The PC version of Dirt 2 will be one of the first games to make use of the new DirectX 11 enhancements when it's released in UK on December 4. That means it'll look awesome. It also means you'll need a bad ass PC to run it.
Get your wallet out - here are the system requirements:
Recommended (Enhanced for DirectX 11): OS: Microsoft Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 Processor: Intel Core i7 or AMD Phenom II Memory: 3GB HD Space: 10GB Video Card: ATi Radeon HD 5700 Series
Minimum: OS: Microsoft Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 Processor: Intel Pentium 4 3.0Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 3400+ Memory: 1GB (2Gb for Windows Vista) HD Space: 10GB Video Card: ATI Radeon X1500, NVIDIA GeForce 6800
I was going to get an i7 earlier this year but then heard rumours of the 6 core i9 and the AMD 6 core so put it off. Hopefully next year I will upgrade but right now there is no point I guess. I'll just have to miss out on some DX11 goodness.
I'd imagine that the 3Gb is for those OS's with DX11 which is Win7 (and Vista) so no XP.
But they seperate the requirement for XP and Vista for the minimum specs so you'd assume they'd have done so too for the recommended ones. XP can handle about 3.5GB RAM so in a way I wouldn't be surprised if it is true.
I'd imagine that the 3Gb is for those OS's with DX11 which is Win7 (and Vista) so no XP.
But they seperate the requirement for XP and Vista for the minimum specs so you'd assume they'd have done so too for the recommended ones. XP can handle about 3.5GB RAM so in a way I wouldn't be surprised if it is true.
The recommended specs are for DX11 which XP doesn't have so I think it's just a typo.
Can't believe it, the first time my CPU has let me down. I beat everything else so mabe it'll be OK.
I have a q6600@3ghz 4gb ram and a 1gb 5850 which came with a free copy of the game. ready to activate on steam on Dec 4th.
Maybe I need to treat myself to a new mobo and processor
I really wouldn't bother. Say you get the i7-920 plus the appropriate motherboard (an X58 chipset I believe) that's going to be the best part of £350 for entry level components. Even if you were to get the best i7 available (i7-975 @ £600-700), by May next year it will be outdated. Personally I'd wait for the i9 CPUs to appear, or the AMD equivalent. Nothing will beat those for a few years to come.
This has got to be the first game I've seen which has a recommended RAM of 3GB for XP
correct me if I'm wrong guys but I think the 1st assassins creed needed 3-3.5 right?
Anyways I just got bitch slapped as I have a q6600 (its @ 3.6 though). Was going to upgrade a month ago but I'm waiting for the 6 core ones at around spring. Also cant wait for higher ddr3 clocks and maybe tighter timings (if they will occur anytime soon if at all) and the new line of gpu's coz my gtx 280 is actually struggling at higher resolutions for some games .
This has got to be the first game I've seen which has a recommended RAM of 3GB for XP
correct me if I'm wrong guys but I think the 1st assassins creed needed 3-3.5 right?
Anyways I just got bitch slapped as I have a q6600 (its @ 3.6 though). Was going to upgrade a month ago but I'm waiting for the 6 core ones at around spring. Also cant wait for higher ddr3 clocks and maybe tighter timings (if they will occur anytime soon if at all) and the new line of gpu's coz my gtx 280 is actually struggling at higher resolutions for some games .
What games are you struggling on and what res are you using?
Can't believe it, the first time my CPU has let me down. I beat everything else so mabe it'll be OK.
I have a q6600@3ghz 4gb ram and a 1gb 5850 which came with a free copy of the game. ready to activate on steam on Dec 4th.
Maybe I need to treat myself to a new mobo and processor
I really wouldn't bother. Say you get the i7-920 plus the appropriate motherboard (an X58 chipset I believe) that's going to be the best part of �350 for entry level components. Even if you were to get the best i7 available (i7-975 @ �600-700), by May next year it will be outdated. Personally I'd wait for the i9 CPUs to appear, or the AMD equivalent. Nothing will beat those for a few years to come.
Its pointless getting any i7 above the 920 as you can hit 4 gig overclock on a 920 extremely easy with a D0 stepping.
If i had a Q6600 id get a Q9550 and overclock it to 4.2Ghz, it will easily equal the performance of an i7( i tested it, theres only 5% difference in FPS in games with both at 4Ghz )
Can't believe it, the first time my CPU has let me down. I beat everything else so mabe it'll be OK.
