PDA

View Full Version : Technical Specs for Playing DX:IW



Barracuda
17th Jun 2003, 09:06
Will a P4 2.8 GHz with 512 RAM and GeforceFX 5600 be able to handle dx2?

sean74
17th Jun 2003, 09:16
no. you should probably upgrade to a 3.2GHz pentium 4 and a GeForce fx 5900

Barracuda
17th Jun 2003, 09:18
doh:( ... well thnx anyway:D

Cerpin Taxt
17th Jun 2003, 21:03
it'll handle DX:IW but like every machine out there, Doom3 will eat it up and spit it out.

BonT
17th Jun 2003, 21:07
hmm eidos probely sell no copy of dx2 if it wouldn't run on your pc :D

Breadman
17th Jun 2003, 23:15
What about a Pentium4 2.0Ghz with a GeForce4 Ti 4400 and 512mb DDRAM?

Barracuda
18th Jun 2003, 07:42
oh...*sighs in relief*. I was really worried for a time there. I loved Deus Ex and DX:IW is a big reason for me getting that comp:p

Leo
18th Jun 2003, 09:31
why do u, sean74, think it will not handle DX:IW?

it will handle it but what about the graphics level, low to medium

like, question to all of u: why do u need to play on high details if there is an option to play on medium or better, mixed between medium and high. Like, I do not care what is the shy, is there any clouds or effects, better to see incoming troops a mile away, not just dots or even "better" - nothing!?

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
18th Jun 2003, 09:33
if it is like DX1, any PC you bought BEFORE buying DX:IW will be unsufficient to run it (I remember trying to run DX1 with a 300AMD, 1frame/s, was fun)

Leo
18th Jun 2003, 09:34
where do u get this info?

*EdIt*

like, Admiral, regarding ur post right under mine: silly, but how u know??? I want answers ...

Grand Admiral Thrawn
18th Jun 2003, 09:37
Sean was joking

:rolleyes:


if it is like DX1, any PC you bought BEFORE buying DX:IW will be unsufficient to run it (I remember trying to run DX1 with a 300AMD, 1frame/s, was fun)

That makes no sense.

You should have phrased it "any PC you bought MANY YEARS BEFORE buying DX:IW will be incapable of running the game (well).

Deus Ex came out in 2000, and 300MHz AMD processors we certainly not the latest thing out at the time (they would date back to 1997).

Of course, the answer to the statement that says "any old PCs you buy many years before the game comes out won't be able to run the game well" is "no *****!"

(On a side note, there is no such word as "unsufficient." Secondly, you can't say "insufficent to ...", only "insuffient of")

Grand Admiral Thrawn
18th Jun 2003, 09:55
The latest PCs out at the time of Deus Ex's mid 2000 release had no problem running the game with most if not all detail setting on full at 1024x768.

Here are some basic specs which were pretty typical of a high-end gaming machine of mid 2000:

AMD Athlon “Thunderbird” or Intel Pentium III “Coppermine”with a clock speed of around 800MHz to 1GHz.

nVidia GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR graphics card.

256MB PC133 SDRAM.

40GB ATA100 7200RPM hard disk drive.

Motherboard with VIA KT133A chipset with AGP 4X or equivalent Intel chipset.

Creative Soundblaster Live! Platinum soundcard.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
18th Jun 2003, 09:58
sorry
Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames <--- french here, so please forgive spelling, vocabulary and grammar mistakes

And I was joking (I'm not even sure the game can be played on a 300AMD). and even on a 500 Pentium (average PC for 2000, I know, but not too old), I couldn't play high resolutions, and saving between zones took up to 2 minutes each.

Still the best game I've played in a loooong time, (Except maybe for Betrayal at Krondor, long time ago)

Leo
18th Jun 2003, 10:14
does not make sense to me at all, why u guys joke at first and then explain, maybe after somebody notices sth

no need at all, are u trying to lenghten the forum or what? No really, have u "lied" elsewhere too?

vick1000
18th Jun 2003, 10:23
I guess my first post will be a critique....:D ,that's what the
smilie codes are for,if you're joking,use a smilie.:p See?

sean74
18th Jun 2003, 11:15
Originally posted by Leo
why do u, sean74, think it will not handle DX:IW?

it will handle it but what about the graphics level, low to medium

like, question to all of u: why do u need to play on high details if there is an option to play on medium or better, mixed between medium and high. Like, I do not care what is the shy, is there any clouds or effects, better to see incoming troops a mile away, not just dots or even "better" - nothing!?

