PC system specs (Demo) - Page 4

nilmanu · 07-05-2008, 10:29 AM

In the Links to GRiD thread I posted this link last week.

I think that the info could be interesting to figure out how GRiD could perfom.

But the demo is just around the corner... so... be patient!.

Enjoy!

CorvetteC6.R · 07-05-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nilmanu

In the Links to GRiD thread I posted this link last week.

I think that the info could be interesting to figure out how GRiD could perfom.

But the demo is just around the corner... so... be patient!.

Enjoy!

http://www.brickfish.com/Entertainment/GRID

apperently May 8th to be exact...

skyline-gtr · 07-05-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorvetteC6.R

http://www.brickfish.com/Entertainment/GRID

apperently May 8th to be exact...

Looks like you are right. News on preparing for the demo thread shows this. Probably released tomorrow morning on all platforms.

ChrisHathaway · 10-05-2008, 01:39 PM

It is nice to see that the team have corrected issues with the core engine, sound effects also no longer over taxing the game. Job well done I’m thinking!

All settings on max, 4xFSAA, 1280x1024 and the frame rate was steady around 40-60fps, minimal tearing, no real slowdown caused by quantity of cars on the road, more on overall view distance taxation, that of course is worth it and unavoidable, so some real progression with the engine in my books!

It was smooth at the end of the day, none of that mad slow down nonsense like in DiRT Buggy sections! So I reckon a lot of people will see better performance on their machines too!

My Specs:

Vista64
X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 800mhz DC
Ati HD3850 OC Edition

How does the 360 version compare to max'd PC settings people?

Reason I ask is that PS3 version is WAY better looking than my PC version! Normally 360 is about high end PC level, so unless Codemasters have treated 360 owners, is the PS3 definitely the best looking and running version?

Either way congratulation on sorting the engine for PS3, very impressed that it looks a lot better on PS3, by quite a margin!

Nuke142 · 10-05-2008, 02:04 PM

Athlon X2 3800+ @2.7ghz
2gb pc3200
x1950pro 512mb

1024x768 all max 4xmsa.
30 fps at start and >35fps during race.
Delightful optimization! Dirt worked worse.

dirty-dog · 10-05-2008, 02:12 PM

P4 3.0C
1GB PC3200
7600GT 256MB
Windows XP Home SP2

1280x1024, all settings low or off, no AA/AF... average ~20fps (if this is delightfully optimised, I'd hate to see badly optimised...)

Knocking it down to 800x600 makes little difference either.

The stated minimum system requirements are not realistic I'm afraid. If my system is too old and slow then so be it, but I think you should use honest system requirements. My machine meets them yet even (averaging) 30fps is way out of reach.

ChrisHathaway · 10-05-2008, 02:24 PM

Problem is chaps, good new hardware is cheap right now.

my 4gb of ram was just £48!

my HD3850 OC is under £90

A good dual core cpu can cost around £55

A decent Asus mobo about £40.

I know it stacks up as you go, but thing is single cpu's are very old now, you just don't realise it, I finally did when DiRT came out, I'd been pedling a 4 year old PC 3.0ghz DDR400 Athlon Barton, with a X850 pro, it was just time to realise it was 4 years old and thats good going for pc hardware!

And never forget, ebaying your old kit easily yeilds 33-66% return on the new kit you buy!

dirty-dog · 10-05-2008, 02:28 PM

Sure but if I was gonna spend £200+ building a new PC (because with the age of mine, that's what I'd need to do; it can't be upgraded beyond what it currently is) I may as well just get an Xbox 360 for £150.

I don't particularly care whether my machine can play a given game well or not; I just think that when a developer says it can run acceptably on a particular spec machine, it should do - isn't that reasonable?

ChrisHathaway · 10-05-2008, 02:39 PM

Not really, no.

Term of reasonable is quite surprising to be honest!

And it depends if you have tried the lowest resolution, lowest settings including sound and so on.

They will also assume you system is in tiptop condition, latest and most reliable drivers, that all installed hardware co-exists happily together.

On lowest spec machines they will assume the hard drive is in good conditon and good swap file performance.

Another biggy is ram, it asks for 1gb. Fair enough, but realise that they'll be expecting 400mhz DDR, as was the best available during the year of the cpu's they are quoting as minimum.

If you're on 333mhz or worse still 266mhz then you'll be fealling the pain for sure!

My revised min specs would extend to:

Minimum Specifications

Windows XP/Vista. (If running Windows Vista, SP1 is recommended)
DirectX 9.0c
Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz or Athlon 64 3000+

1GB RAM. 400mhz DDR1, prefabably not spread between more than 2 chips

Graphics Card: GeForce 6800 / Radeon X1300 or above, latest drivers and minimum performance settings to be selected from the respective graphics panel.

DirectX Compatible Sound Card - Ensure lowest sound selected within game.

Dual Layer Compatible DVD-ROM Drive

12.5 GB Hard Drive Space and well maintained hard drive.

dakn · 10-05-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisHathaway

All settings on max, 4xFSAA, 1280x1024 and the frame rate was steady around 40-60fps,

How can a difference of 20fps be steady?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisHathaway

very impressed that it looks a lot better on PS3, by quite a margin.

