PDA

View Full Version : System Requirements / DirectX 10 etc.



GmanPro
16th Nov 2008, 05:14
Is Deus Ex 3 going to Support DirectX 10?

I'm on the edge right now. I don't know if I should invest in a new computer or wait a little bit longer. I played Fallout 3 with almost max settings. The only settings not maxed out were the anti-aliasing, antistrophic filtering, resolution, and I had V-sync off. I'm expecting that DX3 will have at least slightly better graphics than Fallout 3 so I'm worried that I might have to cut back on the settings even further.

I know that there is still some time before DX3 comes out, but I have yet to upgrade to a DX10 capable system (technically I could do it, but I'd need vista and if I'm going to change my OS I might as well start from scratch as my pc is over a year old now). I'm also awaiting AMD's new cpu chip as I've heard good things about it thus far...

I definitely want to get the most from my DX3 experience, so if there is going to be DX10 support, then I will most likely go ahead and throw $2,000+ at a new computer.

Jerion
16th Nov 2008, 05:22
If you're going to get a new machine primarily for DX 3 (like me), then wait until you know DX 3's system specs. ;)

GmanPro
16th Nov 2008, 05:25
I also want to play Dawn of War 2(preferably without lag ;) ).

Some others too... What else did I want to play :scratch: ?

There's Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, but I'm not really worried about those games destroying my hardware.

spm1138
16th Nov 2008, 05:56
If the game is going to come out before Windows 7 making it DX10 required is probably a mistake.

Romeo
16th Nov 2008, 06:51
If you're going to get a new machine primarily for DX 3 (like me), then wait until you know DX 3's system specs. ;)
That's a very sensible plan. =D

I also want to play Dawn of War 2(preferably without lag ;) ).

Some others too... What else did I want to play :scratch: ?

There's Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, but I'm not really worried about those games destroying my hardware.
DoW2 should have very low specs, as it's running the same engine as DoW1, but without the ridiculous numbers of armies, and without buildings. And Blizzard has already said they'll make D3 and SC2 capable of running on 2 year-old computers. It seems as though Fallout 3 currently is the only "worrying" area, and you can run it fine.

GmanPro
16th Nov 2008, 07:06
I guess I'm just worrying for no real reason. Tho I've become accustomed to playing the latest games with max settings and resolution :( .

Fallout 3 uses the same engine as oblivion (and civ 4 too i think), pretty old tech. The only times it ever really gets serious with the hardware is in the outdoor areas. The indoor areas are pushing really high fps numbers.

And actually DoW2 uses the Essence engine 2.0 (updated version), the same one used for Company of Heroes. DoW1 uses the Impossible Creatures engine I think...

Jerion
16th Nov 2008, 07:06
I'm going to merge this with the system requirements thread. Just give me a minute to find it.

EDIT: I've dug through 10 pages of threads and I can't locate it. O_o

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Nov 2008, 13:09
LOL, I can't either! :D

I've retitled this thread and added it to the 'important discussions' thread for easy reference later. Surprised it wasn't already in that list. :scratch:

Freddo
16th Nov 2008, 14:43
Deus Ex 3 will use the same game engine as Tomb Raider: Underworld, no? And Underworld doesn't use any DX10 stuff at all as far as I know, so it seem unlikely that Deus Ex 3 will.

Lazarus Ledd
16th Nov 2008, 17:01
So did Stalker Clear Sky, but they added support for DX10 wiht patch. I think there's no problem in adding DX10 support here.

About buying a new PC cause of DX3? Well last year I already invested into a brand new PC, so it's easy for me to upgrade my CPU (E4400), switch to DDR3 preferably ( I have a motherboard Gigabyte P35C DS3R which has DDR2 and DDR3 support, but not combined), and buying a new graphic card translates into buying DX10 card, replacing mine x1950 which i took cause i didn't wanna rush in with DX10 back then, and decided to wait for better dx10 cards to come, cause it was just propaganda then and there weren't much pure DX10 titles, it was only added with patches to the games...

I hope money fancies me next year :D

K^2
16th Nov 2008, 21:10
Is Deus Ex 3 going to Support DirectX 10?
Probably not. DX3 will run on the same engine as Tomb Rider Underworld, and TRU runs on DirectX9c. It will, however, require your graphics card to support Shader v3.

GmanPro
16th Nov 2008, 21:38
Strange because I remember hearing a rumor somewhere that even Doom 3 has some DirectX 10 support in it. And that's pretty old now.

I don't think it would be hard at all to upgrade the engine to allow DX10 support. But I wouldn't know too much about it anyway...

K^2
16th Nov 2008, 22:47
You can upgrade anything to support DX10. I can take an old 2D game, and make it render sprites via DX10, but why? Question is, does the game use any features of DX10? Answer - no, it does not. So simply "upgrading" it to DX10 would be a waste of time.

TRU already uses Shader 3. That by itself allows it to use many beautiful things that it does not. TRU does not seem to make a use of displacement maps (via parallax mapping), for example, which is a shame. There are many great Fx that can be done that way.

Edit: What I was trying to get at, is that EM can already improve on the looks of the game by simply using Shader 3 to its fullest extent, even without getting into DX10.

Freddo
17th Nov 2008, 00:02
Strange because I remember hearing a rumor somewhere that even Doom 3 has some DirectX 10 support in it. And that's pretty old now.
It doesn't. It doesn't use Direct3D at all, but OpenGL.

2030
17th Nov 2008, 01:14
I'm not buying into window's vista pathetic joke for ANY game...

GmanPro
17th Nov 2008, 01:19
You will eventually.

I don't really want vista either, but eventually I'm going to want 64-bit and DX10.

2030
17th Nov 2008, 01:25
You will eventually.

I don't really want vista either, but eventually I'm going to want 64-bit and DX10.

I'd rather die than conform any further. Hell I'll switch to Linux before I'll let myself be manipulated by microsoft.

GmanPro
17th Nov 2008, 01:50
I also heard a rumor somewhere that you can do some h4x to get XP to use DX10. Don't know if that's true or not. And you can get 64 bit with XP, so it's really only a question about DX10.

Don't think I'll be using Linux any time soon. Just too buggy.

K^2
17th Nov 2008, 02:24
Linux? Buggy? Erm... Maybe you stumbled on a bad distro once upon a time, but Linux, by itself, is extremely stable.

On using Vista, I think I'm going to stick with XP until either Vista is fixed, Linux becomes a recognized gaming platform, or M$ releases next OS that isn't a joke. None of these seem too likely at the moment, but I'm sure at least one of these will happen eventually.

Yargo
17th Nov 2008, 03:19
Windows 7 is supposed to be out in 09 http://www.techspot.com/news/32380-Microsoft-to-ship-Windows-7-by-holiday-season-2009.html

And soon would be a good time for a nvidia card.
http://www.techspot.com/news/32479-Nvidia-planning-price-cut.html
:D :thumbsup:

GmanPro
17th Nov 2008, 04:25
Windows 7 looks promising.

I guess if Windows 7 is well received by critics, I may just skip vista and go straight to it, the same way I skipped ME and went straight to XP.

K^2
17th Nov 2008, 06:22
That's what I was thinking. Though, I'm a little concerned about the short time span it is taking. M$ is pushing W7 release forward because of the Vista's failure, so the initial release is likely to be rushed. But maybe they can fix it up a bit later, like they did with XP, to make it into a good stable OS.

There are some hopes for Linux to pick up as well. Several governments are switching all their systems to Linux. I know that Russia is planning the switch, for example. With the way Russian economy works, it will mean that most businesses will be switched to Linux. That will pull a massive chain of households switching, creating a descent market for Linux games. Similar things are expected to happen in a few other places. Don't know if it will be enough, though.

GmanPro
17th Nov 2008, 07:16
It took me a while before I finally switched over to XP from 98. Mostly because I was still in love with a lot of really old games (Magic the Gathering :cool: ). But I don't foresee any problems of that nature with Windows 7. I'm sure that any games that worked with XP will also work just fine on Windows 7.

I'm also looking into the Solid State Drives as a possibility over HD's for my next computer. I've seen nothing but good things from them, although they are still a bit expensive. Do you think I should go with the SSD's?

K^2
17th Nov 2008, 07:42
Advantages of SSD over magnetic drives:
1) Speed.
2) Power consumption.
3) Durability.
4) Reliability.

Now, I'm assuming you are building a desktop. In that case, power consumption and durability aren't concerns. What you are trying to achieve is faster read/write times and more reliable data storage. Both of these are cheaper to achieve with RAID arrays right now. If you build a RAID50, it will beat SSD in price, reliability, and speed.

Of course, RAID50 is a rather complex and space consuming, as it will require 6 HDDs to build. (You'll get space equivalent of 4 of these.) So a more elegant solution is to buy a 16GB SSD, and use it for OS only. Even Vista will fit on 16GB, never mind XP. These things are reasonably priced, and you'll get all the benefits of running your system off SSD in terms of loading times. Then use magnetic drives to install programs, store data, et cetera. If you want your data to be safe, run a RAID5. 3 500GB disks will give you 1TB of well protected storage space for just $300. I don't want to imagine the sum of money it would take to build 1TB of SSD space.

The only systems, right now, that I'd recommend SSDs for are laptops (upgrade or when looking for a new one) and micro ATX that you plan to carry to a lot of places, like LAN parties, or something.

GmanPro
17th Nov 2008, 08:20
Thanks for the advice. Although I don't think I'm going to need any more than 250 Gb (which is how big my current HD is, and I still have almost 60 gigs free space right now). So I was looking at possibly going with 2 128 Gb SSD's. I'm definitely going to do a lot of research b4 I go buying anything. I might even buy a laptop sometime soon too, to help with class and whatnot, might decide to go SSD there...

K^2
17th Nov 2008, 09:51
I tend to do a lot of work with really big files, so I'd run out of 250GB within a month. Right now, I'm trying to figure out where character textures are stored in TRU, so I have its 1.5GB archive sitting in 3 or 4 copies at different places on my HDD. Though, in this case, I think more CPU power would be of more use. Trying to check something in the archive. Need to analyze each possible 8-byte block in the archive. Taking forever, and I don't think I'm going to get anything out of it. I'm starting to consider a possibility that the whole thing is either compressed or encrypted. These pesky CDRM files certainly look that way.

