? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

deders
1st Oct 2009, 23:09
I have:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 (2.5GHz, 4MB)
6GB DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 2X2GB+2X1GB
1024MB nVidia GeForce GT220
500GB NCQ Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM) w/ 16MB DataBurst Cache

Will it run on my system? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

everything should be fine, graphics could be a bit weak though, may have to turn a few settings down. Physx will be a no go. could upgrade to a geforce 275 and have everything on. you'll probably be able to play most of the game smoothly with a 260, if you do get a 260 go for one that has 216 shader cores, not 192

deders
1st Oct 2009, 23:13
Lol. Do you mean that if I take out a RAM module that it will void my warranty? That's dumb. I don't think that they ship the motherboard manual with the pc.

Ive just seen that on some dell laptops opening them up won't lose your warranty, but damaging them when you do will. check the details.

ReVolut1on
3rd Oct 2009, 07:33
I'm ordering a computer with this setup. Will this run the game well?

Intel Core i7-920 processor (8MB L3 Cache 2.66GHz)
8GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz
Dell 21.5 inch S2209W Full HD Widescreen Monitor
Nvidia GeForce GTX 260
750GB Serial ATA 2 Hard Drive 7200 RPM
Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Home Premium 64-Bit

First, this system clearly has Dual Channel RAM----->You should avoid using Dual Channel RAM on a X58 system. Using Dual Channel is a bit slower (depends on the application used) and MAY cause minor issues since the X58 platform is mainly designed to use Triple Channel RAM. Dual Channel memory is NOT guaranteed compatible by most X58 motherboard manufacturer.

Second, you should NEVER attempt to use Dual Channel RAM in Triple Channel (eg. Take 2GB out of the system). This could cause serious issues since the RAM sticks are not poperly tested and configured to work as Triple Channel memory.

Third, always do some research before buying a high end computer from assemblers such as 'Dell'.

deders
3rd Oct 2009, 08:33
First, this system clearly has Dual Channel RAM----->You should NEVER use Dual Channel RAM on a X58 system. This will slow down performance AND may cause memory issues/instability since the platform is designed to use specified Triple Channel RAM. Dual Channel RAM is NOT guaranteed compatible by any X58 motherboard manufacturer.

Second, you should NEVER attempt to use Dual Channel RAM in Triple Channel (eg. Take 2GB out of the system). This could cause serious issues since the RAM sticks are not poperly tested and configured to work as Triple Channel memory.

Third, always do some research before buying a high end computer from assemblers such as 'Dell'.

I didn't think until recently that dual channel ram would work with any bloomfield chipsets but don't you think that if it wasn't supported, the MB wouldn't boot or it would report an error, if it says dual channel in the post or the bios then it is clearly a feature of the board.

And do you think that a big company Like dell would design and sell systems like this if they weren't gauranteed to work? Somebody in the company must know what they are doing at least, if there were problems we'd hear about it because people would be returning their systems in droves, it would be all over the net.

As for dual channel ram in triple channel sockets, the same is said about using non dual ram in dual setups, something I have been doing quite happily with no issues whatsoever for many years now in various setups, all overclocked and at low latencies. I believe most of this need for dual channel kits is to charge more for the guarantee it will work, when more often than not it will work anyway. if the latencies are different and you set it to SPD in the bios, it should default to the lower of the 2. As the ram in this setup will be from the same manufacturer, most likely from the same batch, and already works well together in the same computer I think it's safe to assume there should be no problems here.

The other issue is that the voltages of older ddr3 chips were too high for the memory controllers on the i7 chips, meaning you could damage the processor, but as these chips are already installed and working correctly, I think its safe to assume they are running at the correct voltage. If you want peace of mind check in the bios, the memory voltage should be on or very close 1.65v

[Y]urimaster
9th Oct 2009, 18:19
This game runs like butter and no shuttering what so ever on my rig.
With a QX9650 clock at 3.8Ghz and GTX280 SLI. Resolution of 1920X1200 with all video settings max and I get average of 60fps with v-sync disable. So if you want to enjoy the graphics and physics you need at lease a gt200 card.

deders
9th Oct 2009, 18:20
urimaster;1200025']This game runs like butter and no shuttering what so ever on my rig.
With a QX9650 clock at 3.8Ghz and GTX280 SLI. Resolution of 1920X1200 with all video settings max and I get average of 60fps with v-sync disable. So if you want to enjoy the graphics and physics you need at lease a gt200 card.

is that with SLI on or off?

Razorwindmo
10th Oct 2009, 08:50
Just read my sig

[Y]urimaster
11th Oct 2009, 15:22
is that with SLI on or off?

I found out that I get the same FPS or performance with SLI on or off, I don't see a difference. So I play with off. In this case the top card runs hotter since it is use for graphics and the lower card will be use for physics. But L4D or Crysis I do need SLI enable or I lose almost half performance since both cards are working on those games. I guess this is first made for console so no DX10 support or SLI.

