安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Back in 1995 people had cards with 4mb. 128mb is from around 2005 and was also found in low-end stuff up to 2010 +/-.
If you don't know you can install CPU-z and use it to validate your system, then give us the URL of the web page that opens.
512MB only started appearing on professonal and high-end cards around 2009/2010.
newer igpus can use 4+g of system ram for their vram and will run games from around 2005 just fine
knowing what cpu and gpu you have would be helpful
cpuz -> [validate] -> [submit]
it will open a browser, copy the url (address) and post it here
geforce 7000 series, from 2005
but i do have a few (slave) gpus with 0 vram
https://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Silicon-Profile-PCI-Express-Compatible/dp/B008FD1K44
basically a dvi-d port that works on the intel igp for mobo without a dvi-d port
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-x1950-pro-agp.c191
Actually, even 8M was still perfectly viable in 2000 whilst approaching 32 was more the norm. 64 and 128 were quite rare.
With regards to specifications these are listed for two main purposes>
1) "Recommended spec" acts as marketing tool to promote higher settings which appeal to enthusiasts which associate high requirements with quality
2) "Minimum requirements" as determined through quality process to save the publisher from refund requests and field support-related queries
Neither of these factors necessarily have any real bearing on a particular combination of components' capabilities in running a game. After all, compatible components (along with their drivers) can and do result in known, unexpected behavioural features on any number of products especially with the possible varieties available.
It is not unreasonable to expect sub-standard performance or even failure of the minimal requirements are not met. Conversely, despite a tendency for otherwise (as noted in the prior paragraph) it SHOULD be reasonable to expect basic functionality once the minimal requirements are met. However, since these "requirements" are no legal statements but marketing tools, combined with the expectation of "day 0 patching" and buggy releases, these elements are largely ignored.
It is not the thing that determines if you can play or not in the first place.