PDA

View Full Version : Requirements for TRU ?



exmachinad
15th Dec 2007, 23:20
No word on requirements yet for UNderworld (too soon, possibly) but would be SO nice if the minimum requirements are, well, minimum :D I mean, not much higher than Legend's or Anniversary's minimum requirements, so more ppl can play the game on their old PCs, like me :) For I will not be able to afford a new PC for a looong time.

Please, CrystalD, think of that ;) :cool:

RUGRLN
16th Dec 2007, 07:17
Yes I so do hope so, even though I have X360 I think I'll buy it on the PC, and my PC gfx ain't that great and I don't want it demanding some amazing top of the range GFX card!

shaq
7th Feb 2008, 15:45
Hi,

What is Tomb Raider Underworld? new version of Tomb Raider? TR8?

What hardware/software requirements will be for this version this time? still DirectX 9.0c and Windows XP or DirectX 10.0 or higher and Windows Vista?

Regards,
shaq

RUGRLN
7th Feb 2008, 17:45
Well one things for sure, it will require some serious processing power for all that realism, graphics, AI, and the rest!

But I don't like it! I'm gna get for PC, and i dont want some requirements for an amazing $4000 PC!!! Bu then again, it should have the capabilities for it but not that ppl not with such amazing PCs should have a bad time playing it, I mean it should be as gd as TR:A in graphics nothing less, since it didn't have much of requirements.

NightRain'06
7th Feb 2008, 19:26
Even though in the past two TR games by Crystal Dynamics, the PC specifications were generous as far as the least minimum requirements, I'm going to have to say that maybe for TRU, its minimum requirements might be higher than before. I do honestly expect and believe that.

shaq
7th Feb 2008, 19:53
Well one things for sure, it will require some serious processing power for all that realism, graphics, AI, and the rest!

But I don't like it! I'm gna get for PC, and i dont want some requirements for an amazing $4000 PC!!! Bu then again, it should have the capabilities for it but not that ppl not with such amazing PCs should have a bad time playing it, I mean it should be as gd as TR:A in graphics nothing less, since it didn't have much of requirements.

I would even exspect something like Crysis game engine represents ;) or even better graphics and physics effects without dead points and much easier walktrough to play for fun.

Looks like long time to release this game (Q4?), new hardware will be for sure then with new technology ;) maybe new Windows version in news comming or something... Personally I would prefer skip the Vista and jump to the new one with new technology...

NightRain'06
7th Feb 2008, 20:15
If they utilize a similar engine like Crysis, I'd have to definitely pass on purchasing the PC version because right now I just don't have the money to invest in a gaming PC. I'll just stick to my PS3 version of TRU. :)

Yes, there's a thread somewhere that confirms for a holiday 2008 release.

naraku
8th Feb 2008, 02:52
My PC probably won't meet the minimum system requirements whatever they will be my PC is from 04. Which is why I'm glad I bought a PS3, I wasn't thinking about the next installment in the series. I bought it for MGS4. I thought TRU was going to be released earlier and probably on the PS2 as well. When I heard the news it was only going to release on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC. I screamed :mad2: Now that I'm ready for MGS4 and TRU, new info was released that it was gonna come to the PS2, too. :confused: Make up you're mind Eidos. My PC is just about reaching its end days. I've been preparing to buy a Mac or PC so perhaps by then I have all the bases covered. :cool:

NightRain'06
8th Feb 2008, 07:15
Yes, don't fret, there's definite confirmation that TRU will be on PS2 and five other platforms.

Click here to read the article posted about a month ago. TRU Announced (http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/headlines3383.html)

Rai
8th Feb 2008, 13:24
You see, when TRU news was originally leeked, it was said there were only three platforms, PC Xbox360 and PS3. I then thought I would have to buy the game on the PC, as I don't have the consoles. Then they say the game will be available on PS2. But my worry is that with all these new features and graphics etc, will my PC have the stat requirements to handle it all. I can presume so, or I can play safe and get the PS2 version. But I know the PS2 won't be able to handle the new graphics etc, so it will be a scaled down version. Just how much will be cut will remain to be seen. I don't play games for graphics, so I won't be too worried - but will the PS2 be able to cope with the motion capture of Lara's movements/the bodies and debris not disappearing? The multiple choice paths that players can take, Lara being able to pick up and use, the longer levels etc? It is these sorts of things I don't want to mis out on, but I doubt the PS2 can handle all that.

I hope my laptop can handle it, just so that I can enjoy all these features. if not, I'm stuck.

William Croft
8th Feb 2008, 15:40
I'll be able to play it on my computer but I like PS3 better :D

shaq
8th Feb 2008, 20:44
I bought it for MGS4.

What is MGS4? ;)

shaq
8th Feb 2008, 20:47
:( One thing I know for sure, that I will be no able to play it on my laptop.

Well... laptops are really very ergonomic to play games ;) I am able accept laptops only for office purposes like projectors or something like that ;)

naraku
8th Feb 2008, 21:31
:( One thing I know for sure, that I will be no able to play it on my laptop. I will probably buy it and have it till I get a new computer, but it will probably be lieing in my room for long...

:lol: I did the same thing with AOD. Bought it first then bought the PS2. It was shelfed for about 2 months, it drove me nuts.:nut:

Rai
8th Feb 2008, 22:05
When we do know what specifications are required, is there a way to find out if our PCs are compatible before we buy? Is there a test we can do on our PCs? :confused:

ditom
8th Feb 2008, 22:18
Well... laptops are really very ergonomic to play games ;) I am able accept laptops only for office purposes like projectors or something like that ;)

I have laptop and I don't have any problems with playing new games :rasp:

shaq
9th Feb 2008, 13:20
When we do know what specifications are required, is there a way to find out if our PCs are compatible before we buy? Is there a test we can do on our PCs? :confused:

...or if we know before games software/hardware requirements we can better plan time for PC - upgrade... ;)

Rai
9th Feb 2008, 13:22
...or if we know before games software/hardware requirements we can better plan time for PC - upgrade... ;)

which I can't afford. :(

shaq
9th Feb 2008, 13:37
which I can't afford. :(

In my case it would be good news what kind of situation will be on the market. If all games about Q4 will be for DirectX 10.0 and Vista or not yet.