This is a good thread where people experiment with SLI off vs ON and it comes to conclusion is better to have disable SLI and make the lower card as dedicated physics card for this game
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1452042

TDK's Villain
20th Oct 2009, 17:41
Intel® Core™ Duo T4200 2.0GHz 1MB FSB800
4096MB DDR2 800MHz
500GB SATA 5400rpm
17.3" WXGA 1600x900
nVidia GeForce GT 120M 1GB DDR2
DVD RW Dual Layer
16-bit Sound Card
Altec Lansing® stereo speakers

how about this, it should be fine?

deders
20th Oct 2009, 18:10
Intel® Core™ Duo T4200 2.0GHz 1MB FSB800
4096MB DDR2 800MHz
500GB SATA 5400rpm
17.3" WXGA 1600x900
nVidia GeForce GT 120M 1GB DDR2
DVD RW Dual Layer
16-bit Sound Card
Altec Lansing® stereo speakers

how about this, it should be fine?

Graphics card is a bit weak and the CPU isn't going to help boost it, but you should be able to play it with a few settings turned down.
The geforce GT120 is the equivalent of a Geforce 9500GT which has 32 shader cores. The absolute minimum is a 6600 which has 8 shader pipelines so you should be ok. If you are really unsure try the link at the top of the thread.

TDK's Villain
20th Oct 2009, 19:07
do you know a website that I can add specs myself without recognizing my current specs. because I would like to check if my future laptop can run it?

deders
20th Oct 2009, 19:09
What will your laptop's spec be?

TDK's Villain
20th Oct 2009, 19:22
I posted it on previous posts:

Intel® Core™ Duo T4200 2.0GHz 1MB FSB800
4096MB DDR2 800MHz
500GB SATA 5400rpm
17.3" WXGA 1600x900
nVidia GeForce GT 120M 1GB DDR2
DVD RW Dual Layer
16-bit Sound Card
Altec Lansing® stereo speakers

deders
20th Oct 2009, 19:23
Ahh yeah i didn't realise that was for your laptop. It should be ok, it's not bad for a laptop.

maysey
31st Oct 2009, 13:08
heres my spec(this is written straight from the system properties in the control panel):
OS: XP 32-bit

CPU: intel pentium dual E220 @ 2.20GHz
2.20GHz, 2 GB RAM
Graphics Card: GeForce 7300 SE/7200 GS

i cant find out about anything else, but i think the graphics card is the most important thing, although it runs quite smooth oin low, it seems that the lag that is still there, makes the voices and gameplay go out of sync, e.g at the very beginning when joker yells "BOO" at the doctor and he jumps, the doctor doesent do his jump animation until youve started walkng on towards the next room, meaning that him jumping is WAY out of sync

also, i am under the effects of a glitch where (i have mentioned this in anotehr thread) when croc comes out of the lift, and a guy yells to activate his collar, he doesent seem to get shocked and just stands there, making me unable to continue, the game does not freeze in any way how ever, i dunno if this is the cause of a bad graphics card, or because the game events are really out of sync (like the doctor being startled like i said above)

deders
31st Oct 2009, 13:19
yeah i'd say your graphics are underpowered, as long as you run the game in XP then the rest of your spec should be fine.

If I turn the settings too far up on my machine, like pile on the AA, then the whole game slows down so its still in sync, just running much slower.

If you want to run the game full detail (without physx) the absolute minimum i'd recommend at your res would be a 8/9800gt (both virtually identical) but you'd probably be better off in the long run with at least a GTX 260/275 or an ATI 4850/70. These should be getting pretty cheap now as the new generation of cards has just arrived.

maysey
1st Nov 2009, 15:39
yeah i'd say your graphics are underpowered, as long as you run the game in XP then the rest of your spec should be fine.

If I turn the settings too far up on my machine, like pile on the AA, then the whole game slows down so its still in sync, just running much slower.

If you want to run the game full detail (without physx) the absolute minimum i'd recommend at your res would be a 8/9800gt (both virtually identical) but you'd probably be better off in the long run with at least a GTX 260/275 or an ATI 4850/70. These should be getting pretty cheap now as the new generation of cards has just arrived.

ty for the info, i was wondering what graphics card to get, now i have to pray to god that the lag and the out of sync parts are whats making that croc glitch happen, (where he just stands there, and doesent egt shocked by his collar, all though the game doesent freeze) if not, ive wasted good money, and i hope i get my graphics card within batmans warranty to prevent that.

nut which one is better? i originally was gonna go for a better geforce before i initially posted here

dghillza
11th Nov 2009, 16:16
Just for your Info I'm running it on a P4 3.4Mhz, 2GB RAM, nvidia 6700 and it fine

deders
11th Nov 2009, 16:44
Just for your Info I'm running it on a P4 3.4Mhz, 2GB RAM, nvidia 6700 and it fine

good to know it works on a powerful enough single core, 2GB is fine for XP, and your 6700 is the next card up from minimum spec (and more powerful than the 7300). The nv43 is a suprisingly powerful chipset considering how long ago it came out and how many games still quote it as their minimum gfx card.

@Maysey, I'd go for the 275 if you want physx, if you don't or you want something cheaper to fill the gap till DX11 becomes mainstream then probably one of the ATI's. If you're not running anything above 1280x1024 then the 4850 will be more than adequate. You'd be happy with any one of these cards but the only chance of seeing Batman in all it's glory with Physx on high is with the 275 or above, as it just about has the right number of shader cores to cope with all the extra calculations.

JonBaxter
12th Nov 2009, 23:30
Got a single-core P4 3 Ghz which the game tells me is 2.998 Ghz & therefore too small.

