Page 4 of 10 First First 12345678 ... Last

Thread: Can your PC handle Batman?

Can your PC handle Batman?

  1. #76
    1024 X 768 I think...

  2. #77
    Originally Posted by GuedesTDK
    1024 X 768 I think...
    you think? if you dont even know the res of your monitor then I hope you wont be the one installing the video card. at that ridiculously low res any $50 card such as the 4650 will do. are you actually even buying a card though because you mentioned you were getting a 9600 at one time too?

  3. #78
    Originally Posted by GuedesTDK
    1024 X 768 I think...
    ok then how big is your monitor? (diagonal inches) is it widescreen or normal?

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

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,270
    Hey guys, just tried the demo and the game is awesome!! I'm definitely buying it!!!!

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15

    Upgrading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks!

    Beren

  6. #81
    Originally Posted by Beren
    I'm running a Core2Duo E4500 2.2GHz, L2 2MB, 800 MHz. 8600GT 512MB, 2 GB DDR2 800MHz. Vista Business (32 bit). 19" monitor. The monitor is old, IBM G94, but it works perfectly, even after 10 years.... !

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks!

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

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,270
    So I said my PC can handle the game, so I thought of posting the specs of my system...

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

    P.S. What is Physx?

  8. #83
    Originally Posted by angelus0901
    So I said my PC can handle the game, so I thought of posting the specs of my system...

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

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

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,270
    Originally Posted by trek554
    if you are seriously asking what physx is then you must have been living under a freaking rock. also during your rock living period a thing called google emerged and will allow you to find info on anything you desire .
    Dude, calm down... I ask cause I bought my new PC a month ago and haven't played any of the new games (so how could I have known about it)... And it's easier to ask you guys then search for it on Google...

  10. #85
    Originally Posted by angelus0901
    Dude, calm down... I ask cause I bought my new PC a month ago and haven't played any of the new games (so how could I have known about it)... And it's easier to ask you guys then search for it on Google...
    well I thought you were partly being sarcastic because you have an ATI card. and no it would actually be easier just to google it and get some real info. this is just a game forum and based on my time here there are only 3 or 4 people that know anything about pc stuff. physx discussions turn into arguments too since there are clearly some animosity for the way Nvidia is doing things? you have an ATI card so you will not be able to use hardware accelerated physx anyway. if you try to run it with your ATI card it will be ran on the cpu which will result in the game being unplayable even on normal physx setting.

  11. #86
    Originally Posted by angelus0901
    Dude, calm down... I ask cause I bought my new PC a month ago and haven't played any of the new games (so how could I have known about it)... And it's easier to ask you guys then search for it on Google...
    http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=96363
    the video on this thread is the short answer, let me know if you want the long one.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15
    Originally Posted by trek554
    no that cpu and mem upgrade will not do anything for you with the 8600gt in there. and running physx even on normal is not remotely playable on the 8600gt. what gtx are you talking about? if you do get a gtx260 then all you need to do is oc that cpu a bit and get more memory if you want. I would get a modern widescreen monitor before spending anything to upgrade that pc.
    Hi thanks for the input.

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

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

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

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

    Thanks,

    Beren

  13. #88
    Originally Posted by Beren
    Hi thanks for the input.

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

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

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

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

    Thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

  14. #89
    Originally Posted by deders
    If you want the Physx effects you will want a better GPU or 2, the extra ram will only really be worth it it for games in Vista as XP32 is limited to the amount it can use and doesn't use anywhere near as much (my XP32 install can only see 2.5GB out of my 4 because a gig of the total addressable memory is taken up by 2x512MB graphics cards, (i'm stil not entirely sure where the other 512MB goes)) when playing the game through on max settings it only ever uses 2 thirds of this, which is just over a 1.6gb (I have a program that monitors of this kind of information on a second monitor). Vista 32 may benefit from extra memory because it uses much more when compared to XP, but only a 64 bit operating system will be able to make use of all of it.

