Amount of PC power for GW2
Kokuyougan
How good of a PC will GW2 take to run? Will it still be geared to lower end PCs?
Gill Halendt
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kokuyougan
Will it still be geared to lower end PCs?
|
No one know the system requirements for GW2 yet, it's impossible even for developers to tell before they have some running build of the game.
kupp
They said that the game is supposed to be able to run smoothly on mid-range computers at that time.
It'll depend what hardware will exist then, but it's safe to say that any today's high-end computers will run the game pretty smoothly, mostly because they'll still be high-end even if better hardware exists. That said, there are no known requirements for GW2 yet, other than that you'll be able to run it either in DX9 or (I believe) DX10.
It'll depend what hardware will exist then, but it's safe to say that any today's high-end computers will run the game pretty smoothly, mostly because they'll still be high-end even if better hardware exists. That said, there are no known requirements for GW2 yet, other than that you'll be able to run it either in DX9 or (I believe) DX10.
Elder III
a current "low end computer" will probably struggle to play GW2 well, but until we have some open beta or a word from the developers on it we just don't know what the requirements will be to run it smoothly.
tijo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elder III
a current "low end computer" will probably struggle to play GW2 well, but until we have some open beta or a word from the developers on it we just don't know what the requirements will be to run it smoothly.
|
Since it's a MMO, the more people buy it, the better for arena net. In order to get as much sales as possible, GW2 will have to run on low end PCs at the time of release.
russiansteven
Do you guys think my current PC will be able to handle Guild Wars 2 when it plays Guild Wars perfectly on max settings?
Quaker
Yes, but maybe not at max settings.
Keep in mind that there is a big difference between "run smoothly" and "run at max settings". Lots of computers can run GW1 "smoothly" at reduced graphics settings, and, of course, the resolution of your monitor or the resolution you play at, makes a big difference too. It takes a lot less power to run at 1366x768 than it does at 1920x1200.
Keep in mind that there is a big difference between "run smoothly" and "run at max settings". Lots of computers can run GW1 "smoothly" at reduced graphics settings, and, of course, the resolution of your monitor or the resolution you play at, makes a big difference too. It takes a lot less power to run at 1366x768 than it does at 1920x1200.
wind fire and ice
Gaile said they're going to make it easy to run by standards at the time it's released,but your mom's computer from 3 years ago probably won't be able to handle it.
Frenzy.CL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by russiansteven
Do you guys think my current PC will be able to handle Guild Wars 2 when it plays Guild Wars perfectly on max settings?
|
farmerfez
most likely going to be high end of gw settings will be the low end of gw2
aka I don't think integrated graphics will run it very well, youll probably need an expansion card of some sort.
aka I don't think integrated graphics will run it very well, youll probably need an expansion card of some sort.
Bob Slydell
Right now GW2 (in the screenshots) looks like GW1, but again it's still in Alpha stages I'm assuming. If the graphics get a significant amount better for the next gen I will assume that you can max GW out on a Radeon HD 3xxx Series card and get around 30 fps. I can max GW 1 on my x1600 and get about that maybe slightly lower so I think the HD 3000 series will be the medium end. 2000 series the lower end.
Thats my idea for GW 2.
Thats my idea for GW 2.
moriz
you need to go look at the warrior videos. GW2 looks significantly better than GW1 right now.
Elder III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbeJSxqB9hI
watch that in 1080p = boo yeah, I wanna play it
Seriously, the terrain isn't all that great, but the characters are much more detailed and textured than anything in GW1 and the effects (ie fire, shock waves etc.) are waaaaaaaaaay better and will take a much bigger toll on your system. Based on the various videos & trailers I've seen I'd say Bob Slydell isn't too far off, although I do not think you will be able to get playable fps in GW2 at any decent resolution with a 2000 series GPU. I'm gonna guess that a 9600 GT or HD 4650 are what you want to aim for to avoid having to turn all the eye candy off at say 1680 x 1050.... but that's just a guess and should under no circumstances be taken to the bank. :P
watch that in 1080p = boo yeah, I wanna play it
Seriously, the terrain isn't all that great, but the characters are much more detailed and textured than anything in GW1 and the effects (ie fire, shock waves etc.) are waaaaaaaaaay better and will take a much bigger toll on your system. Based on the various videos & trailers I've seen I'd say Bob Slydell isn't too far off, although I do not think you will be able to get playable fps in GW2 at any decent resolution with a 2000 series GPU. I'm gonna guess that a 9600 GT or HD 4650 are what you want to aim for to avoid having to turn all the eye candy off at say 1680 x 1050.... but that's just a guess and should under no circumstances be taken to the bank. :P
pinkeyflower
They haven't released the system specs required but said it will support DX10, have a physics engine, and use occlusion culling technology. They've also said that is will run great on mid-range PCs.
However, I think that you will probably be able to play the game of low-end PCs (depending on how low) but on low graphics settings.
However, I think that you will probably be able to play the game of low-end PCs (depending on how low) but on low graphics settings.