I guess the Windows XP will be up to date untill the end of this year. So I can jump then to the next version of Windows with new hardware and skip the Vista. ;)

Capkeez
9th Feb 2008, 14:23
There is absolutely no way that TRU will look better than/equal to Crysis. I'd say it will need a gig of ram to run on the highest settings, no more. It will look pretty, but not photo-realistic. To prove my point, here's a screenshot:
http://chrisevans3d.com/images/crysis_high_res/crysis8.jpg
No, that's not a photo. lol

My laptop has a gig of ram, 1.83 ghz dual core processors and a 256 mb graphics card, and it can only run crysis at a measly 15 frames per second, making it a slideshow. On the lowest settings and resolution.

Dukem
9th Feb 2008, 17:00
Capkeez is right. This game is beautiful, but it's no Crysis. Therefore, no one will need a supercomputer. ;)

The engine created for TRU looks alot like the 'Unreal 3' Engine. This engine is used to power games such as Unreal Tournament 3, Gears of War and Stranglehold.

With that in mind, and taking into account TRA's requirements, and the requirements of the latest games that resemble the alpha-stage TRU, here's my educated guess. :p

Estimated Minimum System Requirements:

Windows XP or Windows Vista
2.0Ghz Single Core Processor
512Mb RAM
128Mb DirectX 9.0c compatible graphics card with Pixel Shader 2.0 support. (nVidia GeForce 6 series or ATi Radeon X series).

Remember: It is only a guess. ;) Although I am pretty certain that it will not be much higher than that.

P.S. Use this (http://tg.sims2techguide.net/guide.php?g=15) guide to find out your system specs. :)

matches81
9th Feb 2008, 19:06
Taking Legend and Anniversary into consideration and how they performed on my system (Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM and an 8800GTX) I honestly have no idea how Underworld would perform. Anniversary performed much better than Legend on my system, and if Underworld performs even better (of course with respect to the visuals delivered), I think it might be running fine on my system. As to what the minimum requirements would be, I honestly have no clue. I guess that depends on how "low" the devs want to go, i.e. whether they'll support Shader Model 2 or not and so on...
I think guessing minimum requirements is pretty pointless, as they mainly depend on the developers.

ditom
9th Feb 2008, 19:06
Pixel Shader 3.0 because the weather effects are awsome.

Rai
9th Feb 2008, 19:06
Thank you Dukem for the info on how to view your pc specs. :)

Dukem
9th Feb 2008, 21:00
Pixel Shader 3.0 because the weather effects are awsome.

Well, I was going to put that. But then I realised that TRA only requires Pixel Shader 1.1! :eek: Which, if I'm correct, is the Pixel Shader used for the PS2. This leads me to be believe that Anniversary for the PC was based off both the PS2's, and next-gen consoles' graphics. Hopefully, Underworld will follow this trend.


I think guessing minimum requirements is pretty pointless, as they mainly depend on the developers.

Very true. The point that I was trying to make though, is that many people (hopefully) will be able to play the game on their PC's. Also, if they do need to upgrade their computer, it most likely won't cost them too much.


Thank you Dukem for the info on how to view your pc specs. :)

No problem. :)

ditom
9th Feb 2008, 21:04
TRA needs Pixel Shader 1.1?:eek: I didn't know.

Dukem
9th Feb 2008, 21:14
I tell a lie. :o The box for Anniversary confirms that the minimum is actually Transform and Lighting (TnL)! :lol: :lol: That's DirectX 7 technology! :eek: Even before they had pixel shaders! :lol:

Straight from the box (not a dodgy website like before) :rolleyes: :

100% DirectX 9.0c compatible 64MB 3D Accelerated Card with TnL (GeForce 3Ti / Radeon 9 series) :eek:

ditom
9th Feb 2008, 21:18
So how did they make some great graphics?

Dukem
9th Feb 2008, 21:19
I really don't know! :lol: Well done Crystal Dynamics! :D

ditom
9th Feb 2008, 21:32
Yes,well done ! ! !:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

BurialGown
10th Feb 2008, 11:54
I only hope it won't require only VISTA :_) I bought 2GB RAM last week so I hope it'll run ... :))

LaraLara
10th Feb 2008, 17:29
I hope by december 2008 most people will have dx10 compatible systems, otherwise I'll be stuck playing some lastgen dx9 rendered Lara. :mad:

I don't care if the minimum requirements are dx9, as long as the max graphical settings require dx10. I can only hope that it comes close to the graphical splendor of Crysis.

*Prays to Gaming Gods...*

William Croft
10th Feb 2008, 17:30
I hope by december 2008 most people will have dx10 compatible systems, otherwise I'll be stuck playing some lastgen dx9 rendered Lara. :mad:

I don't care if the minimum requirements are dx9, as long as the max graphical settings require dx10. I can only hope that it comes close to the graphical splendor of Crysis.

*Prays to Gaming Gods...*

Yer, true.
Welcome to the forum :D Enjoy your stay.

Captain Mazda
10th Feb 2008, 17:57
I hope by december 2008 most people will have dx10 compatible systems, otherwise I'll be stuck playing some lastgen dx9 rendered Lara. :mad:

I don't care if the minimum requirements are dx9, as long as the max graphical settings require dx10. I can only hope that it comes close to the graphical splendor of Crysis.

*Prays to Gaming Gods...*

Not feasible. Do you really think Eidos is willing to release a game for a specific operating system that no gamer in his right mind would support? Gamers use XP, it's a known fact. DirectX9 isn't going anywhere and until Microsoft decides to implement DX10 on XP, that won't change anytime soon. DX10 was and still is the marketing push for Microsoft's abysmal O/S.

For those of us that can run Crysis on full details, Underworld will be a cakewalk. On DX9, it will still be graphically-speaking the most incredible Tomb Raider experience.


I only hope it won't require only VISTA :_)

Never gonna happen.

