Question on specs

[Inhuman Infatuation]

I've two rigs, one for myself and one for my wife. Hers is an AMD athlon quad core 2.8gh (just under the old phenoms) 8gb ram and 2gb raedeon video card, not the newest card but basically the best it can do without the bottleneck from the cpu. I'm wondering if this game can run at min specs and maybe even borderless window as most games that just wont run (doom) run in borderless window.

Anyone have similar specs and what is your experience? I need to get a new HDD for the pc before i can do anything but I don't want to buy it for her and she doesn't get to play it. Runs dying light and witcher 3, but seems pretty much only the first iteration games that were made for Xbone and PS4 that came to the ps3/360 the PC handles well, all others just sort of run poorly. Doom won't run over 20fps less it's borderless but not all low settings, sits about 50 fps, so it's acceptable but the drive is now dead (was only a 500gb so it's ran its course)

Anyway tldr

specs at the top, anyone running a similar set up and does this run at all?

[KAX]

Your CPU is below Average and your GPU is nothing spectacular.

In most games the GPU handles most of the power required for stable gaming, but some other games require an extensive CPU.

A high GPU load game would be something like Halo Wars 2 while a high CPU game would be Player Unknowns Battlegrounds.

If I was in your situation and I had to upgrade the CPU or GPU, I'd pick GPU first as you'll notice a difference alot faster than with a CPU but the CPU helps with FPS.

8GB RAM is fine for general Gaming.
2GB VRAM in a GPU is below recommended for todays gaming.
2.8GHz Athlon CPU is ok, like "Ok".

You'd want around 3.40GHz nowadays but then again it depends on what you play more and the Generation of the CPU you're upgrading to.

New Gen CPU's at lower GHz will generally do better than an older CPU at higher GHz. Finding the middle ground in your budget will really help.

[Inhuman Infatuation]

Well aware of the low end specs; sort of explained in the OP. It's an old PC, Dell inspiron actually. The max it can handle at the mobo is 8gb, it can move up to the phenom line for 3.0 quad, and I could run a 3gb vram without bottleneck on it, but it's an older PC. My personal rig is made for art and design production, mainly conceptual and 3d rendering so it's running an CoreI7 32gb ram and an 8gb video card, but it still needs upgrades. To upgrade her PC i'd need a new power source, new mobo, pretty much everything.

So my question is, has anyone had any similar specs of their older PC's running this game and how does it do? Rising revengence, doom (borderles window) fallout 4, etc run well, staying in the 40-50 fps which is acceptable without turing everything off. Eventually she's going to end up inherriting my rig when I buy the one i'm looking at and get the cintiq companion 2, or if they have a new version of the companion, but it's more for work and just have a 12tb external with my library backed up so I really only have some many games installed at a time. We generally play dying light or borderlands, sometimes victor vran, but she's on a TV same as myself, but while i'm running 4k shes got her old 1300x768 tv, so it doesn't look like total garbage running 1200x800 haha.

Anyway just curious. I don't have any problems with the game, but I got her phantom pain to play an open world, same with witcher 3. This game is just too damn awesome and i'd love to get it for her, so thinking either buy it on steam or just give her my ps4. If it can run at minimum, then great. She's not running Shadow of war or something any time soon, but that's later.

[Aemony]

Post detailed specs. "2gb Radeon card" says absolutely nothing.

[Shichiya]

There's many 2gb card,specify what card you get
Though I don't think a 2gb card is very strong though,you might consider upgrading to at least 4gb card or get a budget 1060 6gb card

[NANI_SORETA]

I'd say a GTX 970 and a desktop i5 are the least you should have to get an optimal experience with this game. If you're okay with some compromise you can get away with less, but an Athlon CPU? Don't really know the recent Athlon CPUs, but they must be really superentry level stuff, and you didn't tell us your GPU.

This game isn't a marvel of optimization and scalability at all, it's quite unforgiving to weak PCs. But I see you ran heavy games on this rig, so you may be used to mediocre performance. Maybe there's a way to get 30 fps and be okay with it. Of course you're going to need to install FAR, it has tools to improve the performance by a wide margin.

[NANI_SORETA]

Originally posted by 七夜さん:

There's many 2gb card,specify what card you get
Though I don't think a 2gb card is very strong though,you might consider upgrading to at least 4gb card or get a budget 1069 6gb card

Well, for 1080p most games are okay with 2gb and this is one of them, so I think that vram usage is not quite the problem here as much as the computing power of his hardware.
And tbh most of the time where a game can use more than that, you just lower texture quality down a notch and you stay within the limit.

I'd say, yeah, 4gb is the sweetspot for having no compromise on vram usage. I have a 1060 3gb and in Shadow of Mordor and Dishonored 2 I saw my card running out of vram on max texture quality. Luckily I don't really care about a high instead of ultra, I prefer to play the games I bought with the 50 bucks I saved. ;)

[Inhuman Infatuation]

okay so basically no, the game won't run or noone read what my question was and doesn't have similar specs and can give input. I have a PC that runs the game perfectly fine on maxed settings, and am aware of the limitations of the hardware at hand.