I was being a butt because Barracuda is being a butt. He gave the specs for pretty much the best computer you could buy (well at least 3 months ago) and then asked if the game would run on it.. like there was any chance it wouldn't. :p (I didn't add a smiley because I half-hoped he thought I was serious and went out and bought a new computer as punishment for asking a stupid question :) )


And ideally the game should run on a system as low as like 700mhz at low detail and 800x600 resolution and then have everything cranked to max on a system like barracuda here is talking about

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
18th Jun 2003, 11:17
I might be wrong, bbut when you discuss with someone, you don't usually have to say "I'm joking" when it is obvious that what you say CAN'T be serious.

but ok, next time i will put a LARGE smilley, or maybe somthing like


!!!! WARNING !!! What you just read was a JOKE !!! You dont have to take it seriously !!! don't insult me, dont call me noob (I AM one, so I don't feel humiliated), don't be angry!!!

Maybe I should just take that as a signature, since almost everything i say tries to be at least a little funny (OK, apparently this time I failed miserably <-- I'm not sure this one is English, but I don't have a french/english dictionary here so You will have to guess what it means if it's not

maybe next time, so

vick1000
18th Jun 2003, 11:48
LOL,tears of laughter "LSDCD",I have a new respect for French
humor.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
18th Jun 2003, 13:19
will this one : http://eleves.mines.u-nancy.fr/~pequigno/smiley.jpg be enough?

*EDIT* pssst, vick1000, what does "LSDCD" mean?

Catman
18th Jun 2003, 14:55
Well, that's a bit large. How about this?

http://www1.iastate.edu/~wsthune/cps/ted/tedwink.gif

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
18th Jun 2003, 14:59
sorry, i was just trying to find a smiley that would make my unfunny jokes more obvious, so everyone can understand I am not always serious (not always been a HUGE understatement)

Breadman
18th Jun 2003, 17:16
I dunno, my 333Mhz machine with a Voodoo3 and 128mb RAM ran the original Deus Ex with full graphics on just fine... very few slow downs.

Someone gonna answer my question up top about my 2.0ghz machine though or not?

Catman
18th Jun 2003, 19:03
Until Ion Storm and/or Eidos releases the official specs, no one can really say one way or the other.

vick1000
18th Jun 2003, 21:57
"LSDCD" is the abbreviation of Le 'Sauveur 'De 'Ces 'Dames,
unless you have another short name for your username.But,
that gives me a good idea for a joke,you could start posting
a bunch of meaningless abbreviations in the middle of a post,
and people would have to ask what they were.Like this......
"I heard that it was a case of BJGTW,and he murdered everyone
in his clasroom."

Random
19th Jun 2003, 05:21
They said they're aiming for 30 frames per second on a P3-800 and GF3. Whether they'll get there or not, no one knows.

A GF3 is the minimum requirement for graphics cards because you need all the special effects (pixel shading and all that).

Leo
19th Jun 2003, 05:36
a very simple question, j4u Random: where do u get ur info?
like, maybe u can answer this by private message, I dunno, but everybody should read this, at least. Why? I just want to know :)

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
19th Jun 2003, 07:54
thank you, Vick1000 (My nickname may be a bit long). ok LSDCD will do (Never thought it could be to long, but I don't have to write it)

NoNicknameForMe
19th Jun 2003, 09:05
LSDCD's would be interesting if disturbing...

Foten
19th Jun 2003, 09:11
LSDCD sounds like a drug!

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
19th Jun 2003, 09:24
I could change my nickname
what about "To`Thine`Own`Self`Be`True"

(can I change my nickname without having top create a new acount?)

(btw, I think we may be a little off topic, here)

ScornedGod
19th Jun 2003, 09:53
*sigh*:( Looks like my Athlon1800+,256Mb ram, GeForce2 isn't going to make the cut:(*sigh*

Foten
19th Jun 2003, 10:18
ScornedGod I think ur comp will handle DX:IW good cuase if u look at the thing help Eidos out u will see that the most used comp is AMD Athlon 1600+ to 2000+!

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
19th Jun 2003, 12:32
OMG, but then why did I buy a 2.6Ghz Pentium?

guess I will have to play it high res (for a change)

Major
19th Jun 2003, 21:11
According to a magazine article on Deus Ex 2 it should do okay on the newer PC's. I remember seeing the recommended graphics being at least G-force 3 & 4. But it will not due well if any on the newest NVIDIA cards such as MX or FX? I'll look it up and find out to be sure. Don't want people to panic! It should run fine with Pentium 4, 1.05 with 512 Ram. I will look the article up again and check back.