LaraLara
10th Feb 2008, 18:19
No one wants to please the gfx wh0res ;_;

Captain Mazda
10th Feb 2008, 19:24
Oh believe me when I say I'm as much a graphic addict as yourself.

My point is that Underworld will look fantastic in DX9, and who knows, perhaps it will feature a DX10 mode similar to Crysis and Gears of War.

Capkeez
11th Feb 2008, 12:57
There is a chance that there will be. It's still early in development, anything could happen.

shaq
11th Feb 2008, 16:40
Taking Legend and Anniversary into consideration and how they performed on my system (Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM and an 8800GTX) I honestly have no idea how Underworld would perform.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


(of course with respect to the visuals delivered), I think it might be running fine on my system.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


As to what the minimum requirements would be, I honestly have no clue.

:lol:

shaq
11th Feb 2008, 16:42
TRA needs Pixel Shader 1.1?:eek: I didn't know.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

shaq
11th Feb 2008, 16:51
DirectX9 isn't going anywhere and until Microsoft decides to implement DX10 on XP,

Probably they not. I heard about new Windows version soon instead.

There is commonly known trick in Crysis game to turn on under XP and DirectX 9.0c all those Very High Settings available only under the Vista and DirectX 10.0.

So the DirectX 10.0 not shown anything special yet !!! It is currently only marketing product.

matches81
11th Feb 2008, 17:27
So the DirectX 10.0 not shown anything special yet !!! It is currently only marketing product.
Not completely true. DX 10 would offer some features that would allow for some really nice effects (geometry shaders for example), but it's unlikely we're going to see DX10 used to full extent while the majority of gamers still use DX9. Logically, the main focus lies on developing a beautiful environment using DX9 and DX10 gets tacked on afterwards. I doubt that's going to change drastically in 2008, with a bit of luck it might begin to happen at the end of 2008. But basically I agree with you: Until now there is no game showing anything vastly superior to DX9 in DX10.

btw: What was so funny about my last post? Quoting out of context is easy. Would have been great, if you had actually said something instead of putting smileys all over the place. ;)


About TRA and TRL only requiring pixel shader 1.1: I don't find that too surprising. Turn all the "next-gen" options off in both games and they actually do look like a PS2 game.

BurialGown
11th Feb 2008, 17:28
Today I put TRL on the PC of my boyfriend which is Intel Core2 2.8GHz , 2GB RAM, ATI RADEON 512MB Pro, and in Next gen content it was still lagging at some points, especially when in combat... So I don't know what PC should I have to run Underworld if it's only in Next Gen :scratch: :(

shaq
11th Feb 2008, 21:54
btw: What was so funny about my last post? Quoting out of context is easy. Would have been great, if you had actually said something instead of putting smileys all over the place. ;)


How much FPS (frames per second) in Tomb Raider you have with this Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM and an 8800GTX system? 100 FPS or more? ;) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Captain Mazda
12th Feb 2008, 00:17
About 149, next-gen with all options on 1280x1024...

LaraLara
12th Feb 2008, 02:54
O_O How can you afford such luxuries... man I wish I had a top of the line system D:

oh, I have an offtopic question... is refresh rate the same thing as FPS? :s

Captain Mazda
12th Feb 2008, 05:12
Hardware is cheap nowadays. I was gaming on AGP for quite a few years before deciding to go for a massive overhaul. Going high-end for about $1000 is easy when you build your own system. Although I'm back to being a poor college student again, hehe.

Refresh rate (measured in hertz) is the latency of your monitor. With CRT, a refresh rate of 75-85 is the healthiest option for your eyes. On LCD however, most native resolutions are capped at 60hz which is absolutely fine, as low refresh rates on LCDs do not cause flickering.

Vsync synchronizes the refresh rate of the monitor and fps of the game to get rid of horizontal tearing that may occur when a camera pans across the screen. Basically, Vsync makes sure that your frames stay capped at whatever your refresh rate is. Although it drops your frame rate just a bit, it's definitely recommended if you want to get smooth gameplay. Tearing isn't really an issue anymore.

shaq
12th Feb 2008, 14:07
TRA needs Pixel Shader 1.1?:eek: I didn't know.

well... who knows when we see the ShaderModel 4.0 or currently hardware supporting 4.1 ;)

shaq
12th Feb 2008, 14:13
About 149, next-gen with all options on 1280x1024...

More than 30FPS is wasting money to buy such system for such games unless you play such games like Crysis or similar with full details... Personally I don't see differences between 40FPS and e.g. 150FPS or more... ;)

Such system will be much more cheaper at the end of this year for sure when the TRU will be released...

I turned on again TRA when I change my card from Radeon X600 Pro... ;)

matches81
12th Feb 2008, 14:46
How much FPS (frames per second) in Tomb Raider you have with this Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB RAM and an 8800GTX system? 100 FPS or more? ;) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
yeah, I wish. ;)
Those two games actually managed to lag every now and then. Now, as long as the game took place in confined spaces, it ran fine. But especially Legend lagged quite a lot, for example in that short gunfight sequence in that mexican town and other areas that had a wide viewable area. So, my experience was rather similar to the one BurialGown described. Oh, and lagging in my book is being somewhere well below 20 FPS, meaning I can both see the lag and feel it in the controls. Anniversary lagged a lot less, but sadly, the performance of both Legend and Anniversary was pretty disappointing. Sure, they look nice overall, but in no way offer jaw-dropping visuals that would justify that poor performance.
Anniversary performed better, probably meaning the engine was optimized quite a bit and I surely hope it will be further optimized for Underworld. Otherwise I see Underworld lagging from start to finish with all that added eye-candy.
Btw: I play at 1920x1200. In all games that support it.

About high-end hardware: Noone buys a high-end system just for one game. Some people have such systems because they work with it, most people probably are just gamers that want to experience most games like they were supposed to be. (I know, graphics aren't the most important thing about a game, but they add to the experience)

Albert
12th Feb 2008, 16:09
Hi,
Could it be that the requirments of TRU on PC are like this?
WindowsXP/VISTA/...;motherboardASSUS;DirektX9.0c;GraphicsATI WDM_All Driver 1.0.0.1ASSUS GamerOSD 2.0;ProcessorIntel PentiumD/other 3.00Ghz.