Nvidia 8600GT

2 Gig RAM

Runs a treat now I've got round the GFWL update fiasco by downloading from a games site. Someone should shoot GFWL :mad2:

No hardware accellerated PhysX according to the game and not tried it...happy without.

Everything else set on high. Running at 1360x768 on a widescreen LCD telly.

axiomatic
16th Nov 2009, 02:54
here are the details concerning my computer. will i have any trouble running batman and if yes what should i do in order to eliminate these complications?
:mad2:
OS:Windows 7 Home Premium, 64 bit
Processor: AMD Anthlon II X2 215 (2.7 GHz, 1MB)
Memory: 4 GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800 MHz-4 DIMMs
Hard Drive: 320 GB Serial ATA Hard Drive 97200 RPM0 w/DataBurts Cache
Video Memory: there is not "video memory" on the paper abba gave me
Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 3450 256 MB

i appreciate it:)

deders
16th Nov 2009, 03:26
Everything apart from your graphics should be fine. Hard to say if you'll be able to play the game even with the lowest settings as it is Ati's most 'budget' card. It has the right capabilities but maybe not enough grunt to back them up.

If I where you i'd upgrade to at least a nvidia 8800gt/9800gt (now called GTX240) or even a GTX260/275. Or if you like ATI then a 4850 or 4870. all these cards will enable you to play the game full detail without physx. Only the 260 and 275 will enable you to turn physx on meduim and high respectively. if you aren't interested in that i'd get a 4850.

axiomatic
19th Nov 2009, 05:40
with any of the cards mentioned above the game should run smoothly with near top graphics? i mean excluding physx because you already told me which cards would run physx. also what is so special about physx i never understood why its such a revolutionary thing.

deders
19th Nov 2009, 06:07
All of the above cards should be able to handle everything on the highest setting, with moderate anti aliasing. the more powerful the card, the more anti aliasing you can apply.

Physx basically uses the processing power of your graphics cards to calculate how certain objects move and react to your (or other objects/characters) movments. There are other physics API's like Havoc which was used for Half life 2 and many other games but these run on your CPU instead of your GPU, leaving your CPU free to calculate other parts of the game. Although there will still be a framerate hit if you enable Physx.

Although there are very few actual Physx enabled games (mirrors edge, Cryostasis, Sacred 2 etc), Directx11 is rumoured to have it's own hardware physics API so having the extra shader cores could still be useful in the future if you intend on playing more games on your PC.

The actual in game Physx effects range from an excessive amount of papers flying about when you fight, extra debris falling around you, more (and sometimes less) realistic rag doll effects when enemies are knocked unconcious, tiles falling off walls and cracking underneath you as you smash enemies into the floor, Cloth banners and blankets that are tearable, and dynamic smoke and mist that moves as you run into it.

Whilst most of these effects aren't necessary for gameplay and at best just add an extra flourish and ambience to the already great graphics. The truly impressive stuff comes in (when you put Physx on high) in the scarecrow levels, where you get walls and floors breaking away and swirling around the level, massive amounts of papers swirling about and burning up in his gaze.

This is the first game to use Hardware physx to this extent, and as impressive as it is, if you don't intend on playing many other games on your PC it may not be worth investing in such a high end graphics card just for a few small portions of one game. Any one of these cards will give you better graphics than any of the console versions. The 275gtx is the lowest card that will give you any hope of running Physx on high.

This video should show you what to expect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw, bet you've never seen dynamic toilet paper before?

axiomatic
22nd Nov 2009, 21:58
ha quite an astute description. tyvm for your time i really appreciate it. i guess i was skeptical simply because minimum requirements claimed 3 GHz processor and mines only 2.7 even though its a duel core. simply due to curiosity, does Physx work in this fashion for the xbox and PS3 versions too?

deders
23rd Nov 2009, 05:24
for this game 2x2.7 is way above a single 3ghz
Only the PC uses Physx to this extent, and only with decent enough Nvidia hardware.

kateit
23rd Nov 2009, 23:42
hey deders i have a computer with almost identical soecs as axiomatic does. however, the cards you suggested for him are a bit pricey. are there any other video cards you could suggest that would still work with the game very well, or is this unavoidable and simply the price of playing such an amazing game. additionally, if it could only be those cards mentioned above what is considered generally a good price or do you have a specific company you would suggest to buy it from? because i dont know jack about this stuff

deders
23rd Nov 2009, 23:59
I'd say they were the minimum to play on full detail, the lowest i'd go on the nvidia side would be a 9600gt which has about half the power of a 9800gtx or a gts250, but should still make the game look pretty decent. anything below isn't really designed for modern gaming.
On the ATI side of things I believe the 4770 is a great value card with reasonable power behind it.

As for which company, they are both good at what they do,each has their advantages and disadvantages, but they balance each other out generally. I'd go for whichever gives you the most performance in the games you want to play for the lowest price. the only way to be sure is to check out comparative reviews with reliable benchmarks. In this game Nvidia has the advantage with Anti Aliasing.

Overall out of the 2 (4770 and 9600gt) the 4770 is probably the faster card

HitBDCman
25th Nov 2009, 07:02
6300 CPU overclocked @ 2.17 GHZ

4 gig DDR2 800 MHZ

Win 7

BFG 8800 GTS

How do i fare at running this game smoothly?

deders
25th Nov 2009, 07:31
should be fine, highest detail but no physx.