Random
20th Jun 2003, 00:02
Originally posted by Leo
a very simple question, j4u Random: where do u get ur info?
like, maybe u can answer this by private message, I dunno, but everybody should read this, at least. Why? I just want to know :)

Way back during the 2002 E3 they were saying a GF3 is the minimum and a GF4 was recommended. There was a Gamespy interview with Harvey Smith in which he confirmed that. A recent preview (I don't remember where) said they were aiming for those specs I mentioned.

Found it:


GameSpy: What are Invisible War's PC target specs? And when the game ships, do you think it'll avoid the initial technical problems experienced by the first Deus Ex?

Harvey Smith: GeForce 3 or higher is the only spec I know of right now. Because we use per-pixel shading and per-pixel lighting you just have to have that hardware.

http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/february03/smithbaredx2/index4.shtml

Major
20th Jun 2003, 02:39
You are correct on the specs. I am pretty sure it was G-force 3 and 4th that the game is supposed to play on. Also the magazine article I mentioned is the June 2003 issue of "Computer Gaming." Has a nice article about the desingers Steve Powers, Jay Lee and team.

Grand Admiral Thrawn
21st Jun 2003, 10:05
But it will not due well if any on the newest NVIDIA cards such as MX or FX?

That's absolutely rediculous; of course it will run (and run better) on the newest GeForceFX cards!

The "MX" name is just a variant of the main line of cards which is aimed at the budget users. The last ones being the GeForce4 MX cards.

Although I don't believe they're using "MX" for any of the GeForceFX cards.

The budget GeForceFX cards are the 5200 and the 5200 Ultra.

Major
22nd Jun 2003, 21:48
Glad to hear about the newer G-Graphic Cards being able to handle the DX-2. It's difficult to know what what games will run on what cards these days. Hope for a upgrade in the near future. I have a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4, 512 RAM, SB Audigy and G-Force 3.

Grand Admiral Thrawn
26th Jun 2003, 03:34
Well, to answer your question, I've created a list of video cards that are being made and sold today that, IMO, you should stay away from. The reason for this is they are either severely lacking DirectX 8 and above features, they are very slow compared with many other videos cards available today, or a combination of both.

nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra

nVidia GeForce FX 5200

nVidia GeForce 4 MX460

nVidia GeForce 4 MX440

nVidia GeForce 4 MX420

ATi Radeon 9200

ATi Radeon 9100

ATi Radeon 9000 Pro

ATi Radeon 9000

ATi Radeon 7500

ATi Radeon 7000

Grand Admiral Thrawn
26th Jun 2003, 03:42
The video cards I do, however, highly recommend are as follows:

nVidia GeForce FX 5900 Ultra

nVidia GeForce FX 5900

nVidia GeForce FX 5600 Ultra

nVidia GeForce FX 5600

nVidia GeForce 4 Ti4600

nVidia GeForce 4 Ti4800 (This is actually slower than the Ti4600, but faster than the Ti4400)

nVidia GeForce 4 Ti4400

nVidia GeForce 4 Ti4200

ATi Radeon 9800 Pro

ATi Radeon 9800

ATi Radeon 9700 Pro

ATi Radeon 9700

ATi Radeon 9500 (This is actually faster than the 9600)

ATi Radeon 9600

You may have heard about the nVidia GeForce FX 5800 Ultra and nVidia GeForce FX 5800 cards, but these two have been discontinued in favour of the 5900 series cards (as the 5900 cards run cooler, quieter and faster).

NoNicknameForMe
26th Jun 2003, 08:34
Why do losers feel the need to post there amazingly over spec computer stats, and then idotically ask, "is it powerful enough?" Its like your not only trying to kick us in the knees, but afterwards you piss on us and laugh about it. Talk about an ass hole...

Grand Admiral Thrawn
26th Jun 2003, 10:46
Why do losers feel the need to post there amazingly over spec computer stats, and then idotically ask, "is it powerful enough?" Its like your not only trying to kick us in the knees, but afterwards you piss on us and laugh about it. Talk about an ass hole...

Okaaaaay then....

People can post their specs if they want, and regardless of how powerful they are (not one system posted here could be considered "over-spec" anyhow), they might honestly not know how their system will deal with future demands, and thus ask.

If you get really aggrevated by this, perhaps there are some other issues that need looking at. ;)

Kolmar
28th Jun 2003, 11:05
I hate to point out the obvious here people, but anyone with a PC looking to upgrade for DX:IW (or Thief III, Doom III, Half-Life 2, or numerous other games for that matter) should not bother.

Why?

Because for £129.99 you can buy a brand new system that will run all of these at top-level spec. That's right, people, go buy an Xbox. I brace myself against the pathetic cries of "fanboy" but to keep to the simple facts, when the likes of Doom III come out, how much of an upgrade do you think you'll get with £130?