Well according to everyone that has both consoles they all say the 360 version looks better because the PS3 has no AA...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirty-dog

P4 3.0C
1GB PC3200
7600GT 256MB
Windows XP Home SP2

1280x1024, all settings low or off, no AA/AF... average ~20fps (if this is delightfully optimised, I'd hate to see badly optimised...)

Your PC barely meets the minimum requirements and the 7600GT is really no gaming card for recent high spec games. GRID imo is VERY optomised.

07-05-2008, 10:29 AM	#31 (permalink)
nilmanu Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Spain Posts: 31	Pre-release benchmark In the Links to GRiD thread I posted this link last week. I think that the info could be interesting to figure out how GRiD could perfom. But the demo is just around the corner... so... be patient!. Enjoy! __________________ Looking for situation vacants in the video game industry!. Searching the number 42 in google!. Last edited by nilmanu; 07-05-2008 at 10:38 AM.

10-05-2008, 01:39 PM	#34 (permalink)
ChrisHathaway Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 87	Ruuing nice on Vista64! But crikey the PS3 version is Awesome! It is nice to see that the team have corrected issues with the core engine, sound effects also no longer over taxing the game. Job well done I’m thinking! All settings on max, 4xFSAA, 1280x1024 and the frame rate was steady around 40-60fps, minimal tearing, no real slowdown caused by quantity of cars on the road, more on overall view distance taxation, that of course is worth it and unavoidable, so some real progression with the engine in my books! It was smooth at the end of the day, none of that mad slow down nonsense like in DiRT Buggy sections! So I reckon a lot of people will see better performance on their machines too! My Specs: Vista64 X2 6000+ 4GB DDR2 800mhz DC Ati HD3850 OC Edition How does the 360 version compare to max'd PC settings people? Reason I ask is that PS3 version is WAY better looking than my PC version! Normally 360 is about high end PC level, so unless Codemasters have treated 360 owners, is the PS3 definitely the best looking and running version? Either way congratulation on sorting the engine for PS3, very impressed that it looks a lot better on PS3, by quite a margin! Last edited by ChrisHathaway; 10-05-2008 at 01:42 PM.

10-05-2008, 02:12 PM	#36 (permalink)
dirty-dog Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 28	P4 3.0C 1GB PC3200 7600GT 256MB Windows XP Home SP2 1280x1024, all settings low or off, no AA/AF... average ~20fps (if this is delightfully optimised, I'd hate to see badly optimised...) Knocking it down to 800x600 makes little difference either. The stated minimum system requirements are not realistic I'm afraid. If my system is too old and slow then so be it, but I think you should use honest system requirements. My machine meets them yet even (averaging) 30fps is way out of reach. Last edited by dirty-dog; 10-05-2008 at 02:22 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-05-2008, 02:04 PM	#35 (permalink)
Nuke142 Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 6	Athlon X2 3800+ @2.7ghz 2gb pc3200 x1950pro 512mb 1024x768 all max 4xmsa. 30 fps at start and >35fps during race. Delightful optimization! Dirt worked worse.

10-05-2008, 02:24 PM	#37 (permalink)
ChrisHathaway Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 87	Problem is chaps, good new hardware is cheap right now. my 4gb of ram was just £48! my HD3850 OC is under £90 A good dual core cpu can cost around £55 A decent Asus mobo about £40. I know it stacks up as you go, but thing is single cpu's are very old now, you just don't realise it, I finally did when DiRT came out, I'd been pedling a 4 year old PC 3.0ghz DDR400 Athlon Barton, with a X850 pro, it was just time to realise it was 4 years old and thats good going for pc hardware! And never forget, ebaying your old kit easily yeilds 33-66% return on the new kit you buy!

10-05-2008, 02:28 PM	#38 (permalink)
dirty-dog Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 28	Sure but if I was gonna spend £200+ building a new PC (because with the age of mine, that's what I'd need to do; it can't be upgraded beyond what it currently is) I may as well just get an Xbox 360 for £150. I don't particularly care whether my machine can play a given game well or not; I just think that when a developer says it can run acceptably on a particular spec machine, it should do - isn't that reasonable?

10-05-2008, 02:39 PM	#39 (permalink)
ChrisHathaway Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 87	Not really, no. Term of reasonable is quite surprising to be honest! And it depends if you have tried the lowest resolution, lowest settings including sound and so on. They will also assume you system is in tiptop condition, latest and most reliable drivers, that all installed hardware co-exists happily together. On lowest spec machines they will assume the hard drive is in good conditon and good swap file performance. Another biggy is ram, it asks for 1gb. Fair enough, but realise that they'll be expecting 400mhz DDR, as was the best available during the year of the cpu's they are quoting as minimum. If you're on 333mhz or worse still 266mhz then you'll be fealling the pain for sure! My revised min specs would extend to: Minimum Specifications Windows XP/Vista. (If running Windows Vista, SP1 is recommended) DirectX 9.0c Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz or Athlon 64 3000+ 1GB RAM. 400mhz DDR1, prefabably not spread between more than 2 chips Graphics Card: GeForce 6800 / Radeon X1300 or above, latest drivers and minimum performance settings to be selected from the respective graphics panel. DirectX Compatible Sound Card - Ensure lowest sound selected within game. Dual Layer Compatible DVD-ROM Drive 12.5 GB Hard Drive Space and well maintained hard drive.