Jerion
17th Nov 2008, 15:59
^^ Are you keeping a running log of your progress? :D

Let me know when you have results. :p

K^2
17th Nov 2008, 23:00
I'm assuming you've read the SDK thread since posting this, so hopefully, you're up to date.

dixieflatline
17th Nov 2008, 23:05
Actually it is entirely conceivable that Deus Ex 3 will support DirectX 11 when it comes out -- DX11 is not as far off as many people realize.

Freddo
18th Nov 2008, 18:10
Actually it is entirely conceivable that Deus Ex 3 will support DirectX 11 when it comes out -- DX11 is not as far off as many people realize.
Sure, DX11 cards will be out next year. But the chances of developers adding DX11 to a multi-platform game using a DX9 engine is extremly small at best.

Neither 360 or PS3 have DX10 features, not to mention DX11, so why waste development resources for something only one platform will use?

GmanPro
18th Nov 2008, 21:58
^^
Because the PC is superior in every way to the console and EM knows this so they should pander to us PC gamerz. :thumbsup:

Jerion
18th Nov 2008, 22:40
Yeah, but the real question is whether DX11 will offer any real benefit to the Devs over DX10 or DX9.

K^2
18th Nov 2008, 22:44
Using DirectX doesn't offer any real benefit in the first place. Doesn't usually stop anyone.

GmanPro
18th Nov 2008, 22:45
Probably not. From what I've seen, DX10 isn't exactly a major step up from DX9c, but then again it will be another year or so before the games catch up with the technology you know? I'm sure that there is plenty of potential with DX10 that will become apparent in due time.

If DX3 is coming out is 2010 btw, then I have no doubt that there will be DX10 compatibility.

Freddo
19th Nov 2008, 01:41
^^
Because the PC is superior in every way to the console and EM knows this so they should pander to us PC gamerz. :thumbsup:
Sorry, but I don't find that a realistic scenario :p

Both Tomb Raider: Underworld and the recent Fallout 3 are multi-platform titles and they both use DX9 only. Neither 360 or PS3 have anything more than pixel shader 3.0, so it's make sense to stay with that.

When the original Xbox was out, most multiplatform games that reached the PC only had support for pixel shader 1.x, DX8. Like Deus Ex: Invisible War & Thief: Deadly Shadows, despite DX9 being out at that time for almost 2 years.

And then when 360 & PS3 were released we suddenly saw this leap of game requirements. And I don't think we will see games using newer tech until the next-gen consoles are released (unless it's PC exclusive like Crysis), cause it doesn't make sense from an business standpoint to spend valuable resources on something that only a third of the game platforms will benefit from.

Not to mention, Eidos has never really been the guys to push the advanced game technology forward. That's in the hands of Crytek, Id Software and Valve.

So yeah, it's my strong belief that Deus Ex 3 will use the "old" tech that they know, instead of tinkering with new tech. Even if the game is released in 2010.

GmanPro
19th Nov 2008, 02:14
By 2010 DirectX10 will be "old tech"

Freddo
19th Nov 2008, 07:44
By 2010 DirectX10 will be "old tech"
Indeed, but the consoles will be using even older tech, which will hold the PC back. And the TRU engine is still based around DX9.

That's why it's unlikely there will be any DX10 (or DX11) support in the game. Not impossible, but unlikely.

GmanPro
19th Nov 2008, 07:46
BioShock had DX10 support, and that came out more than a year ago. We are talking more than a year from now. PC version will definitely have DX10 capabilities.

Jerion
19th Nov 2008, 07:51
No doubt. By then It wouldn't look good to not use a 1 1/2 - 2 year old standard.

Freddo
19th Nov 2008, 08:35
BioShock had DX10 support, and that came out more than a year ago. We are talking more than a year from now. PC version will definitely have DX10 capabilities.
Bioshock was developed by two game studios. 2K Boston who made the actual game for 360 and 2K Australia who worked with the PC port.

Eidos Montreal is a single studio working on 3 versions.

No doubt. By then It wouldn't look good to not use a 1 1/2 - 2 year old standard.
But it will still be a standard that most PC users still can't use, cause the majority of PC gamers will still be using Windows XP.

Project Snowblind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Snowblind) was released in 2005, and it's using Crystal Dynamics's engine back then. It was a DX8 title despite DX9 being 3 years old. And Deus Ex 3 will use Crystal Dynamics's current engine.

Both Windows Vista and DX10 has recived a great deal of bad press since they were released. Being slow and resource demanding. Microsoft is currently rushing to release both Windows 7 & DX11 ASAP to get people to give them a new chance. There used to be loud voices across the internet from people who wanted DX10 features in every game just because it was newer (and then supposingly better, right?). Developers slapped on rushed DX10 support in titles so they could be advertised as a DX10 game, but then when users found out that DX10 was so slow compared to DX9 and looked just marginally better, the majority of voices just stopped. Fallout 3 was released a few weeks ago, and it only use DX9, and noone cares. I haven't seen any complaints about that on the official Fallout 3 forum at all. If Deus Ex 3 is released without any kind of DX10 support, noone will care about that either.

GmanPro
19th Nov 2008, 16:51
Its true that no one seems to really care about DX10 right now, tho I think that its probably a lot better than DX9 than people realize and its just going to take a while for devs to catch up with the technology. But maybe we will just skip over DX10 and jump into DX11, who knows.

spm1138
19th Nov 2008, 16:55
Its true that no one seems to really care about DX10 right now, tho I think that its probably a lot better than DX9 than people realize and its just going to take a while for devs to catch up with the technology. But maybe we will just skip over DX10 and jump into DX11, who knows.

The problem is Microsoft foolishly chose to attach it to the new Windows ME. That kinda doomed it from birth.

K^2
19th Nov 2008, 18:44
It puts me in a great sorrow to know that the very concept of later DirectX libraries didn't put the whole series into the grave.

Initially, the idea was good. It just took a wrong turn somewhere. Graphics library shouldn't be based on the same concept as a Swiss Army Knife.

free2game
21st Nov 2008, 01:31
That's a very sensible plan. =D

DoW2 should have very low specs, as it's running the same engine as DoW1, but without the ridiculous numbers of armies, and without buildings. And Blizzard has already said they'll make D3 and SC2 capable of running on 2 year-old computers. It seems as though Fallout 3 currently is the only "worrying" area, and you can run it fine.
That's like saying that Far Cry 2 or Crysis should have low system specs because their based on the same engine Far Cry 1 was.

free2game
21st Nov 2008, 01:34
Bioshock was developed by two game studios. 2K Boston who made the actual game for 360 and 2K Australia who worked with the PC port.

Eidos Montreal is a single studio working on 3 versions.

But it will still be a standard that most PC users still can't use, cause the majority of PC gamers will still be using Windows XP.

Project Snowblind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Snowblind) was released in 2005, and it's using Crystal Dynamics's engine back then. It was a DX8 title despite DX9 being 3 years old. And Deus Ex 3 will use Crystal Dynamics's current engine.

Both Windows Vista and DX10 has recived a great deal of bad press since they were released. Being slow and resource demanding. Microsoft is currently rushing to release both Windows 7 & DX11 ASAP to get people to give them a new chance. There used to be loud voices across the internet from people who wanted DX10 features in every game just because it was newer (and then supposingly better, right?). Developers slapped on rushed DX10 support in titles so they could be advertised as a DX10 game, but then when users found out that DX10 was so slow compared to DX9 and looked just marginally better, the majority of voices just stopped. Fallout 3 was released a few weeks ago, and it only use DX9, and noone cares. I haven't seen any complaints about that on the official Fallout 3 forum at all. If Deus Ex 3 is released without any kind of DX10 support, noone will care about that either.
To be honest, it just sounds like you don't want to use Vista, and you don't want Vista users to have features you can't have. That's why generally holding back things are done. Fanboys don't want thinks that other people who are more financially or budgetarily inclined can have :]

GmanPro
21st Nov 2008, 01:41
^^
nah, vista just sucks. I'd rather get linux or wait for windows 7.

Dawn of War 2 should have somewhat low minimum specs with room for improvement if you have a good pc. The problem is that it is an rts, so even if the minimum specs r low, the game will probably lag when you've got 8 armies running around the map.

And it uses the Essence 2.0 engine (think i mentioned that already :scratch: ). An upgraded version of an existing engine, sure, but its not an old engine by any means. :thumbsup:

piippo
21st Nov 2008, 01:52
For thread starter, if you are not in a hurry, so that you need to have a new PC now. I would wait, since buying stuff and keeping it idle until something comes out isn't wise. You only lose money so. Since the hardware prices change constantly, new products replace older ones, it's a hectic market. If Deus Ex 3 is a year away, you are just wasting your efforts and money. I would wait atleast to start of next year, if you don't need the performance now. Depending on your use, Core i7(heavy use of threads) or AMD Phenom II/Core 2(gaming) would be good picks.


I'm not buying into window's vista pathetic joke for ANY game...

That's an nice attitude. I understand if you have an old PC, and already own XP. Such scenario wouldn't benefit from Vista. For a new machine nothing but 64-bit Vista is a waste.


Advantages of SSD over magnetic drives:
1) Speed.
2) Power consumption.
3) Durability.
4) Reliability.

...

I suppose you haven't got any real source for your claims. Most SSDs on market are MLC based, and they aren't more durable than magnetic drives. SLC is better than MLC, but they do lose on magnetic drives when comparing durability. That would also mean they aren't more reliable than magnetic drives. The speed issue is double sided thing, you have close to zero access times, fast read times, but writing speed is considerably slower than on conventional magnetic drives. Not to mention they costs so much more per GB. For gaming PC use they are pretty much useless, much rather buy a RAID controller and desired amount of drives.


Yeah, but the real question is whether DX11 will offer any real benefit to the Devs over DX10 or DX9.