HitBDCman
25th Nov 2009, 08:09
Thank you for the reply. It's nice to know i don't need to update yet my system yet.

Quick Questions, does my 8800 GTS still hold its own because the game isn't very demanding without physx, or is it still a decent card?

And is it possible (or even worth) putting another 8800 and using SLI in my rig to be able to run Physx?

Sorry if these seem like silly questions, but I haven't been paying attention to hardware news for since I built this rig over 3 years ago.

deders
25th Nov 2009, 08:27
The game is based on the Unreal 3 engine (and imho is the best looking unreal3 engine game) which was something that the G80 series (and above) excelled at rendering all those years ago. The design was so sucessful that several years later Nvidia are still releasing cards based on the same chip design (gtx250).

Also game developers tend to aim to make their games look best on the most popular hardware, leaving more powerful ones to handle bigger resolutions and higher AA levels.

I own 2 9800gtx+'s and there are very few games that demand more at full detail, i'm sure if I had a more powerful processor even those games would be less of an issue, and i probably wouldn't need the second card as much at my resolution.

Another factor is the fact that these games are being developed for consoles as well. Pretty much anything that can run on a console, can be run on a 8800 series and above.

Read my description of Physx above and watch the video to decide whether it's worth spending the money on another card for this game (and maybe a few others in the future)

You could quite easily, if your motherboard supports it, get another 8800GTS with the same memory and clock speeds as yours and run it in SLI to give you better framerates in most games. you would also have the flexibility to switch SLI off in games like this and use the second card purely as a Physx processor.

A better option might be to buy a more powerful card, like the GTX275, use that as your primary graphics card and have your GTS in a second PCIE slot just as a dedicated physx card. you would not need a SLI capable motherboard to do this, but you would need to make sure, in both situations, that your PSU could handle the power demands of all your hardware working together. You'd probably want a decent 800w PSU at the very minimum.

bellair54
8th Dec 2009, 07:01
I recommend can you run it.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/

Hey all this is my first Post and i was trying to get some info. I Recently got this game and every time I get to the beginning Where they are walking the joker to his cell or w/e the Computer completely shuts down, no warning or anything, just shuts off. I quoted the opening thread because i went to that sight and i passed on both the minimal requirements and recommended requirements. Just trying to figure out if it is a problem other people are having as well or if there may be something wrong with my computer. I have a HP Pavillion a6757c PC, and I just upgraded the video card last month. The Video card is a Ati Radeon HD 4890. Someone told me that some of the newer games like this one and Dragon Age have been sucking the CPU which makes this shutdown happen as well but that is just what I have heard, so I figured I would give this a shot and see if someone else out there has the same problem or may be able to help me cure mine. Thanks for reading and for your input.

deders
8th Dec 2009, 07:22
Hey all this is my first Post and i was trying to get some info. I Recently got this game and every time I get to the beginning Where they are walking the joker to his cell or w/e the Computer completely shuts down, no warning or anything, just shuts off. I quoted the opening thread because i went to that sight and i passed on both the minimal requirements and recommended rnnection: close
Cookie: SEo figure out if it is a problem other people are having as well or if there may be something wrong with my computer. I have a HP Pavillion a6757c PC, and I just upgraded the video card last month. The Video card is a Ati Radeon HD 4890. Someone told me that some of the newer games like this one and Dragon Age have been sucking the CPU which makes this shutdown happen as well but that is just what I have heard, so I figured I would give this a shot and see if someone else out there has the same problem or may be able to help me cure mine. Thanks for reading and for your input.

Just by looking at the system specs for your pc, your Power Supply Unit is only 250w, which isn't enough to power your computer and new graphics card.
Hence why it will switch itself off when under full load like when you play a game.

I'd suggest looking for a decent PSU rated at around 500w. try and go for one that is rated at 80%+ effeciency, and that has all the right connectors for your computer.

archimedies
9th Dec 2009, 18:41
I hope deders see's this.
Here is my university laptop. Hope it could handle it.

Processor: Intel(R) Core 2 Duo CPU P7350 @ 2.00GHz
Memory: 4GB
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4530
OS: Windows Vista 64 Bit
Screen Resolution: 1366 by 768 pixels

Any other information required? Sadly I suspect it can handle only medium graphics.
Also would my laptop have power problems like that? This laptop handled Dragon Age: Origins max at 4x aliasing thing, with a slight lag.

digitalrurouni
16th Dec 2009, 16:17
I have the following specs:
QX9650
OCZ DDR2 8500 low voltage ram
| 2 x velcoiraptors
2 x BFG 285 GTX OCXs in SLI
HP 30 inch LCD @ 2560x1600
X-fi Elite Pro
Windows 7 Pro x64
I have an issue where it seems that the memory gets consumed incredibly quick and that results in swapping and thus a massive drop in the performance of the game. Anyone from the forum aware of this kind of an issue? Mind this is a completely clean install with the latest drivers and everything installed. I have removed the nvidia 3d vision drivers because they were reported to have memory leaks. Is it a memory leak or do I simply need more ram to play this game at its maxed out settings? Perhaps a forum admin/dev could reply to my inquiries. This game is just epic it just sucks to run out of ram!