Captain Mazda
12th Feb 2008, 17:28
More than 30FPS is wasting money to buy such system for such games unless you play such games like Crysis or similar with full details... Personally I don't see differences between 40FPS and e.g. 150FPS or more... ;)

Such system will be much more cheaper at the end of this year for sure when the TRU will be released...

I turned on again TRA when I change my card from Radeon X600 Pro... ;)

The human eye can't tell the difference in anything past 60fps. Even the gap between 30-60 is marginal at best.

But yes, I do run Crysis and Gears of War on this system, so it's natural to get insanely high frames in Tomb Raider. Thankfully the new engine won't be such a pushover ;)

Well I shouldn't say that. The Legend engine has aged fairly well, having started as a video card killer in spring of 2006. Back then the fastest cards available were the GeForce 7950GTX and GX2. Even they had trouble getting 30fps with next-gen enabled. The 88xx series steamrolled over every game afterwards, but Legend's next-gen effects remain visually gratifying :)


About high-end hardware: Noone buys a high-end system just for one game. Some people have such systems because they work with it, most people probably are just gamers that want to experience most games like they were supposed to be. (I know, graphics aren't the most important thing about a game, but they add to the experience)

Exactly. I consider myself a hardcore gamer, but this system allows me to run heavy-duty graphic rendering, graphic design, and sound editing. If you're building with more than gaming in mind, you'll often more than justify the price.

zakker
12th Feb 2008, 18:12
i am planning to have a new PC before the launch of TRU and here are the spec's:
Gigabyte X48 motherboard
intel Extreme Q9650
2 of Sapphire RADEON HD 3870X2 1GB to work under crossfire.

and i wonder if TRU will support crossfire as SLI from nvidia, i hope so:scratch:

shaq
12th Feb 2008, 18:14
yeah, I wish. ;)
Those two games actually managed to lag every now and then. Now, as long as the game took place in confined spaces, it ran fine. But especially Legend lagged quite a lot, for example in that short gunfight sequence in that mexican town and other areas that had a wide viewable area. So, my experience was rather similar to the one BurialGown described. Oh, and lagging in my book is being somewhere well below 20 FPS, meaning I can both see the lag and feel it in the controls. Anniversary lagged a lot less, but sadly, the performance of both Legend and Anniversary was pretty disappointing. Sure, they look nice overall, but in no way offer jaw-dropping visuals that would justify that poor performance.
Anniversary performed better, probably meaning the engine was optimized quite a bit and I surely hope it will be further optimized for Underworld. Otherwise I see Underworld lagging from start to finish with all that added eye-candy.
Btw: I play at 1920x1200. In all games that support it.

About high-end hardware: Noone buys a high-end system just for one game. Some people have such systems because they work with it, most people probably are just gamers that want to experience most games like they were supposed to be. (I know, graphics aren't the most important thing about a game, but they add to the experience)


well... I guess this is because the games use old style to support the technology. I have read that for the new cards family old games works worst... and newest works better... also I saw games performance tests that confirm that...

Some cards had worse results (specially the newest ATI family) with the old games and with the new ones they got speed... new drivers in the future should speed up the new cards too... Looks like the old games and even new ones not handle effectively the new technology that hardware currently provide...

Here are some screens from Tomb Raider Legend Next-Gen Demo (English) on my system with FPS in the corner (all to max):

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4184/trl2008021218135629qa4.th.jpg (http://img177.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218135629qa4.jpg) http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7573/trl2008021218162015gk0.th.jpg (http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218162015gk0.jpg) http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5197/trl2008021218193614se4.th.jpg (http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218193614se4.jpg) http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3491/trl2008021218220217nm4.th.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218220217nm4.jpg) http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7060/trl2008021218220626qt1.th.jpg (http://img504.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218220626qt1.jpg) http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7646/trl2008021218250790nv3.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218250790nv3.jpg) http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5430/trl2008021218253500xh3.th.jpg (http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218253500xh3.jpg) http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/204/trl2008021218320750yj9.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218320750yj9.jpg) http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5308/trl2008021218333567ln6.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218333567ln6.jpg) http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5144/trl2008021218430825dx0.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218430825dx0.jpg) http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8669/trl2008021218432768wy4.th.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218432768wy4.jpg) http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4722/trl2008021218460157vk8.th.jpg (http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218460157vk8.jpg) http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8417/trl2008021218470364cm0.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218470364cm0.jpg) http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6760/trl2008021218501931in6.th.jpg (http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218501931in6.jpg) http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8875/trl2008021218522421go3.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218522421go3.jpg)

shaq
12th Feb 2008, 18:16
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5756/trl2008021218534446sz2.th.jpg (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trl2008021218534446sz2.jpg)

matches81
13th Feb 2008, 01:01
I think I'm going to run a small test with Anniversary (currently Legend isn't installed) and check out how hefty the resolution impact is on the overall performance on the game. As I'm playing in 1920x1200 and both Legend and Anniversary use a fair share of post-processing effects, I think the resolution should affect the performance quite drastically. At least that's what I hope.

Still, when weighing visuals against actual performance, Legend and Anniversary simply both perform not good enough for what I get on my screen. I'm not saying they are ugly, because they are definitely not, but seeing how Crysis, Gears of War, Bioshock and other current "graphic feasts" run fine on my system in 1920x1200 with high to maxed out settings simply sheds a bad light on the two Tomb Raiders. So, I definitely hope they improve the engine drastically in that regard.

digifan
13th Feb 2008, 14:40
Yes, don't fret, there's definite confirmation that TRU will be on PS2 and five other platforms.

Click here to read the article posted about a month ago. TRU Announced (http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/headlines3383.html)

No way! The type of advanced graphics need serious CPU capabilities. The rumor mill said TR8 will be on the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC. :D

Ooh yeah! :cool:

Captain Mazda
13th Feb 2008, 17:25
Actually no, games are still heavily relying on GPU processing power.