I have a q6600@3ghz 4gb ram and a 1gb 5850 which came with a free copy of the game. ready to activate on steam on Dec 4th.
Maybe I need to treat myself to a new mobo and processor
I really wouldn't bother. Say you get the i7-920 plus the appropriate motherboard (an X58 chipset I believe) that's going to be the best part of �350 for entry level components. Even if you were to get the best i7 available (i7-975 @ �600-700), by May next year it will be outdated. Personally I'd wait for the i9 CPUs to appear, or the AMD equivalent. Nothing will beat those for a few years to come.
Its pointless getting any i7 above the 920 as you can hit 4 gig overclock on a 920 extremely easy with a D0 stepping.
If i had a Q6600 id get a Q9550 and overclock it to 4.2Ghz, it will easily equal the performance of an i7( i tested it, theres only 5% difference in FPS in games with both at 4Ghz )
I settled on the Q9650 (should have got the Q9550 for the price/performance difference) over the i7 as I heard it's a good overclocker and I could fit the CPU into my current motherboard. i7s are good for video editing but gaming hasn't really taken advantage of them yet. As of now there are no games I can't max out at 1680x1050 so I can see myself sticking with my current set up for another 12 months the way things are going at the moment.
I settled on the Q9650 (should have got the Q9550 for the price/performance difference) over the i7 as I heard it's a good overclocker and I could fit the CPU into my current motherboard. i7s are good for video editing but gaming hasn't really taken advantage of them yet. As of now there are no games I can't max out at 1680x1050 so I can see myself sticking with my current set up for another 12 months the way things are going at the moment.
yeah the E0 stepping Q9550 is generally a better overclocker than the Q9650, i sold my old one to a mate who had a Q9650, he's running the Q9550@4.3Ghz now lol.
Theres no real need for an i7, and a Q9xxx series processor @4Ghz will whip a stock i7 920 in any game.
My current i7 + Ati5850 will do me for the next 2 years.
Wow some hardcore pC gamers here. I to was surprised by the i7 request as im on a Q6600 @3.0Ghz and I still havent found a game to max (all cores)it right out yet. For those of you thinking of ditching your current quadcores for i7 dont be daft. Plenty of life left in them yet and remember all the really good stuff comes out Q2 next year
Misleading title. Requirements are actually pretty low. Recommended specs are pretty high indeed, however.
I agree, however the DX11 thing is only the new ATI cards, the i7 requirement is a bit strange though, however my guess is is that for DX11 which supports multicore that DX11 in this game will work better on an i7 due to both the hyperthreading and the speed of the cores, because they could have said i5 but the 720 doesnt support hyperthreading.
See, this, THIS is PRECISELY why I got out of PC gaming.. For the £1000 or so plus that would be required to play the latest games at absolute top resolution/settings, I find it very hard to believe that I'd get that much more enjoyment out of a game. Dirt 2 looks fantastic on the 360, I just can't believe that the extra money spent is worth it these days with the much smaller selection of games now available for the PC.
See, this, THIS is PRECISELY why I got out of PC gaming.. For the £1000 or so plus that would be required to play the latest games at absolute top resolution/settings, I find it very hard to believe that I'd get that much more enjoyment out of a game. Dirt 2 looks fantastic on the 360, I just can't believe that the extra money spent is worth it these days with the much smaller selection of games now available for the PC.
If you're not interested in the best quality gfx, 3-6 screen gaming/productive setups, have no interest in converting movies etc. then yep a console is definitely for you.
I spend £400 euro( money i save on the difference in the price of games between console and pc ) every 2 years and have a top end-medium end all of the time.
At the end of the day gaming on consoles and PC costs the EXACT same amount, except that the PC version is usually visually far superior.
PCs certainly eclipse consoles in terms of graphics. Sadly most multiplatform software is poorly optimised for PC users. So ones outlay on hardware rarely meets up to the standard they initially paid for. Also as a gaming platform PCs are often neglected in regards to certain genres. Microsoft throwing all their resources behind 360 certainly did the scene no favours. Obviously one can perform many other tasks with a personal computer and there is a wonderful influx of independent software available. But this is usually tailored towards lower end systems.
When just taking games into account the hardware race has proved problematic.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
, DX11 goodness cometh
.
).