I know people, I said a dirty word, and I know many of you will come back with specs of the 733MHz processor and 64Mb RAM. What's inside the thing is irrelevant people, the results are all that matters, and quite clearly the Xbox and PC versions of all these games are going to be identical.

(Oh, apart from the fact that you'll have to pay a fortune to run them on PC of course;)).

Lawnboy360
28th Jun 2003, 13:05
What if I don't like playing games with a gamepad? What if there's plenty of games I want to play that won't be released for the Xbox?

Kolmar
28th Jun 2003, 13:36
Well clearly it's a matter of preference but for me neither of those points warrants the (massive) extra cost.

By massive extra cost, I'm not talking about the price of a single PC upgrade. I bought an Xbox in the middle of last year (£200 at the time) when deciding between an Xbox and upgrading my PC. At the time I looked at Halo as a good benchmark, ie. how much would it cost me to upgrade my PC to a standard where it could run (at a similar level) a game equivalent to Halo. I decided what with needing more RAM, a faster processor AND a new graphics card, it would easily exceed the £200 of the Xbox.

Even if I had upgraded then though, what about now when I'm looking at the likes of DX:IW? Would my 18 month old PC be able to run it at the level equal to an Xbox? Clearly not. Once again I'd have to pay for an upagrade, by which time Xbox is only £130.

Second half of 2004 and Doom III arrives, yet another upgrade required if I want to run it at top spec (top spec being exactly what Mr. Carmack himself has said Xbox will run it at, incidently).

My point is, even the price of an upgrade being higher than that of an Xbox doesn't display the amount of money wasted. How much would it have cost mid-2002 to buy a PC capable not just of running the likes of Halo, but of Doom III, which would be pushing the very latest PCs in two years time?

Mouse and keyboard? Nice, maybe, but I'll take the hundreds of pounds saving, thanks.

(PS. I think most people who've played PC FPSs and Halo will tell you that implemented well, control via. a comfortable, dual-analog, ergonomic gamepad can equal if not surpass that given by a mouse/keyboard combination).

Major
28th Jun 2003, 15:20
I must admit I have often thought about going to another format like X Box or PS2 because of the software bugs with PC games. However a neighbor of mine who is a upper level PC tech said that PC graphic cards are far more superior than that of PS2 and X Box??? I believe that if a person upgrades there computer slowly (and not do it all at one time) you won't notice the costs as much. I think most of the cost of upgrading is due to labor costs and not parts. As for me I will stay with the PC for now. As far as game titles I do believe there are far more new ones for PS2 and X Box than for PC. Also an important factor is that you can rent Playstaion games, for PC you can't. Also is the cost for a PS2 type system is cheaper than buying a new PC.

Lawnboy360
28th Jun 2003, 16:35
I can't say you're wrong about the money part : PCs are much more expensive and they don't last as long as consoles.

As for the system specs, consoles can get away with less powerful components because they have no operating system/antivirus/etc to run, the games are highly optimized because they only have to run on one system configuration intead of hundreds of different video cards, each with their strenghts and weaknesses, and they run at a low resolution because it doesn't matter much when displayed on a TV.

Like I said, the problem for me is the genre of games I can play. Consoles aren't suited for RTS, or complex D&D rpgs, etc. If I could buy a Xbox (same hardware and price) that would connect to my PC monitor and my keyboard/mouse on which I could play any kind of games, I'd buy it any day.

[SYN] Nexus
29th Jun 2003, 07:20
Xbox is a crappy system, btw you wont have good multiplayer on it.Im in a clan and I need to get in contact with people over the internet just before a clanmatch.You cant do that on a XBox.Xbox has a sucky control and thats a fact.I also suck at playing console games and I dont want to play a class act game like DX2 on a crappy system.PC All the way!

AntiMagicMan
2nd Jul 2003, 12:57
Yes of course an XBox will RUN the games. Just like a minimum spec PC will RUN the games. But often Console versions have to make do with versions of the games that have severly reduced quality textures, and often not all the latest graphical features are implemented.

The simple fact is, these games will look better on a top of the range PC than on a year old console.

Lawnboy360
2nd Jul 2003, 13:08
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusexinvisiblewar/preview_2910952-4.html
"The PC and Xbox versions of the game are in simultaneous development, and in fact, both use exactly the same files."

