Jump to content
Rosmarus

System requirements in 3.0

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, again

I've been scrolling through the forums like a madman for about a week now and I'm quite sure I'll be throwing money at eSim after 3.0 hits the "shelves". However I'd like to know about system requirements since my first try with SB wasn't so smooth as some of you might remember. I've managed to track most of my problems experienced back then to my gfx card which is a bit of a handful when it comes to drivers.

So, I'm still running the same rig and I'd like to know where I should stand when it comes to running SB 3.0. I know most of the tech stuff is propably still unders testing and TBA but maybe some information in general.

My specs: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition (3,2 GHz/core six cores in total), AMD Ati Radeon 5970 2gb of GDDR5 and 8gb of 1800Mhz RAM with 64bit Windows 8 Pro.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then i have the same question :-)

have 2 mashines :D

A laptop with:

i7 quad core 3610QM 2.3 ghz

12 gig RAM

GeForce GTX 670M 3 gb

And my desktop

i5 quad core 3.0 ghz (dont remember the numbers)

8 gig RAM

Gigabyte Radeon HD 7850 2GB GDDR5

/Dan M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dmagnusson, if I know anything about hardware you should be okay. According to my knowledge your specs are somewhat above mine. I'm not sure about your laptop though or laptops in general for that matter as they are not intented for gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a GTX 670M is about as good as it gets in the notebook world, and while contemporary desktop cards will always be ahead, it's still nothing to sneeze at. I think you'll be doing fine.

Edited by Ssnake
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well after my 10 yr old cpu tripped and fell down the stairs i now need a replacement.when do you think the specs will come out and what can you tell me now as far as minimum specs needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We never give out minimum specs because there is no universally accepted frame rate/level of detail/screen resolution combination on which we could agree that "this is still playable".

Let me know what kind of a screen resolution you would want as a minimum, and I can look up our peliminary internal benchmark results to recommend some matching hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummmm i dont recall what the settings were,im not a computer guy.but i do recall they were in the top end.i mean how much RAM and all that would be needed,video card and all.sorry so vague but ive been looking at a gaming cpu,and since SB is the only sim i play its gonna be set for it.ill try to get back to you with a model ive been looking at and maybe you could ley me know if it a go or no go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will definitely be above what one might consider "minimum" but if your budget allows, I'd recommend a better graphics card. As a standalone item, the Radeon HD 6670 sells for about 60...70 Euros (75...90 USD). I think a Radeon 7850/7870 would give you better value for the money (or, roughly the equivalent, a GeForce GTX 660/670) ... but they cost more, too.

SB Pro PE 3.0's frame rate performance will depend more than in the past on the overall CPU strength, and I have to change my recommendations from the past where I said that a faster clocked dual core would outperform a quad core of the same price. But the quad core CPU of your example at 3.6 GHz will definitely be a good choice.

RAM doesn't matter that much, but it can't hurt to pick 4...8GByte if your budget allows for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok,thnx Ssnake for the info.ill look into a new video card and your other reccomendations.this will also be a family comp for various purposes,but for me it will mostly be info and SB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me know what kind of a screen resolution you would want as a minimum, and I can look up our peliminary internal benchmark results to recommend some matching hardware.

If you don't mind, may I take you up on this for 1280x800x32 (Win7, Athlon X2 250 Regor 3.0GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 1GB)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that the GeForce 9600 GT is a bit slower than a Radeon HD4870, which I will use as a reference here (my test system used a dual core E8600 chip at 3.33GHz clock speed).

Without shadows you can expect frame rates in the 40ies (IOW, "good performance"). Self-shadowing will reduce it to about mid thirties ("medium"). With shadow mapping level 2 - the lowest setting with shadows on the ground - I'd expect frame rates to be in the lower 20ies ("not recommended").

Surprisingly many beta testers have expressed that they are fine with frame rates falling into the "not recommended" range. Still, as 24 frames per second are the rather low Cinema standard, if that cannot be reliably achieved, I don't think that I should recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been regarding the 3.0 performance sticky as a benchmark for CPU and graphics card combination. However, as I'm doing some research on I7 processors I see that they have some kind of built in graphics capability. What I'm confused about is whether this is an auxiliary function to a traditional video card, or if the I7 CPU's can actually handle all graphics negating the need for an add-on video card.

Pardon my ignorance. Thanks in advance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've got a built-in GPU that uses a video output on the motherboard, so you don't need a separate video card, but they also aren't that great for gaming. If you're really tight for cash, you might just try the integrated graphics and see if it suits your needs. If not, you can always get a real video card later.

Edited by Rotareneg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look for the "Intel HD 4000" entries in the performance report thread to see how they compare. In short, with no shadows and no antialiasing, it is an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a screen size greater than 19 inches offer an advantage in playing SB? I have difficulty lining up the reticle with targets greater than 2000 meters and I was wondering if a larger monitor would make a difference. Would the target appear larger, thereby enabling better accuracy? It is with thermals that I feel I have the most trouble as the resolution is not great. Or is the graphics card the determining factor?

Thanks.

Connaugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be a stickler for details on this one. What matter is the screen resolution (up to the point that your eye may no longer recognize the individual pixel, at which point a further increase of screen resolution would be pointless). So the question is rather what screen resolution does your 19" monitor offer, what bigger screen (resolution) do you have in mind, and what compromises are you willing to make WRT graphics detail settings and/or your hardware equipment to retain an acceptable frame rate.

I will later this evening test what frame rate I can squeeze from my super-duper gaming machine at maximum screen resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will later this evening test what frame rate I can squeeze from my super-duper gaming machine at maximum screen resolution.

OK, I just did. The result is listed in the performance report thread. Basically, with that kind of hardware the increase in screen resolution does not matter a lot. But "that kind of hardware" is close to being the latest and fastest and therefore most expensive type of PC that you can get at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would a screen size greater than 19 inches offer an advantage in playing SB? I have difficulty lining up the reticle with targets greater than 2000 meters and I was wondering if a larger monitor would make a difference.

Well, going back to the original question after the little technical tangent, a higher screen resolution certainly shows more detail especially at longer ranges. Let's say you work with a 1280x1024 screen resolution with your current monitor and then switch to one with a screen resolution of 2560 x 1440. You get about 2.8 times as many pixels with that. That means, you can see the same details at a distance that is about two thirds farther away (the square root of 2.8125 is 1.677...). So, if your current limit of target recognition is 2000m, with such an increase in the screen resolution you could shift that limit to a distance of 3350m.

Notice however that this improvement can be had at presumably high expense in computer hardware. Also, you only get the square root of the higher screen resolution in return, so there's the question whether it's really worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...