SSRL
18th Dec 2009, 03:55
I've got the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16Ghz
Ram - 6GB DDR 2
Graphics - Nvidia GeForce GTX 275 896MB
OS - Windows XP Pro 32Bit w/ resolution at 1920 x 1080
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My question is... I think I have an above "recommended" setting but it still shows that laggy feeling sometimes... why is that??

And also my mouse sentivity isn't very smooth although I played around with it!

And I'm assuming Batman Arkham Asylum 2 will require much more than this game! Sounds like I have to use more cash to upgrade my PC T_T

angelus0901
18th Dec 2009, 09:07
SSRL, you should upgrade your Windows to 64bit... Cause 32bit can read only 3,2GB of RAM and I see you have 6 GB...

Lurker1
20th Dec 2009, 00:22
Wow, I thought my computer wouldn't be able to hack it, but it says I can buy this game.

Minimum Recommended CPU
Minimum: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 3500+
You Have: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz
PASS

CPU Speed
Minimum: 3.0 GHz
You Have: 2.53 GHz Performance Rated at: 3.795 GHz
PASS

RAM
Minimum: XP = 1 GB, Vista = 2GB
You Have: 4.0 GB
PASS

OS
Minimum: Windows XP & Vista
You Have: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition, 64-bit (Build Service Pack 26002)
PASS

Video Card
Minimum: 128 MB 3D Graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 6600 or ATI Radeon X1300 or better)
You Have: NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
PASS
Features: Minimum attributes of your Video Card
Required You Have
Video RAM 128 MB 2.2 GB
Hardware T&L Yes Yes
Pixel Shader version 3.0 4.0
Vertex Shader version 3.0 4.0


Free Disk Space
Minimum: 9 GB
You Have: 199.0 GB
PASS

LeJosh
23rd Dec 2009, 22:14
Apparently it's not supported by windows 7... So I failed the test. :\

Beastie
23rd Dec 2009, 22:21
Apparently it's not supported by windows 7... So I failed the test. :\

batman is i have run it on win 7 32 and 64 with no problem at all
system requierements lab is wrong in this case

angelus0901
23rd Dec 2009, 22:21
Apparently it's not supported by windows 7... So I failed the test. :\

Have you tried playing it on win 7? Cause I have win7 and the game runs fine. Can you run it needs to update the info because it says failed for everyone who has win7

LeJosh
23rd Dec 2009, 22:49
Have you tried playing it on win 7? Cause I have win7 and the game runs fine. Can you run it needs to update the info because it says failed for everyone who has win7

I can't get the game to run at all right now, bought it off steam. Made a thread about it but I didn't really blame Win7, just found it funny I passed everything but the OS. :)

munstyman
26th Dec 2009, 17:19
OK i did the compatibility thing and it says i am compatible and i downloaded the demo and all to play it and see how it works. The video in the beginning plays but the sound is really choppy, and the the game is lagging terribly, any idea what i can do to fix these issues? I am running an older system that is in serious need of upgrade but it says it meets and surpasses the minimum and i cant actually afford an upgrade


CPU
Minimum: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 3500+
You Have: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
PASS

CPU Speed
Minimum: 3.0 GHz
You Have: 2.11 GHz Performance Rated at: 3.798 GHz
PASS

RAM
Minimum: XP = 1 GB, Vista = 2GB
You Have: 1.5 GB
PASS

OS
Minimum: Windows XP & Vista
You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (Build Service Pack 32600)
PASS

Video Card
Minimum: 128 MB 3D Graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 6600 or ATI Radeon X1300 or better)
You Have: GeForce 6600
PASS
Features: Minimum attributes of your Video Card
Required You Have
Video RAM 128 MB 512.0 MB
Hardware T&L Yes Yes
Pixel Shader version 3.0 3.0
Vertex Shader version 3.0 3.0

KeFaS
4th Jan 2010, 23:17
Hi,

My PC is:

Intel E2140 @ 3.04 GHz
Gigabyte P35-DS3L
Kingston DDR2 2GB (2x1GB dual channel) 800MHz CL5
Galaxy Zalman GeForce 7900GS 256MB 256Bit @ 610/1700 MHz (GPU/VRAM)
Samsung 160GB 7200rpm 8mb cache SATA2
Chieftec 350W
LCD 22" Dell 2209WA 1680x1050@60Hz
Windows XP Pro 32Bit SP3

I want to buy Batman: Arkham Asylum, but how can I play on my PC? Medium details are minimum for me, and of course ~60 FPS. I can play in 1152x852 resolution (it's not native, but looks fine on my LCD).
Can I play comfortably on this?

lowdak
11th Feb 2010, 00:09
I'm having issue's with the game loading, sound stutters and screen locks. I've read there is an issue with realtech sound card drivers but I'm running a SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM). This is the full PC version not a pirated copy or the demo.What to do ?