Lord Sojar
nVidia 7600 or ATi x1800 GTO as minimum cards (to be able to run the game)
nVidia 8800GT or ATi 3870 as recommended cards for full settings.
So, to run that game at a resolution higher than 1024x768, cranked up to max, you'll need something like an ATi HD4670 or 9800GTX. To play at a 1600x???(?) resolution, you'll want a GTX260 or HD4850 or better (and that should power it up to 1920x1080 with AA enabled) without much issue. Anything more powerful than that is just guaranteeing higher frames or a resolution above 1080p.
nVidia 8800GT or ATi 3870 as recommended cards for full settings.
So, to run that game at a resolution higher than 1024x768, cranked up to max, you'll need something like an ATi HD4670 or 9800GTX. To play at a 1600x???(?) resolution, you'll want a GTX260 or HD4850 or better (and that should power it up to 1920x1080 with AA enabled) without much issue. Anything more powerful than that is just guaranteeing higher frames or a resolution above 1080p.
moriz
that seems to be a bit too high of an estimate. last time i checked, GTX260 is still considered a high end/enthusiast graphic card.
as for minimum, i think it will be an intel GMA X3000, since it has the necessary shader model 3.0 support.
as for minimum, i think it will be an intel GMA X3000, since it has the necessary shader model 3.0 support.
Lord Sojar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
that seems to be a bit too high of an estimate. last time i checked, GTX260 is still considered a high end/enthusiast graphic card.
as for minimum, i think it will be an intel GMA X3000, since it has the necessary shader model 3.0 support. |
The specs above minimum and recommended where my estimates based on resolution scaling VS anti aliasing.
PuppyEater
Will it be more demanding than GW1? Sure. Will it be extremely demanding? Unlikely. The end goal here is to make money. They are going to shoot for expected average gamer computer stats not cater to people with hypothetical space computers...
Lord Sojar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PuppyEater
Will it be more demanding than GW1? Sure. Will it be extremely demanding? Unlikely. The end goal here is to make money. They are going to shoot for expected average gamer computer stats not cater to people with hypothetical space computers...
|
That is, minus my speculation based on resolution scaling.
pinkeyflower
Basically consider what is a mid to high-range computer is today. What is it by the way (vaguely)? And basically buy something slightly better than that because since GW2 is coming out in 2011 and development nearing completion at the end of 2010 I wouldn't expect there to be too much difference in terms of what a mid-range computer is now and what it will be considered to be then.
moriz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by I Pwn Brownies
Go look at every single MMO/RPG trailer and pre-game videos companies release for them, and tell me the game DOES look like the videos...They don't, kthx.
I would guess an average/above-average gaming PC. An actual video card, 4GB RAM, 2.6~ GHz Dual-Core Processor. Any Laptop that costs $400 now, basically. |
every GW2 video released so far consists entirely of ingame captures, with the obvious exception of the moving concept art portions in the first trailer. as such, the warrior videos are EXACTLY what GW2 looked like at the time the videos were made, and it has shown a significant increase in image quality over GW1, even over earlier videos such as the first and races trailers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord Sojar
You realize the specs I gave are the current official specs yes?
That is, minus my speculation based on resolution scaling. |
Lord Sojar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
source? not that you aren't trustworthy, but i'd have to see it myself to believe this.
|
Really not sure how to show you an email from a friend at nVidia who will remain confidential for obvious reasons... @_@
moriz
well then, those aren't really "official" specs, since they haven't been released yet, right?
Lord Sojar
I will not tolerate petty arguing and trolling in Technician's Corner. Stay on topic, and do not insult each other. Argue with facts; argue against another person's idea or concept, not against their person. Argumentum ad hominem is not acceptable!
Back on topic....
Moriz was correct, in actuality. The Elementalist and Warrior skill montages were released using the GW2 graphics engine. That is exactly how the game will look at release. It may even look slightly better, thanks to optimization, higher resolution textures, anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering being added or greatly improved in very late development.
In regards to your second point, just...no. A $400 dollar laptop will barely be able to run GW2, much less run it at a decent resolution or have any chance of running it with many effects enabled.
You have severely overestimated the performance of a budget computer. A $400 laptop is an ultra portable or netbook. Those type of laptops can barely run Guild Wars 1... forget 2. They use CULV CPUs and either integrated graphics from Intel (which are sub par for any form of 3D gaming barring direct console ports, and even those don't run at high settings) or ultra mobile solutions (and the majority of those are from nVidia in the form of ION/2 or Tegra2, both of which lack enough power to play Guild Wars at high resolution or settings; again, forget Guild Wars 2 in that equation.
I don't think you are questioning their officialdom at this point, but merely their finality? If I'm wrong, feel free to point out why nVidia's in house testing used to determine the required processing power and driver optimizations that will eventually appear on the retail box and official GW2 website wouldn't be "official".
Slightly offtopic again....
If you'd like to argue this further, feel free. I welcome healthy debate, but will not tolerate personal insults or ad hominem bullshit, period.
