Game System Specs confusion.

Gamer Bhoy 89

I used to use System Requirements Lab to see if my computer would run particular games but then after I got Windows 7, it never gave me a result because it didn't recognize the OS. After that, I used Game-Debate.com.

I trusted it for years, but then I saw the system specs for South Park: The Stick of Truth, and the requirements of it were weird;


Minimum Requirements

PROCESSOR: Intel Core®2Duo E2180 @ 2.0 GHz or AMD Athlon™ X2 3800+ @ 2.0 GHz
RAM: 2 GB
VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce 7900GT or AMD Radeon 2900Recommended Requirements

PROCESSOR: Intel Core i5-750 Quad @ 2.66GHz or Athlon II X4 645
RAM: 4GB
VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTX 260 or AMD Radeon HD 4870My specs:
PROCESSOR: Intel Core 2 Duo 4300 @1.8GHz
RAM: 3GB
VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTS 250

So I just ignored it and got the game anyway. I got through the first 15-20 minutes of the game and it runs perfect. No lag, no stutter - nothing. There are no graphic adjustment settings.

So, why were the specs of the game so demanding, yet it ran perfect for me?

degrassinoel

same reason that cars fail their NCT's, they can still drive, just not to industry specified guidelines. The minimum specs to run games are just a guideline as to the lowest spec that has been adequately tested and passed quality control.

Personally i wouldnt buy/run a game that my machine cant handle according to it's minimum specs, but that's just me. I'd rather fork out the cash on more memory or save for a decent videocard if i'm below specs.

Edit: it looks like you exceed the minimum specs there anyway..

Gamer Bhoy 89

degrassinoel wrote: »

same reason that cars fail their NCT's, they can still drive, just not to industry specified guidelines. The minimum specs to run games are just a guideline as to the lowest spec that has been adequately tested and passed quality control.

Personally i wouldn't buy/run a game that my machine cant handle according to it's minimum specs, but that's just me. I'd rather fork out the cash on more memory or save for a decent videocard if i'm below specs.

That's just the thing, though. I'm exactly the same, usually. This is the first time I've went out and gotten a game that, technically, wouldn't run on my PC (only based on the CPU). The reason I called bluff on this was solely because it was South Park, a 2D game..

My PC can run Skyrim on medium settings. It would seem laughable if it could run that and not South Park.

Maybe there's bits of the game that I've yet to see that would put my PC to the test. But as of now, it's flowing gracefully...

degrassinoel

it's probably more to do with the engine that south park runs on. Though i use skyrim as a graphic's test myself. If i can run that, i can generally run anything on the market right now with decent settings

Gamer Bhoy 89

degrassinoel wrote: »

it's probably more to do with the engine that south park runs on. Though i use skyrim as a graphic's test myself. If i can run that, i can generally run anything on the market right now with decent settings

Maybe they April-fooled me..

I'll get my coat :pac:

Robert ninja

Your game is running fine because your specs are slightly above the minimum.

Minimum and recommended specs are different. Running a game where you don't meet the recommended is fine. Running a game with specs that are below the minimum will usually result in the game dropping below the 30fps, stutter, glitch and crash while simultaneously damaging your hardware. I've never seen a game that doesn't come with a readme or equivalent stating what the minimum specs are, you don't need a website for it.

You're only slightly below the minimum CPU specs. It could be raising your CPU temps to a higher level than usual. It would be unwise to continue playing that game without an aftermarket cooler. It's likely reducing the lifespan of that CPU.

Gamer Bhoy 89

Robert ninja wrote: »

You're only slightly below the minimum CPU specs. It could be raising your CPU temps to a higher level than usual. It would be unwise to continue playing that game without an aftermarket cooler. It's likely reducing the lifespan of that CPU.

I've already asked in the PC upgrading forums how I could upgrade my computer in any way and I've had bogus responses, and recommendations to buy a new PC. I'm not really in the budget to be forking out 500-800 for a new computer, I like what I have, but I digress,

With regards to an aftermarket cooler, how and where would I get one of those?