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/deusexinvisiblewar/preview_6026317-2.html
"The Xbox version is now running much more smoothly, roughly 20fps, though shootout sequences can result in some stuttering. Money noted that the game is currently running at about 30fps on high-end PCs, and midrange PC performance is on par with that of the Xbox. The big optimization push for the Xbox version is still to come--a specialist will be going over the code line by line after the team is back from E3. "

Of course, that's with the XBox at 640x480 and the PC at 800x600 or higher.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
2nd Jul 2003, 13:26
personnally, I prefer the PC option, if only because the range of games is much larger, and since not everybody in my family plays the same type of games, the PC is more polyvalent.

clearly the PC is more expensive, but the choice after that is much larger

and as Nexus said, I don't like the Console's controls, and the low count of buttons on it (a keyboard gives faster access to more options and action choices)

and playing on a TV means having a best screen size, but a lower resolution, so I definitly prefer my PC.

(even if I have a PS2, which I bought only so I can Play the Final Fantasy that weren't released on PC)

Lawnboy360
2nd Jul 2003, 13:45
TThe types of games are quite limited ... (Like many PC gamers) I don't like sports games at all (racing included) or fighting games. Let's see the best rated XBox games in 2002...

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp
XBox - 2002 releases - 30 results
Among those:
----------
2. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
3. NFL 2K3
4. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4
----------
6. NCAA Football 2003
7. NHL 2K3
8. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003
---------
10. JSRF - Jet Set Radio Future
11. Madden NFL 2003
12. Rallisport Challenge
13. NBA 2K2
---------
15. MotoGP
---------
---------
18. Aggressive Inline
19. World Series Baseball
20. NFL 2K2
21. Championship Manager Season: 02/03
---------
23. FIFA 2003
---------
25. NBA 2K3
---------
27. Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance
28. NCAA College Basketball 2K3
---------
30. NASCAR Thunder 2003


I have zero interest in 2/3 of the best XBox games of 2002. No XBox for me.

Edit-
BTW, no offense to Xbox gamers; just wanted to show it isn't suited to everyone's tastes.

swimp
2nd Jul 2003, 18:52
I successfully played through DX1 and enjoyed it very much on an iMac rev B 233MHz with a crappy ATI-card with 6Mb's of VRAM.

What do you dudes think of the probability of running DX2 using :
ATI Radeon 7500 with AGP 4x support; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM graphics memory

All I'm asking for is that it starts up - basically.

Lawnboy360
2nd Jul 2003, 19:18
The developers already said that you will need DX8 level video cards; that means GeForce 3/Radeon8500 or higher (GeForce 4 "MX" excluded).

Cleves
3rd Jul 2003, 08:08
mmmm...

I have a 2.4 Ghz pantium with geforce 4 4800 SE
i bought this comp only for this game, i hope i can play at high graphics!!!

swimp
3rd Jul 2003, 09:26
So... what? GeForce 4MX won't be sufficient?

Dryder
3rd Jul 2003, 12:00
Im sure that in any case they will make the game possible to run on most computers available now. The Creators of the game im sure, keep in mind that even though kicking Graphics is a great thing to have in a game, not everyone can afford to own a G-force 4 card or a p4 2.7ghz (or aquivalent)

You have to remember that these guys are out to make money and if only us die-hard DX players had the setup to play it the cost for the game would be horrendus.

so in what limited knowlage I have in this I would predict that the running requirements of a game such as this (keeping in mind that this is a blind guess) would be around
System: 600mhz (or better)
ram: no clue but most have over 500 so s-all good
vcard: 16 or 32 (from what i've seen im leaning towards 32 but who knows)
hd-space: gigabites... Yeah!

so that's my un-expert opinion

Lawnboy360
3rd Jul 2003, 13:20
So... what? GeForce 4MX won't be sufficient?

The GeForce 4MX is an example of stupid marketing : it's actually worse than any GeForce 3 card. Basically, the GeForce 4 MX are GeForce 2 on steroids (no directX 8 support). Deus Ex uses directX 8 features.


You have to remember that these guys are out to make money and if only us die-hard DX players had the setup to play it the cost for the game would be horrendus.

They'll sell plenty on XBox, besides it's not like they could tone down the texture details or that kind of things; they need the power for real-time shadows and other things that are important for the gameplay.

=============================================
EDIT : with ports of XBox games, which use DirectX8, like Halo, and power-hungry games like Doom3, Deus Ex2, Half-Life2 coming out this holiday season, the industry probably expect the PC gamers to upgrade.

Lawnboy360
3rd Jul 2003, 13:25
Quote from lead programmer Chris Carollo on IS boards :

"Consider it confirmed. You'll need pixel and vertex shader 1.1 support in hardware. Which means GF3-class and up.

