Assasins Creed, dual core required

SAW said:
Heh, well, thats good to know.

My information about the REQUIREMENT came from the Steam page of A.C. Right there above the decription in bold print it says a dual is required. After reading that, is when I made this thread.

If its "NOT" required, I wonder why they made the statement in the first place? Or is it just one of "those" marketing ploys, Steam gets "x" amount of dollars sent their way if they "encourage" the reader to BUY a new CPU, which, in most cases, means basically a whole new rig???

So, if it DOES run without a DUAL core, then ummm, wouldnt that be false advertisment? i.e. It should read "Dual core recommended, but NOT required".

I think since they lied to us, they need to fork over the game for free :)
Click to expand...

lol, no you won't get it for free. But, it is more they are trying to talk about speed of chip. Realistically, if you had one of the behemoth single core chips that cost 2 arms and a leg, you would have already upgraded to a dual or quad core. They are making sure they don't get hammered when people complain about it not running on a AMD 63 3200.
 
vengence said:
Obvioously you didn't read the thread then. There were several people saying it would not run period. That there would be some kind of magical architecture problem. Also that is a AMD 64 3200 running at stock speeds, there are much faster single cores out there. I could see a playble setting of 1024ish being possible.
Click to expand...

You call 1024 playable? :confused:

To make the game look anything at all like what it's supposed to look like, it requires a dual core.

Do you want to know why this is? So that when people call them trying to get it to work, and DONT have a dual core, and thus don't have the hardware archetecture that it expects for running, they can politely inform you that you're on unsupported hardware and are SOL, and then hang up on your sorry butt. It was designed for a dual core, to guarantee that it works right, it requires a dual core. You can run Windows XP on a 386. It requires a lot more - why? So that when you call MS and are trying to get it to run on a 386, they can just laugh at you, that's why.

Welcome to software tech support - this is how it works.
 
lopoetve said:
You call 1024 playable? :confused:

To make the game look anything at all like what it's supposed to look like, it requires a dual core.

Do you want to know why this is? So that when people call them trying to get it to work, and DONT have a dual core, and thus don't have the hardware archetecture that it expects for running, they can politely inform you that you're on unsupported hardware and are SOL, and then hang up on your sorry butt. It was designed for a dual core, to guarantee that it works right, it requires a dual core. You can run Windows XP on a 386. It requires a lot more - why? So that when you call MS and are trying to get it to run on a 386, they can just laugh at you, that's why.

Welcome to software tech support - this is how it works.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the whole thread before getting pissy? Try the post directly above yours....

But, it is more they are trying to talk about speed of chip. Realistically, if you had one of the behemoth single core chips that cost 2 arms and a leg, you would have already upgraded to a dual or quad core. They are making sure they don't get hammered when people complain about it not running on a AMD 63 3200.
Click to expand...

From an archtiectural standpoint, this game WILL run on a single core. It will not run well. And yes, if you have aging hardware, then I call 1024 playable. Will I game at that resolution hell no. Can you not read my sig? I've got a good job and I made a choice to put money into my rig. But your acting like it won't even start up. Like your going to click the icon and it will generate a error before it even starts. Archtiectually a single core is fine. If you had one fast enough. However like I said in the post above, that would be a very very small number of people.

If we were only going to play games at 2560x2400 max AF/AA Ungodlyextremelyinsanelyhigh100000/100000 graphics settings, then I guess crysis will sell zero copies because no one can play it anywhere near that resolution with 1/2 those settings even using TRI-SLI. People play games on the hardware they have. And adjust settings accordingly.

And if you had a 9800GTX and probably around a AMD 64 5000ish (through OCing) then you would be GPU limited and could play at almost any resolution. But again for the 3rd? (4th? 5th?) time, why would you have those two in the same system.
 
Comte said:
Except for this game, which clearly lists Dual Core Processor as a REQUIREMENT.
Click to expand...

It seems like this game will actually function on a single core processor, but to have any level of playability, you must have the 2+ cores.
 
