Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it The Pop Ups Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer angrybirds angrybirds angrybirds  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Dishonored - PC forum

Insane PC requirements


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 60 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 5, 2012 3:11:26 AM PDT
Joseph says:
another vote for dual booting, it's surprisingly easy to setup and use; very handy and will give you the most options.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2012 8:42:35 AM PDT
zombiehater says:
I was a bit put out at first that you need windows 7 etc but I have a PC because I like games to have a good story and fun to play but also like them to look good. So I will probably upgrade soon although the cost is a bit painful. I would go for windows 8 as its cheaper but not sure that its going to work whereas windows 7 has had time to sort out most of the problems.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2012 1:28:18 PM PDT
There you get into the highly volatile world of PC vs. console. In most cases, in my experience, the console games are ported down enormously on the graphics and control interface side of things. Consoles generally have an advantage of specialized and streamlined integration between software and hardware at the cost of greater cutting edge detail. I you like having the best of everything, or an elitist mentality like me, that means upgrading your hardware every three or four years. I do it in stages to avoid spending too much at one time. Motherboard/CPU then video card.

But all that is academic if you are only interested in low to medium level graphics performance. The problem you'll run into with the older OS is manifold, in that new games require new drivers, memory address registers, and front-end software links to DLLs and other reference material that is not compatible.

In other words, unless you know, or are willing to learn system level C and C++ programming and carve yourself out a custom made interface environment or rewrite some of the existing game registers to run on XP, upgrading becomes a necessary evil.

Just putting in my two cents...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 6, 2012 4:10:41 PM PDT
letsgoiowa says:
I spent $550 and have a build that far exceeds even the recommended specs, but I already had a hard drive and monitor.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 6, 2012 5:06:17 PM PDT
letsgoiowa says:
AOE2 runs perfectly well also. I only upgraded to 7 last year, no compatibility issues at all. Definitely much easier to use and more efficient than XP.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 6, 2012 5:07:59 PM PDT
letsgoiowa says:
They have the same desktop in 8, but it is without the start menu.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2012 10:48:42 PM PDT
SweetDaddy says:
My Computer Specs:
---------------------------

CyberpowerPC
-Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. M4N68T-M-V2
-1 TB HD (also a External 1TB, 1TB, & a 200GB HD)
-Ram 8GB Kingston Technology HyperX 1600MHz OC "KHX1600C10D3B1"
-Video Card 560 SC (EVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 "01G-P3-1461-KR")
-750 Watt PSU CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750
-Acer 20' LCD (Acer X203H bd 20-Inch LCD Monitor)
-Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz AM3
-Win 7 64bit

Time for u to go to the store and get a new computer.

Posted on Oct 7, 2012 10:49:02 PM PDT
SweetDaddy says:
My Computer Specs:
---------------------------

CyberpowerPC
-Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. M4N68T-M-V2
-1 TB HD (also a External 1TB, 1TB, & a 200GB HD)
-Ram 8GB Kingston Technology HyperX 1600MHz OC "KHX1600C10D3B1"
-Video Card 560 SC (EVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 "01G-P3-1461-KR")
-750 Watt PSU CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750
-Acer 20' LCD (Acer X203H bd 20-Inch LCD Monitor)
-Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz AM3
-Win 7 64bit

Posted on Oct 8, 2012 9:00:58 AM PDT
B. Whelan says:
OMG, man!! Where on EARTH did you manage to find such INCREDIBLE hardware?!! You must have THE MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER IN ALL OF THE INTERNETZ!! Wait... NO, the UNIVERSE!@!!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 10:52:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2012 10:56:29 AM PDT
SweetDaddy says:
LOL, good one. I can play every game I have on high. but BF3, so yeah. I guess your right. You don't need the best PC in the world to play these games nowadays on high.

If this person is complaining about this.
They need to upgrade.

Minimum Spec:

OS: Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: 3.0 GHz dual core or better
Memory: 4 GB system RAM
Hard Disk Space: 9 GB
Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible with 512 MB video RAM or better (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850)
Sound: Windows compatible sound card

Enhanced for:
64-bit
multi-core

Recommended Spec:

OS: Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: 2.4 GHz quad core or better
Memory: 4 GB system RAM
Hard Disk Space: 9 GB
Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible with 768 MB video RAM or better (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850)
Sound: Windows compatible sound card

Posted on Oct 8, 2012 11:09:56 AM PDT
Joe Michals says:
Windows XP support ends in April, 2014. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable. The only game I ever had a problem with on Win7 x64 was Deus Ex, but that was because the installer was 16-bit. 3 minutes of searching and 1 download (a 32-bit installer) later, problem solved. (Also, proper SSD support alone was worth the upgrade to 7.)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 11:36:43 AM PDT
H.Le says:
Joe Michals,

Since I still have Win98, it looks like I have delayed "the inevitable" indefenitely :-)

If you already have a stable gaming system, there is no need for 'support' if you are not trying to run all new softwares on it. The point is that, in regard to old school gaming, it's a simple equation of: Older harwares + older softwares = better compatiblity for older games.