LaraLara
15th Feb 2008, 00:29
About 149, next-gen with all options on 1280x1024...

Don't you VSync it so the fps gets reduced to match your monitor's rfrate?


Going high-end for about $1000 is easy when you build your own system.

Are you serious? When I checked tigerdirect I added up the same items that were in a futureshop pc package and the price went over 1300$ while it was only 1000$ in futureshop... And this stuff wasn't even all that extreme hardware.

So where do you buy your parts from at such a low price?

NightRain'06
15th Feb 2008, 05:16
No way! The type of advanced graphics need serious CPU capabilities. The rumor mill said TR8 will be on the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC. :D

Ooh yeah! :cool:

I know that but since Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Interactive have previously done PS2 versions for the last two and they know there's still a very enormous PS2 install base. So they won't squander the opportunity to have a PS2 version of Underworld to reach those consumers who are still hesitant and have not jumped into the bandwagons of either PS3 or XBox 360. It's doubtful they want to lose any fans by hindering one version. Granted, by this holiday season, there will be an increase of PS3's base but the fact remains that the PS2 is still currently the behemoth amongst console install bases.

I won't be surprised if they made a Wii version eventually like they have done so with Anniversary either.

Rai
15th Feb 2008, 14:12
I won't be surprised if they made a Wii version eventually like they have done so with Anniversary either.

A Wii version has already been confirmed for release at the same time as the other versions. :)

dark_angel_7
15th Feb 2008, 15:29
I just bought a new PC £500 and well worht it:

- 2GB DDR2 RAM
- 1GB PCI-E nVidia GeForce 8600GT
- Intel Core2Duo 2.66Ghz

I'm not trying to brag, but with TRL and TRA, I played them on 64MB/32MB graphics cards and they worked fine with all effects off. But whne I tried TRA on this new PC, there was virtually no improvement in graphiucas and I had all effects on :(. I have bought this PC not just for TR but gaming in general. I know CD wanted to make sure people with older comps. could play the new TR games but with TRU coming out on such a wide range of platforms I seriously think they should design TRU to take full advantage of computers that have lots of power. That can be done by either a Next-gen option or designing it like that from the start and having no 'next-gen' option.

I want to be amazed by TRU and its graphics - I know graphics arent the most important thing. If CD keep older computers in mind with the TRU specs then I fear that people with newer computers will loose out. :(

Captain Mazda
16th Feb 2008, 07:37
Don't you VSync it so the fps gets reduced to match your monitor's rfrate?

Yes, but I usually don't stress test with Vsync.


Are you serious? When I checked tigerdirect I added up the same items that were in a futureshop pc package and the price went over 1300$ while it was only 1000$ in futureshop... And this stuff wasn't even all that extreme hardware.

So where do you buy your parts from at such a low price?

That's Tigerdirect for you. As for Futureshop, avoid buying anything from them at all costs. I ordered the 8800GT when it was first released as well as the coolers from NCIX.com. Everything else was bought from Filtech, a small computer store in downtown Toronto. Had a few phone conversations with the owner of the store and got myself a great deal on the hardware.

matches81
16th Feb 2008, 15:45
Are you serious? When I checked tigerdirect I added up the same items that were in a futureshop pc package and the price went over 1300$ while it was only 1000$ in futureshop... And this stuff wasn't even all that extreme hardware.

So where do you buy your parts from at such a low price?

Well, I don't know about US prices for hardware, but my current rig (C2D E6600, 2GB RAM, GeForce 8800GTX) would be achievable for about 900€, complete with drives and a cheap case. The typical upgrade kit (CPU + mainboard + RAM + graphics card) comes at about 740€. That's about 1070$, and I didn't search for the cheapest prices, the cheapest motherboard or anything like that. I simply used the website of my local computer store, picking feasible versions of everything. The CPU is even a bit faster than mine, as they didn't have an E6600 anymore. You probably can get that stuff for a considerably lower price if you search for it.
Overall, if you don't need to get the most high-end parts you can get away well below 1000€ to get a pretty high-end rig overall.

PS: I just put that upgrade kit together at amazon.com and came in at 780$, so I think it should be pretty doable to add a HD, a DVD drive and a case for below 220$, shouldn't it? That actually made me think about ordering my next upgrade from the US :)

Paulraider
17th Feb 2008, 03:43
well considering crysis on the Pc takes 12gig:eek: . then i would think round the same make for the new lara which is going to be in next gen territory.

so next time you goto a carboot or shop, someone will be selling the PC that they made the terminator special effects with:lol:

Philophosus
19th Feb 2008, 06:42
Remember one thing: Like TRL before, the "high-quality-version" (next-gen-mode) of TRU once again will be designed and optimized in the first place for Xbox360. If so, this shouldn't be a problem for current pc-hardware anymore, cause there have been great improvements in performance of pc-systems (especially graphics) since xbox360 was released.

TRL is running fine with 8800GTX-system up to resolutions of 2560x1600 with next-gen and 16AA/4AF! (~30-35fps)! :)

btw: TRU OF CAUSE will support at least SLI.

shaq
21st Feb 2008, 22:29
Well, I don't know about US prices for hardware, but my current rig (C2D E6600, 2GB RAM, GeForce 8800GTX) would be achievable for about 900€, complete with drives and a cheap case.

I got thermaltake chassis because it looks so cute ;) http://www.thermaltake.com/product/Chassis/fulltower/armor/va8000bws.asp all those blue lights and fans ;) and possibility to make removable cages ;) very comfortable specially when you like to play with other OS like Linux or Solaris as well ;) but was little painful to transport like small tank ;) My stuff about 2 years ago was little expensive but now such system is much more cheaper.

For sure Today's high-end system e.g. like yours will be much more cheaper and available for masses when the Tomb Raider will be released.

RUGRLN
27th Feb 2008, 17:32
With such good grpahics I think Oixel Shader 3.0 may be used....
Also 1GB RAM will be nearly minimum but not recommended, that will be higher I think....

