Carbon PC System Requirements
oh god....the amount of RAM doesnt have anything to do with loading time.
If you take a game and plug it onto DDR II 667 Mhz but 512Mb and on DDR I 400Mhz but 1048Mb the first one will load faster but FPS will be lower as memory amount is smaller.
I myself dont think it will not work perfectly on 512Mb...1 GB isnt a minimum even for high-end shooter games where you do need both speed and capacity.
If you take a game and plug it onto DDR II 667 Mhz but 512Mb and on DDR I 400Mhz but 1048Mb the first one will load faster but FPS will be lower as memory amount is smaller.
I myself dont think it will not work perfectly on 512Mb...1 GB isnt a minimum even for high-end shooter games where you do need both speed and capacity.
Yeah, but PC's pwns consoles in terms of visual detail.dawnpatrolrjl1 wrote:That's why I think is better to buy a PS2 or XBOX 360 and stuff cuz you don't have to worry if your pc can run or not the game! You just buy it and you will know for sure that it will run perfectly...
The requirements aren't high, if you could play MW, you should be able to play Carbon. I don't think the amount of RAM given is a requirement as much as it is a suggestion.
Heck, I'm not gonna spend all my money (well actually my parents' money, I'm 15) on this resource-eyesight-$$$$-hogging PC...and especially for a game with such, IMO, uninspired visuals like Carbon...of course, I want the game, but definately not for the graphics, more for the tuning part. I guess the 512RAM, 2.0 Ghz Athlon and the Radeon 9550 128MB will have to "take the heat" this time; if not, it ain't going to be a big loss...
Somehow my MW loading times went way faster after I got a 1GB kit..Abrams wrote:oh god....the amount of RAM doesnt have anything to do with loading time.
Though most people say the same thing you said, they're complaining that they have to upgrade their PCs over and over again.xHaZxMaTx wrote:Yeah, but PC's pwns consoles in terms of visual detail.
It doesn't make sense.
Those are very generous requirements. Anyone who can't meet them really shouldn't even be considering any type of gaming on their PC. 1GB of RAM is a standard amount this day in age, you can pick up a gig of cheap stuff for as little as $60.
I was honestly expecting the requirements to be a little more strict, especially on the video cards and CPU requirement.
I was honestly expecting the requirements to be a little more strict, especially on the video cards and CPU requirement.
Because the 1GB kit was most likely faster than whatever you were running before. RAM speed decreases load times, not capacity. Capacity reduces hitching and improves FPS during the game.PSZeTa wrote:Somehow my MW loading times went way faster after I got a 1GB kit..Abrams wrote:oh god....the amount of RAM doesnt have anything to do with loading time.
- weedman173
- Professional
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 25 Feb 2005, 01:27
- Contact:
- xkalibur80
- Ricer
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 11 Dec 2005, 20:22
- Location: UK
Abrams wrote:oh god....the amount of RAM doesnt have anything to do with loading time.
If you take a game and plug it onto DDR II 667 Mhz but 512Mb and on DDR I 400Mhz but 1048Mb the first one will load faster but FPS will be lower as memory amount is smaller.
I myself dont think it will not work perfectly on 512Mb...1 GB isnt a minimum even for high-end shooter games where you do need both speed and capacity.
...I went from 512mb to 1024mb then to 2048mb and i noticed a massive increase in BOTH loading times AND overall performance...Simply because the more RAM u have the more instructions can be handled from the CPU at one time Also the faster the mhz the faster the instructions get processed, Duel Channel memory runs twice as fast as a sinlge channel memory..
If this Game says it needs 1024MB Of RAM I can hardly see it running as well on 512MB... Games such as BF2, F.E.A.R, Company Of Hereos, Prey...to name a few ALL require 1gb to run satisfactory.
As for now my rig'll handle pretty much n e thing thrown at it...in theory...