Canis Lupus

Robert ninja wrote: »

Running a game with specs that are below the minimum will usually result in the game dropping below the 30fps, stutter, glitch and crash while simultaneously damaging your hardware. .

Say whaaaaat?

SirLemonhead

Your processor is slightly above the minimum - http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=431&pid2=242&compare=core-2-duo-e4300-1-8ghz-vs-pentium-dual-core-e2180-2-0ghz

The stock cooler is perfectly fine.

SirLemonhead

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Say whaaaaat?

It's April the 1st, don't forget

Robert ninja

SirLemonhead wrote: »

Your processor is slightly above the minimum - http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=431&pid2=242&compare=core-2-duo-e4300-1-8ghz-vs-pentium-dual-core-e2180-2-0ghz

The stock cooler is perfectly fine.

My bad.

Gamer Bhoy 89

SirLemonhead wrote: »

Your processor is slightly above the minimum - http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=431&pid2=242&compare=core-2-duo-e4300-1-8ghz-vs-pentium-dual-core-e2180-2-0ghz

The stock cooler is perfectly fine.

Oh yeah, I never spotted that.

All I saw was Core2 Duo and Dual Core - 1.8ghz and 2.0ghz - and I just put the Ghz against mine. To get a dirty red "X" on the CPU, though...bit harsh on GD's part.

truedoom

it appears you're giving out...because it's working..?

I'm not really sure what to say about this haha.

Gamer Bhoy 89

truedoom wrote: »

it appears you're giving out...because it's working..?

I'm not really sure what to say about this haha.

No, no it just bugs me a little on the inside that the system requirements are placed, yet my PC contradicts them. God knows how many games I've skipped because my PC supposedly won't run it :P

EDIT: Also, Game-Debate states the minimum requirements for the CPU is Core 2 Duo E4700 2.6GHz, which is where the red "X" is coming out of on comparison to my specs on the website. Now, somewhere else said the minimum CPU is Intel Core 2 Duo E2180 @2.0GHz.

That's where the confusion is coming from

Gotham

degrassinoel wrote: »

same reason that cars fail their NCT's, they can still drive, just not to industry specified guidelines. The minimum specs to run games are just a guideline as to the lowest spec that has been adequately tested and passed quality control.

It's exactly this.
But sometimes it's important to follow those guidelines.

For example, if a specific piece of technology is required, then you will need it.

Back in the days, this went very fast - but since the ps3 generations, games requirements have stagnated to only require something faster, rather than "new technology".
An example: Silent Hill 3 needed Shader 3.0 on graphics cards, GTA 3 needed DXT compression. These physically cannot run without said hardware. Some games simply had a check & fail system, where if you didn't meet a requirement (i.e. ram), it didn't run (Black and White 2). Apparently the new COD does something like this. These can technically be bypassed, since they're arbitrary locks.

Why do they do this? So when you call tech support, they don't have to deal with you for buying a product you don't have the specs to run. It's as simple as that they don't have to support you.

Antar Bolaeisk

Minimum/Recommended specs on computers are a bit of a farce anyway, they seem to just pick out random bits of hardware. I've seen specs before where the minimum recommendation was a two year old nVidia card or a four year old AMD card, neither of which were close to being in the same performance envelope.

With regards to what to upgrade on your hardware, you're running a 6 year old card and an 8 year old CPU so no wonder the responses were "bogus". A lot of them probably recommended a complete system over-haul.

One of the big factors not taken into consideration on the minimum specs is the resolution at which you'll be playing, if you're on such an old computer then you're probably running at something like 1280x1024? A lower resolution will generally be less intensive.

Gotham

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

One of the big factors not taken into consideration on the minimum specs is the resolution at which you'll be playing, if you're on such an old computer then you're probably running at something like 1280x1024? A lower resolution will generally be less intensive.

Playing on a tiny screen like that is not unlike playing at an inferior frame rate.
Lets say you can play on 24fps instead of the recommended 60 (or even 30), it still doesn't pass QA - so they cant put it on the box as "minimum spec".
There comes a point where they have to just say - "we're not supporting it".