Pentium 4 3.4ghz
4 gb ram
SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM)
XFX GeForce 9500 GT 1 GB DDR2

While this isn't the fastest system it's above the bare minimums required.
Any Ideas ???

deders
11th Feb 2010, 00:28
I'd start by reducing all graphics setings in the launcher.
If you want to rule out your soundcard, you can temporarily disable it in device manager and see if the problem persists.
do you play many other PC games on that machine?

lowdak
11th Feb 2010, 18:22
Yeah, Quake 4, Doom 3, Bio Shock etc. They all run fine with the graphics maxxed. I'll try disableing the sound card and try it again.
Thanks.

deders
11th Feb 2010, 18:27
Quake 4 and doom 3 are of a different generation and won't demand as much from your computer, and even though bioshock uses the same engine as BAA, it's not as demanding.
The 9500gt only has 32 shader cores, the recommended gfx card is a 9800gt which has 112. See if it runs any smoother with the graphics set to low, then turn the options up one at at time to find out which ones are causing problems.

lowdak
11th Feb 2010, 20:04
Disabled sound card and the game now runs. I'm going to see if there's newer drivers for the sound card if not looks like I'll be upgrading. Didn't mess with graphics yet but it looks fine and seems to run fine.

Thanks Again.

lowdak
13th Feb 2010, 19:27
Well, found updated drivers.That's the good news bad news it didn't work it still locks up with sound card enabled. I saw a reference somewhere about using a file editor to edit the sound file from 200 ? to 32 n the game and that fixed some peoples issues. Anyone know where I can find this info ?

Thanks

deders
13th Feb 2010, 19:39
open BmEngine.ini (My Documents\Eidos\Batman Arkham Asylum\BmGame\Config) and search for MaxChannels

lowdak
15th Feb 2010, 04:48
How do I modify this when I try it won't accept the changes,Do I need a file editor program of some sort ?

deders
15th Feb 2010, 14:04
before you open the file, right click, select properties and make sure read only isn't ticked. might be worth backing up the files you want to edit.

VXR
15th Feb 2010, 14:27
Here is a CLEAN simple app, that will tell you what, how and why you CAN or CANNOT run ANY pc game.

http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/CYRI/intro.aspx

lowdak
15th Feb 2010, 17:54
Thanks deders I'll do that.

VXR I've already run that program and it shows that my setup will run this game.


Thanks All

Ejas12
19th Feb 2010, 00:41
Hi, I have the demo, my computer was able to run it, but when fighing or moving, it runs slow.
I visited Can you run it, and acording to the site I should be able to play it with the minimum requirements:
CPU
Minimum: Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 3500+
You Have: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00GHz
PASS

CPU Speed
Minimum: 3.0 GHz
You Have: 2.00 GHz Performance Rated at: 3 GHz
PASS

RAM
Minimum: XP = 1 GB, Vista = 2GB
You Have: 1023.5 MB
PASS

OS
Minimum: Windows XP & Vista
You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (build 2600)
PASS

Video Card
Minimum: 128 MB 3D Graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 6600 or ATI Radeon X1300 or better)
You Have: GeForce 8400 GS
PASS
Features: Minimum attributes of your Video Card
Required You Have
Video RAM 128 MB 512.0 MB
Hardware T&L Yes Yes
Pixel Shader version 3.0 3.0
Vertex Shader version 3.0 3.0
Also I have configured my nvidia settings to boost the performance (disabled antianliasing and all that stuff)
Am I missing something?

deders
19th Feb 2010, 03:44
Most of your system is just above minimum spec, unfortunately I think it's your graphics card that lets you down. The minimum for this game is a 6600 which at the time was a decent card, just because card is from a higher series of cards doesn't mean it's a faster card.

Have you tried minimising all the graphics settings in the launcher? you may still find you can run it, if you find you can, then try bringing some of the settings up one at a time and see if it runs smoothly.

Try running fraps (google it) which will give you an idea of what framerate you are running at. Ideally you should be around 30, the eye sees things smoothly at 24fps+ so if you can keep it above or around that you should be fine.

jelbo
25th Feb 2010, 11:09
Ideally you should be around 30, the eye sees things smoothly at 24fps+ so if you can keep it above or around that you should be fine.
If my fps drops to anything below 60 I notice it :|

deders
25th Feb 2010, 11:32
If my fps drops to anything below 60 I notice it :|

depends on the game, this game runs suprisingly smoothly on my setup at anything above 24.

Some games, like you say suffer below 60

raacut
3rd Mar 2010, 15:29
CPU = Intel Dual Core E8400 @ 3.6GHz
Os = Windows 7 64bit
Ram = Maxed at 4GB Ram
Video Card = Ati Radeon 4870 Dark Knight Edition ( 1GB)

Was getting frequent BSODs around 20-30 minutes into the game on maxed settings. Switched to high settings and the BSOD evolved into crashing to desktop. Medium settings run the game smoothly.
I can play every game on maxed settings : Mass effect 2 , dragon age, Bioshock 1 & 2 etc.

I dont think this game supports ATI.

raacut
3rd Mar 2010, 15:47
nevermind double post...

deders
3rd Mar 2010, 17:25
@raacut, Sounds like overheating to me

raacut
3rd Mar 2010, 18:57
Thats the thing! When i had maxed out settings and i ran the benchmark, it was giving me an average of 93 fps. the lowest it went was 43, cant remember the highest.

Maybe i should not overclock my card . currently gpu is at 800 mhz ( stock 750) and memory clock is 1000mhz ( stock is 900)

again this is the only game i cant run on maxed settings.

deders
3rd Mar 2010, 19:02
I'd try running it at normal speed and see how long you can play it for then

raacut
4th Mar 2010, 16:07
I did try underclocking my card back to factory settings, still same crashes. This game doesnt support ATI I believe, or ATI doesnt support this game. Whatever , This game is too good to whine about. I can settle for medium settings.