And dont get started bout the Graphics cards, i hope it takes advantage of pixel shader 3 but doubt there'll be much call for it
**Amd 64 3700+, 2 Nvidia 6800gs 256 sli, 2 gigs RAM**
- darknight788
- official forum redneck
- Posts: 2850
- Joined: 25 Feb 2006, 19:35
- Location: I have mated with a woman inform the men
- Contact:
- xkalibur80
- Ricer
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 11 Dec 2005, 20:22
- Location: UK
You should be able to pretty much max out all games, but you still wont be able to use that much AA with it, as you're still working with a 128bit memory interface.darknight788 wrote:@ xkalibur80 i see you have two 6800 GS running in SLi did you notice a difference between one card and two, i want to get another 6800 GT but i want to know if it is worth it
But to be honest, depends on the type of games, one's fine for most out at the moment. SLI only really shines in resolutions greater than 1280x1024. If you don't intend to do that, don't get a second card. In the lower resolutions, the gains aren't enough to warrant spending the money.
**Amd 64 3700+, 2 Nvidia 6800gs 256 sli, 2 gigs RAM**
I heard that Windows Vista uses DX 10 and, for example if u install MW to play it on vista, it wouldn't work, because DX 10 WORKS ONLY with DX 10 versions and NOT previous ones. Maybe it's the same with XP 64 bit edition...Abrams wrote:btw, i might sound dumb or something, but would 64 bit Windows version work with Carbon? As i see it says 32-bit
- prince1142003
- Valued Member
- Posts: 3862
- Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 06:03
- Location: Enjoying college life.
- Contact:
Correct, DX10 will scrap a lot of backward compatibilities to make it more efficient. But Microsoft has said that it will release "tools" to make pre-DX10 games run in a DX10 environment.
Anyways, since the requirements specifically mention "only 32-bit version" chances are that Carbon won't work on XP64. You could always try running it in compatibility mode for XP32 (if it exists).
Anyways, since the requirements specifically mention "only 32-bit version" chances are that Carbon won't work on XP64. You could always try running it in compatibility mode for XP32 (if it exists).
- xkalibur80
- Ricer
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 11 Dec 2005, 20:22
- Location: UK
64bit XP only uses 64bit hardware 'drivers' i.e motherboard, Cpu & Graphics card.
Nvidia & ATI released the x64 drivers for the latest Cards and if you look at the games supported it DOES say Carbon and alot of others.
Vista will have a backwards compatability program built in (so they say). but at the moment there are NO DX10 Graphics cards apart from 7950, but nvidia havent finished testing the drivers for it yet. So i wouldnt worry too much...yet
Dont forget Patches will always come out, altho Microsoft seem to have thought of everythig this time round....
Just wait till Quad core CPU's & Quad SLI comes in...more drivers, more issues...more stress lol
Nvidia & ATI released the x64 drivers for the latest Cards and if you look at the games supported it DOES say Carbon and alot of others.
Vista will have a backwards compatability program built in (so they say). but at the moment there are NO DX10 Graphics cards apart from 7950, but nvidia havent finished testing the drivers for it yet. So i wouldnt worry too much...yet
Dont forget Patches will always come out, altho Microsoft seem to have thought of everythig this time round....
Just wait till Quad core CPU's & Quad SLI comes in...more drivers, more issues...more stress lol
**Amd 64 3700+, 2 Nvidia 6800gs 256 sli, 2 gigs RAM**
pretty high reqs. but i hope that once i get my new power supply i will be able to put my 2 1gig ram sticks in and my FX card. but about sp2... big mistake, you know that puts a spyware on your computer that "calls home".
@spectre01: i doubt it will work on sp1. i downloaded the JTF demo and it didn't work (reqs sp2, i have sp1)
@spectre01: i doubt it will work on sp1. i downloaded the JTF demo and it didn't work (reqs sp2, i have sp1)
- weedman173
- Professional
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: 25 Feb 2005, 01:27
- Contact:
- prince1142003
- Valued Member
- Posts: 3862
- Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 06:03
- Location: Enjoying college life.
- Contact:
Just thought I'd mention that the 6800GT is actually 256-bit. You must be confusing it with the 6600GT, which is 128-bit.xkalibur80 wrote:You should be able to pretty much max out all games, but you still wont be able to use that much AA with it, as you're still working with a 128bit memory interface.darknight788 wrote:@ xkalibur80 i see you have two 6800 GS running in SLi did you notice a difference between one card and two, i want to get another 6800 GT but i want to know if it is worth it
Getting another 6800GT would only be worth it if you could get it nearly dirt cheap (under $200). Even then it would be negligible.
- The Gravedigger
- Professional
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: 10 Sep 2005, 12:35
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia