RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS .. Anyone Else Still Seeing FR Issues ?

[MightyTic]

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Intel Pentium IV 3.0GHz or AMD Athlon 64 or equivalent or higher
2GB RAM
DirectX 9.0c compatible video card. 256MB Pixel Shader 3.0 (ATI x1600 or NVidia 6800 GT/GS or better)


OF THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS .. I have , 2 of the 3

Intel Pentium IV 2.0GHz
2GB RAM*
ATI x1650 Pro with 512mb on board double the required amount.*


Yet with 2 of the 3 , even at 800x600 and default camera of Long and MED graphics I still see frame rate issues. I got 60fps at kickout and defence coming away with the ball , 45 to 50-60 in midfield. When it gets down to below 50 there is a bit of screen strutter, attacking or defending crowded boxes I get down to 30 and start seeing slow down or the flip side speeded up animation. Blocked shots and a bit of ping ponging of the ball and bodies in the box the frame rate can drop to as low as 25fps.

Monitor refresh set at 60mhz.

I can understand a "bit" that without a 3ghz porcessor I will not get my monitors max res of 1600 x 1200, but to see frame rate drops at 800x600 and Med Graphics that is a bit much.

Anyone else seeing the same ?

I was reading about the Full game and how the graphics have been polished up and look even better, god me if I am seeing frame rate problems just now what's it going to be like with slightly better grahics in the full game.

PS ... In Wide Camera , you can knock off anywhere between 5 and 10fps of what I get in Long camera

 

[nik0s]

The memory on the graphics card means nothing unless the game is texture heavy (e.g. fps games with ultra hight texture analysis and huge polygon counts). Even then, the difference is negligeble (2-5% tops).

The computer industry has been long messing with the byers by marketing video cards by memory size. 99% of what matters is the chip on board. The x1600 - 6800GT/GS mentioned was medium range2 years ago. By comparison those cards perform around what a 8500GT would, and your card stands between the 8500GT and the 8600GT which are both not really powerful cards for todays standards.

The second most importand thing is the processor. If your CPU does not produce game cycles fast enough then even the with an 280GTX on SLI you would have frame skipping. You have a processor that's 2/3 the speed of the recommended so that might be your bottleneck. Although I would assume that those requirements are lowered for marketing reasons. On 99% of the games I've played the recommended settings produce a "playable" experience (30fps or more) but certainly not the optimum. The CPU is needed for the game's engine (physics, AI etc) and is not really affected by resolution (geometry is handled by the GPU).

Finally RAM size imporving performance is a myth. More RAM will never give you better fps. It will however reduce loading times and remove in-game stuttering due to disk access (if you happen to have any).

In other words, upgrade your system is the only thing you can do. Try upgrading to a mid-range coreduo cpu (and mobo) and see what results you get. If it's still not enough you might go for a 9800GT at around 100€ (it's a beast for its price really).

 

[MightyTic]

thanks for the info , when I see something like Min specs and then Recommended, I like others would think that you should be getting near top quality out of the game. I read somewhere that gamers and others were trying to force game companies to put on the boxes the specs needed to play the game at lowest playable level and have no frame rate or other issues and same at highest level.

Now if I am seeing frame rate slow downs and speed ups in parts of the game with my P4 2Ghz 2GbDDR and my x1650 which 2 of which are in the Recommend specs and 1ghz short of all 3 being in the Recommended specs.

What chance will anyone else have when they pick up the box and say yes my PC can play this game, I have the MIN specs. It won't run, I have issues at the lowest Res setting and lowest grahpic setting, anyone who buys this game who has a PC that only meeting the MIN specs are in for a shock.


As you can tell I know very little about what is need to play x game(s) on my PC. So can you tell me this , I did read about duel cores and how games are still only really using 1 of the 2 cores. So with that in mind , PES2009 would it run better with a P4 3Ghz or a Duel core 2.4Ghz processor.

 

[nik0s]

You oversimplify it by stating that you only miss "a measly Ghz" out the recommended settings. That 1Ghz is actually a HUGE performance difference, not only because of the sheer arithmetic difference but also because of the fact that that 1Ghz contains two generations of P4s.

CPUs get more efficient with each generation by decreasing transistor sizes so they can include more transistors in the chip AND keep it cooler at higher speeds. The same goes for the rest of the system (m/b, memory etc). So in essence they whole PC gets a boost with each generation of chips.

That is why the Athlon64s where a lot faster than P4s at lower speeds during their reign, and that is why the Core2Duos are a LOT faster than the P4s at lower speeds. The 2.4Ghz Core2Duo is faster than the P4 3Ghz in single core mode, let alone dual.

The "rest of the system" speeded is the FSB. It's 800Mhz for the last generation P4s and scales up to 1333Mhz for the core duos.

To sum it up, stay as far away as possible from the Pentium Ds and go for a Core2Duo. If you want good price/performance ratio at a low budget go for the E2220 (2.4Ghz 800Mhz FS. If you can spare a few more pounds go for the E7 (1066 FS or even the E8s (1333 FS as they are newer generation (45nm transistors) and perform better.