It does, even DX10 does offer over DX9. It's harder to move so quickly, since your installbase is still lacking behind. A large portion of people don't have even DX9 SM3 support.

http://videogameprogramming.blogspot.com/2006/01/opengl-and-directx-10.html


Using DirectX doesn't offer any real benefit in the first place. Doesn't usually stop anyone.

What? That argument makes no sense at all, since it's fundementally flawed - DX "not offering any real benefits". Please elaborate.

Jerion
21st Nov 2008, 01:56
He's referring to using DirectX over OpenGL.

free2game
21st Nov 2008, 02:38
Didn't even John Carmack admit that DirectX is a lot easier to code in than OpenGl?

free2game
21st Nov 2008, 02:42
^^
nah, vista just sucks. I'd rather get linux or wait for windows 7.

Dawn of War 2 should have somewhat low minimum specs with room for improvement if you have a good pc. The problem is that it is an rts, so even if the minimum specs r low, the game will probably lag when you've got 8 armies running around the map.

And it uses the Essence 2.0 engine (think i mentioned that already :scratch: ). An upgraded version of an existing engine, sure, but its not an old engine by any means. :thumbsup:I think you missed my point. Essence 2.0 to Essence is what Cryengine 2 or Dunia is 2 Cryengine 1. The min specs for a game like Dawn Of War 2 and it's highest settings are going to be huge. That actually has a direct3D10 renderer too so just using XP you're probably going to miss out on effects too :P

GmanPro
21st Nov 2008, 05:05
Well, Windows 7 will be out in not too long. Also, I've been playing Dawn of War since it came out (mostly because they keep making expansion packs to keep it interesting), so I'm sure that I'll still be playing Dawn of War 2 three to four years after it is released. By which time I will no doubt be able to enjoy the game in all its DX10 glory. Dawn of War FTW!! :thumbsup:

Freddo
21st Nov 2008, 06:10
That's like saying that Far Cry 2 or Crysis should have low system specs because their based on the same engine Far Cry 1 was.
All those 3 games use different engines. Cryengine 1, Cryengine 2 and Dunia.


To be honest, it just sounds like you don't want to use Vista, and you don't want Vista users to have features you can't have. That's why generally holding back things are done. Fanboys don't want thinks that other people who are more financially or budgetarily inclined can have :]
I never mentioned what *I* feel about Vista, so I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion? On the contrary, there are several features with Vista that I like a lot.

But Vista has gotten a lot of bad press and got a bad reputation (undeservingly so) among a large chunk of PC gamers, who stick with XP. And that's why I don't think it's realistic that developers will develop for it, cause they develop for the platforms where the audience are. But Windows 7 will hopefully fix that.

spm1138
21st Nov 2008, 09:53
Vista fixed the digicamera image import widget so I don't have to manually select new images and I do like that a lot.

Everything else, however... :nut:

It's problem isn't that it's bad. It's problem is that it's just not good enough to justify the extra hardware overhead.

Even if I had a good machine to game on, it does very little for me that XP doesn't while being slower. Being able to accommodate more RAM would probably be about the extent of it.

It was the new Windows ME (especially when you consider the horrible bugs it shipped with).

XP by comparison was a huge step up from 98SE. It was like "Holy ****, they wrote a proper OS this time around."

Windows 7 with the new filing system (they managed to get that in this time, right?) will hopefully do the same thing again.

K^2
21st Nov 2008, 10:57
New file system might be a good idea, as long as they base it around ability to link (something that puts ext3 far ahead of NTFS in my books) and fast, efficient search. In fact, I'd really like to see Google's take on a file system, but I don't think it will happen in a MicroSoft product.

Other than that, what's the obsession with stuffing an OS with as many things as possible? Even Linux distros are starting to stray in that direction. I really like Ubuntu, but it is bloated. It doesn't look so in comparison to Windows, but Windows was never a good reference point. I recall an old joke, circa late W95-early W98 How many megabytes does a Windows installation take? As many as it can find.

An OS should be a platform on which a system is built. It should have a light, stable, and efficient kernel. It should have a light shell that is intuitive in use, but not overweight with graphics. All of the standard window components should be vectored or procedurally drawn so as not to take up RAM. Yes, virtual memory is not such a bad place to keep shell's graphics components in while you aren't using it, but then if you want to switch to desktop, it takes forever. While a light shell can either be loaded fast or stay resident in physical. Furthermore, it should be easy to switch between several different shells. Even simply having a pure console shell, light graphics shell, and full shell would be great. Now, I could arrange that under Linux quite easily, but have you ever tried to replace shell under Windows? It is a nightmare.

And while it isn't usually OS devs fault, what's happening to the drivers? I've seen some that are in megabytes in size. Now, please, explain to me how a driver can have megabytes worth of useful code? It cannot. Most of it got to be garbage. Maybe a good idea would be to limit the size of each driver. Just refuse to support ones that are over a few hundred kB. Though, for a driver, 100kB is too much.

A good OS should be capable of running on a 100MHz x486 with 32MB of physical, while being able to allocate all of machine's resources. If user chooses to bog things down with dozens of services and background processes sucking up resources, then let it be so. But the base should be light.

Freddo
21st Nov 2008, 11:54
A good OS should be capable of running on a 100MHz x486 with 32MB of physical, while being able to allocate all of machine's resources. If user chooses to bog things down with dozens of services and background processes sucking up resources, then let it be so. But the base should be light.
I very much agree with that :)

piippo
21st Nov 2008, 21:26
He's referring to using DirectX over OpenGL.

Even so, doesn't make any sense.


...It was the new Windows ME (especially when you consider the horrible bugs it shipped with).
It wasn't, and it isn't. ME was a project that had nothing really comparable to the scale of what Vista was as a project. It was 98-based. What are these bugs that you speak of? Most of the early BSODs, slower performance in the games - boiled down to poor drivers. From AMD to nVidia, AMD fixed their stuff first and nVidia was behind. At one point nVidia was the cause for 30% of system crashes: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/nvidia-drivers-responsible-for-nearly-30-of-vista-crashes-in-20/

People shouldn't just say something they think is right without backing it up.


XP by comparison was a huge step up from 98SE. It was like "Holy ****, they wrote a proper OS this time around."
If you remember, I guess you don't, how much people resented XP at the start. Same claims of it being "bloated", "slow", "unneeded graphical tricks". All that was once again heard when a new Windows was released. People read something up on the internets, without any mediacriticism, and take it as a 100% fact. Vista is a proper OS, the thing is, it's hard to merit XP owner to switch over to Vista - since there is rarely any need for that. For a new PC, Vista 64-bit is the only logical choice, since it feels like XP refined.


Windows 7 with the new filing system (they managed to get that in this time, right?) will hopefully do the same thing again.
What do you mean by filing system? Windows 7 is more or less "98SE" to Vista "98" - minus the showstopping bugs that 98 had.

dixieflatline
21st Nov 2008, 22:51
Sure, DX11 cards will be out next year. But the chances of developers adding DX11 to a multi-platform game using a DX9 engine is extremly small at best.

Neither 360 or PS3 have DX10 features, not to mention DX11, so why waste development resources for something only one platform will use?

You know what? You're right. I totally temporarily wasn't thinking about the fact that DX3 is a PC / console game.

GmanPro
22nd Nov 2008, 03:15
Who cares about console games. Seriously who? I just bought Tomb Raider Underworld for PC from Amazon for $39. Compare that to $60 for the 360. Given the choice between buying a game for my 360 or for my PC, I will always choose the PC, especially now that its cheaper :D . I only really use my 360 for games like halo, fable, ninja gaiden, dead or alive, etc. Only cause they r console exclusive.

I wonder if microsoft is planning on making a new console any time soon? :scratch:. They should probably wait for DX11 imo, but the 360 and even the ps3, are lagging way behind in the hardware department. Its amazing that they can continue to charge so much for the games, but I guess as long as people are willing to pay that much, the price will stay that high.

spm1138
22nd Nov 2008, 07:42
Even so, doesn't make any sense.


It wasn't, and it isn't. ME was a project that had nothing really comparable to the scale of what Vista was as a project. It was 98-based. What are these bugs that you speak of? Most of the early BSODs, slower performance in the games - boiled down to poor drivers. From AMD to nVidia, AMD fixed their stuff first and nVidia was behind. At one point nVidia was the cause for 30% of system crashes: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/nvidia-drivers-responsible-for-nearly-30-of-vista-crashes-in-20/

People shouldn't just say something they think is right without backing it up.


If you remember, I guess you don't, how much people resented XP at the start. Same claims of it being "bloated", "slow", "unneeded graphical tricks". All that was once again heard when a new Windows was released. People read something up on the internets, without any mediacriticism, and take it as a 100% fact. Vista is a proper OS, the thing is, it's hard to merit XP owner to switch over to Vista - since there is rarely any need for that. For a new PC, Vista 64-bit is the only logical choice, since it feels like XP refined.


What do you mean by filing system? Windows 7 is more or less "98SE" to Vista "98" - minus the showstopping bugs that 98 had.

The glacially slow Disk IO is the main bug I was thinking of.

I'm calling it a bug because allegedly it was fixed in an SP somewhere along the line.

I read somewhere this test where benchmarked various apps running under emulation in OS X and they found some actually ran faster under emulation than the because that way they were using OS X's low level disk IO code.

New filing system = Windows FS as was supposed to be included in Vista but got pulled. It was one of the fancy new features that they dropped and looked quite nifty.

piippo
22nd Nov 2008, 12:49
Then you can provide a link where that is verified? I know about WinFS, but it's not coming to Windows 7.

spm1138
22nd Nov 2008, 14:09
Sorry, can't find it.

It may have been online or it may have been in a Mac magazine.

This was at least a year ago now too (before SP1). No combination of words I tried in five minutes returned the article. I just keep getting links to emulator websites.

Windows FS isn't coming to Windows 7? Geez :( I wish I didn't play computer games so I could pick an OS without worrying about DirectX.

APostLife
22nd Nov 2008, 15:28
What is really the different btw dx9 and dx10? apart from their numbers? Doesn't dx10 suck more system requirements as it needs a more better graphics card to be compatible?

