Rosmarus Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 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! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 16, 2013 Members Share Posted June 16, 2013 I don't think you'll need to replace any hardware in your machine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagnusson Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 then i have the same question :-) have 2 mashines 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosmarus Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 16, 2013 Members Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) 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 June 17, 2013 by Ssnake Typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagnusson Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 ohh great thx :-)well i use both for games :-)will see what hapen when the upgrade is released :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 30, 2013 Members Share Posted June 30, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 http://www.amazon.com/CybertronPC-Escape-GM4222A-Gaming-Desktop/dp/B009SJR8TK/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1372613271&sr=1-1&keywords=computersthis is what ive been looking at,minus the ghey color.maybe some comp guys could point me in the right direction.all i need is the cpu,have mouse and monitor and kb.thnx. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 30, 2013 Members Share Posted June 30, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 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)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 1, 2013 Members Share Posted July 1, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) Info greatly appreciated. Thanks Ssnake. Edited July 1, 2013 by Scrapper_511 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 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... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) 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 July 25, 2013 by Rotareneg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 25, 2013 Members Share Posted July 25, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connaugh Posted August 3, 2013 Share Posted August 3, 2013 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 3, 2013 Members Share Posted August 3, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 3, 2013 Members Share Posted August 3, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 3, 2013 Members Share Posted August 3, 2013 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.