Just curious of the lowest specs a user here has, not really what the PC needs. What it needs is to be thrown away and another one bought for 500 bucks, just checking to see if anyone has had low end older specs running the game.

[Aemony]

A lot of low end users are playing the game, some at 720p and a few at even lower resolutions. However "low end" is entirely relative and doesn't really say much without actual specs to compare to. After all, a computer built ten years ago is as much low end as a laptop with a measly iGPU built today.

Specifying 2 GB of VRAM doesn't even help either, as that could still mean anything built in the last 15 years or so. I remember seeing horrible OEM "HTPC" variants of GPUs back in the day that had 2 GB of slow-speed VRAM to be able to handle 1080p HD streams, and none of those ever managed even Half-Life 2 at a playable frame rate.

Your opening post doesn't specify anything in detail, so it's impossible for us to actually answer your question beyond the "eh, probably not? Maybe? Hell if we know without knowing the actual specs."

So if you want a more detailed answer then post full specs that people can compare with.

[Inhuman Infatuation]

copy; my apologies, i've not seen the raedeon line cards so unsure of the benchmarks for it. I'd actually learned the more gb doesn't mean better thing not too long ago when getting a 4gb card that my old 1gb was beating in benchmarks at twice the speed, so that threw me off with how things used to be.

Specs:

AMD AthlonII X4 630 2.8 quad core

2gb Video card--Radeon R7 240 (2048mb ddr3)

8GB Installed ram

Like i said it's an old CPU for one, not even the phenom line. The mobo can go up to a maximum of 8gb, and one more tier of the cpu, so it's better to completely gut the computer and get the entire thing rebuilt, i'm just curious if this game would run. Seeing it run witcher 3 at 1200x800, phantom pain at 1300x768, dying light at 1300x768, it's been impresing me for an old Dell Inspiron from 09. It's my old rig, so it's dated from hell, but it's continued to impress me. The new rig is made for 3d rendering and digital art programs so it's on the side of mega rig that even most gamers don't have nor even come close to needing, and the smaller build is just the 32gb ram 8gb video I7, so i'm just curious about the ancient build above. Could it run at low settings without the game being at 600x800 or something that would make it too ugly to play? How well optimized is the game, etc. Phantom pain runs damn near 4k, that Foxx engine is insane, but other things like Dark Souls needs to run at 1200x800, or if I borderless window I notice I can run into the 1900xwhatever resolution.

So basically could this run at a stable framerate to enjoy the game at say 1200x800, even borderless if needed? It's a great game but an ancient PC, needing a major overhaul but what it's running sort of makes me think why, every year I wait things just get more cheap. We still jam on 3DS games, so visuals aren't really a major factor, just seeing solid 30fps without tons of stutter is important.

[NANI_SORETA]

https://youtu.be/Eg5TGOr6iJg

The guy in this vid managed to get it pretty playable on a GTX 460, but not at all on a GT640. You might want to check how these compare to your card.

My 2 cents is that I would absolutely hate this game on bad framerates, it's quite frantic, and the way the camera works doesn't help, at times I lost track of the action even at 60 fps stable. Plus with that CPU you would be forced to disable busy-wait limiter by Kaldaien and the cutscenes will stutter like hell so there's not even the "at least I enjoy the story" thing. ;)

Btw, if I had better internet I'd install it on my laptop. It has a discrete card that is called exactly like yours. I don't know if it's exactly the same or a mobile variant, tbh, but it shouldn't stray too far.
Sadly I have potato internet and downloading 40gb or so means completely clogging our home bandwidth for 3 days and I can't.

[Shichiya]

Originally posted by SymbolWraith:

Originally posted by 七夜さん:

There's many 2gb card,specify what card you get
Though I don't think a 2gb card is very strong though,you might consider upgrading to at least 4gb card or get a budget 1069 6gb card

Well, for 1080p most games are okay with 2gb and this is one of them, so I think that vram usage is not quite the problem here as much as the computing power of his hardware.
And tbh most of the time where a game can use more than that, you just lower texture quality down a notch and you stay within the limit.

I'd say, yeah, 4gb is the sweetspot for having no compromise on vram usage. I have a 1060 3gb and in Shadow of Mordor and Dishonored 2 I saw my card running out of vram on max texture quality. Luckily I don't really care about a high instead of ultra, I prefer to play the games I bought with the 50 bucks I saved. ;)

Although 2GB VRAM are still fine for now,the card itself must have been some ages.
Thats why I assume that the OP do not own such a graphic card for this game.
TBH this game are only enjoyable at 50fps>,anything below that gets really slow,at least for me
Edit:Well should've read the post more throughly,OP own a good graphic card,my bad

[Aemony]

Originally posted by Omunall:

Specs:

AMD AthlonII X4 630 2.8 quad core

2gb Video card--Radeon R7 240 (2048mb ddr3)

8GB Installed ram

Your R7 240 is about as slow (probably slightly slower, even) as the GT 640 that SymbolWraith mentioned, so you'll probably have to play at a resolution around 640x480 if you want a semi-stable framerate (~25-30 fps).

So I wouldn't recommend playing the game on that GPU at all.

[Inhuman Infatuation]

thanks, all I needed to know; figured as much but ya never know, I was shocked that witcher and dark souls 3 ran