Jerion
22nd Nov 2008, 15:30
Aside from marketing, DirectX 10 offers more to developers than 9 (as I understand it). I'll let K^2 explain.

I personally think OpenGL is better.

K^2
22nd Nov 2008, 18:08
Aside from marketing, DirectX 10 offers more to developers than 9 (as I understand it). I'll let K^2 explain.
You shouldn't ask me to explain expanded features of new DirectX. I am of the firm opinion that most of them are useless junk that does no good except for eating up the cycles. Graphics library should give you a simplified way to communicate with the hardware and nothing more. The fact that DX10 has even more junk than DX9 is its shortcoming, not advantage.

APostLife
23rd Nov 2008, 07:20
Is it possible to have a great game engine that is not a resource hog. Kind of like Crysis and its expansion Crysis Warhead . Something about EA making the engine better: better graphics but less resource hog? Oh, I don't know!?XD

spm1138
23rd Nov 2008, 09:27
EA aren't giving you something extra with Warhead.

They're doing something they neglected to do first time around and suffered for sales wise.

rhalibus
8th Dec 2008, 19:51
I had my first issue with Vista when I tried to play Bioshock on my new PC w/ a Vista OS: there was no sound. I ran the game in XP compatibility mode and that worked for a few days, but then the game executable suddenly wouldn't run at all. It ran fine on my old XP box.

This is just to bring up the issue that Vista still has some problems with even recent games...:(

Jerion
8th Dec 2008, 20:05
Is it possible to have a great game engine that is not a resource hog. Kind of like Crysis and its expansion Crysis Warhead . Something about EA making the engine better: better graphics but less resource hog? Oh, I don't know!?XD

What Crytek did with Warhead was optimize it so that you could get the same performance as the first game, with a lot more going on at once. The graphics are no better than Crysis, although it's very difficult to accomplish that.

nathanj
9th Dec 2008, 06:19
Windows 7 looks promising.

I guess if Windows 7 is well received by critics, I may just skip vista and go straight to it, the same way I skipped ME and went straight to XP.

my first computer had ME on it and for the life of me i couldnt figure out why my games ran like crap. i had way higher specs than needed for the games at the time. when i switched to XP all of a sudden everything ran beautifully.

im looking forward to windows 7 if nothing more than to not have to hear those stupid mojave commercials anymore......lets take some people that never used are system and have some other person show them a couple of features..........dee..dee dee.

APostLife
9th Dec 2008, 07:06
Wouldn't DX3 system requirement would be about the same as Tomb raider: Underworld? I hope the system requirements are not that intense or it will be system hogging.

K^2
9th Dec 2008, 08:52
You'll need similar kind of hardware, but the specs might be different. Higher is more likely than lower, but it all depends on what EM does with the engine.

DXeXodus
9th Dec 2008, 11:48
My bet would be that the system requirements would be slightly higher than TRU. But if you can run TRU well I am sure you shouldn't have too much of a problem with DX3. But that is just an assumption on my part.

Jerion
9th Dec 2008, 15:35
^^ What he said.

You'll probably need an Nvidia 9 series or better if you hope to run it at a very smooth framerate on higher settings.

Necros
10th Dec 2008, 13:19
What Crytek did with Warhead was optimize it...
Crytek Hungary. ;) :D

About the system reqs for DX3, we just simply can't be sure. It could be higher or lower than TR:U, the game is still a long way from being finished. But yeah, basically you could say that at least a powerful GeForce 8, a dual or quad core CPU and about 2-3GB RAM will be needed to run the game in all it's glory.

Joseph Manderley's Corpse
10th Dec 2008, 18:49
I remember everyone FREAKING OUT about the system requirements for IW...."you'll need an NVIDIA unobtanium99000 and 1300 gigawatts of ram....blahblahblah"...when in FACT, it ran just fine on my p4 XP machine with a 5200 and 500mb RAM.

Do the smart thing folks...let someone else buy the game and tell you how it runs on their rigs before you blow a wad of cash on a system you don't need.

My 2C...

René
11th Dec 2008, 17:37
^^ I just wanted to say that I think this the best username I've seen in a long time. I chuckle every time I see it! :lol:

Unstoppable
11th Dec 2008, 20:09
Here's my prediction based on them using the Tomb Raider engine and making the game for next gen consoles.

1)The game will be scaleable to run on a variety of systems. Otherwise their PC sales will get hurt by people not being able to run it. My prediction is that it will run on DX 9 and above. Windows XP and above compatible.

2)It will probably require a dual processor of 2.4ghz or more and at least 2GB of RAM to run well on XP and 3GB for Vista. Maybe you'll be able to get away with a 3.5ghz processor of high quality like a pentium 4.

3)Besides that a video card that can run direct x9 and at least 128MB but I'd recommend one that is 256MB.

Keep in mind these are just MY PREDICTIONS and are in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM official or based off of anything official. This is just from my knowledge of computers and game engines. This is mostly to run the game on medium low as well. The game size will probably be larger than 8 gigs and no more than 20 gigs.

Here are the Tomb Raider: Underworld requirements:
System Requirements
Minimum Recommended
Microsoft Windows[14]
Operating System Windows XP or Windows Vista
CPU Intel Pentium 4 3+GHz or AMD Athlon 2.5+GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory 1GB (Windows XP) / 2GB (Windows Vista) 2 GB
Hard Drive Space 8 GB of free space
Graphics Hardware NVIDIA GeForce 6 series 6800GT (or better) / ATI 1800XT (or better) NVidia GeForce 9800 GTX or ATI HD4800
Sound Hardware DirectX 9.0c compliant card

I think it will have requirements similar to Tomb: Raider Underworld. There is no point in them making it super high reqs because you would limit your audience. That's just my opinion.

K^2
11th Dec 2008, 21:53
I remember everyone FREAKING OUT about the system requirements for IW...."you'll need an NVIDIA unobtanium99000 and 1300 gigawatts of ram....blahblahblah"...when in FACT, it ran just fine on my p4 XP machine with a 5200 and 500mb RAM.
5200 was a mid-range card when IW came out, and it was the lowest end card that could run IW. IW did not run on MX series of GF5, which a lot of machines had back then, as well as a number of Intel chip sets that were powerful enough, but lacked Pixel Shader functionality. Very few laptops had GPUs that could handle IW back then.

Similar thing with RAM. 512MB was mid-range back then. A lot of XP machines had 256MB, and a lot of pre-XP machines were still running on 128MB. Again, this hit laptops particularly bad.

So on PS-capable mid-range machine, IW could just barely screech by. These aren't majority of machines to begin with. Then you add the fact that on the low side of the high end spectrum, many people experienced performance that was barely better than on mid-range machines. (That's what most complaints were really about, beyond PS-compatibility) So what you really had is a situation where only top high-end PCs were getting the full experience. Everybody else enjoyed low resolution, choppy frame rates, and I was literally able to go make myself some coffee between the levels. Considering the number of transitions, that was a lot of coffee.

I recently played through IW again. This time under 2GB of RAM, a quad-core CPU, 8800GT, and a striped RAID array. I ran the game on highest settings, of course, but I still had a few frame rate hiccups every now and then, and the loading times were still quite tiring. I felt surprised that I had the patience to beat the game on ye olde Athlon@1.3GHz under 4200Ti.

Complaints about IW requirements were well founded. What was required and what you got out of it was incomparable. Engine lagged across the board, and quality did not scale for higher end machines.

The new CD engine does a little better, but it requires Pixel Shader 3. TRU is receiving same kinds of complaints about that as IW did. A lot of people cannot run TRU just because of the Shader. TRU also has some problems with the frame rates at certain moments, because occlusion optimization on its BSP parser isn't great. But it isn't as bad as IW was, it scales a lot better (partly because of shadow mapping) and the loading times are no longer a problem. Game loads pretty fast even the on startup, and then streams fairly consistently.

The time gap between TRU and DX3 release will only help to ease these problems. A lot more people will have PS3 capable cards, even though I still expect a torrent of people asking why it doesn't run despite big glowing letters across the forum's banner stating precisely why. More people will upgrade. Hopefully, EM will also find ways to make the game run a little better. All around, it shouldn't be that bad.

MaxxQ1
11th Dec 2008, 22:32
5200 was a mid-range card when IW came out, and it was the lowest end card that could run IW. IW did not run on MX series of GF5, which a lot of machines had back then, as well as a number of Intel chip sets that were powerful enough, but lacked Pixel Shader functionality. Very few laptops had GPUs that could handle IW back then.

Similar thing with RAM. 512MB was mid-range back then. A lot of XP machines had 256MB, and a lot of pre-XP machines were still running on 128MB. Again, this hit laptops particularly bad.

Well do I remember the screaming and yelling on the Ion Storm forums about that^^. I actually caught it twice as much, because I was also waiting for, then playing Homeworld 2 at about the same time, and the same issues were cropping up there. The people that had claimed they bought an MX series card just to play the game(s) were Legion, and VERY vocal. I was lucky in that I had just bought a Pixel Shader 2.0-capable card (ATI), but I really felt bad for those who had been "fooled" into getting the cheaper cards. I may be misremembering, but I seem to remember reading that nVidia had misrepresented some of the capabilities of their MX series, and that's where a lot of the confusion came from. I make no judgement as to whether it was intentional or not, but just that's how I recall the situation.

GmanPro
11th Dec 2008, 23:17
My computer couldn't handle IW back when it came out. I had to play it on my Xbox unfortunately. But at least it wasn't laggy. I do remember the long load screens though...

KingRat
11th Dec 2008, 23:33
Well do I remember the screaming and yelling on the Ion Storm forums about that^^. I actually caught it twice as much, because I was also waiting for, then playing Homeworld 2 at about the same time, and the same issues were cropping up there. The people that had claimed they bought an MX series card just to play the game(s) were Legion, and VERY vocal. I was lucky in that I had just bought a Pixel Shader 2.0-capable card (ATI), but I really felt bad for those who had been "fooled" into getting the cheaper cards. I may be misremembering, but I seem to remember reading that nVidia had misrepresented some of the capabilities of their MX series, and that's where a lot of the confusion came from. I make no judgement as to whether it was intentional or not, but just that's how I recall the situation.