I will always be an ATI customer though , so il think twice about buying an EIDOS game next time. Ofcourse if its 12 bucks then I wont think at all !

deders
4th Mar 2010, 16:14
the game works fine on ATI cards, apart from a couple of features, you still get a better looking game than you would on the consoles. Most people can play it fine. I'd try opening your case and seeing if it runs for longer, also check for dust on your cpu heatsink, I had to clear mine a few times when my computer just shut down unexpectedly.

raacut
4th Mar 2010, 17:10
the game works fine on ATI cards, apart from a couple of features, you still get a better looking game than you would on the consoles. Most people can play it fine. I'd try opening your case and seeing if it runs for longer, also check for dust on your cpu heatsink, I had to clear mine a few times when my computer just shut down unexpectedly.

If my computer were crashing with other games too, I would consider it. As things are Batman aa is the odd one out .

deders
4th Mar 2010, 17:17
A few people have commented on this forum that they wouldn't expect heating issues as they can run supposedly more intensive games without any problem, but it usually turns out that this game generates more heat from graphics cards more than most, and their problems are solved by getting more of an airflow going.

The only other thing I can think it might be is your psu, but I think heating is more likely. especially as it seems to occur after a short period of gameplay, and turning the graphics down resolves it.

raacut
7th Mar 2010, 03:07
Well you were right. I was cleaning up my room and decided to clean my pc while I was at it. Turns out there was quite a bit of dust on my card. upon cleaning it , my graphic card temps dropped by 10 degrees. I never noticed it because i recently setup dual monitors, and thought the temperature rise was because of that. Anyways Batman doesnt crash anymore and i can enjoy the game on max settings. So thanks !

deders
7th Mar 2010, 03:24
Glad I could help

jack0517
13th Mar 2010, 22:34
Runs great on high with 4X Anti, no Phys-X or i lose a lot of fps. Benchmark average of 78 fps.

AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core 240 ~2.8 Ghz
4 Gigs DDR2 pc 6400 800MHz RAM
Gigabyte MA785GM-US2H Mobo
9800 GT Superclocked 512 Mb
Windows XP 32-bit SP3

wolverineweaponx123
29th Mar 2010, 09:31
hey, is this compatible with windows 7 32-bit? thanks!

deders
29th Mar 2010, 17:07
most people have no issues with windows 7

wolverineweaponx123
30th Mar 2010, 11:33
I see. Are most of Vista-compatible games work with Windows 7? btw, I appreciate the quick response. thanks!:thumb:

deders
31st Mar 2010, 10:31
pretty much, there may be a couple of exceptions but 7 is basically a much more optimized version of Vista.

neilpeart
9th Aug 2010, 19:34
Hello. I would like to know if a nvidia geforce GTX260 can handle Batman in a 1024*768 resolution (my monitor cannot handle more) with physx high because I want to change my nvidia G210. I want to buy more memory ram a Corsair Twinx 4gb. Thanks

My specs

Intel core 2 Quad Q9400
RAM 2GB 667mhz
Video Nvidia Geforce G210
Windows 7 Ultimate 32bits
Mobo Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3L

th4
10th Aug 2010, 01:46
I have a Dell Inspiron 1545 laptop. The video card is a Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family, which is apparently inadequate. Can I install a new video card, or is my laptop fated to go to its grave with the video card it was born with?

Xenoc
10th Aug 2010, 08:00
There is nothing wrong with the test, your computer is only using 1.7GB of your RAM.

As Nemesis296 said, a 32-bit operating system can only support 4GB RAM, video memory included.
Since your video card has 2GB Windows is only able to use 2GB of your RAM.

You should install Windows Vista or 7 x64 because 6GB of your RAM is not being used.

Only for your OS is there a disadvantage... with games it will use all your ram

deders
10th Aug 2010, 10:22
@neilpert, there are 2 different basic gtx260 models available, one with 192 shaders, the other with 216. the more shaders you have the more physx effects you'll be able to run at once.

neilpeart
10th Aug 2010, 10:40
thanks for the reply, I am going to buy the one that has 216 shaders then

cookyspaniel
26th Oct 2010, 17:57
I can *guarantee* your PC will run BAA.

I installed it on my 4yr old laptop:
HP 8510p. 2GHz Centrino dual-core
2GB RAM, 512MB ATI 2600
Nothing special, quite old specs.

Running 1280x800, high detail, almost everything on, and it's gorgeous and getting 20FPS all the way. Amazing. Hats off to the Unreal Engine. Don't know how they did it. And who cares about PhysX? Doesn't seem to lose anything without it.
Screens:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4276/screenshot00001s.th.jpg (http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4276/screenshot00001s.jpg)http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3903/screenshot00002t.th.jpg (http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3903/screenshot00002t.jpg)http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5307/screenshot00007a.th.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5307/screenshot00007a.jpg)http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8008/batmansettings.th.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8008/batmansettings.jpg)
Must say this is the nicest and smoothest game I've played on this old thing.
If I can run it smoothly, then you can too. :)

The fights are a button-mashing fest and rather boring.. I'd love it they put more emphasis on the exploring, crime solving & stealth as the major gameplay elements instead of button mashing battles. But it's one of the most gorgeous and well-produced games I've ever seen!