Grpahics Card gotta be 128MB+, possibly 256, definetly not DX10, they would've siad so and it would end up becoming crysis..

CPU:....Well no need for dual core but there SHOULD be suppport, 2.6GHz----3.2GHz is what they'll be aksing porbably, it's a pretty relaistic game this may be a bit loow......

But it may be buthcered for the PC, who knows?! EIDOS< CD! lol

RUGRLN
27th Feb 2008, 17:37
I just bought a new PC £500 and well worht it:

- 2GB DDR2 RAM
- 1GB PCI-E nVidia GeForce 8600GT
- Intel Core2Duo 2.66Ghz


I envy you, tha't an amzing rig....

But 1GB? You mean 760MB right? Nop oint having so much VideoRAMfor 8600, 8800 worth it, this should have max 512 as it ain't that gd ya knw...

dark_angel_7
27th Feb 2008, 17:58
I envy you, tha't an amzing rig....

But 1GB? You mean 760MB right? Nop oint having so much VideoRAMfor 8600, 8800 worth it, this should have max 512 as it ain't that gd ya knw...

According to DX Diagnosis its 17706MB so basically 1GB. But dont be fooled this garphics card is good, but I think its only DDR2 - DDR3 is much better. None-the-less its still great. :)

Rai
27th Feb 2008, 18:08
I want to be amazed by TRU and its graphics - I know graphics arent the most important thing. If CD keep older computers in mind with the TRU specs then I fear that people with newer computers will loose out. :(

And the opposite could be true, if the specifications for TRU are too high, catering for newer PCs, then those with older models will miss out surely? They might not be able to run the game at all, let alone worry about graphics.

I'd hate to be a gaming programmer - oh the pressure! :eek: But on the other hand, you'd get to see and play the games first! *collapses*

Wess~Gamer
27th Feb 2008, 19:06
I bought a new PC last week.

- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0 GHZ
- NVIDIA® GeForce 8800GT 512 MB
- 4 GB DDR2 RAM

I bought a 22" TFT widescreen with it (because of the discount..)

It plays the demo of Crysis perfectly, So I think I'll be fine. :cool:

dark_angel_7
28th Feb 2008, 16:47
And the opposite could be true, if the specifications for TRU are too high, catering for newer PCs, then those with older models will miss out surely? They might not be able to run the game at all, let alone worry about graphics.

I'd hate to be a gaming programmer - oh the pressure! :eek: But on the other hand, you'd get to see and play the games first! *collapses*

I'm not trying to sound rude and jumping to conclusions but surely the people who dont think their computer can run it can try out the demo and if it does work then great, if not then just play it on (if the person has the console) PS2/360/Wii/PS3/PSP/DS and if worst comes to worst then Mobile (as stated by TR Inc. TRU will be coming out on Mobile and PSP platforms). :) Theres a wide range of gaming platforms to choose from, I doubt in this day and age lots of people will be left out. Of course there will be some people that are left out, but I'm sure in due time they can also enjoy TRU or they could simply go to a friends/cousins/etc. house and play it their.

LisaB1962
30th Apr 2008, 12:03
Has there been any official word on the PC requirements for Underworld? A friend on another forum is asking. I looked through old threads, but didn't see an announcement yet. I figured it would probably be a sticky once released, but I thought I would ask just to be safe.

She's upgrading for Assassin's Creed and would like to meet Underworld's requirements at the same time.

Thank you.

TDK
30th Apr 2008, 12:13
Hope it well be somthing possible cuz dam i dnt have money to make my pc good but i think its fine i mean lost planet worked on my pc this is somthin good right ?
hehe i dnt know anything about these stuff at all

Greenas
30th Apr 2008, 18:38
I'm lucky cause for my B-Day this year , I can get something special so I decided to get a good computer upgrade mainly because I heard that TRU is going to be a top of the notch next-gen game .

LaraLara
1st May 2008, 02:14
I think if she can play Assassin's creed on her PC, then TRU should be just fine. But, she might as well test it's performance with Crysis just to be safe :p

XenoAlias
1st May 2008, 02:46
If she's not too picky about graphics I'm sure it won't be a problem, just lower some settings if it won't run smoothly. It looks like the requirements might be pretty high to run it full though, judging by screenshots. If she can run Assassin's Creed though, I really don't see TRU requiring too much more, if any more at all.

Lol at testing with Crysis :P.

NightRain'06
1st May 2008, 06:59
LisaB ~ It's too early to tell as I'm sure you know. We'll have to be patient. Maybe as the months draw closer there will be disclosed information unless it's revealed sooner. Nobody knows yet.

If she's planning on running both games at Recommended requirements and you don't want her to take any chances by upgrading now, you could advise her to wait until official TRU PC requirements information is released, then she could do so appropriately. That way, there's no stress. :)

For your friend: Here are Assassin's Creed PC requirements listed courtesy of GameStop.

MINIMUM
DirectX : DirectX 9.0 or10.0 libraries (included on disc)
Hard Drive Space : 8 GB
Operating System : Windows® XP/Windows Vista® (only)
Processor : Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel® Pentium® D or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+
RAM : 1 GB Windows Xp / 2 GB Windows Vista
Video Card : 256 MB DirectX® 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (NVIDIA GeForce 6800+ / ATI Radeon X1600+)

RECOMMENDED
DirectX : DirectX 9.0 or10.0 libraries (included on disc)
Hard Drive Space : 8 GB
Operating System : Windows® XP/Windows Vista® (only)
Processor : Intel Core® 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better
RAM : 1 GB Windows Xp / 2 GB Windows Vista
Video Card : 256 MB DirectX® 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (NVIDIA GeForce 6800+ / ATI Radeon X1600+)

mimi90
1st May 2008, 16:32
i had the same problem when i try to get ac for my pc. fortunately there is a website that compare the comonents in your pc to the ones that the game requires to run on minimum- link is below. Not sure it TRU is there though- may have to wait until closer to the release date

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

hope this helps :-)

LisaB1962
1st May 2008, 20:18
thanks, guys. I will share this info.