In addition, by dual booting, you can still have the best of both worlds.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 2:24:52 PM PDT
Joe Michals says:
I dual boot XP and hardly ever use it, personally. I also have an old Win98 computer just for some of those rare Win/Dos games that don't quite work as they should/could when emulated (like KQ6, for example). I won't argue that old software can (at times) run better on older hardware, but, eventually, that "new softwares" will be "old softwares" and will require the appropriate OS and hardware to run upon. If you are content simply running old games then, yeah, no need to upgrade. Honestly, I just don't understand all of the, "Mrrr, this 2012 game won't run on my 10+ year old OS." If you're running XP exclusively for new games, there is no reason (other than cost, perhaps) not to upgrade. Many, like myself, were thankful that they did.

Posted on Oct 8, 2012 8:21:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2012 8:57:18 PM PDT
H.Le says:
"I dual boot XP and hardly ever use it, personally."

But you still have XP should you ever need it; therein lays the beauty of dual booting. I have Win7 but still prefer XP for older games. Although the condition varies from PC to PC, it's clear from reading numerous older games' forums that quite a few of these older games either run better - or can only run on Win7, when they are ran under 'WinXP Compatibility' mode.

Undoubtedly, this is a great feature of Win7; however, this is also a strong indication that running these games under XP is most likely to be more efficient and with the least amount of hassles. Thus, if one still play old games extensively, and one has the means to have more than 1 PC or 1 OS (as in the OP's case if you read back), then the best way is to run older games on XP - especially those that are not DirectX 10 or 11 compatible, and newer games on 7.

Also, it's great to be able to load games on several PC and/or OS, benchmark them, and keep the one that performs the best. In other words, having several options is always better than having just one option (which is not really an option at all).

It's not just about OS, but many products in general. If it still work - and works well to boot, then why must one get rid of it for a newer model ? More often than not, it's because the manufacturers *want* you to - not because you *need* to. In addition, if there is no adverse effects, then what's wrong with having both the old and the new models ?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2012 8:41:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2012 8:49:16 PM PDT
H.Le says:
This is somewhat off-topic, but for those who may have missed the story - and especially for those of us who are still holding on to Win98 and/or the good ol' FAT file system - this is definitely an interesting article:

"MS-DOS Saves Columbia Shuttle Data

Vintage computing shows up in some of the unlikeliest places. And in this case, it saved the day.

According to a recent Associated Press article, a 340 megabyte 2.5″ Seagate hard drive from the ill-fated space shuttle Columbia survived the craft's fiery break-up and crash to the earth back in February 2003.

A data recovery service called Kroll Ontrack managed to recover most of the data on the drive, which dealt with an advanced xenon experiment. Oddly enough, Jon Edwards of Kroll credits the formatting and data storage methods of the MS-DOS operating system for allowing him to recover the data:

"However, at the core of the drive, the spinning metal platters that actually store data were not warped. They had been gouged and pitted, but the 340-megabyte drive was only half full, and the damage happened where data had not yet been written."

Edwards attributes that to a lucky twist: The computer was running an ancient operating system, DOS, which does not scatter data all over drives as other approaches do.

Three cheers for the FAT file system. I guess that NASA (or the experiment's designers) kept their drives pretty well defragged.

It's amazing Kroll recovered any data off of the platters at all, with the drive's external case scorched, its dust-proof seal compromised, its heads driven into the platter surfaces, and its internal components desoldered by the intense heat.

I'll wager that the platters were composed of solid aluminum, like hard drives of old. If the disk had been a more recent model - you know, the kind with platters made of glass - the fragile discs might have been shattered from the stress of the explosion and hard landing.

It's amazing Kroll recovered any data off of the platters at all, with the drive's external case scorched, its dust-proof seal compromised, its heads driven into the platter surfaces, and its internal components desoldered by the intense heat.

I'll wager that the platters were composed of solid aluminum, like hard drives of old. If the disk had been a more recent model - you know, the kind with platters made of glass - the fragile discs might have been shattered from the stress of the explosion and hard landing.

