Assasins Creed, dual core required

I'm not a tinkerer or overclocker. I like it when things just WORK without having to fiddle with things. With that said PC's offer a different experience over consoles which is why I still have both.

Outside of Crysis (which IMO should of been left in the oven and optimized more for real world pc's) the upgrade cycle isn't as bad as some of you guys make it out to be. The rig I'm gutting now is 3 years old and it has a 4400x2 (dual core) 2gigs of ram and originally had a 7800gt (upgraded to a 8800 later) and if it wasn't for the fact that it is a shuttle pc with a dead psu I would still be using it for another year most likely.

Maybe I got lucky when I decided to go with the dual core chip (at the time pc games didn't really use it) but if it wasn't for the fact that I'm swapping cases (which is forcing a mobo change and therefore an upgrade) I'd still be using it and playing games like CoD4 and Supreme Commander at 1680x1050. I do know this time I'm going with a Quad core cpu betting that in the next 2-3 years games will take advantage of it just like I did with the dual core chip.

As for Assassin's Creed I thought it was a great base for a game. The stuffs all there but the one flaw is in the repetitive missions. Its the same thing over and over. I have more fun just free running roof to roof pushing guards off and goofing around. Hopefully the 2nd AC game offers more variety in the missions.
 
I understand your plea, OP. But i do have a comment that probably has already been said. Although it says dual core required, does not mean it IS dual core required. I know that although certain games say XYZ requirements, you can sometimes get away running the game reasonably at "much" lower specs. So do not get disheartened until you try it out. Maybe borrow it from somebody you know and see if it works etc., you may be suprised, or also you may be disappointed. It can go either way. :)
 
Malikman said:
I understand your plea, OP. But i do have a comment that probably has already been said. Although it says dual core required, does not mean it IS dual core required. I know that although certain games say XYZ requirements, you can sometimes get away running the game reasonably at "much" lower specs. So do not get disheartened until you try it out. Maybe borrow it from somebody you know and see if it works etc., you may be suprised, or also you may be disappointed. It can go either way. :)
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it requires a "dual core". If you owned a single core that could do calculations as fast it would be fine. It is just one more of the problems with the PC market. There isn't a good way to say you need a CPU rating of 500 and a GPU rating of 800.
 
vengence said:
I seriously doubt it requires a "dual core". If you owned a single core that could do calculations as fast it would be fine. It is just one more of the problems with the PC market. There isn't a good way to say you need a CPU rating of 500 and a GPU rating of 800.
Click to expand...

Actually, Parallel processing is a bit different then just a really fast single process...
 
TheBluePill, you are right. BUT PC Developers always say xyz is requried but it still runs on a system a little lower. Dual Core rquried may just be for recommeneded... minimum-wise you can probably still go lower. Definitly if you lower viewing range i am sure. (assuming there is that option).
 
TheBluePill said:
Actually, Parallel processing is a bit different then just a really fast single process...
Click to expand...

True, I doubt AC really requires the dual processor though. I'd give 10:1 odds that they are just using the term "dual core" to define the speed, not the architecture required. (Even though it should be a sin to do so)
 
So what? Most people who play games on PC should be dual-core by now, and if they aren't perhaps its time to upgrade?
 
seems to run fine maxxed @ 1900x1200 on my pc .
then again i am dual core, gotta hook up my vista x64 drive and see how she performs
 
I'd give 10:1 odds that they are just using the term "dual core" to define the speed, not the architecture required. (Even though it should be a sin to do so)
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I mean, if they were to recommend a p4 2.8 as the min requirements, you'll have all these confused people with a Q6600 @ 2.4 for example thinking their pc doesn't meet the requirements. Most likely they're just referring to dual core to avoid any ghz confusion.
 
inotocracy said:
So what? Most people who play games on PC should be dual-core by now, and if they aren't perhaps its time to upgrade?
Click to expand...

I can't justify upgrading yet. I still on a single core with a 7800GT, yet there isn’t but a handful of games I'm missing out on which I can't seem to bring myself to spend that kinda money on.

I kinda have a rule that I personally don't buy a OS withen 2 years of its infancy. I'll let other people work out the kinks. Then news of this new "Windows 7" maybe coming out later this year or next... So I think I'm gonna be missing out on some PC gaming for a while... But when I come back... it does gonna be hella worth the money at that point.

Orange box is about the latest and greatest PC game I’ve bought. So when I come back, there better be shit that looks better than Crysis… that’s all I’m saying.
 