Note that a GF4mx is typically WORSE from a feature point-of-view than a GF3. Thank you nvidia marketing. "

http://www.ionstorm.com/forum/viewthread.asp?forum=AMB%5FAP619612110&id=17473&sr1=&sr2=&ExMth=no#post17513

Convinced ? ;)

Loreleye
3rd Jul 2003, 15:38
As I have postet before, if Im not wrong then! Is that black & white 2 is gonne run nice on a low spec computer, Last I looked it was on a 450 mz computer, and that is good if they could keep that up!
I have seen the pics of the game, it aint bad!

swimp
3rd Jul 2003, 17:51
****! I need DX:IW :(
Will it be impossible to play at all with GeForce4 MX or will it just be bad fps?
Hum hum hum...

ATI Radeon 7500 with AGP 4x support; 32MB dedicated DDR SDRAM graphics memory

How does that compare to a GeForce 4 MX?

Lawnboy360
3rd Jul 2003, 18:43
The GF4MX is faster then the radeon7500, but both are DirectX7 level hardware.

swimp
3rd Jul 2003, 19:03
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
The GF4MX is faster then the radeon7500, but both are DirectX7 level hardware.

------

EDIT : one of the cheapest card with directX 8 support is the Radeon9000 64mb (non-pro). It's not incredibly powerful, but at least you'd be able to play DX:IW. I'll post some more info.

Please do! Thing is, I'm a Mac dude ( will I get banned now? :) ) and I'm getting a new eMac (http://www.apple.com/emac) in a month or so.. and it has a radeon7500 :/ - don't know very much about the possibilities for graphics card upgrades on Macs but I'm guessing it sucks.

Lawnboy360
3rd Jul 2003, 19:06
don't know very much about the possibilities for graphics card upgrades on Macs

Me neither...

Lawnboy360
3rd Jul 2003, 19:09
I just looked at the emac website, and being an all-in-one package I doubt you can change the graphic card... you could e-mail apple and ask.

Lawnboy360
3rd Jul 2003, 20:03
For your information, the Radeon 7500 came out in September 2001 as a budget card...

If you can't upgrade the emac to a directX 8 level video card, either get a more expensive mac, or get a XBox. I'm not a big fan of consoles, but it's cheap and you could play DX:IW for sure.

swimp
3rd Jul 2003, 20:16
Thanks Lawnboy.
Hum, I don't want to get an Xbox. If I can't run it I'll just invade my friends house - he's got pretty neat hardware :)

JeffDenton
4th Jul 2003, 02:07
Almost all of you people are lucky. I'm stuck with a 2.2 gigahertz processor (Athlon of all things!!! Aggh! At least they're ok with running most graphical software), 352 meg of RAM, a meager 22 Gigabyte hard drive, a crappy outdated Direc3D driver, and not even a lousy 3D Accelerator card! I just replaced my junky old rewritable drive 8x recording, 4x rewriting, and 32x reading with a new Verbatim 52x/48x/52x rewritable. That's about the only non-overly obsolete piece of hardware. I got a lot of RAM and graphics upgrading to do before DX2: IW hits stores (which will be the same day the software hits my hard drive).

Lawnboy360
4th Jul 2003, 12:10
2.2ghz and 352megs is not that bad
just get a decent video cards and you'll be fine.
I have a 450mhz! Of course I'll buy a new computer when all those games come out.

cowpuppy
4th Jul 2003, 12:51
I think I have enof PC to do the job :D Just give me a release date:o

Lawnboy360
4th Jul 2003, 13:10
3dmark2001 = 22000 ?
That's nothing, my current system gets 1500. Lower is better, right?
-------
I can't wait to get a 3ghz/512mb/9800pro
Should be quite different...I'll be able to play recent games :eek: !
(Currently playing : Baldur's Gate 2, Undying, Homeworld, Longest Journey, Thief, Planescape : Torment... I'm the bargain bin king!)

cowpuppy
4th Jul 2003, 13:15
1500 :confused: what are you using one of those walmart pc's no the higher the score the better. I rank #7 in the world for Athlons

Lawnboy360
4th Jul 2003, 13:18
Of course I know the higher the better.

P3 450mhz
320 mb PC-100
GeForce 2 MX200 PCI

I can't do any DirectX8 test, it doesn't help the score...

cowpuppy
4th Jul 2003, 13:24
Anyways when is the release date? or when can we get a playable demo?

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
4th Jul 2003, 13:43
usual answer : "as soon as it's ready"

swimp
4th Jul 2003, 17:37
actually I've seen "October 2003" somewhere..

JeffDenton
5th Jul 2003, 00:51
I sure hope it is released in October... I can't wait much longer! I know it is 2003 because I've read 2003 almost everywhere. But if it is October the demo should be coming out VERY soon... everyone cross your fingers
*crosses fingers on both hands and hopes*

crimson_stallion
7th Jul 2003, 07:24
Originally posted by Grand Admiral Thrawn
Sean was joking

:rolleyes:



That makes no sense.

