System Reqs

[rEdaSbLood 1]

so i checked if my (dads) computer is worthy to run RA3, and it seems so

 

3.0ghz intel dual core

3gb RAM

ATI Radeon HD 2400

 

is my graphics card compatable? im pretty sure it is, just wanted to check with people who know better...

 

if it is compatable, would it run the game well or laggy?

 

its a new DELL. XPS 420 specifically...

Edited November 3, 2008 by rEdaSbLood

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Mine runs it well and I don't have anything that impressive. You'll be fine. Now quit wasting time and play the damn game.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

AFFIRMATIVE!

 

just wanted some reinforcement....

 

my next post here will probably be about how well it runs on this machine...

 

EDIT:

 

GOT IT!... installing as i type...

 

i walked to the PC games section, didnt see it, looked for 15 minutes, and found it hiding behind another game...i got nervous

and i couldnt hold the excitement so i opened it when i got into my car, which when i started beastie boys NO SLEEP TILL BROOKLYN came on..

coincidence? i think not...

Edited November 4, 2008 by rEdaSbLood

[rEdaSbLood 1]

so i played all three factions on skirm just to get to know them....Empire is my fav, allies second fav

 

gonna give the campaign a shot...

 

graphics had to be set to low to run game smooth on my machine...

 

not as impressed as i thought id be...i may consider selling it...

 

overall cool game

 

pathfinding was horrible though...

[Nmenth 291]

pathfinding was horrible though...

People keep saying that, getting me worried... Is it worse than C&C 3 or Generals?

[rEdaSbLood 1]

well i dont remember C&C3's pathfinding, but i just played Generals the other day and..

 

a little better i guess...

 

but lets just say i had a crowded base, and i sent an mcv to the back of it. obviously it couldnt fit, but it just turned around and stopped.

 

thats one example...

 

considering my comp stats, i think the game is graphically demanding...

 

still though i havent given it a good run yet

[Inferno 22]

Well after two hours my graphics card starts crapping out on me too.... some random stuff starts happening like random black spots and vertical lines outta nowhere..... but I guess that's simply because my card (7900GS) gets hot quite quickly.

[spark 0]

I am running Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz), 2GB RAM and NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT... Can only run the game smoothly on "Medium" Visual Settings, it starts to lag idf I switch to "High"... *Sigh*

 

The graphics requirement is really high?!

[joey11223 0]

I suppose it must be because although it some ways it is aimed at casual gamers it wants those hardcore RTS gamers too, in fact to be honest most of the games I've bought this year(not many though I guess) are kinda demanding.

 

I think with you guys it's solely the graphics card though, 3gb of ram sounds way enough to me, I think you can get an 8800GT 512mb card for like £80-90 now and that should play it high settings fine, I have a HD4870 512mb and it's completely fine on all ultra high/high(some dont have ultra).

[mustangt125 0]

I have a sony vaio laptop thats about a 1.5 or so years old. To run civ4 bts I have to put settings on medium. Do you think I will be able to run this game, or would I be better off with the 360 version?

[joey11223 0]

generally unless you buy those really pricey gaming laptops, laptops aint great for games, especially the newer ones coming out, i'd say if you want to it to be smooth go 360 but RTS on a console...shudders.

[mustangt125 0]

Alright here is what www.systemrequirementslab.com told me:

 

Video Card

Minimum: DirectX 9.0c, For XP - 64 MB NVIDIA GeForce 4+/ Radeon 8500+ video Card. For Vista 128 MB NVIDIA GeForce 6100+ /Radeon 9500+

You Have: Mobile Intel® 945GM Express Chipset Family (Intel® GMA 950)

FAIL: Sorry, your video card does not meet this minimum requirement.