You remember correctly; it was the Geforce4 MX cards that were the problem. They were basically GF2 mx that Nvidia tacked the GF4 tag on...viktoria:thumb:

I played through IW 4 times the first month it came out. Once on my AMD XP2500 Ti4600 Win98se system. Played at 800x600 med settings and got frame rates 10-45. Three times on XP2500 Tyan G9500pro Win98se. Played at 1024x768 high settings (no AA/AF) with frame rates 25-75.

Now get this, 4 years later I tried IW on a C2D6600 7800GSOC WinXP system...ran so slow I couldn't play it,, go figure. I'll try it again sometime on a clean system:whistle:

MaxxQ1
12th Dec 2008, 03:16
You remember correctly; it was the Geforce4 MX cards that were the problem. They were basically GF2 mx that Nvidia tacked the GF4 tag on...viktoria:thumb:

Thanks for the confirmation. And yeah...viktoria...it got to the point that I HATED that name or any other that was similar.


I played through IW 4 times the first month it came out. Once on my AMD XP2500 Ti4600 Win98se system. Played at 800x600 med settings and got frame rates 10-45. Three times on XP2500 Tyan G9500pro Win98se. Played at 1024x768 high settings (no AA/AF) with frame rates 25-75.

Now get this, 4 years later I tried IW on a C2D6600 7800GSOC WinXP system...ran so slow I couldn't play it,, go figure. I'll try it again sometime on a clean system:whistle:

I don't recall all the system specs I had, but I DO know I was using a Radeon 9700 Pro, and was running on (hangs head in shame) WinMe, with, I believe, an AMD 2400+ (or something like that), and I think a gig of RAM.

1024x768 ran smoothly enough for me, and yeah, the load times were horrendous. I reinstalled it a few months ago to try to play it again (for only the second time), but got bored with it before I even made it out of the Academy. It was on my current system (XP, AMD Athlon 64 3700+, Radeon X1950XT, 2gb DDR2), and ran very well at 1024x768 with everything cranked except AA/AF.

Thank God I'm going to be able to upgrade this year. I was going to last year, but I had to make an emergency car purchase. I wonder what 2 grand will get me...?:scratch:

K^2
12th Dec 2008, 05:15
I remember a bunch of us were talking about building a RAM HDD driver just to fix the loading times. The crazy part was that most of the files were exactly the same from one level to the next, yet, the whole thing had to be loaded from scratch at transitions. Oh, and the files were stored separately multiple times too. The whole thing felt like a duct tape job.

only one Deus ex
4th Mar 2009, 10:06
Hey

Im going to buy my self a laptop. The expensive kind.. and I'm wondering if i need to upgrade the system again when deus ex comes in order to play it at reasonable fps (that is nothing lower than 30 fps at max load with full settings). there is a new graphics prosessor for laptops from nvidia called m260 and m280 (and probably more versions of this) that is supposedly top edge so i hope it will last me for deus ex 3..

The main question here is will deus ex 3 use technology that is not yet on the market.

Jerion
4th Mar 2009, 10:37
DX 1 and 2 can easily run on any modern graphics card, integrated or otherwise. Deus Ex 3 will probably require something high grade, like a Nvidia 8600 or better to play on modestly good settings. It's far too early to know what the system requirements are, though the TRU requirements might give some idea. Chances are that any laptop with a 9600M GT or better will be able to handle DX 3 on pretty good settings at 30 FPS.

This is going to be merged with the System Requirements thread in a minute. :)

sgtbilko28
8th Apr 2009, 11:30
Yes... a guy has arrived at the forums that starts with one of those awesome questions that everyone loves, but first... a long winded bit of dribbling.

From the pages and pages I've read and all the game art released, it seems to me like Deus Ex 3 is going to be something very special, perhaps a game that changes the level of effort and creativity people put into games. It might even put to shame the same rubbish games released day after day with more funding behind them than god.:mad2:

If this turns out to be stunning, like the original was, I'll even put aside my pirat....erm... non-official means of getting software and go and buy the thing.

So, I just ordered a mother f$%king imac with a HD4850 512mb card in it. My question is... WILL IT BLEND?... oh wait... RUN???

Have they mentioned mac support and are there mac nerds out there praying for this to happen? God i'd hate to install windows just to play it (I so would though:rolleyes: )

Cheers

Absentia
8th Apr 2009, 12:08
This has been covered before. There is as of yet no plans for a Mac release I'm afraid.

Edit: Forgot to say - Welcome to the forums! =P

Jerion
8th Apr 2009, 12:40
Welcome to the forum!


Yes... a guy has arrived at the forums that starts with one of those awesome questions that everyone loves, but first... a long winded bit of dribbling.

From the pages and pages I've read and all the game art released, it seems to me like Deus Ex 3 is going to be something very special, perhaps a game that changes the level of effort and creativity people put into games. It might even put to shame the same rubbish games released day after day with more funding behind them than god.:mad2:

If this turns out to be stunning, like the original was, I'll even put aside my pirat....erm... non-official means of getting software and go and buy the thing.

So, I just ordered a mother f$%king imac with a HD4850 512mb card in it. My question is... WILL IT BLEND?... oh wait... RUN???

Have they mentioned mac support and are there mac nerds out there praying for this to happen? God i'd hate to install windows just to play it (I so would though:rolleyes: )

Cheers
No Mac OS X version planned right now. A Cider port to Mac OS X is a possibility.

With your iMac you could easily dual boot into Windows XP (go borrow a CD from somebody) to run games. And with that video card you'll have no trouble. I've got a last generation MacBook Pro and I dual boot into XP for all my gaming needs. It works beautifully.

exxon_valdez
8th Apr 2009, 14:07
<cut>

so any fresh info about what sys.requirements the game is going to demand?

I own a hp laptop and it's pretty ancient, and I'm about to get a new one.
I'll stall the purchase as much as I can, but I'm not the one paying and I can't
really qualify the statement "I'd rather get a new machine towards the end
of the year just to be certain this game that's coming out will run on it" as
a valid reason. :scratch:

so, 8th of April - what do we know so far? and i mean ballpark estimate for
CPU and graphics..

thanks a bunch!

Jerion
8th Apr 2009, 14:18
Nothing official, but based on recent games:

A "Penryn" Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz or better will probably do you fine. 2 GB of DDR2 RAM will definitely help; bump it higher if you can. As for the graphics, any laptop with a Nvidia 8600M GT or better, or a ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 or better should be able to handle DX3 on reasonable settings.

If you're dead set on playing DX 3 on high settings, need a laptop, and your budget is insanely big, I would recommend something on par with this:

http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=5&l2=61&l3=781&l4=0&model=2543&modelmenu=1

GmanPro
8th Apr 2009, 19:06
^^ I had my eyes on that laptop for awhile :cool: . But I decided I'd rather invest in a newer desktop PC right now.

If I was to purchase a new PC right now it would probably look something like this with Windows XP 64-bit:


Thermaltake Xaser VI VG4000SWA Silver / Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133054)
ABS Tagan ITZ Series ITZ1300 1300W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Certified CrossFire Ready Active PFC Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817814001)
ASUS M4A78T-E AM3 DDR3 AMD 790GX ATX AMD Motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131366)
AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.6GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 4MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Processor (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103650)
ZALMAN 9500A 92mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118223)
EVGA 01G-P3-1281-AR GeForce GTX 285 1GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130442)
OCZ Reaper HPC 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2000 (PC3 16000) Desktop Memory (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227415)
SUPER TALENT MasterDrive OX FTM32GL25H 2.5" 32GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609331)
Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136131)


A bit expensive at around $1680, but the high end power supply and motherboard should ensure that I will be able to upgrade to a better GPU/CPU in the years to come, without having to redo the whole rig.
edit: +whatever Windows 7 64-bit will end up costing :P

I'm holding off for two reasons, 1) I want Windows 7, and 2) I think AMD is getting ready to start rolling out the new socket AM3's.

Mr. Perfect
8th Apr 2009, 23:55
ROFL. Considering a household circuit can only deliver 1600watts, I'd say the 1300watt is safe for the next couple PCs. :P You'll probably only use a few hundred watts.

itsalladream
9th Apr 2009, 00:43
Only a few hundred? Without looking at any specs, I'd say that video card will pull quite a few.

GmanPro
9th Apr 2009, 00:53
Yeah lol. I guess I'm just paranoid because my current build has a tendency to just shut down during intense gaming sessions. At first I thought it was my rig overheating, but that didn't make much sense when I looked at the temps. Its funny because whenever I notice that it is shutting down like that, I just download new drivers and the problem stops ... then later I'll download even newer drivers and the problem comes back. I've been through this cycle maybe half a dozens times by now.

I currently have a 750 Watt PS that is SLI certified and ready to rock supposedly, but my two 8800 GTS 320Mb cards are apparently too much for it. I think the one GTX 285 will consume less power than my SLI cards, but in the future I expect I may want to upgrade to 2 of the beasts :cool:




EDIT: I forgot the Blu-Ray Drive.

LG Black 6X BD-ROM 16X DVD-ROM 40X CD-ROM SATA Internal Blu-ray/HD DVD-ROM & 16X DVD±R DVD Burner Model GGC-H20L (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136133)
(These things are still pretty expensive ... about $100 for one)

And for about $100 bucks extra, I could get a Blu-Ray burner ... but I honestly don't think I'll ever need one of those in the foreseeable future.

Romeo
9th Apr 2009, 05:03
- Hey, I'm a Mac...
- ...And I'm a PC. What's wrong Mac?
- I R HAZ NO DX3!1!! I = EPIC PHAIL!!!1!!Shift!1! :D

Nah, but like Mr K said, just bootcamp XP on your Mac and you'll be fine.

GmanPro
9th Apr 2009, 06:06
Mac vs PC (http://mvpc.ytmnd.com/) :cool:

Mr. Perfect
9th Apr 2009, 20:29
Only a few hundred? Without looking at any specs, I'd say that video card will pull quite a few.