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

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

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

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


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

  15. #90
    Originally Posted by trek554
    well since you doubt me here goes. this is for the fight scene at the beginning of the demo so its action for nearly the entire benchmark. at no point in demo was it sluggish and I could even run AA if I wanted but I would rather keep a higher framerate. btw thats just an old 192sp gtx260 that I have.

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

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


    Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
    2742, 66301, 31, 53, 41.357
    yes for most parts of the game this would be fine, have you tried it on the scarecrow levels where there is much much more to calculate?

  16. #91
    Originally Posted by deders
    yes for most parts of the game this would be fine, have you tried it on the scarecrow levels where there is much much more to calculate?
    no I have not and I assume that is the full game you are talking about. I dont have the game yet and that benchmark was from the demo like I said. I tried my old 8600gt for dedicated physx and it was very inconsistent. after a dozen runs I had numbers all over the place most of which were worse than just using the gtx260 for everything. without the gtx260 my numbers are very consistent for that fight scene at the beginning of the demo. I know they recommend the 9800gtx for dedicated physx and I knew 8600gt would be pretty poor but I just wanted to see if it helped. 8600gt for physx=fail. lol

  17. #92
    Originally Posted by trek554
    no I have not and I assume that is the full game you are talking about. I dont have the game yet and that was from the demo like I said. I tried my old 8600gt for dedicated physx and it was very inconsistent. after a dozen runs I had numbers all over the place most of which were worse than just using the gtx260 for everything. without the gtx260 my numbers are very consistent for that fight scene at the beginning of the demo. I knew the 8600gt would be pretty poor but i just wanted to see if it helped.
    yeah, parts of the full game are much more demanding, hence the recommend specs.
    If you want to see what i'm on about check out this video:

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

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

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15
    So I bought an extra 2GB RAM today, held off on a CPU and was looking at GTX cards.

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

    Help? Which one should I go for?

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

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

    Thanks,

    Beren

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

  19. #94
    Originally Posted by Beren
    So I bought an extra 2GB RAM today, held off on a CPU and was looking at GTX cards.

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

    Help? Which one should I go for?

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

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

    Thanks,

    Beren

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

  20. #95
    Originally Posted by Beren
    So I bought an extra 2GB RAM today, held off on a CPU and was looking at GTX cards. Never mind which one(260, 275, 280 (295 too pricey for me right now)) but then I discover in the store that there are GTX cards from ASUS, EVGA, BFG etc...

    Help? Which one should I go for?

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

    Thanks,

    Beren

    P.S. I can't believe I don't have the game yet but I wanted to play it right. Also, IS there limited installs in place? That's why I've also been waiting, don't want to install, then reinstall after each upgrade...
    the make of card doesn't matter as much as the chipset (260/275 etc) there should be plenty bundled with Arkham Asylum, look online if you can't find any in the shops.

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

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

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15
    What would you suggest?

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

    2) $475 for a GTX 295?

    Thanks for your help, Trek and Deders

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

  22. #97
    Originally Posted by Beren
    What would you suggest?

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

    2) $475 for a GTX 295?

    Thanks for your help, Trek and Deders

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

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

    http://uk.slizone.com/object/slizone..._powersupplies

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

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

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

  23. #98
    Originally Posted by Beren
    What would you suggest?

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

    2) $475 for a GTX 295?

    Thanks for your help, Trek and Deders

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

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15
    Originally Posted by trek554
    a gtx295 would be a complete waste of money at this point and they dont even make gtx280 cards anymore. first you need to oc that cpu and then get a single gtx260 or gtx275 depending on what res you are at. so what res are you going to play at??
    I think I'd play at 1280X960...

    Now I found this:

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

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

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

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

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

  25. #100
    Originally Posted by Beren
    I was going to get the Collectors Edition but they don't have it for PC here in North America apparently! (WTF?)
    Check out the reviews on Utube, for me it's not as desirable as it sounds.

Page 4 of 10 First First 12345678 ... Last