Video Card Features - Minimum attributes of your Video Card

 

Video RAM: Required - 128 MB , You have - 224 MB

Video Card 3D Acceleration: Required - Yes , You have - Yes

Video HW Transform & Lighting: Required - Yes , You have - No

Vertex Shader Ver.: Required - 2.0 , You have - 0.0

Pixel Shader Ver.: Required - 2.0 , You have - 2.0

 

 

 

Do you think I could play through that on my computer since it's only missing the transform and lighting? Honestly, I know nothing about what those numbers and stuff mean but I am skeptical to play ra3 on 360 after I loved ra2 on my computer so much.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

well i cant answer that, but i can add that C&Cs on 360 arent so bad

 

matter of fact, i have Tib Wars for it and it runs great, and the controls are a breeze once you get used to it...really

[joey11223 0]

Alright here is what www.systemrequirementslab.com told me:

 

Video Card

Minimum: DirectX 9.0c, For XP - 64 MB NVIDIA GeForce 4+/ Radeon 8500+ video Card. For Vista 128 MB NVIDIA GeForce 6100+ /Radeon 9500+

You Have: Mobile Intel® 945GM Express Chipset Family (Intel® GMA 950)

FAIL: Sorry, your video card does not meet this minimum requirement.

Video Card Features - Minimum attributes of your Video Card

 

Video RAM: Required - 128 MB , You have - 224 MB

Video Card 3D Acceleration: Required - Yes , You have - Yes

Video HW Transform & Lighting: Required - Yes , You have - No

Vertex Shader Ver.: Required - 2.0 , You have - 0.0

Pixel Shader Ver.: Required - 2.0 , You have - 2.0

 

 

 

Do you think I could play through that on my computer since it's only missing the transform and lighting? Honestly, I know nothing about what those numbers and stuff mean but I am sceptical to play ra3 on 360 after I loved ra2 on my computer so much.

 

ehhh it may be that one of the functions the card is capable of, say pixel shader version 2 as an example is completely necessary, so for that reason the fact your integrated hard can't do that video HW transform thing may been it literally can't play it, but I don't that for certain. Even if it could though with integrated graphics you will have to play it on low settings probably, especially water and shadows, probably turn off shadows if the option is there to try avoid real slow down.

Edited November 4, 2008 by joey11223

[Inferno 22]

Why the video games are so demanding nowadays is really weird to me..... I mean being able to play the newest games on the highest setting requires a new video card every 3 months or something? Who does that :/

[joey11223 0]

bit of an exaggeration, depends how much you shell out in the first place and if you get ripped off buying a card that may be kinda pricey but isn't very good. I mean if you buy a computer made for you they always skimp on the graphics card, they'll tell you " with the 8600GT you will blow away any games"....yeah right.

 

I mean i just bought a HD4870, havent bought a computer for like 5 years so i did spend like £800 building this one, but it's one of the best cards out right now and i wont upgrade it for at least a year and a half and doubt with RTS's i'll need to. But if you buy say a 9600 now for £70-80, then yeah a new game in six months time with good graphics will push it.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

well what machine would be top-of-the-line? processer, RAM, graphics card, etc?

 

and how much would it cost to build? (in $ if you can)

 

when does starcraft2 come out? one thing that caught my attention is that they didn't make the graphics rediculous just good enough, focusing on more important things...

[joey11223 0]

well what machine would be top-of-the-line? processer, RAM, graphics card, etc?

 

and how much would it cost to build? (in $ if you can)

 

when does starcraft2 come out? one thing that caught my attention is that they didn't make the graphics ridiculous just good enough, focusing on more important things...

 

hmm well sometimes videos are deceptive, although the graphics aren't top of the line they don't look much worse then RA3 and when watching one of the videos i noticed how smooth and organic some creatures looked. Anyway top of the line is hard to say, i mean you COULD spend like £3000 and have some mega machine. But in general if you build it yourself and pay say around £800-900 your machine would be able to handle any game out(crysis...it depends) now and probably for a while as long as you stay away from new shooters like Crysis, its in another league to every other game out.