Jynio said:
I have to agree. I mean, if they were to recommend a p4 2.8 as the min requirements, you'll have all these confused people with a Q6600 @ 2.4 for example thinking their pc doesn't meet the requirements. Most likely they're just referring to dual core to avoid any ghz confusion.
Click to expand...

or, perhaps, given that the original was designed to run on true multi-core hardware, the pc version also requires multi-core hardware to be usable?

Sure, it'll run - but will it be ~playable~?

If you design a program for true multiple core support, then you expect those hardware threads to be there.
 
Baker said:
You need some help.
Click to expand...

how so? I see no problem with letting pent up aggression out via a computer game? Would you prefer that I slapped the morons, assholes and selfish pricks up the side of the head? Seems a tad barbaric to me. Consider the VOLUME of them I deal with in a day, I do need to let out some aggro.

I used to go biking up a mountain, repeatedly for hours on end, but berlin is flatter than a Little Caesar's pizza so.... that doesn't work now. Plus I have no time.

Baker said:
Has nothing to do with being "strapped for cash". It's more like, I'd rather spend that money on other shit. I guess I'm a casual gamer, so every nickel and dime isnt devoted to it. I don't know about you all, but I still go out, gas + night on the town aint cheap :D
Click to expand...

Move to berlin, I can go "out on the town" for about 20 American pesos.

dnottis said:
I'm headed back to my quad after alot of benching fun with the E3110. Games are smoother on the quad.
Click to expand...

You sir, are a monster. Why must you tempt me so? I love playing around with hardware, even though I can't afford it and don't spend hours benchmarking and tweaking, I just like playing with it.

Malikman said:
I know that although certain games say XYZ requirements, you can sometimes get away running the game reasonably at "much" lower specs.
Click to expand...

Vanguard on a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 from 2001, with 1GB of RAM and a 9800 Pro. My dad has been gaming on that with me for ages. Low settings... but at least he can play. That said, he just upgraded finally and loves it, but the point remains... if you can sacrifice some of the sexy, you can still get the fun.

... You go out on the town, I'm sure you get the point.... :p:p:p

Baker said:
I can't justify upgrading yet. I still on a single core with a 7800GT, yet there isn’t but a handful of games I'm missing out on which I can't seem to bring myself to spend that kinda money on.
Click to expand...

Well, I've got this set up with my woman, I set aside a certain amount of money every paycheck (I'm the only one earning anything at the moment) for me and some for her. About 10 euros. Her stuff goes to extremely expensive stuff for her camera($1500 light sensitive zoom lens most recently), and recently a new laptop (her old one died).

My cash is currently being saved up for getting my first Warhammer army... but some mean people tempt me with Quad-Core benchmarks and the fans in my computer annoy me, so I'm tempted to drop €50 on fans...


That said, I spend other money on stuff like going out or going to festivals. :)
 
vengence said:
I seriously doubt it requires a "dual core". If you owned a single core that could do calculations as fast it would be fine. It is just one more of the problems with the PC market. There isn't a good way to say you need a CPU rating of 500 and a GPU rating of 800.
Click to expand...

Its funny you mention that, back "in the day", it really was that Simple.

Back when the only Performance Metric was the Megahertz of your CPU and the amount of ram you had, it was really easy,

Here are some examples of what was on the side of the box for a few old games; (Minimum Requirements)


Strike Commander
386/33 MHz, 4 MB RAM, 256-color VGA graphics

Wing Commander
IBM PC or compat., 12+ MHz x86 CPU, 640 KB RAM, dual FDD or HDD, 256-color VGA/MCGA or EGA/Tandy, optional sound card (opt. General MIDI)

Descent
Minimum (MS-DOS)
IBM/Tandy or 100% compatible 386-33 or faster
4 MB RAM
DOS 5.0 or later

Doom
80386 class CPU, 4 MB RAM
 
Baker said:
I can't justify upgrading yet. I still on a single core with a 7800GT, yet there isn’t but a handful of games I'm missing out on which I can't seem to bring myself to spend that kinda money on.
Click to expand...

Thats what counts! If all the games you're playing now run fine with your current setup, there is no need to upgrade. Main reason I was on a 7600gt for so long is because I could max out the only game I was really playing (HL2 and CS:S) at my monitor's native resolution. But, FYI, good dual core CPUs are so cheap now a days and even upgrading that will breathe some life into your 7800gt.
 
Technology is vastly more complex now, the complexity of games and the hardware running them is much larger than back in the Doom days, there is probably more power and technology crammed into most PDA/XDA systems now a days than we had back playing Doom.

Of course the system requirements are going to go up (naturally) but the complexity will also, technology doesn't just scale linearly for long, you have to break the mould and start doing fancy things like making SLI video cards, and MultiCore CPU's, it's just the nature of the beast, it will continue to grow in complexity as well...
 