Back on topic....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by I Pwn Brownies
Go look at every single MMO/RPG trailer and pre-game videos companies release for them, and tell me the game DOES look like the videos...They don't, kthx.
I would guess an average/above-average gaming PC. An actual video card, 4GB RAM, 2.6~ GHz Dual-Core Processor. Any Laptop that costs $400 now, basically. |
In regards to your second point, just...no. A $400 dollar laptop will barely be able to run GW2, much less run it at a decent resolution or have any chance of running it with many effects enabled.
You have severely overestimated the performance of a budget computer. A $400 laptop is an ultra portable or netbook. Those type of laptops can barely run Guild Wars 1... forget 2. They use CULV CPUs and either integrated graphics from Intel (which are sub par for any form of 3D gaming barring direct console ports, and even those don't run at high settings) or ultra mobile solutions (and the majority of those are from nVidia in the form of ION/2 or Tegra2, both of which lack enough power to play Guild Wars at high resolution or settings; again, forget Guild Wars 2 in that equation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
well then, those aren't really "official" specs, since they haven't been released yet, right?
|
Slightly offtopic again....
If you'd like to argue this further, feel free. I welcome healthy debate, but will not tolerate personal insults or ad hominem bullshit, period.
moriz
oh, i'm not really doubting nvidia's in-house testing, it's just that it seems a bit higher than what i'd expect. GTX260 and HD4850 are still considered high end hardware nowadays.
curiously enough, all the radeon cards quoted are of lower performance categories. is this because of DX10.1 being used?
curiously enough, all the radeon cards quoted are of lower performance categories. is this because of DX10.1 being used?
Lord Sojar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
oh, i'm not really doubting nvidia's in-house testing, it's just that it seems a bit higher than what i'd expect. GTX260 and HD4850 are still considered high end hardware nowadays.
curiously enough, all the radeon cards quoted are of lower performance categories. is this because of DX10.1 being used? |
And that might be the likely case, since the ATi cards have a slight edge when DX10.1 is used.
Elder III
as an owner of a pair of 4850's, I think I'm pretty familiar with their performance, just based on the game play videos we have seen thus far, I'd not be surprised if a single 4850 would be hard pressed to do very much over 60FPS with max settings, 4xAA & 16X AF @ 1080p - of course most people do not play at that resolution and don't notice a difference with or without AA, so I suspect that lower settings and resolution would not take much over a 4600 series to run at acceptable framerates....
It's hard to make objective statements about what you think a game will perform like if you don't include the resolution and settings you want to play at - huge difference in what you need to max something out at 1280x1024 with no AA/AF and what you need to max it out at 1920x1200 with all the eye candy cranked up.
It's hard to make objective statements about what you think a game will perform like if you don't include the resolution and settings you want to play at - huge difference in what you need to max something out at 1280x1024 with no AA/AF and what you need to max it out at 1920x1200 with all the eye candy cranked up.
Quaker
^^^ Didn't I say that way back at the start?
And, I'll re-phrase it - there's no official definition of the terms "run smoothly" and "mid-range computer", but I can guarantee, based on the responses in this and other threads, that they have a different meaning to "gamers/enthusaists" than they do to normal people.
And, I'll re-phrase it - there's no official definition of the terms "run smoothly" and "mid-range computer", but I can guarantee, based on the responses in this and other threads, that they have a different meaning to "gamers/enthusaists" than they do to normal people.
Elder III
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quaker
^^^ Didn't I say that way back at the start?
|
End
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elder III
as an owner of a pair of 4850's, I think I'm pretty familiar with their performance, just based on the game play videos we have seen thus far, I'd not be surprised if a single 4850 would be hard pressed to do very much over 60FPS with max settings, 4xAA & 16X AF @ 1080p - of course most people do not play at that resolution and don't notice a difference with or without AA, so I suspect that lower settings and resolution would not take much over a 4600 series to run at acceptable framerates....
|
Showtime
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by End
I am hoping that GW2 will handle tri-sli much better then it does as it stands I get higher fps taking a video card out(lent my video card to a friend for a little bit) then I do with tri-sli
|
I have dual core @ 2.6ghz with an ati 4850 and can run the game smoothly on max settings at 1080. Heck I was getting decent quality on a an opty @2ghz with an old ati 9800np vid card @ 1650x1050.
Before upgrading or building a new rig...
1st thing you want to do is figure out the rez you will be gaming at. I recommend trying to go 1650 wide or better. Avoid 1920x1080 monitors (i have one) if you can and get a 1920 x 1200 instead. You'll appreciate being able to see further down. That being said, don't buy now for a future game unless you have to buy now. Parts only go down unless something funny is happening (like when chip companies artificially kept the price of ram high several years ago). I am sure what I currently have will play the gw2 @ 1080 decently. Won't have all the eye candy turned on, but it should be fine to play through. I don't need upgrade for anything else right now so I won't do it now. I do like things to look nice and with all those new effects, I might have to. But I'll wait till the game comes out and upgrade just what I need to get it look right.