Gamer Bhoy 89

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Minimum/Recommended specs on computers are a bit of a farce anyway, they seem to just pick out random bits of hardware. I've seen specs before where the minimum recommendation was a two year old nVidia card or a four year old AMD card, neither of which were close to being in the same performance envelope.

With regards to what to upgrade on your hardware, you're running a 6 year old card and an 8 year old CPU so no wonder the responses were "bogus". A lot of them probably recommended a complete system over-haul.

One of the big factors not taken into consideration on the minimum specs is the resolution at which you'll be playing, if you're on such an old computer then you're probably running at something like 1280x1024? A lower resolution will generally be less intensive.

The computer itself is about 6 or 7 years old, as is the CPU. My graphics card is a bit ahead of its time at the moment I've never had a graphical factor, it's always my CPU that becomes a factor. And my RAM is decent, I think. I run most of my games at 1920x1080 without problems, but some games like Skyrim or any performance-challenging games, i'll run them at 1280x720. The computer is old but it does it's job well for what games I play on it.

EDIT: Also, people do assume that my PC is very, very inferior. But I would guess that people think I'd be looking to run games like Bioshock Infinite, Battlefield 4, Dark Souls II and Tomb Raider. Believe me, I've no intention of playing all those big modern games I can already play on the 360 or PS4. It's mostly strategy games I play on my PC and basically games which are played better on PC using a mouse/keyboard (Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age). The only reason I got South Park on PC rather than consoles is because my Xbox is in a corner at the moment, I only use it for GTA 5. And it isn't out on PS4 so, PC was the handy option for me.

gaynorvader

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

I've already asked in the PC upgrading forums how I could upgrade my computer in any way and I've had bogus responses, and recommendations to buy a new PC. I'm not really in the budget to be forking out 500-800 for a new computer, I like what I have, but I digress,

With regards to an aftermarket cooler, how and where would I get one of those?

If you're looking at upgrading your CPU without upgrading your motherboard, you're probably looking at a second hand CPU or paying through the nose as LGA775 sockets are obsolete. Have a look through this ebay thread. You can probably pick up a second hand CPU upgrade for under €100 if you're willing to go second hand.
Make sure you have thermal paste if you're planning on installing it yourself.

Gamer Bhoy 89

gaynorvader wrote: »

If you're looking at upgrading your CPU without upgrading your motherboard, you're probably looking at a second hand CPU or paying through the nose as LGA775 sockets are obsolete. Have a look through this ebay thread. You can probably pick up a second hand CPU upgrade for under €100 if you're willing to go second hand.
Make sure you have thermal paste if you're planning on installing it yourself.

If I tell you the motherboard I have you'll laugh.

It's a Packard Bell Cuba MS-7301, can't even unlock the BIOS on it.

TerrorFirmer

Under 100?? You could get a vastly superior CPU to that 4300 for a quarter of that.

You could get something like an E8500 for about 25 euro. Not up to the challenge of something like Battlefield 4 64-man online but in terms of single player games like Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, etc, can still run most games very well with a decent video card.

One of my pet hates is people telling someone a 30 euro upgrade is a 'waste of time' and then go on to tell them to get a whole new 500 euro system. :rolleyes:

You could get a massive upgrade like a S775 quad core for 40-50.

Forget about after-market coolers unless you have a decent overclocking motherboard.

Game requirement cannot be right all the time obviously as they're catering to millions of users with different configurations. They have to establish a base line.

For example if a game says it needs a 2.4Ghz dual core and a GTX260, often that is the baseline to run the game at low settings at a consistently decent framerate.

It doesn't mean that the game won't work on lower settings, it means that the developers cannot stand behind it and guarantee a consistently good experience.

Sometimes they are downright ridiculous, and say that the minimum is Nvidia X and AMD Y, when the Nvidia X card could be literally twice as fast as the AMD Y card. Sometimes it comes down to the feature sets that the cards support. For example, when Bioshock came out years ago, Ati X8xx series cards did not work with the game because they did not support the latest shader model - despite the fact that they were considered very fast cards at the time and ran most other releases at high settings, it caused a bit of an uproar.

gaynorvader

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Under 100?? You could get a vastly superior CPU to that 4300 for a quarter of that.