You should have phrased it "any PC you bought MANY YEARS BEFORE buying DX:IW will be incapable of running the game (well).

Deus Ex came out in 2000, and 300MHz AMD processors we certainly not the latest thing out at the time (they would date back to 1997).

Of course, the answer to the statement that says "any old PCs you buy many years before the game comes out won't be able to run the game well" is "no *****!"

(On a side note, there is no such word as "unsufficient." Secondly, you can't say "insufficent to ...", only "insuffient of")

At the time I had a 700m,hz athlon, geforce DDR (remember those :P), and 192mb ram. The game ran like an absolute dog on my computer een though it was far above the recoomended specs at the time.

Detail levels had to be dropped to low, res to 640x480, and colours set to 16 bit. Once the Direct3d patch was released (FINALLY) it madeit alot smoother. When i upgraded to my 1ghz athlon and to 256 mb ram it mad eit alot better. Even today it still doesnt run perfectly smooth on my current system. I need an upgrade desperately (as you can see by my specs :( ) an di'm holding off until DE:IW is released. Thats the only reason im really care about upgrading lol (plus my comp is getting dog slow now).

I can't spend too much atm, but this is what im targeting at this time:

Athlon XP 2500+
1gb DDR333 ram
ASUS A7V8X
ASUS Geforce ti4200

By the time the game is released obviously prices will drop and thus I will be able to get better components, but for my projected budget (about $900 $AU) thats probably the current system id go for. By upgrade time (probably next march or so) i'd probably be looking at soemthign like:

Athlon XP 3000+
1.5-2gb DDR333 ram (if ddr333 is still availiable and feasible)
Ti4400 or radeon 9500 pro
same motherboard.

Do you think either the former or latter (or both / neither) will be capable of running DE:IW decently?

Dont want it chugging like the original did for me :rolleyes:

Anyways sure hope its as good as the original !

Daedalus
8th Jul 2003, 13:58
What are the most decent rezolution and details for playing DeusEx 2 ? (My sistem is in signature)

Lawnboy360
8th Jul 2003, 14:25
What are the most decent rezolution and details for playing DeusEx 2 ? (My sistem is in signature)

Too early to tell, we don't even know how customizable the details will be.

Tauros
10th Jul 2003, 20:19
What about me:

PIV 1500Mhz
512 ram dimm
asus geforce 4 mx400.

Big Ragu
10th Jul 2003, 20:26
Probably, but don't expect the high detail settings. Or maybe not even medium, but it should run quite smoothly.

Lawnboy360
10th Jul 2003, 20:30
asus geforce 4 mx400.

:rolleyes: Yet another GeForce 4 MX... lets make it fast...

GeForce 4 MX ...
bad marketing by nVidia...
basically GeForce 2 on steroids...
doesn't support DirectX 8, unlike GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 ti... DX:IW needs DirectX8 features for important gameplay aspects like real-time shadows...
you can't play without ...
it would totally change the balance of the game...
you absolutely need DirectX 8 support, lead programmer Chris Carollo said it on Ion Storm's board...
you're basically screwed, you have to buy a new graphics card to play all those new game using DirectX 8, like a lot of people; so many GeForce 4 MX found their way in PCs from big name manufacturers...

Big Ragu
10th Jul 2003, 20:34
Sorry, didn't notice the all too important, all too depressing MX.

Big Ragu
11th Jul 2003, 05:16
Sorry, sorry, double post. But I would like to know roughly the percentage increase of general graphics goodness between a GeForce 2 and a Radeon 9800. :confused:

Lawnboy360
11th Jul 2003, 22:28
But I would like to know roughly the percentage increase of general graphics goodness between a GeForce 2 and a Radeon 9800

Quality cannot really be rated, but speed can, of course.

In an Unreal Tournament 2003 benchmark, the GeForce 2 Ultra got 36.2 frames per second and the Radeon 9700 pro got 172.6. In this case, the performance increases by 377%
(In this benchmark, a 9800 pro (instead of 9700) would be about 4% faster. )

Source : http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-04.html

Big Ragu
11th Jul 2003, 22:47
Thanks

vick1000
12th Jul 2003, 03:37
Originally posted by Kolmar
...
Because for £129.99 you can buy a brand new system that will run all of these at top-level spec. That's right, people, go buy an Xbox. I brace myself against the pathetic cries of "fanboy" but to keep to the simple facts, when the likes of Doom III come out, how much of an upgrade do you think you'll get with £130?...


Yah,if you don't mind playing it with a gamepad,at 800x600
resolution on your TV,with most of the eyecandy turned off,
at 30 fps,and never be able to upgrade,and have to buy
Xbox 2 or whatever.

