Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I posted a picture of my system in the third line of post.
Athlon II 640 3.0 GHz
Make no mistake, this is a demanding game.
Well as you can see, now I have 4 hours in game, so I've pretty much have seen how it behaves in the open world. The same.
If you can run the game well, that's not a weak PC, that's what I mean.
Exception is Arma 3, pretty much because of being heavy on CPU and ignorant to GPU.
That's why I really don't understand why the people with much, much newer and stronger builds hesitate if they can run the game at all. That's why I created this topic.
Of course, trying to launch the game on Duron 1100 GHz with Intel HD 2000 is inadequate. I was claiming that the game runs absolutely well on the quite modern, decent, but not top-notch system which is 2-3 years old so most gamers don't need to worry.
Neah, we had people around here crying the game required DX 11 or a quad core, that sort of stuff. You are good, the people really crying were ones with 5-6 year old systems.