You could get something like an E8500 for about 25 euro. Not up to the challenge of something like Battlefield 4 64-man online but in terms of single player games like Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, etc, can still run most games very well with a decent video card.

One of my pet hates is people telling someone a 30 euro upgrade is a 'waste of time' and then go on to tell them to get a whole new 500 euro system. :rolleyes:

You could get a massive upgrade like a S775 quad core for 40-50.

Forget about after-market coolers unless you have a decent overclocking motherboard.

Game requirement cannot be right all the time obviously as they're catering to millions of users with different configurations. They have to establish a base line.

For example if a game says it needs a 2.4Ghz dual core and a GTX260, often that is the baseline to run the game at low settings at a consistently decent framerate.

It doesn't mean that the game won't work on lower settings, it means that the developers cannot stand behind it and guarantee a consistently good experience.

Sometimes they are downright ridiculous, and say that the minimum is Nvidia X and AMD Y, when the Nvidia X card could be literally twice as fast as the AMD Y card. Sometimes it comes down to the feature sets that the cards support. For example, when Bioshock came out years ago, Ati X8xx series cards did not work with the game because they did not support the latest shader model - despite the fact that they were considered very fast cards at the time and ran most other releases at high settings, it caused a bit of an uproar.

Agreed. I did say "under 100". Depending on how much you want to spend, what CPU you decide to upgrade to, etc. you could end up sending close to 100. You can get close to top of the range for about 50, it depends on P&P.

Gamer Bhoy 89

gaynorvader wrote: »

Agreed. I did say "under 100". Depending on how much you want to spend, what CPU you decide to upgrade to, etc. you could end up sending close to 100. You can get close to top of the range for about 50, it depends on P&P.

As I said, I have a Cuba MS 7301 MoBo. Would that matter? I have considered a CPU upgrade for ages but I've had so many doubters and believers I don't know who to actually believe

gaynorvader

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

As I said, I have a Cuba MS 7301 MoBo. Would that matter? I have considered a CPU upgrade for ages but I've had so many doubters and believers I don't know who to actually believe

The Packard-Bell yoke? Not a great mb, I wouldn't recommend getting better than a E6600 or E6700 Intel Core Duo as I doubt it'd support it. It would still be worth doing if you're interested in a smallish upgrade, won't cost too much either. A second hand one is available here
When you have the cash I would recommend upgrading the mb, but you'll have to upgrade the CPU and RAM at the same time so it'll be pricey enough. Getting a E6600 or E6700 should tide you over for a while though.

Gamer Bhoy 89

gaynorvader wrote: »

The Packard-Bell yoke? Not a great mb, I wouldn't recommend getting better than a E6600 or E6700 Intel Core Duo as I doubt it'd support it. It would still be worth doing if you're interested in a smallish upgrade, won't cost too much either. A second hand one is available here
When you have the cash I would recommend upgrading the mb, but you'll have to upgrade the CPU and RAM at the same time so it'll be pricey enough. Getting a E6600 or E6700 should tide you over for a while though.

Yeah I'll consider getting a tiny upgrade; let the motherboard have it's full potential. 2.0GHz is better than 1.8GHz so I may put money away

Spunge

I remember in Everquest 2 when you tried to put graphics on very high a warning message appeared basically saying no computer exists that can play this on very high and you're going to break ur **** if u try.

TerrorFirmer

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

Yeah I'll consider getting a tiny upgrade; let the motherboard have it's full potential. 2.0GHz is better than 1.8GHz so I may put money away

Your motherboard only supports older CPU's so a cheap upgrade to a decent platform is out of the question.

I've a spare E6600 (2.4Ghz) lying around here that will work, you're welcome to it if you send me your address, would give you a decent boost.

Gamer Bhoy 89

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Your motherboard only supports older CPU's so a cheap upgrade to a decent platform is out of the question.

I've a spare E6600 (2.4Ghz) lying around here that will work, you're welcome to it if you send me your address, would give you a decent boost.

Will it work on my motherboard?

gaynorvader

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

Will it work on my motherboard?

Should do, it's just a more powerful version of the one you're currently using.

Spunge

bit of googlin some people have that board with e6600. afaik