JeffDenton
12th Jul 2003, 03:48
Jeez... my palm pilot can run 30 fps...

vick1000
12th Jul 2003, 03:59
Originally posted by JeffDenton
Jeez... my palm pilot can run 30 fps...

Not Doom III,or DX Invisible War.

JeffDenton
12th Jul 2003, 04:12
Tis true, tis true. But the TRUE point is that 30 fps is actually pretty slow. Besides, my palm can still run some pretty demanding programs. Regardless of what you say, 30 fps is still pretty dang slow.

Lawnboy360
12th Jul 2003, 14:33
30 fps is still pretty dang slow.

30 fps is pretty good, as long as it doesn't get below 15 fps too often it's definitely playable.


at 800x600 resolution on your TV

Consoles display at 640*480

vick1000
12th Jul 2003, 20:47
30 fps is extreemly slow to me,that was my point,another reason
not to buy a console.640x480 is right,and some support
1024x768 now,but thats with a TV out on a PC anyway.

cheese
13th Jul 2003, 09:32
I have built a computer with a old ´Tualatin Celeron Processor @ 1.4 ghz that runs like a P4 1.7 ghz due to the fact that the P4 1.5 - 1.8 ghz a.s.o........bla bla bla"Technical specifications.

Anyway i also have a radeon 9500 128mb card in it.
Is this card "low end" compared to the graphicscards needed for DX2??
If that is ill mod it to an 9700 pro. :cool:

http://reviews.designtechnica.com/guide12.html

crimson_stallion
15th Jul 2003, 02:54
Originally posted by vick1000
30 fps is extreemly slow to me,that was my point,another reason
not to buy a console.640x480 is right,and some support
1024x768 now,but thats with a TV out on a PC anyway.

I've heard that the human eye operates at a rate of 30 frames per second, and thus if you are playing a game, anywhere above 30 frames is basically unneccessary and not advantageous in any way. Has anyone else heard this and can anyone prove it true/false?

Yeeyoh
15th Jul 2003, 04:28
I just wanted to mention or ask something. I just got a MX440 64mb PCI graphics card and it works great. I play a lot of games that need direct x 8.0 Ut2003, etc. for open GL it seems to work great. Jedi Knight II, RTCW.
I have direct x 9.0 and I've even played Will Rock demo which I believe uses 9.0 no problems.
Anyway I just thought I'd mention that after reading the thread.

I don't know if I'll have this card when the D:IW comes out because I'm hoping to get a whole new system in the fall.

My other thoguht thought,,, is from what I can gather IW will be using the same engine that is used in Unreal II (the unreal engine), if so it could be very demanding on systems indeed, for those that want to play on max settings.

Anyway I've stayed up too late, have a good one. :)

(anybody else notice that official IW web page is, like, never updated.

Picasso
15th Jul 2003, 06:31
I've heard that the human eye operates at a rate of 30 frames per second

I don't know specifics, but I think the situation is much more complicated than that (I've read extremely long, several-page arguments on just this topic). I know people who claim to be able to tell the difference between 60fps and 120 fps, and can't stand 30.

Personally, anything above 20 looks fluid to me, but I'm weird like that.


I play a lot of games that need direct x 8.0 Ut2003, etc. for open GL it seems to work great.

Maybe someone else knows enough about video cards to explain why this is. You're probably not getting all the perks that a top-of-the-line card would give you, and I don't think UT2003 requires DirectX 8.0 in hardware. Maybe someone else can clarify exactly what's going on.

Anyway, DX2's developers have stated several times that a GF4MX will not be capable of running DX2. You'll be able to get an acceptable card fairly cheaply in the fall, though.

crimson_stallion
15th Jul 2003, 07:27
Yep i think thats about right. Any decent card can run direct x 8 or 9 I think. What they mean when they say the game will require a directx 8 compatible card, is that it requires a card that makes use of the features that come with directx8. Many games may require directx8, but you can run them without a directx8 card, simply without making use of those advanced features.

For deus ex: IW, the game requires these features, because they play a big part in the gameplay, thus you NEED a card that can fully make use of direct x. I think this is kidna what is meant by the whole thing.

vick1000
15th Jul 2003, 08:12
The whole thing with frame rates is,whatever you become
accustom to is what seems fluid to you.For instance,you play
on a PS1 for a year,then PS2 comes out,the frame rates are
higher,you become used to PS2's frame rate,then go back and
play a PS1 title,only to realise how slow it's frame rate was.
It really becomes apparent when you becom acclimated to 100+
frames per second,then you will find anything <60 anoying to
the extreem.