Frosteh said:
Technology is vastly more complex now, the complexity of games and the hardware running them is much larger than back in the Doom days, there is probably more power and technology crammed into most PDA/XDA systems now a days than we had back playing Doom.

Of course the system requirements are going to go up (naturally) but the complexity will also, technology doesn't just scale linearly for long, you have to break the mould and start doing fancy things like making SLI video cards, and MultiCore CPU's, it's just the nature of the beast, it will continue to grow in complexity as well...
Click to expand...

Agreed,

Actually, some PDAs are paying Quake 3 now! Crazy eh!

The real confusing point for a lot of people revolve around the dizzying array of Hardware we have available now with no clear way for the consumer to tell the difference.


If the box says the game requires an Athlon A64 3000+, ATI 2600XT and 2GB of System Mem, what does the average consumer, that has the spec sheet for the following computer think;

Intel Core2Duo E6300
2GB of DDR2-667 RAM
nVidia 7300GS Graphics

....
WE know the differences, Joe blow does not.

Problems like AMD using PR ratings, Intel using Model numbers now, Architechure changes where a 2ghz CPU is faster than a 3ghz one, Graphics card models that make it seem like any "7" series should be faster than any "6" series product.. and no clear information for the users.. it just sucks for the un-informed. Another reason why people are buying consoles.
 
TheBluePill said:
Its funny you mention that, back "in the day", it really was that Simple.

Back when the only Performance Metric was the Megahertz of your CPU and the amount of ram you had, it was really easy,

Here are some examples of what was on the side of the box for a few old games; (Minimum Requirements)


Strike Commander
386/33 MHz, 4 MB RAM, 256-color VGA graphics

Wing Commander
IBM PC or compat., 12+ MHz x86 CPU, 640 KB RAM, dual FDD or HDD, 256-color VGA/MCGA or EGA/Tandy, optional sound card (opt. General MIDI)

Descent
Minimum (MS-DOS)
IBM/Tandy or 100% compatible 386-33 or faster
4 MB RAM
DOS 5.0 or later

Doom
80386 class CPU, 4 MB RAM
Click to expand...


Hey stop dating me! I use to play those games! All the mess with extended rom, and such. Heck, I even remember games like Kroz, and Return to Kroz when they didn't even list specs!
 
how can it NOT require a dual core?
rendering entire cities, all the people in it, their reactions to what you do, travel anywhere you want, nothing limited - and ppl think that can all be done on a single CPU?:D

WAY TOO MANY calculations going on for a single CPU to handle
 
Yes, not havint clearly defined system requirements is a fairly big problem.

The only way I can think of doing this well, but keeping it simple for people is actually Microsofts current implimentation, which is to benchmark the hardware after windows is installed, and give you a score. This sort of system a bit more refined and with more widespread use could solve the problem of system specs.

Microsoft need to keep on top of it though, the maximum score is 5.9 if i remember correctly, and I have that for all components inside my PC, so they need to update it to test newer, faster hardware.

A user needs to see a score of 5 for his RAM when he needs a score of 6 and be able to click a link in windows which explain to him that he needs to add more RAM to his system, or whatever.
 
Frosteh said:
Yes, not havint clearly defined system requirements is a fairly big problem.

The only way I can think of doing this well, but keeping it simple for people is actually Microsofts current implimentation, which is to benchmark the hardware after windows is installed, and give you a score. This sort of system a bit more refined and with more widespread use could solve the problem of system specs.

Microsoft need to keep on top of it though, the maximum score is 5.9 if i remember correctly, and I have that for all components inside my PC, so they need to update it to test newer, faster hardware.

A user needs to see a score of 5 for his RAM when he needs a score of 6 and be able to click a link in windows which explain to him that he needs to add more RAM to his system, or whatever.
Click to expand...

These are pretty clear though! Dual Core Pentium D 2.8 or higher, Athlon64 3800+X2 or higher.
 
Not if you don't know the scaling of CPU's well enough to decide whether your CPU is "higher", that's assuming you even know what CPU you have, many people simply do not.
 
Frosteh said:
Not if you don't know the scaling of CPU's well enough to decide whether your CPU is "higher", that's assuming you even know what CPU you have, many people simply do not.
Click to expand...

People are idiots and even enumerating it they wouldn't get it.

They released a utility for people like that to tell them if it was good enough.
 
vengence said:
I seriously doubt it requires a "dual core". If you owned a single core that could do calculations as fast it would be fine. It is just one more of the problems with the PC market. There isn't a good way to say you need a CPU rating of 500 and a GPU rating of 800.
Click to expand...


