PDA

View Full Version : My configuration



gazda13
05-14-2008, 01:26 PM
Hey guys..I still don`t have the game..but i will get it...so I was wondering if can you tell me is my configuration good enough for this game and on which settings will I be able to play it.So here it is:
Motherboard:Asus P5B
CPU:Intel Core2Duo E4600 2.4GHz
GPU:HD3850, GECUBE, X-TURBO,512 MB
RAM:2x 1GB CRUCIAL 667MHz
and sorry for my bad English cause I`m from Croatia

BTOG46
05-14-2008, 01:32 PM
Should be ok, and you should be able to run it on medium to high, depending on which version of Windows you're running, but you should really fit more ram if you're using Vista http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 01:51 PM
Well, I can run it maxed out with a lower spec rig than that so you should be happy bouncy

gazda13
05-14-2008, 02:31 PM
ok, thanks guys..

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 02:59 PM
Enjoy the game dude. It rocks

abeautifulliar
05-14-2008, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by BTOG46:
Should be ok, and you should be able to run it on medium to high, depending on which version of Windows you're running, but you should really fit more ram if you're using Vista http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i play(ed) it on high with 3/3 multisampling on vista and i've got 2 GIG ram..
not slow at all..

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 03:34 PM
It seems to really be your vid-card that makes all the difference with Creed, and yours is better than mine so you really should be just fine

TokyoPoliceClub
05-14-2008, 06:38 PM
What resolution are you running on, it really depends on that. Even still at 1650x1050 it runs at about 53 fps,(low 27, high 96) so you should easily get in the 40+'s. I wouldn;t worry to much.
Speaking of which, 53 fps average doesn't seem to bad for this game what's with all the poorly ported discussions? My rig isn't exactly top of the line, but what is these days after a week or so.

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 06:40 PM
Why does anyone care about getting FPS in the 40s? The Human eye only runs at 25

TokyoPoliceClub
05-14-2008, 06:42 PM
I tried waving my hand in front of my eyes after that comment, yes I'm that bored. And there is nothing wrong at all with running at around 40. 40 fps is still pretty smooth, much smoother than you need to stab people in the back.

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 06:43 PM
I'm not saying that it isn't. But your eye is medically incapable of seeing more than twenty-five frames per second. So after thirty you can't even tell the difference

TokyoPoliceClub
05-14-2008, 06:47 PM
Not gonna lie I can see a difference between 30 and 60 fps. I think everybody does. Or am I falling into the pitfall that is e-sarcasm?

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 06:49 PM
No I'm serious. The only reason you can really see a difference is because you expect to

TokyoPoliceClub
05-14-2008, 07:14 PM
I'm going to agree to disagree on that one. Theres a big difference between running at like 25-30 than there is running at like 60+ especially noticable if your playing shooters.

Bobfish_Almight
05-14-2008, 07:16 PM
That, again, sounds like a plan to me

davo81
05-14-2008, 10:07 PM
You can tell the difference up to around 80 fps. The human eye 30fps thing is a joke. this game only neds like 40+ (while the ps3 is only 20 ish) any first person shooter will need 60+ (i like 80). My two 8800gt's seem to get around 50 - 70fps average on 1680 x 1050 max settings (no vsync). But the human eye can tell alot mre then 25 fps imagine what life would be like at 25fps..and explain why monitor's refresh rates are like 85hz?..but the thing tha confuses me is that my sisters 9800gtx only gets like 40 fps 1680 x 1050 max settings...

Bobfish_Almight
05-15-2008, 12:04 AM
Refresh rate and framerate are different

davo81
05-15-2008, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Bobfish_Almight:
Refresh rate and framerate are different

Still 25fps is unplayable in any game, 60+ is good for first person shooters.

Bobfish_Almight
05-15-2008, 07:07 AM
Well, I'm happy with fifteen or more to be honest

cooldude6681
05-15-2008, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by davo81:
Still 25fps is unplayable in any game, 60+ is good for first person shooters. 25 fps is unplayable? Um, no, 25 fps is quite playable. Under 15 is when you start running into problems.
25 FPS may be unplayable if you've got an IV of caffeine and are experiencing things slower than everyone else; but for the rest of us who aren't hopped up, 25 FPS is sufficient.

Note: Playability and aesthetics are entirely different.

Bobfish_Almight
05-15-2008, 08:03 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

davo81
05-15-2008, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by cooldude6681:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davo81:
Still 25fps is unplayable in any game, 60+ is good for first person shooters. 25 fps is unplayable? Um, no, 25 fps is quite playable. Under 15 is when you start running into problems.
25 FPS may be unplayable if you've got an IV of caffeine and are experiencing things slower than everyone else; but for the rest of us who aren't hopped up, 25 FPS is sufficient.

Note: Playability and aesthetics are entirely different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For me i won't play anything below 30, but thats my opinion and nothing below 60 for first person shooters. It might be playable for you at 15 but not for me..(everyone has thier own level of playability).

TokyoPoliceClub
05-15-2008, 07:05 PM
I'm siding with davo for sure. Playing AC at like 25 fps would drive me insane. I'd end up returning it and agreeing with everybody who talked about it being poorly ported. 25 fps is, to be quite honest, piss poor for shooters. Not only will you be unable to play well, you'll piss everybody off with your lag teleporting. Even when AC dips to like 30ish fps for me it bothers me. Once you get used to playing at 60 though and seeing how smooth it runs, 25 begins to look a bit slide-showish. And I'm aware playability and aesthetics are entirely different, but AC at 25 fps is hardly playable if you ask me.

Bobfish_Almight
05-16-2008, 07:42 AM
Lag and low framerate are not the same thing. Lag is caused by your net bandwidth, framerate is purely caused by your hardware