NightRain'06
4th May 2008, 00:07
There are people who do try to buy the best pre-built high-end gaming PC that will last them for maybe several years. For example, Alienware computers.

And there are those who would much prefer customizing systems themselves and upgrading occasionally to accommodate the requirements for games they will play in the future. Some may even try to exceed more than a game's recommended requirement to gain that possible smoother playing. I think.

All the power to them if they have the money to do so, but I just don't have that kind of money for myself.


[ I do have a console, but I still would LOVE a dedicated gaming PC.... :) ]

Captain Mazda
4th May 2008, 08:03
Alienware? They're still in business? Wow...

I mean heck, you COULD shell out thousands for an Alienware system, or build one yourself for half the price and twice the power...

Anarae
5th May 2008, 07:23
8GB? That's a fair chunk of hard drive space, even though most drives are 60-250GB.
I heard that the PC version of Anniversary took 10GB.

I have the PC games for old school TR, Chronicles and before. After that I switched to Play Station to save space. Underworld will probably take the 10GB or more since the gameplay isn't linear and it sounds like it's going to be huge! So prepare for that.
Personally, I'd just stick with a P2, PS3, or PSP. It reads from disc.

Captain Mazda
5th May 2008, 21:42
I heard that the PC version of Anniversary took 10GB.

It's about 3.8GB. Legend is 7GB.

NightRain'06
15th May 2008, 00:09
Alienware? They're still in business? Wow...

I mean heck, you COULD shell out thousands for an Alienware system, or build one yourself for half the price and twice the power...

Yup, they're still in business.