 

Hmm thing is bar your graphics card your comp looks good, I'd say just buy a better graphics card. Should be ok, although sometimes with a Dell their motherboards are really picky, as in they don't let you change hardware without going silly. But it is a much easier and cheaper option since you said it's a new DELL. You'd need to find out if the motherboard has a PCI-e x16 slot or not, it probably does but can't be sure with a dell. This information may not be available on the specs that are on the site about your dell, not exactly sure how you find out because they have custom motherboards which you can't buy otherwise.

 

If you do decide at some point to buy a new computer it is cheaper in the US then over here in the UK. Mine just cost me £850( so like $1400-1500 i guess) but you;d probably pay more like $1,100. Maybe less.

 

I recommend if you have questions to go to this forum, www.tech-forums.net/pc it's a great site and they are mainly US people, really helpful people there and quick responses.

Edited November 4, 2008 by joey11223

[rEdaSbLood 1]

wel theres a problem, the computer i mentioned in this topic isn't mine, and i cannot upgrade it

 

so i wanted a ballpark estimate of what it would cost to build my own high quality machine...lets just say for now to run RA3 ultra high extremely smooth...

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I'm building a fairly high powered machine and I've got $2200 on it without the mobo/processor because they're not out yet. However, you could knock a few hundred off by using parts that are available already and not dual booting like I will be.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

dual booting?

 

2200 isnt bad

[Doctor Destiny 41]

dual booting?

I'm going to run XP Pro and Vista Home Premium at the same time. XP for the application compatability and Vista solely for DX10.

 

2200 isnt bad

That's without the mobo and processor, which will add another $800 between them.

[joey11223 0]

I'm going to run XP Pro and Vista Home Premium at the same time. XP for the application compatability and Vista solely for DX10.

 

 

That's without the mobo and processor, which will add another $800 between them.

 

hmm that's a pretty damn pricey rig, dual card solution I assume? And I guess one of those around $300 mobos?

 

That's en extreme rig though, I mean I'll give you a run down of my new rig, pretty good, not crazy but it runs everything I have on max settings without any problems( Dawn of war, Supreme Commander, C&C3, dead space, COD4).

 

I have...

 

Q6600( you could go with an E8400 or 8500 instead, their duals when Q is a quad but the debate on what is better for gaming is awkward, many will say the 3ghz dual cores, I personally went with a quad because i won't upgrade for a while so i may as well make it more future proof)

2x2gb DDR800 OCZ reapers( any good quality ram will do, 4-4-4-12 timings is good)

ATI HD4870 512mb, one of the better single cards solutions on a reasonable budget, under £200 for me. On GPU rankings it's third on the best single graphics card so is damn good.

ASUS P5Q Pro mobo. Good P45 mobo, not outrageously pricey and OC's well if your into that.

Antec 900 gamer case

OCZ vendetta 2 CPU cooler

Corsair 520watt modular power supply

Vista 64-bit home premium

 

..that's the main parts of it, also got a G11 keyboard, razer copperhead mouse and some decent 2.1 speakers. That comes to around £850 here so I'd imagine $1,300 or something from places like newegg(think that's one of the main USA computer component sites)

[Doctor Destiny 41]

hmm that's a pretty damn pricey rig, dual card solution I assume? And I guess one of those around $300 mobos?

I'm contemplating on the new X58 boards that use the new Intel socket architecture. However, I may rethink my position to shave some cash off of that price. We'll see how prices go when I have the cash to build it. Not dual card, just one - a 9800 GTX+.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

well what exactly is the graphics card responsible for? yesterday, in RA3 i lowered the res to 800x600 and upped some of the graph qualitys and it runs just as good. im gonna raise it today probably too - see how much i can get away with.

 

EDIT: DD 3000 isn't that bad depending on how much you wanna spend. i mean i built a HQ machine on the big consumer sites like DELL and ALIENWARE and they were double that.

Edited November 5, 2008 by rEdaSbLood