Should a 580/1060 be enough?

[My Name Is Mud]

I hope so

[rockit]

6gb 1060 will probably be listed as a recommended gpu

[Nathan]

Originally posted by rocKit:

6gb 1060 will probably be listed as a recommended gpu

Unconstructive speculation.

[Dark Yagami]

For sure, both those cards are definitely more powerful than whatever they had in the 360.

[Corpulent Swine]

More than enough.

[KingyWingy]

An RX 580 or GTX 1060 will be plenty capable. But I don't recommend buying either currently unless you can get a real good price. The GTX 1660 and 1660 Ti are better buys. And RX Vega cards have come way down in price.

[goldenlance7]

Originally posted by Tagemoss:

The games in the MCC are old so requirements will be much lower than recent AAA games.

afair reach was the only one that suffered with poor performance (on the 360) because it was poorly optimized, it's why they put in the awful motion blur to try and make the game look smoother.

i remember playing them all and reach was not 100% smooth to play, good game but stuttered at times and the motion blur was annoying, should be butter smooth when it's on xb1/pc.

still requirements will most likely be low.

reach was 720p 30fps on 360 and in bc on xb1.

the games on the mcc were supposed to target 1080p 60fps but are a mixed bag.

so i don't think people with low end pc's should worry, unless you are using cpu igp's.

dedicated gpus or bust.

I only have a laptop that was'nt made for gaming so I'm pretty worried.

[goldenlance7]

Originally posted by Tagemoss:

^ oh, what kind of cpu? if it's a decent i5 or i7 you might be able run some games on the igp.
but most igps are still too weak, though i read some of the latest ones run some modern games, not great but playable.

if you want a gaming laptop a clevo barebones with mxm would be the best and cheapest option.

anything else is just a waste of money like all those thin "gaming grade" latops with soldered cpus and soldered gpus.....not future proofed at all. alienware and razer are the worst and then there's msi / lenovo with the horrid metal lids that dent easily and cheapo screen bezels that crack easily.

super portable doesn't always been good.

my video card is a AMD Radeon(TM) R4 Graphics . meanwhile my CPU is a AMD A6-7310 APU with AMD Radeon R4. not really interested in a gaming laptop If i was to get a pc I'd get a tower I hear you can build a pretty decent pc for around 500$. Though that will have to wait for a few years most likely.

[M Ralston]

Originally posted by Tunazerker:

I hope so

anything less than a 780 or 980 isnt worth having. thats all that you should consider for a common bottleneck. if you want higher Antialiasing and more resolution panning with Drs then the higher the better. as to what the recommendation is there is no set information, however I would strongly suggest a priority for 1060 and above.

[DrDeath]

Halo 2 might be a bit more demanding to run with it being a remaster

[xstar960]

Hopefully the game will be playable on lower end pc's.

[My Name Is Mud]

The 580 is cheaper than the 1060 and gets better frames in most dx12 games

I wouldn't buy 1060

Thats why I wrote 580 before 1060 in my topic title

[Gabriel Pinto]

Originally posted by Tagemoss:

The games in the MCC are old so requirements will be much lower than recent AAA games.

afair reach was the only one that suffered with poor performance (on the 360) because it was poorly optimized, it's why they put in the awful motion blur to try and make the game look smoother.

i remember playing them all and reach was not 100% smooth to play, good game but stuttered at times and the motion blur was annoying, should be butter smooth when it's on xb1/pc.

still requirements will most likely be low.

reach was 720p 30fps on 360 and in bc on xb1.

the games on the mcc were supposed to target 1080p 60fps but are a mixed bag.

so i don't think people with low end pc's should worry, unless you are using cpu igp's.

dedicated gpus or bust.

Reach was actually 1152x720. The per object motion blur was really awesome actually, much better than halo 3's camara blur. What you're mentioning is the temporal anti aliasing bungie employed caused A LOT of ghosting, it was pretty bad, although the coverage was great compared to halo 3's complete lack of AA.

Halo 4 was the first halo game to be 720p, but it was imo the worst in art direction, and the only good thing I remember are the amazing real time cutscenes with really lifelike actors!

Also halo 3 had bad frame pacing, and some minor dips in frame rate. Reach, for its graphics and scope was pretty alright for the time, and looked and played better than most aaa at the time.

But there's always room for 60fps and better image quality on PC!

[BanjoKazooie]

Originally posted by Gabriel Pinto:

Originally posted by Tagemoss:

The games in the MCC are old so requirements will be much lower than recent AAA games.

afair reach was the only one that suffered with poor performance (on the 360) because it was poorly optimized, it's why they put in the awful motion blur to try and make the game look smoother.

i remember playing them all and reach was not 100% smooth to play, good game but stuttered at times and the motion blur was annoying, should be butter smooth when it's on xb1/pc.

still requirements will most likely be low.

reach was 720p 30fps on 360 and in bc on xb1.

the games on the mcc were supposed to target 1080p 60fps but are a mixed bag.

so i don't think people with low end pc's should worry, unless you are using cpu igp's.

dedicated gpus or bust.

Reach was actually 1152x720. The per object motion blur was really awesome actually, much better than halo 3's camara blur. What you're mentioning is the temporal anti aliasing bungie employed caused A LOT of ghosting, it was pretty bad, although the coverage was great compared to halo 3's complete lack of AA.

Halo 4 was the first halo game to be 720p, but it was imo the worst in art direction, and the only good thing I remember are the amazing real time cutscenes with really lifelike actors!

Also halo 3 had bad frame pacing, and some minor dips in frame rate. Reach, for its graphics and scope was pretty alright for the time, and looked and played better than most aaa at the time.

But there's always room for 60fps and better image quality on PC!

I mean hes technically correct its 720p

And Halo MCC already has 60fps 1080p on the Xbox One and 4k on the X, what I cant wait to see on PC is being able to play higher than 60fps

[goldenlance7]

Originally posted by Tagemoss:

Originally posted by goldenlance7:

my video card is a AMD Radeon(TM) R4 Graphics . meanwhile my CPU is a AMD A6-7310 APU with AMD Radeon R4. not really interested in a gaming laptop If i was to get a pc I'd get a tower I hear you can build a pretty decent pc for around 500$. Though that will have to wait for a few years most likely.

yeah it's not worth getting a gaming laptop, at least not any of the non upgradable ones.

i game on desktop, well 3 actually, bedroom, garden shed and living room, all built from used parts.

but i also have one old clevo 15.6" which i rebuilt from scrap, again with used parts.
gtx 1060 6gb, 4930mx, 2xmsata, 1x ssd, 1x hdd, 28gb ram

when i rebuilt my desktops, they were htpc, sff cases with lp gtx 750 ti / gtx 1050 ti, i5 quad

z68 sli mobo - £80-90
itx gtx 1060 6gb - £130
banged up coolermaster case - £14
cpu i7 3770k - £100

those were the only bits i had to buy to do a cheap upgrade.

neat. I hear building it yourself is cheaper but I don't know much about computers.

[dogdaddonga]

go play eldawrito if your worried how the older gaems will run, h5 forge runs on a toaster and on windows store