Yes. A few hundred. Ever look at the power draw results of video card reviews? They're really quite surprising. Check this one for example (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=22), the latest Core i7 965, 6 gigs of ram, and a 285GTX draw a grand total of 320 watts. That's total system power. At full load. You can get it up to 421 watts if you substitute a 4870X2 for the 285, but you're still in the 500-600 watt PSU range. If you trow in a second GTX285, you might be able to get it up to 489 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3520&p=11). But that's still less then half the output of a 1300watt unit.

Of course, that all depends on the quality of the power supply. A lot of them tend to go *pop* when you put some serious draw on them. I'm pretty much going to stick to buying PSUs that are tested by the 80Plus group (http://80plus.org/). It's a third party group consisting of electric companies who are trying to get PSU manufacturers to improve efficiency, but during efficiency testing they will crank a PSU up to it's full rated load. If it fails, it doesn't get an 80 Plus endorsement.

While the PSU companies have been busy with a wattage arms race, power draw simply hasn't matched it. They're happy to sell you a bigger supply though. :D

JCD
10th Apr 2009, 16:49
You will only need a 1000-1200W PSU when benchmarking (LN2/Dry Ice/Cascade/Phase Change stuff) with 2x dual-GPU cards (GTX 295/9800GX2/4870X2). Otherwise, such powerful PSUs are not necessary ;)

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 17:35
Don't forget about the rest of the computer. I've got to power everything else too, including several fans. And I'm planning on overclocking everything as much as it will let me.

K^2
10th Apr 2009, 18:20
Fans take up less than a watt each.

GmanPro
10th Apr 2009, 18:38
Even the really big ones on super high rpm's? :eek:

Well, maybe I could save a few hundred by going with an 1100 watt ps then. :D Yay! You learn something new everyday it seems.

JCD
10th Apr 2009, 19:03
Only the Delta/Panaflo fans (120-200++ CFM, LOTS of noise) can consume ~30W each. A typical fan consume 5-10W @ max ;)

Mr. Perfect
16th Apr 2009, 23:51
If you ever want to see just how much power some electronics use, grab a device like the Kill-A-Watt (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html). They're like $20, and the results might surprise you.

GmanPro
17th Apr 2009, 01:47
Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for the tip, maybe I'll pick up something like this when I'm working on my next computer.

Freddo
19th Apr 2009, 02:58
I just built my new computer, and it consume less than 100W on full load. Granted, I got the energy efficient AMD 5050E CPU and the not so powerful Radeon HD 4550 graphic card, but it's good enough for me. Playing Fallout 3 & The Witcher now with high detail and so on, and it runs smoothly for me.

I don't have any fans, but the CPU is still running around 20C. It's a very cool & quiet computer :cool:

K^2
19th Apr 2009, 05:27
In other words, you built a laptop in a PC case. Well, if power consumption is your main concern, I suppose that works, but why? If it's fans and the noise, you can always go with quiet maglev brushless fans. I can hear the HDD over the fans on my desktop, and I have 6 fans total.

JCD
19th Apr 2009, 11:13
Raptor?

Jerion
19th Apr 2009, 11:29
In other words, you built a laptop in a PC case. Well, if power consumption is your main concern, I suppose that works, but why? If it's fans and the noise, you can always go with quiet maglev brushless fans. I can hear the HDD over the fans on my desktop, and I have 6 fans total.

It's possible that he has a fairly limited budget, both in terms of the initial spending on the computer and then paying for the power consumption. Not too unbelievable given the current economic climate.

Mr. Perfect
20th Apr 2009, 01:08
There's also a difference between quiet and silent. From his description, you probably can't tell if his PC is on unless you look at the light on the front. That could be golden for a PC in a bedroom, or used as an HTPC in the living room.

K^2
20th Apr 2009, 01:28
It's possible that he has a fairly limited budget, both in terms of the initial spending on the computer and then paying for the power consumption. Not too unbelievable given the current economic climate.
In my experience, low power consumption components tend to be more expensive. And power consumption is a minor part of PCs budget, unless you are building a major mainframe.

Mr. Perfect, yes, there is a difference, but it's rarely necessary to have an absolutely silent PC. As I mentioned, my HDDs make just about equal noise with my fans. Unless he has SS HDD, his machine isn't silent either. And even if total silence is the goal, that doesn't mean you have to give up active cooling. Just run a thermocouple between your CPU and heat sink. It's not as cheap as installing fans, but building absolutely silent PC is not exactly the sort of thing you do on a budget.

Spyhopping
20th Apr 2009, 01:37
I just want to know why xbox 360's must sound like jet engines. In the past when I've want to get properly involved in a console game, I#have had to move the TV across the room and shut the thing outside of my door to block out the noise.

K^2
20th Apr 2009, 02:35
They went to the lowest bidder on the fans, that's why. If you aren't worried about warranty, you can try taking it apart and replacing the fans with quieter ones. If you go to newegg, they list dBA levels for each fan. Find one with the lower number that fits your case and your budget, and you'll have a much quieter 360.

Mr. Perfect
22nd Apr 2009, 01:30
Oh, I'd agree about the active cooling bit, even if I tend to the quiet side. Still, there's a whole community of silencers over at SPCR who are obsessed with eliminating noise, and Freddo's PC sounds like it would fit right in with the strictest interpretations over there.

They don't use pelts though, that's mostly the OC crowd.

K^2
22nd Apr 2009, 08:12
So what's the problem with using thermocouples, again?

Mr. Perfect
23rd Apr 2009, 21:25
Well, there's the price, like you touched on. It seems like the only nutters who will spend money on peltiers are the OC freaks who need that last MHz. And they sometimes even watercool the damn things. :hmm:

That and they produce heat themselves. A cooling solution that generates heat isn't something most people seem to want in a fanless environment.

Ces
29th Dec 2009, 18:10
Hi,

I know the game hasn't been finalized yet but will it feature or require directx 11?
I'm eyeing the 1GB ATI 5870 Vapor X card and hoping if I upgrade to that then I'll be set
for Deus Ex 3 and Thief 4. I plan on upgrading sometime in March for other titles. :)

Thanks for your help!

Bluey71
29th Dec 2009, 18:29
Probably not.

Excuse me for bugging in Ces.


pha, where does that WS quote come from in your sig?

Bluey71
29th Dec 2009, 22:56
Sorry it took me some time to find the interview, here you go:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/warren-spector-interview


Thanks for the link - thats an interesting interview that I've not seen before. It's quite a sobering thought when he mentions that in reality, he will probably only make 3 more games...

Jerion
29th Dec 2009, 23:05
Thanks for the link - thats an interesting interview that I've not seen before. It's quite a sobering thought when he mentions that in reality, he will probably only make 3 more games...

It really is. I love his reasoning for starting games though.

K^2
30th Dec 2009, 01:06
I know the game hasn't been finalized yet but will it feature or require directx 11?
Expect the game to require DirectX 9.0c and Shader 3.

Jerion
30th Dec 2009, 05:50
Ditto. Likely, Nvidia GeForce 6800/ATI Radeon X1800 minimum. <- That's just speculation though.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Dec 2009, 11:47
^
No problemo! :cool: :D

Irate_Iguana
30th Dec 2009, 12:18
Ditto. Likely, Nvidia GeForce 6800/ATI Radeon X1800 minimum. <- That's just speculation though.

Those are the Tomb Raider Underworld minimum specs, right? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the recommended specs from that game as a guideline? Seeing as how the graphics and the like will probably be spruced up a bit.

gamer0004
30th Dec 2009, 17:06
Expect the game to require DirectX 9.0c and Shader 3.

DirectX 11 was released a few months ago and DirectX 10 has been around for years now... And some games are still released for DirectX 9 :confused:

K^2
30th Dec 2009, 17:08
I'm only talking about minimum hardware specs. The game is very likely to support some of the DX10 features if they are available.

Jerion
30th Dec 2009, 21:51
I'm only talking about minimum hardware specs. The game is very likely to support some of the DX10 features if they are available.

DiRT 2 only has DX9 and DX11 support. Do you think this game might go the same way, and avoid a DX10 rendering path altogether?

K^2
31st Dec 2009, 14:10
I suppose that's possible. Not sure why, though. The only reason to go 11, at this point, is for Shader 5's capability to do some physics for you, but that would require major rework of the engine. I don't see that happening.

Irate_Iguana
1st Jan 2010, 13:36
I suppose that's possible. Not sure why, though. The only reason to go 11, at this point, is for Shader 5's capability to do some physics for you, but that would require major rework of the engine. I don't see that happening.

That is one reason. The other reason is to make a Spinal Tap reference.

Jerion
1st Jan 2010, 15:17
That is one reason. The other reason is to make a Spinal Tap reference.

:D Nice.

Mr. Perfect
2nd Jan 2010, 20:52
The other reason to use DX9 and DX11, but not DX10 is the OS support. You have to have DX9 for the XP crowd, but the Vista crowd can update their PCs to DX11 for free, and 7 comes with DX11 out of the box. Put a Direct X update on the install disk and you only need two paths. :)

K^2
3rd Jan 2010, 07:23
Yeah, but DirectX is backwards compatible, at least to a point. Making the game run on DX10 won't stop DX11 people from running it. And since SDK has been around for a while, and there is a lot of support and literature on its features and Shader 4, it would make more sense to use that if you don't need Shader 5 features.

Mr. Perfect
6th Jan 2010, 01:31
So let the DX10 people be backwards compatible with 9. :D Let's see some progress here. :)

You're probably right though, they'll shoot for the path or least resistance. It costs less.

K^2
6th Jan 2010, 04:13
Only Evergreen currently supports DX11/Shader 5. There is absolutely no point of making DX11 game if people will run it on DX10 cards. Because you are still using Shader 4 and all the DX10 caps.

DX9.0c support is a must. First of all, there are a lot of people still on XP. Secondly, modern mid-range cards start with Shader 3 support (the GF6xxx series). And Shader 3 is not that limiting. Adding DX10 caps on top of that would require completely separate initialization branch, and essentially a completely separate renderer. (There is a lot of code that can be recycled, but it's not a trivial fix overall.) So I'm not even sure if DX10 support would be worth the trouble. DX9/DX10/DX11 is not an option. So going DX9/DX11 route would only be worth the trouble if most non XP users would have DX11 capable cards, and I just don't see it happening within the next year.