Loved the fireworks at the end, adds even more atmosphere. Just wish they'd let us climb around anywhere we want, on top of the big buildings, etc. That'd be awesome. Such a visually rich environment.

Fluffis
19th Dec 2010, 10:01
I was honestly surprised at how smoothly this game ran on my computer. I mean, it's a pretty nice one, but nothing really major in any way.

Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz
4 Gb RAM
ATI HD 4850, 512 Mb
Soundblaster XFI XTreme Audio

Benchmark at 49 FPS average, with a low-point of 35. That's pretty damn nice.

Edit: Oh, and that's at 1280*800, with as many bells and whistles as WinXP 64bit allows.

Thunderone01
30th Mar 2011, 07:44
I have:

Intel Xeon CPU W3680 3.33 GHz
6 GB RAM
Quadro FX 3800 with 3.5 Gb of VideoRAM
Realtech Sound

And DON'T PLAY IT, Freeze when I try to run. Why?

DjSCorvus
14th May 2011, 18:14
There is nothing wrong with the test, your computer is only using 1.7GB of your RAM.

As Nemesis296 said, a 32-bit operating system can only support 4GB RAM, video memory included.
Since your video card has 2GB Windows is only able to use 2GB of your RAM.

You should install Windows Vista or 7 x64 because 6GB of your RAM is not being used.

so atleast i know i didnt do something wrong then installing extra ram for my windows 7 x86 lappy 64bit of course. Only 2 slots though so i lost 2gb in the process, I could have had 8 and it save me money too in the long run but, it runs really fast now, it should be even better when i start using driver sweeper, providing that will sweep just the recycle bin, i havent bought that yet so im unsure how it works, i know it can wipe drives altogether but not sure on its options. And yeah i have same problem I can't seem to get batman running at all now and mine is the original boxed game, first i lose my save game 30% complete and then. Salt in the wound lol.

DjSCorvus
14th May 2011, 18:27
I also have a problem when you start the game The game reports BmLauncher stopped working I have Vista Ultimate 64 bit
CPU: Intel Core Quad Q9550 2.83GHz
8 GB RAM DDR 3
Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT
DirectX 10
I installed all new drivers which may be the problem?
in my operating system, Vista Ultimate 64 bit?

I am very sad stack I wanted to buy this game
I think the directx 10 is an optional update which is just nvidia card compatible, it didnt work for me and i didnt need it either, I have ATI 4000' series card and it runs fine, infact it says anything above and beyond the 2000's ati series. check the help file it does actually help :p I used device manager to update my ATI display setup and that sorted it for me, at first It was stuttering all over the place, my card uses v sync too, don't understand why batman runs smooth with that on, but crysis doesnt,

DjSCorvus
14th May 2011, 18:32
Hi I wanna ask you something trek554! I have a problem with the demo so I don't know how batman arkham asylum will work for me! I hope that the full game will work for me. I went to can you run it and I almost am betwen the minimum and recomended. I passed all of them except the RAM! I have 2 GB RAM! Here are my full computer specs:
Widows Vista 32 Bit
Processor:Amd Athlon Dual Core 4600+
Memory:2 GB RAM
Direct X 10.0
Graphic Card:NVIDIA GeForce 8600GS
HDD:360 GB(170 Gb Free)

What do I have to do to make it work at its full speed?If I disable physx or put it on medium will it work full speed?PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!

Sorry 2 botter u but I'm desperate!!!:wave::)

I can help ya, your system is actually limited as games requiring 2gb ram will work better with 3gb or 4gb ram, btw 4gb ram is 3.75 useable ram, the rest of it is obviously tied up in running everything else your pc does besides games,

clafann1
9th Jun 2011, 11:20
I've tried the Asylum demo, it worked without problems in my laptop but i had to set the detail level to medium. (my laptop: centrino duo 1.83Ghz, 500Mb Ati, 1GB RAM, WinXPSp3)
I probably will wait for a pack containing both Asylum and city (for my PS3) :D

kirby_blue
28th Jun 2011, 11:37
Can someone help me with this:

AMD Phenom II X4 810 (2.6 GHz)
3Go RAM DDR2
PNY Geforce GTX 560 Ti OC
Win XP SP3
Directx 9.0c
NVidia pilot version 266.44
Batman AA 1.1

Any action scene involving two or three bad guys is laggy and barely playable. Same goes each time I grapple to a gargoyle or whenever I move the camera in front of Batman.

I'm at 640x480 and every option turned off (no PhysX either).

When I run the fps test I have something like:
min fps: 0
max fps: 89
avg fps: 37

on canyourunit, I'm in the recommended config.

Any idea on why performance is so bad?? :hmm:

EDIT:
Updated directx again, bumped computer again, turned antivirus off.
dunno which one did the trick but the problem seems solved now.

I can now run it with everything but AA enabled and physX effects on normal

obalouafi
10th Mar 2016, 16:25
My pc runs it well on high settings :D

Carlos_Taco
22nd Oct 2018, 13:42
It works on my PC perfectly fine, no crashing nor slow working. Considering all of your issues, I am pretty lucky :)