Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
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.