P.S. Got W7 finally, so now I might actually upgrade to a DX10 or DX11 card. I'll probably wait for Nvidia, though.

Senka
6th Jan 2010, 04:48
Only Evergreen currently supports DX11
sif wait for nvidia, ATI all the way.

K^2
6th Jan 2010, 05:16
Other than GF5 series, I've always found Nvidia cards to be a bit better. They offer better OpenGL support (which is important for me) and lately, they've been beating ATI even in DX support. The only trouble is that they seem to come out with support for new features a bit later than ATI. But then they make up for it by fixing new glitches faster in driver support. So I'd rather wait.

Jerion
6th Jan 2010, 05:38
Don't forget the GF4MX, that was a nightmare. Since the GeForce 8000 series though, I've found myself favoring Nvidia. The ATI Radeon HD 5000 series looks interesting, though I want to see what The GT 300 series has to offer.

Senka
6th Jan 2010, 06:44
Ati had a massive comback with the 3000, I waited for the 4000 (got a 4870) and they continue to get better, while still being realistic prices. What was that ridiculous 8800.. ultra? bah. Although yeah I do think nvidia plays nicer with linux at least. But hey, who games on linux anyway :P

Irate_Iguana
6th Jan 2010, 08:10
Ati had a massive comback with the 3000, I waited for the 4000 (got a 4870) and they continue to get better, while still being realistic prices.

Ati certainly has nice cards, but for some reason most of the problems in games come from people with Ati cards. I've got one myself (an older one) and when looking for fixes for some games it turns out that the Ati users are just screwed while the nVidia guys aren't having problems.

If this is still the case I don't know, but it has made me look more towards nVidia for my next card.

Senka
6th Jan 2010, 09:31
Not really, the only problems I have had are with more... obscure titles (DCS Black Shark), which won't run unless Catalyst AI is off. No biggie though, I can hardly notice what it does anyway. Other than that my 4870 runs everything else great.

Cmd_lupin
6th Jan 2010, 16:51
I only hope they don't crank the minimum requirements to high. I don't have a "alien powered" PC and unfortunatly won't be able to upgrade for quite some time.
That aside - feel free to aim for the sky.

K^2
6th Jan 2010, 17:21
I would use Tomb Raider Underworld minimum requirements as a base line. Grab a demo of it. Play with settings. If it runs fine and smooth on just above minimal settings (or higher), you'll almost certainly be able to run DX3 at least on minimum settings. Since I know EM guys did a lot of optimization tweaks, it might actually end up running better than TRU despite all the extra visuals.

Grimesy
9th Jan 2010, 01:40
Still have my good old Intel Pentium 4 @ 3000 MHz(SINGLE-core, year 2005) with a NVIDIA GeForce 6600 as my main pc, have been saving up for 2 years now and have well over a thousand USD...

Just waiting for DX3 to come out...

Pinky_Powers
9th Jan 2010, 02:53
I suppose that's possible. Not sure why, though. The only reason to go 11, at this point, is for Shader 5's capability to do some physics for you, but that would require major rework of the engine. I don't see that happening.

Shader Models have nothing to do with physics, not even Model 5. There are other facets of DirectX that deals with physics though.

K^2
9th Jan 2010, 07:25
Shader Models have nothing to do with physics, not even Model 5. There are other facets of DirectX that deals with physics though.
Shader 5 allows more general access to vertex data buffered in VRAM. Long story short, you can make Shader 5 GPU run collision detection by "rendering" the collision models. CPU still handles adjusting object states accordingly, of course, so real physics is still running on CPU. The most expensive step gets shifted to the GPU, though, freeing up a bunch of CPU cycles.

Pinky_Powers
9th Jan 2010, 10:28
The GPU can still participate in physics calculations without the shader having anything to do with it; which is the case. The shader is not the whole GPU, and deals with many, many visual processes, but not physics.

At least that is how it should be. If they are telling us the shader is doing things other than visual-related processes, then they are now calling whatever the hell they want "shader technology", and the term is being misused and has become useless for the informed person.

It's like when people say their computer has run out of memory, when really they're talking about hard-drive space. :mad2:

gamer0004
9th Jan 2010, 10:31
It's like when people say their computer has run out of memory, when really they're talking about hard-drive space. :mad2:

Well technically speaking your HDD is a form of memory as well, right?

Pinky_Powers
9th Jan 2010, 13:55
Well technically speaking your HDD is a form of memory as well, right?

It's more like a library. You don't hold up a fifty-year-old book and praise it for its long memory, as all the words are just as they were when first published.

K^2
9th Jan 2010, 20:24
Term "memory" means any form of data storage in computer science. That's just the definition; deal with it.

And "Shader Technology" is a term for a specific vector-processing architecture. It was initially developed for dealing with lighting, hence the name. But Right now, Shader already deals with geometry transformations (rigged animations, for example) as well as displacement mapping. So the term "Shader" has been an archaic legacy for some time now. You are complaining about them keeping the name a few years too late, at least.

Vertex Shader Version 5 can handle collision detection, and it will be used for that heavily in DirectX 11. Deal with that also.

Pinky_Powers
10th Jan 2010, 05:42
You are complaining about them keeping the name a few years too late, at least.

Just as long as I'm complaining. :thumb: We are after all talking about stupidity engaged by ordinarily cleaver people... this is news, and should be discussed.

The same thing happened when a kid on another forum was talking about the "Orange Box Engine", and I told him there was no such thing, all the games in the Orange Box use the "Source Engine". Then he links me to an official Valve news post where they indeed referred to the Orange Box Engine. Aagh!! I was there six or seven years ago when Valve first showcased the Source Engine, but now all of a sudden Half Life 2, Episode 1, Episode 2, Portal and Team Fortress 2 are all run on the Orange Box Engine! No, they're not goddamn it.

Names and words are important to me, using the wrong ones brings chaos, and I don't like chaos unless it is achieved by my hands.

Senka
10th Jan 2010, 06:31
People call the updated source engine the Orange box engine. seriously, whats wrong with that. It's their engine they can call the updated version whatever they want.

Edit: Oh and also HL2 is still source engine, unless you get a mod updating it to Orange Box engine with the newer bloom effects yada yada

K^2
10th Jan 2010, 06:46
I'm not sure you understand how languages work, Pinky.

Pinky_Powers
10th Jan 2010, 08:52
I'm not sure you understand how languages work, Pinky.

I do, I just don't like it when it works poorly.

K^2
10th Jan 2010, 10:55
So we should assume that the part where words are just context-dependent labels must have been lost on you? Because "Memory", "Shader", and "Orange Box Engine" are just labels that imply very specific and well established meaning within the current context. There is no ambiguity, and there are good historical reasons for the names. This is how language is meant to work.

Pinky_Powers
10th Jan 2010, 11:18
So we should assume that the part where words are just context-dependent labels must have been lost on you? Because "Memory", "Shader", and "Orange Box Engine" are just labels that imply very specific and well established meaning within the current context. There is no ambiguity, and there are good historical reasons for the names. This is how language is meant to work.

Well, "Shader" is not even a real word, but is based on the word Shade. The definition they are applying it to now not only breaks the language, but also common sense.

As for the Orange Box Engine, well that's just stupid. The Source Engine had already been significantly updated with Half Life 2 Episode One, and yet it was still the Source Engine. ...but now they have to change the name? It's nonsensical.

K^2
10th Jan 2010, 11:47
Have you done any mod work with Source? Have you taken a note of changes in SDK related to Orange Box?

And "Shader" is the name which implied its original purpose, which the system has evolved beyond. Are you going to start complaining about every word like this? What do you call a "bus" (as in vehicle)? How about a saucer plate not used to hold sauce? And I bet you never use elevator to go down, right? I can keep going. Just about any word you use now has diverged from its archaic meaning. I'd have hard time coming up with half a dozen words that did not.

Pinky_Powers
10th Jan 2010, 14:18
Jesus... well put. Whatever, it's still all ugly nonsense and bad mojo.

And Elevators should be called "lifts" anyway... as "lift" doesn't have to mean up at all, but rather "to carry". ;)

After six beers and hours of mental purgatory in the form of strange and dangerous movies, I am not really up to replying with any of my usual energies or anguish... but I will say you've impressed me with your diligence and relentless pursuit to prove your point.

You're a sturdy horse, and one well worth riding.

K^2
10th Jan 2010, 18:02
I thought you'd bring up the "lift". But the thing is, original meaning is specifically to move things upwards. From that, it became almost synonymous with "pick up" in certain contexts. But that still implies an upward motion of some sort, even if simply metaphorical one. Calling elevator "lift" doesn't really help rectify misuse of the word in your voodoo-semantics.

Pinky_Powers
11th Jan 2010, 03:18
your voodoo-semantics.

I can't help but really like that phrase.

Senka
11th Jan 2010, 11:08
Well, "Shader" is not even a real word, but is based on the word Shade. The definition they are applying it to now not only breaks the language, but also common sense.

As for the Orange Box Engine, well that's just stupid. The Source Engine had already been significantly updated with Half Life 2 Episode One, and yet it was still the Source Engine. ...but now they have to change the name? It's nonsensical.

My brain melted a little when I read that.

K^2
11th Jan 2010, 22:38
I can't help but really like that phrase.
I thought you would. Consider it a late New Year's present.

Laokin
15th Jan 2010, 03:42
I thought you would. Consider it a late New Year's present.

That was the most semantics heavy conversation I have ever read.

Pinky_Powers
15th Jan 2010, 17:00
That was the most semantics heavy conversation I have ever read.

I guess we were both very bored.

Red Guy
19th Jan 2010, 20:15
I hope that Deus Ex 3 will not use online activation DRM because if so I will not buy it no matter how much I loved Deus Ex. Eidos should take example from CD Projekt RED (developers of The Withcer) who sold +1.2 mil copies. Not only they didn't use online activation but they removed disk check with patch 1.5. :thumb: This level of respect towards the fans is what I expect from Eidos.