Researchers recently published the recovered data from the shuttle's xenon experiment in a science journal, as was originally intended. It's satisfying that some good science came out of Columbia's last mission, proving that the crew's tragic journey wasn't completely in vain. For that, in a strange and lucky way, you can thank Microsoft. "

http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/460

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2012 6:14:15 AM PDT
Sean Mccann says:
I think "Games for Windows" is the key here. It probably is very anoying to Microsoft that so many people are still using XP. This may their feable attempt to get people to upgrade and it would'nt be the 1st time either. They've done this a number of times the most noteable being their release of Halo 2 on PC, so this does'nt suprise me at all. The thing that gets me (if its accurate) is the lofty GPU specs. A minimum of a GTX 460. Well I wish them luck on that one. Either this was a quicky port of a primarily console game which usually requires higher system specs to help with its inadequacies or its a ploy by MS to get everyone to upgrade.
Just my 2 cents
Seanno

Posted on Oct 9, 2012 11:00:20 AM PDT
Wicasawakan says:
I had my old desktop running on XP forever. Then I wanted to play a newer game and it wouldn't run on anything older them Vista but recommended 7. Windows 7 had just come out. I just skipped from XP to 7 and never looked back. I have had no problems with 7. I was going to play an old Star Wars game but it wouldn't run on 7. No big deal. It's freakin older than dirt. If you wanna run with the big dogs, you gotta keep up or get out of the way. It's that simple. No crying about "My specs are old and I don't wanna upgrade!". Whiners can go home.

Posted on Oct 10, 2012 3:30:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 10, 2012 3:31:45 AM PDT
P. Maurice says:
The game uses 4 GB Ram minimum with vista 32 bit that optimally only churns out 3.335 GB.... I sense a bottleneck.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 10, 2012 10:08:53 PM PDT
R. Pellumbi says:
I use a PS3 controller on windows 7 perfectly fine. Wireless even, you just need a bluetooth dongle. It is time for an upgrade in my opinion, and it runs fine on my laptop; let alone desktop.

AMD A8 Quad Core 1.5ghz
8gb ram
AMD radeon hd 6620G

You could also run games in vmware, or in compatibility mode.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2012 2:36:08 PM PDT
SweetDaddy says:
CyberpowerPC
-Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. "M4N68T-M-V2"
-1 TB HD (also a External 1TB, 1TB, & a 200GB HD)
-Ram DDR3: 16GB (2 x 8GB) Kingston Technology HyperX Blu Red Series 1600MHz OC "KHX16C10B1RK2/16X"
-Video Card 560 SC (EVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 "01G-P3-1461-KR")
-750 Watt PSU CORSAIR Enthusiast Series "TX750"
-Acer 20' LCD (Acer X203H bd 20-Inch 720p LCD Monitor)
-Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz AM3
-Win 7 64bit

Posted on Oct 11, 2012 7:39:24 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 11, 2012 7:39:59 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2012 9:58:34 AM PDT
SweetDaddy says:
EVGA 02G-P4-2678-KR GeForce GTX 670 FTW 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

this is next this nov

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2012 9:59:56 AM PDT
SweetDaddy says:
as well as this Acer G236HLBbd Black 23" 5ms Widescreen LED Monitor 200 cd/m2 ACM 100,000,000:1 (600:1)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2012 4:44:39 PM PDT
GamePlayer says:
You are indicating something that I have trouble with lately. I have just built up a fairly powerful rig with dual Geforce GTX580s. It has 32gb of useable ram. So, I buy this "new" game and what do I get? A DX9 game? What the heck. DX10 and DX11 have been out for enough time now that MOST GAMES SHOULD AT LEAST BE DX10 PLAYABLE. $60 for a DX9 LINEAR game. What a rip off. I have Duke Nukem 3. Totally linear. This game is SO BAD I can't even finish it. But none the less. $60 for a DX9 game is bad. Is Skyrim DX11? I don't think so. What really got me recently was that I started playing the Black Mesa Half Life game that still used DX9. The reason for the game was to show that USING DX9 PROPERLY the Half Life 1 source made game look as good as Half Life 2. And I play it easily with ONE GTX580 video card. These game companies need to stop jacking up the price of DX9 games and give us games that these new and expensive PCs, etc, are capable of playing. My advice to game developers: get off your collective @#$%@%s and start putting out games that take advantage of the new software and hardware you folks Keep telling us you are going to do. No trailers or demos please.

Posted on Oct 13, 2012 3:58:56 PM PDT
Eli Oliver says:
Skyrim does use DirectX 11. Albeit, they don't make full use of its features.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Dishonored - PC forum
Participants:  30
Total posts:  60
Initial post:  Aug 15, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 29, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Dishonored - PC
Dishonored - PC by Bethesda Softworks (Windows 7 / Vista)
4.3 out of 5 stars (350)