What makes you doubt it?
 
Comte said:
What makes you doubt it? Do you have any evidence to back up this doubt, other than you think that? It says "DUAL CORE PROCESSOR REQUIRED", not "DUAL CORE PROCESSOR REQUIRED UNLESS YOU HAVE A MYTHICAL SUPER SINGLE CORE PROCESSOR, THEN YOUR ALRIGHT."

So, what exactly do you have to support your "thought" that it isnt required?
Click to expand...

Wow, it would be nice if you learned to read. If you actually read any of my posts it would be clear. My personal opinion is that it is just a poorly written spec. I never claimed to have any special knowledge of anything. And no I don't have or NEED any evidence to back up my personal opinion, that is why it's called an OPINION. :rolleyes:
 
vengence said:
Wow, it would be nice if you learned to read. If you actually read any of my posts it would be clear. My personal opinion is that it is just a poorly written spec. I never claimed to have any special knowledge of anything. And no I don't have or NEED any evidence to back up my personal opinion, that is why it's called an OPINION. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I went and edited that out.
 
vengence said:
Wow, it would be nice if you learned to read. If you actually read any of my posts it would be clear. My personal opinion is that it is just a poorly written spec. I never claimed to have any special knowledge of anything. And no I don't have or NEED any evidence to back up my personal opinion, that is why it's called an OPINION. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

dual core Pentium-D 2.8+ or 3800X2+ is poorly written? That's extremely clear to me. 2 cores of this capability or higher.
 
vengence said:
Wow, it would be nice if you learned to read. If you actually read any of my posts it would be clear. My personal opinion is that it is just a poorly written spec. I never claimed to have any special knowledge of anything. And no I don't have or NEED any evidence to back up my personal opinion, that is why it's called an OPINION. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Seriously, its written just as clearly as Halo 2 was, which needed Vista to play. There is no "gimme" in either requirement. I just dont see where you get any hint that its a poorly written spec from something as clear as that is stated.
 
Frosteh said:
We can't keep on limiting the evolution of games because of old hardware standards, if you can't play because you don't have good enough or new enough hardware then you'll just have to upgrade like everyone else.
Click to expand...

By "evolution" you mean fancy graphics that get fancier and fancier taking first place with gameplay being second or even third in the race ?

Or by "evolution" you mean assasin's creed ?

Or by "evolution" you mean that people who can afford upgrading more often than others should define the pace at which games "evolve" ?

So crysis and the likes are evolving gaming ?

One final word from me. Gaming in general and pc gaming in particular has no need for the so called "evolution" you mention. What it needs is revolution.
 
Stardusted said:
By "evolution" you mean fancy graphics that get fancier and fancier taking first place with gameplay being second or even third in the race ?

Or by "evolution" you mean assasin's creed ?

Or by "evolution" you mean that people who can afford upgrading more often than others should define the pace at which games "evolve" ?

So crysis and the likes are evolving gaming ?

One final word from me. Gaming in general and pc gaming in particular has no need for the so called "evolution" you mention. What it needs is revolution.
Click to expand...

I agree that a revolution would be nice, but evolution is virtually guaranteed in the electronic entertainment industry.

There is a cost to be entertained, be it an $8 movie ticket or a $2 donation to the petting zoo. having a "grand experience" often has a higher price tag, $12 for an IMAX movie or $10 to the city Zoo.

Same with Gaming, anyone can shell out $100 for a Brand new PS2 and have access to hundreds of $20 titles that are fun to play. Some choose to pay $400 for a PS3 and $60 for those "grand" titles.

PC gaming is the same. You can choose to buy a $299 EeePC and play flash games or spend $16K on a loaded Voodoo PC. There are Thousands of options in-between.

Some of us enjoy the fact that newer software will take advantage of newer hardware and we willingly pay that fee for the entertainment. Some of us dont. Its just like everything else, but I, for one, am glad I have options available to me and my budget.
 
TheBluePill said:
I agree that a revolution would be nice, but evolution is virtually guaranteed in the electronic entertainment industry.

There is a cost to be entertained, be it an $8 movie ticket or a $2 donation to the petting zoo. having a "grand experience" often has a higher price tag, $12 for an IMAX movie or $10 to the city Zoo.

Same with Gaming, anyone can shell out $100 for a Brand new PS2 and have access to hundreds of $20 titles that are fun to play. Some choose to pay $400 for a PS3 and $60 for those "grand" titles.

PC gaming is the same. You can choose to buy a $299 EeePC and play flash games or spend $16K on a loaded Voodoo PC. There are Thousands of options in-between.