Comte said:
Except for this game, which clearly lists Dual Core Processor as a REQUIREMENT.
Click to expand...

read the whole thread, people are reporting the game functioning with single core processors...

seems like this game will actually function on a single core processor, but to have any level of playability, you must have the 2+ cores.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
vengence said:
read the whole thread, people are reporting the game functioning with single core processors...



Pretty much.
Click to expand...

Your right, it is startable on one core. To actually play more than a slide show takes two. How comforting....

They could have just made a checksum for two core processors, and not let it run if it didnt have them.....
 
Comte said:
They could have just made a checksum for two core processors, and not let it run if it didnt have them.....
Click to expand...

.......

Why the hell would you do that? Seriously. Tommorow when someone comes out with some new technology that for <insert technobable here> is 100X as fast as a dual core, but because of <more technobable> can't be multiple cored, your new 100x as fast computer can't play that game? Thats the dumbest idea ever.
 
vengence said:
.......

Why the hell would you do that? Seriously. Tommorow when someone comes out with some new technology that for <insert technobable here> is 100X as fast as a dual core, but because of <more technobable> can't be multiple cored, your new 100x as fast computer can't play that game? Thats the dumbest idea ever.
Click to expand...

the future of processing is multiple cores so I don't think that's going to be a problem. Perhaps in 100 years when we have a new technology altogether you will be right though.:p
 
refraxion said:
Let's just say, once you've played one mission, you've played them all. Lol ;)
Click to expand...

VERY true. Well, maybe not one mission, but if you finish the first 2-3, you've seen all there is to see. It's a good game for a few hours, but it's repetitious and by the end of the game you're just ready for it to be over.
 
I guess I was just taken a bit by surprise as well. Still not being used to the speed at which "technology" races by and only having built this rig a bit over a year ago, I guess I just wasnt expecting to see such "requirements" so soon.

The computer I had prior to this one was a Gateway, lol. Aside from putting in more ram and, at the time, an updated video card (GeForce 5200), I wasnt "required" to upgrade untill Age of Empires III came out. I bought that game, tried to install it and it would literally spit out the cd and on the screen tell me that my computer didnt meet the minimum requirements.

Untill then, I was playing WoW, DAoC, MoH, Asherons Call, Neocron, NFS, etc etc.....played all those and had that computer for over 5 years.

So, here, a little over a year ago, I build this computer and ALREADY its outdated to a point of "requirement" again. Mannn, at this rate, its going to be a "requirement" to upgrade every other month to play a game.
 
damonposey said:
the future of processing is multiple cores so I don't think that's going to be a problem. Perhaps in 100 years when we have a new technology altogether you will be right though.:p
Click to expand...

Except when people start hard coding that shit in they do it the dumbest way possible. They code in "Dual core or Quad core = 1, else exit". So when someone tries to play the game with 3 cores or 6 cores or 8 cores it fails. I'm not even really talking hypotheticals here. You should see the shit fest that is called "programming" for SAP at my company.
 
Look on the front page of HardOCP today. It says, and I quote :

"We have heard for a while now that Assassin’s Creed would be a “Dual Core CPU or Better Required.” After finishing up our AC DX10.1/Vista SP1 vs. DX10 AC article, Mark went back in with our best performing video card, the 9800 GX2 and did some single core versus dual core testing. Even at 16x12 resolution, which we have traditionally considered “GPU Bound” mostly (yes, there are exceptions to that), we found that disabling one CPU core totally killed performance. So yes, dual core or better is pretty much required when it comes to real world Assassin’s Creed gaming. We have to remember that this is a current-gen console port that had many cores at its disposal during its full development cycle. And we are very likely to see more."
 
My bet, Kyle asked Mark to test it from seeing this thread. Plus he's great at answering emails, so he might have been asked if it was possible to test single core for those questioning the regs for the game.

Tough for those stuck upgrading a whole system, but time moves on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top