That's true and I believe you. I'm curious, generally how much roughly would a person need to spend to build their own ?

~~~

LisaB ~ I'll post the PC requirements information in TRU Versions Confirmed thread when it's revealed.

afborro
15th May 2008, 01:54
My guess is that it will at least need some kind of cual core system, that is coming the standard for games these days more and more, and probably will be by the end of this year.

Legend was a bit of a graphics hog in next gen mode, lets hope they optimise this a bit better.

I would think reasonable minimum for underworld, something like amd 4200 dual core, or pentium D 3.4 dual core and an 8600 nvidia or ati equivalent, as far as I know it will be DX10, HDR, the lot graphics wise, so if dx9 wil not be supported you are looking at dx10 GPUs only in any case.

Now lets wait and see what it actually comes out to be :D

fwzikrm
12th Jul 2008, 06:55
I would like to get an idea of the minimum requirements of Underworld,will it unlock its full potential on a NVIDEA 8800 GTX 512 MB

kitkatt13
12th Jul 2008, 22:42
I'm not suer, but we'll find out soon i belive.

Greenas
12th Jul 2008, 22:46
It should . But thats a good card so it should handle it easily .
I got a 9800gtx 512 MB and it can handle the best games with ease . Could handle about 10 x more . Just speculating though .

wildcard600
13th Jul 2008, 01:37
i bet an 8800 will probably be overkill. I'm betting on prolly around a Nvidia 7800 or ATI 1600 as minimum cards. It is after all being released on XBOX and PS3 so unless the PC version is wicked upgraded over those versions i wouldn't think that a card would need to be more powerful than either of those.

Crysis which is a resource hog still only needs a 7800 for minimum specs and a 8800 is the recommended card.

An 8800 stomps a mud hole all over the PS3's graphics power.

rg_001100
13th Jul 2008, 01:40
I got a Gigabyte GeForce 8600 GT... I doubt that'll be able to handle the graphics on high... but it should be able to run it on minimum I'd think.

wildcard600
13th Jul 2008, 02:05
I got a Gigabyte GeForce 8600 GT... I doubt that'll be able to handle the graphics on high... but it should be able to run it on minimum I'd think.

i bet an 8600 will run just fine on high. Maybe not 16x anti aliasing but i bet detail wise it will run fine. Legend and Anniversary ran on 7800's with full graphics and the 8600 trumps the 7800.

I run crysis on medium settings with one of my 8600's without problem. To run on high i have to enable SLI AFR.

If CD makes TRU need an 8600 for min requirements, they will lose massive amounts of sales cause even some top of the line new PC games don't even require that much graphics power.

rg_001100
13th Jul 2008, 02:17
i bet an 8600 will run just fine on high. Maybe not 16x anti aliasing but i bet detail wise it will run fine. Legend and Anniversary ran on 7800's with full graphics and the 8600 trumps the 7800.

I run crysis on medium settings with one of my 8600's without problem. To run on high i have to enable SLI AFR.

If CD makes TRU need an 8600 for min requirements, they will lose massive amounts of sales cause even some top of the line new PC games don't even require that much graphics power.

Maybe I'm running it a bit too high... (TRL) there have been times when it gives some sort of blue screen of death after working it too hard for too long (like using excalibur for the whole level, fire effects, etc.), and TRA seems a bit laggy compared to when I run it on the same graphic settings on my sister's computer.

They would if it required an 8600 minimum... but they do have to cut the line somewhere.

wildcard600
13th Jul 2008, 02:20
Maybe I'm running it a bit too high... (TRL) there have been times when it gives some sort of blue screen of death after working it too hard for too long (like using excalibur for the whole level, fire effects, etc.), and TRA seems a bit laggy compared to when I run it on the same graphic settings on my sister's computer.

They would if it required an 8600 minimum... but they do have to cut the line somewhere.

Sounds like overheating problems to me. Some cards don't cool as well as others and can result in performance issues. My old ATI had that problem. Is the fan on the card kinda of smallish ?

Differences in amounts of RAM and RAM clock speed could have an effect on performance as well.

Smorgasbord
13th Jul 2008, 15:24
Personally, I would like gameplay and storyline to be focussed on more than the graphics first, sure everyone likes good graphic games, but if the story is pants, then it kinda ruins it. This is only my opinion, but i love TR:A because the graphics are good, not worldbeating but good, but the gameplay and story are brill, whether as games like Crysis are simply overkill and get boring after the first ten minutes.

lara 4 ever
14th Jul 2008, 06:50
My PC can handle TRL very well in NGG(Next Generation Graphics) even though i have a 256MB graphics card!!!:rolleyes:

dark_angel_7
14th Jul 2008, 07:02
Here are my predictions :) :

Minimum:

512MB RAM
256MB Graphics Card
2GHz CPU

Recommended:

1GB RAM (or more)
512MB Graphics Card
2.4GHz CPU

--------------------

I don't think Dual Core CPU's will be a necessity for this game but who knows. As usual the more you have/the more better your components are the better the game will run ;)

I just hope the requirements aren't too OTT. :o

Anarae
16th Jul 2008, 07:17
Maybe I'm running it a bit too high... (TRL) there have been times when it gives some sort of blue screen of death after working it too hard for too long (like using excalibur for the whole level, fire effects, etc.), and TRA seems a bit laggy compared to when I run it on the same graphic settings on my sister's computer.

They would if it required an 8600 minimum... but they do have to cut the line somewhere.

Your memory has a lot to do with how well the game works as well. I had 1GB memory, running The Sims 2 and Angel of Darkness. If you've played Sims 2, then you know when it loads on the main page there's these words that move horizontally across the bottom and it takes a bit to load. My computer died, but I had insurance so they sent me one with 4GB memory and the Sims 2 loading screen automatically goes to the game instead of the words being at the bottom.

I think an 8600 will cover it. I hope it will cover it. I'm running an 8400 and surely that will hit minimum requirements.

rg_001100
16th Jul 2008, 07:39
Your memory has a lot to do with how well the game works as well. I had 1GB memory, running The Sims 2 and Angel of Darkness. If you've played Sims 2, then you know when it loads on the main page there's these words that move horizontally across the bottom and it takes a bit to load. My computer died, but I had insurance so they sent me one with 4GB memory and the Sims 2 loading screen automatically goes to the game instead of the words being at the bottom.

I think an 8600 will cover it. I hope it will cover it. I'm running an 8400 and surely that will hit minimum requirements.

My sis plays the sims 2... I think it takes a while to load (with all the exp, sets she's got)

A lot of people would be disappointed if it required graphics to be too high for PC. It would be nice if there was an "old gen" option, sort of like Legend had.

bingojubes
6th Aug 2008, 20:50
Looking to possibly upgrade my computer for Underworld before the game comes out. any word on what kind of setup PC users will be needing?

also, will it support the XBOX 360 controller for windows? my guess is that it probably WILL, but i just want to check on that.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258/guildie001/stats.jpg

josh1122
6th Aug 2008, 20:55
Looking to possibly upgrade my computer for Underworld before the game comes out. any word on what kind of setup PC users will be needing?

also, will it support the XBOX 360 controller for windows? my guess is that it probably WILL, but i just want to check on that.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258/guildie001/stats.jpg

a NASA computer.








.. Hmm I don't know. I stopped PC gaming years ago because of the nuts prices you had to pay just to upgrade to keep up to date. The requirements will probably be released shortly before the game is released I would assume

I would be cool though if it supported 360 controllers. But why plug in a 360 controller to the PC to play TRU on a PC. if you have a 360 controller that would mean you have an xbox 360, thats more than capable of playing TRU :D

rabid metro
7th Aug 2008, 04:39
When it becomes available, that information will appear in this sticky thread

TRU Versions Confirmed: PC, PS2, PS3, XBox 360, Nintendo Wii and DS (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=76637).

cyberboy_909
20th Aug 2008, 20:48
My pc has the following configration:

intel pantium d (dual core) @2.87GHz
1.5GB of system memory(ram)
Nvidia GeForce 8600 gt 512mb ddr2
260gb hard drive

Can my PC can handle Tomb Raider Underworld ? If not then what according to u should be the system requirement of Tomb Raider Underworld ? Another quoestion is that when Eidos would officially announce the system requirement of Tomb Raider Underworld ?

I am very much worried about this matter :nut:

Singstar90210
20th Aug 2008, 21:16
It could. The requirements are pretty basic with most of them requiring Intel processors so I don't see why not! :D

Might help if you have Vista though. (and some extra space like andrew90 said [thanks, not so well versed with Windows])

As for announcing, it could be revealed when we get closer to the release date. Right now we've got 90-93 days until then so they should reveal it soon so that raiders don't get disappointed about pre-ordering.

andrew90
20th Aug 2008, 21:17
My pc has the following configration:

intel pantium d (dual core) @2.87GHz
1.5GB of system memory(ram)
Nvidia GeForce 8600 gt 512mb ddr2
260gb hard drive

Can my PC can handle Tomb Raider Underworld ? If not then what according to u should be the system requirement of Tomb Raider Underworld ? Another quoestion is that when Eidos would officially announce the system requirement of Tomb Raider Underworld ?

I am very much worried about this matter :nut:

That depends of witch windows will you play on!!! is it xp or vista? if its vista, then your pc isn't good enought to handle TRU, it will require 1GB ram just to run the system well.if its xp the game will run, but still, not so well.
If you wanna play the game on max you will need, 2GB ram, a better video card on xp,
and on vista i recommand 4GB ram, and definitely a better video card.the other components...let's say, they are good.
Good luck!:)

Rai
20th Aug 2008, 21:25
Eidos really need to release the system requirements, enough people are asking about it.

lilhanhan
20th Aug 2008, 21:34
No one knows about the requirements yet, so please don't tell people that their computer can or can't handle it just yet.


Eidos really need to release the system requirements, enough people are asking about it.

I know, this is at least the third thread about it; please Eidos, hurry! :o

bluecrush
21st Aug 2008, 13:48
I've Intel Core 2 Duo with 1 GB ram and 420 GB hdd...
i highly doubt about the graphic card as its a built one ... but any recommendations? that would help...or any other upgradation i may require...?

Rexie
21st Aug 2008, 14:11
I just found out that we are going to get an Alienware comp for my work :nut:

Now that beast will run EVERYTHING.Unless it gets struck by lighting, then my poor ass is screwed.


HA!