Please, please, please! NO Securom, NO Steam, NO online activation whatsoever.

Red Guy
19th Jan 2010, 20:52
Hey pha, :wave:

Many thanks for the info.

kingspud
21st Jan 2010, 18:21
what hardware will DX3 need to run comfortably. I have an athlon x2 4400+ processor, 2 gb of ram and a nvidia 9600gt graphics card. will this be adequate or will i need to upgrade?

K^2
21st Jan 2010, 18:47
You should be fine. Keeping in mind the info we have on the game, it's a bit difficult to judge, but some estimates can be made. Basically, you can use Tomb Raider Underworld demo to gauge roughly how it will run. Try playing with graphics settings of the demo to see how far you can push them and still experience smooth frame rate. DX3 will have a whole lot more to deal with, but also better optimization for a lot of it, so performance should be similar enough. Still, if TRU demo just barely runs on settings you are happy with, DX3 might be even worse, so if that's the case, you should consider an upgrade. Otherwise, you should be good to go.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Jan 2010, 18:59
Or upgrade anyway? Just for that 'feel good' feeling...? :cool:

Pinky_Powers
21st Jan 2010, 23:17
Yeah, double the ram and upgrade the graphics card if you want to play at top settings.

The notion that Tomb Raider Underworld is an accurate barometer for what to expect from DX3 doesn't sit especially well with me. Sure, it's on the same base engine, but it will be severely modified, as will the physics, texture sizes, and poly-count of both characters and environments. The standards of a FPS are quite a bit higher than what you see in a Tomb Raider-style third-person game.

That's just my opinion though.

K^2
21st Jan 2010, 23:49
Tomb Raider Underworld could run on much, much weaker hardware if it was properly optimized. It didn't even make good use of Shader 3 model. Guys at Eidos Montreal are going to squeeze you hardware for all it has got, so it will allow for much more spectacular effects, higher poly count, and more complex geometry. Yeah, they could up the minimum specs, but it looks to me as if they can do everything they need on the same specs, so they probably will.

And as I said, it's not an accurate way to gauge it. And yes, the minimum specs might go up. But if TRU runs smoothly on high graphics settings, then you should be able to run DX3 smoothly, albeit you might have to reduce things like anisotropic filtering and AA settings. (More due to VRAM requirements than anything else.)

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jan 2010, 00:17
Apart from Crysis, I have yet to come across a game I haven't been able to run max'ed out on my 8800GTX, but I am expecting to have to pull a few settings down slightly on DX3... but probably not too much.

K^2
22nd Jan 2010, 00:52
Really? I managed to run Crysis maxed on 8800GT. Of course, I was running the system in a very clean configuration. So maybe your bottle neck wasn't graphics card. Maybe something in the background was messing it up.

Ashpolt
22nd Jan 2010, 01:05
On a single 8800GTX (I have 2 in SLi, but Crysis hates SLi) I could run with all the settings on Very High except for shadows and post processing, which were on High. Couldn't put AA on though.

Bizarrely, I found that the game actually ran worse with the settings on High than it did on Very High. Not that I was complaining!

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jan 2010, 01:07
Really? I managed to run Crysis maxed on 8800GT. Of course, I was running the system in a very clean configuration. So maybe your bottle neck wasn't graphics card. Maybe something in the background was messing it up.

By "max" do you mean High, or Very High settings?

And also, I'm on a duel-core, not quad, with only 2gb of system ram. So there were probably a few things at play there.

K^2
22nd Jan 2010, 03:58
And also, I'm on a duel-core, not quad, with only 2gb of system ram.
Yes, that's probably it. Duel cores are tricky. They refuse to work together, and just keep trying to load each other with enough processes to cause overheat. You really should have gone with a quad. Not much use for gaming, but a lot of fun to ride.

Oh, and are you familiar with the word "irony"?

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jan 2010, 07:45
Oh, and are you familiar with the word "irony"?

I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from with this question, but I guess you've gone over my head.

Senka
22nd Jan 2010, 07:47
max = all detail settings at max, except for perhaps variations of AA.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
22nd Jan 2010, 21:26
Yes, that's probably it. Duel cores are tricky. They refuse to work together, and just keep trying to load each other with enough processes to cause overheat. You really should have gone with a quad. Not much use for gaming, but a lot of fun to ride.

Isn't this sorted if you go into processes and set infinity and untick CPU1? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else here.
I have to do this to play Thief 2 fan missions. If I don't do it, the fan mission will freeze/crash. :hmm:

Senka
22nd Jan 2010, 23:11
Yeah but then you're running at half power! :P

Pinky_Powers
23rd Jan 2010, 00:30
max = all detail settings at max, except for perhaps variations of AA.

Ordinarily I would agree, but with Crysis people tend to dismiss the Very High settings as implausible.

Senka
23rd Jan 2010, 02:59
How does that change the definition for "max settings" It's not impossible, you just need newer hardware.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Jan 2010, 03:44
How does that change the definition for "max settings" It's not impossible, you just need newer hardware.

It only gets confusing when people use the term incorrectly. And when speaking about Crysis, they often do. So it sometimes requires a little qualification.

Are you going to be okay? This isn't too much for you to process is it?

K^2
23rd Jan 2010, 04:39
It was a while ago, but I'm pretty sure I cranked everything up as far as it would go. I just bought the system then, so Crysis is what I used to test it. The intro scene was a bit choppy, so I was going to dial it down, but then the gameplay started, and that was smooth, so I left it as is.

P.S. I really don't understand people who bought GTX, though. For that money you can buy two GT cards and SLI them together.

Senka
23rd Jan 2010, 04:57
Giving crysis it's own "max" is using the term incorrectly. Now stop attempting to belittle me, no one is stupid enough to say MAX and mean something different.

K^2
23rd Jan 2010, 05:44
Don't mind Pinky's inferiority complex that he tries to cover up with superiority mania.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Jan 2010, 07:17
P.S. I really don't understand people who bought GTX, though. For that money you can buy two GT cards and SLI them together.

Well, I started off with the original GTS that was released, and then after about a year I sold that and paid the difference for the GTX. These are the original builds, the 640mb and 756mb.


Giving crysis it's own "max" is using the term incorrectly. Now stop attempting to belittle me, no one is stupid enough to say MAX and mean something different.

Senka, you can say that all you want till you're blue in the face, but it's simply not the sad and ugly truth of the matter. A perfect example of this is K^2's claim that his 8800GT ran Crysis at it's fullest graphical settings. If he ran the game at only 1024x768, then I can see how maybe the frame-rate could be just barely playable. But, as he said himself, his memories on this weren't all that clear, so who really knows?

When the game was first released, there really weren't any computers that could run it at max settings and high resolution and still obtain a playable frame-rate. Crytek themselves admitted that the Very High settings were more of a "for future use" once hardware caught up with the thing. The 8800 series was the newest thing on the market when Crysis came out, and it suffered terribly under Very High settings. Most people had to ignore that setting all together, and High became Max in their minds.

That is why I employ clarifying questions when talking about Crysis.

And K^2 is probably right about my inferiority complex, but you're belittling yourself, old sport... or at the very least making it impossible for me not to.

K^2
23rd Jan 2010, 07:27
Well, I started off with the original GTS that was released, and then after about a year I sold that and paid the difference for the GTX.
That sounds more reasonable. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. I don't understand why people would spend money on a single GTX back when it was released. If you have more money than you know what to do with, and you want absolutely the best your money could buy, fine, SLI two GTX together. But buying just one instead of two GT cards makes no sense.

Senka
23rd Jan 2010, 10:44
And that's exactly why people said high or max/very high........ DERP

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jan 2010, 17:01
Yeah but then you're running at half power! :P
I guess so. But thank goodness I can still play the thiefy fan missions. :)

Mr. Perfect
27th Jan 2010, 23:43
Just ran across an interview with AMD's Richard Huddy (http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/interviews/2010/01/06/interview-amd-on-game-development-and-dx11/1), and it's got some interesting tid bits in it. This part most of all.


DX11 solves at least two big problems; number one is that it lets you get rid of a previous version of DirectX because DirectX 11 runs on 11, 10 and 9 hardware, when you were thinking about shipping you no longer have to have a version for each separate operating system: 9 for XP, 10 for Vista, 11 for Windows 7. The number of builds is reduced to just one, unlike Vista and DirectX 10 competing with XP and DirectX 9.

There's no additional version of DirectX that has to be dealt with now - dump DirectX 10, you just go to DirectX 11, do the feature level support and you're away. So, instead of not knowing how popular Vista will be on launch - which was the case with DirectX 10 - you've now got a Vista install base and a Windows 7 one. If you were a company like Crytek who did decide to do a DirectX 10 version of Crysis, that meant you had to wait five months after DirectX 10 had released before it launched its game. With DirectX 11 there's no reason to wait because we know that on day one we've got some crazy big number of PCs already supporting DirectX 11 thanks to a Service Pack 2 update for Vista and the popularity of pre-orders and the release candidate.

The feature level support is also a stroke of genius that they've always resisted before - make DirectX 11 work on DirectX 9 hardware. NOT by faking a software tesselator because that would be horrendous, but by saying "look, here's what you can do on DirectX 9/Shader Model 3, DirectX 10/Shader Model 4 and then finally give the full glory of DirectX 11/Shader Model 5 where we expose everything." That's excellent and something Microsoft has resisted before because they just wanted the new DirectX to run on the new hardware.


Very cool stuff, and yet I don't remember reading about that in articles about DX11. Everyone was interested in tessellation, DirectCompute, and all the other eye candy.

K^2
28th Jan 2010, 01:00
So basically, DX11 is the new DX9. That's good to know. Of course, you still have to write separate Shader code for the DX9/10/11 hardware, but that's not nearly as much work as writing a separate renderer for DX9/DX10.

Blade_hunter
28th Jan 2010, 01:25
And Open GL on this story ?

Jerion
28th Jan 2010, 01:35
And Open GL on this story ?

Ah, OpenGL. Tech 5 can't come soon enough.

Blade_hunter
28th Jan 2010, 01:43
You talk about the ID tech 5 engine ?