4 replies to this topic

[GraphicX]

ok, so what am i missing here ?  why is it all the games i'm seeing come out are now 'recommending' i7 processors & even the minimum specs are surpassing what i have.  yet i can run the games fine ??

is it they're recommending playing at 4k res or something ???

i have:

i5 4440 cpu
it would be considered very much an entry level cpu, iirc it's 3.2ghz with a 3.4ghz turbo

8gb ram
it's nothing fancy, no heatsink or anthing & either 1333mhz or 1600mhz, dunno, but in 2x 4gb sticks so is actually running as dual channel

r9 290 gpu
it's an msi version that's overclocked, runs slightly quicker than a bog standard 290x, but it's already becoming a vintage model

the recommended specs for mad max include an i7 that's tons more powerful than my i5, yet i can run the game well beyond 60fps at 1080p & everything on the highest quality.

just looking & metal gear solid V is 'minimum' above what i have ?????  the min cpu is a 4460, the next cpu up from mine :S  i've already bought ground zeroes without looking at the requirements & would like to buy the other in future, but supposedly i'd be in trouble ??

anyone have either of those metal gear games on pc, if so how does it go & what you playing it on ?  i can't get my head around it running on the consoles yet needing a pc like that to play it :S

[GasClown]

Who cares - you shouldn't have any problems playing any games at 1080p with an r9 290. End of story.

[GraphicX]

what part does the cpu play in the game though, it must be responsible for something & eventually become a bottleneck of sorts.

[Axe99]

GraphicX, on 03 September 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

what part does the cpu play in the game though, it must be responsible for something & eventually become a bottleneck of sorts.

It depends a lot on the game.  It tends to be the case that the CPU is game mechanics and simulation, while the GPU handles visuals, but it's nowhere as simple as that, that's just a very general rule of thumb.  Action games tend to have more of a visual than simulation load, so CPU would be unlikely to be the barrier, although open-world games do push more simulation than corridor-shooters, all else being equal.  Strategy and simulation titles tend to be a bit more CPU-heavy, as a lot more of their game is in the mechanics, so I wouldn't recommend going too close to a recommended CPU for one of my 'old man' games (that said, strategy games tend to be built for lower-spec PCs to play, the recommended CPU for Hearts of Iron 4, for example, is a 2.4GHz Pentium IV - I wouldn't recommend playing them with something a good deal beefier than that, but your i5 is a good deal better and then some!)

It does sound like a lot of recent PC titles are playing it very safe with their recommended specs, but this might be something along the lines of "We know PC enthusiasts will be able to optimise around these, so these recommended specs are more for people that like to just download the game and press play".  It's deffo a far cry from the olden days, though, when it was generally recommended to have a machine well above recommended just for a reasonable (not good) gameplay experience, and minimum was a recipe for stuttery, buggy trouble.

[GraphicX]

thanks for that old man

wonder if it's also a case of 'my game has higher requirements than yours' type stuff.  seems ever since watch_dogs every game has been exaggerating requirements whereas in the old days you'd meet minimum requirements & it'd be unplayable.