Some of us enjoy the fact that newer software will take advantage of newer hardware and we willingly pay that fee for the entertainment. Some of us dont. Its just like everything else, but I, for one, am glad I have options available to me and my budget.
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't been to the Fort Worth Zoo. Sweet jebus, it's expensive.

But I'll say this...If you don't have a dual-core CPU, you are a dying breed, and you will be forced to upgrade eventually. Perhaps this game is the one what will make you want it, or perhaps Supreme Commander already did it, or perhaps you will find some game or application down the road that will give you sufficient impetus to upgrade. But you will upgrade, sooner or later, if you want to keep gaming on your PC.

It's not a console. Regardless of whatever they are worth to you, consoles are black boxes with games that are virtually guaranteed to run just fine. PCs are not like that. PCs evolve over cycles numberd in months, not years. That is why PCs are, and have always been, the vanguard gaming platform.

Dual-core technology is now years old. It's time to embrace it or be left behind. No more whining.
 
I don't see a difference between a PC spec requirement and games being written for a specific console. If you want to play a ps3 game, you're going to need a ps3. If you want to play a game which requires dual-core, you should expect to need dual-core. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept.
Lusting after the latest hardware and drooling over screenshots you knew you'd never achieve on your current PC used to be half the fun of PC gaming, now people seem to get very upset if a game has requirements they don't meet, as though they have some sort of divine right to be able to play every game that's released at 100fps.
 
Mark_Warner said:
..........[......]
Dual-core technology is now years old. It's time to embrace it or be left behind. No more whining.
Click to expand...

Please stop putting the whining label on other oppinions just because you have your different own ones. It simply kills dialogue.
 
Baker said:
Man, you not including all the prices.

That $100 + tax for the P35
$80 + tax for the ram
$220 + tax for the quad core
$xx + tax for a new power supply
$the difference + tax of the graphics card (depending on your old graphics card, this can add a huge amount to total cost)

After you add all that up + tax, you looking at an easy $700-900 whoopers.

And guess what, I bet you every 1.2 years, you will need to upgrade the graphics card or cpu or something to run games at what you’re used to now. So that’s additional cost overall.

This 60G PS3 I got 12/06 was $599 + tax at the time. Other than additional controllers, I haven’t put 1 dime into my PS3. (which if you want to have the same features of MP on a PC, you can add controllers to the cost)

Over time the PS3 will be playing games with overall better graphics and performance, and as it ages, I won’t have to put any more money into it. The graphics will keep getting better and I'll still be able to play new games. Look at the graphics of the PS2 titles that were first released, to what is running on them today. The hardware stayed the same, but developers just learn how to optimize code over time.

The price is now $399 + tax for a PS3. Although it can't play PS2 games, it can do everything else. You probably are going to end up spending 1/2 of what you initially have to spend on a PC, and in 3 years time (shit how long has the PS2 been out?) you'll have a lot of extra cash to spend on other things.

I enjoyed the shit out of AC on my console and HDTV ;)
Click to expand...


Motherboard $88 -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131213

CPU Q6600 $248 -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

4GB DDR2 800 $70 -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211188

PC Power & Cooling 610 Watt $119 -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703005

MSI 8800GTS 320 $139 before rebate -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127328


Alternate - mid range GPU - 8600GT $81
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814141059

Alternate - PSU - TT500 PP $69 before rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153052


You would not have to upgrade the motherboard, CPU or ram for at least a few years with a quad. So you pickup a $150 midrange card every year or two, big deal. Since most items have free shipping and no tax - using my first recommendations total - $664, with the alternate GPU and PSU $556. You paid more than that for your PS3 :D Every couple years you have to blow $600 - $800 on a new console and accessories anyways. So I dont see how keeping a gaming PC up to date is more expensive.
 
Pretty simple concept. If your system meets the specs buy the game. If not either upgrade or enjoy a game that will play on your setup.

No one is twisting your arm forcing you to buy the game or upgrade. Saying the specs are too high, falls of deaf ears to those of us who do upgrade to enjoy the latest titles.

If it was possible to play on single core CPUs, it would look like crap at the settings required to play and people would have something else to complain about.
 
Kowan said:
Pretty simple concept. If your system meets the specs buy the game. If not either upgrade or enjoy a game that will play on your setup.

No one is twisting your arm forcing you to buy the game or upgrade. Saying the specs are too high, falls of deaf ears to those of us who do upgrade to enjoy the latest titles.

If it was possible to play on single core CPUs, it would look like crap at the settings required to play and people would have something else to complain about.
Click to expand...


Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top