Minimum and Recommend System Specs

[canuckgamer]

Now that World at War has gone gold, what are the minimum and recommended system requirements for the game? Thanks to anyone that can help me out on this.

[Joel Billings]

I think they turned out as follows:

Windows 2000, XP
Direct X 9c
Video: 1024x768 or higher, 32 Mb Video RAM (128 Mb Recommended)
CPU: 800 MHz Processor (2 GHz Recommended)
Memory: 512 Mb RAM (1 Gb Recommended)
8 x CD-ROM
500 MB free Hard Drive Space
16 bit Direct Sound compatible Soundcard

[Bombur]

Soory for my ignorance in computer science, but why the minimum requirements are much higher than those from WiTP if the game is much less complex and thus need less calculation?

[Joel Billings]

Because it uses a 3D system that allows us to do some things with the art in this (and future games), but requires a more current system.

[Johnus]

I have a Pentium 4, 1.4 Ghz. But I only have 256 RAM. Will World At War run on it?? If not, is 256 additional memory just a chip I can purchase at Best Buy and just plug in?? I had to do something like that with an aging computer years ago.

Thanks.

[Joel Billings]

It might, if you have a 128Mb video card, but you can't count on it. You should be able to upgrade your memory, but I'm not sure how easy it would be for you to add the chip. Hopefully someone else can help you on that.

[WanderingHead]

What is "Direct X 9c"?

I know I am short on RAM (256M). Looks like I have 64MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

So I guess this isn't going to run on my PC?

That throws some water on my fire.

I thought the high-end graphics were for twitch games, so it's not something I've invested in.

[Hertston]

Direct X (from MS)

is an advanced suite of multimedia application programming interfaces (APIs) built into Microsoft Windows; operating systems. DirectX provides a standard development platform for Windows-based PCs by enabling software developers to access specialized hardware features without having to write hardware-specific code. This technology was first introduced in 1995 and is a recognized standard for multimedia application development on the Windows platform

and 9c is just the latest version. You probably have it installed already, if not virtually all game disks (including this I assume) include it, or it can be downloaded/updated direct from Microsoft (free, obviously).

I have the recommended specs (apart from RAM at only 512M) but I must admit I'm very surprised too. I have seen nothing in the WaW screenies that justifies anything like the recommendeds stated (which would run Half Life 2 quite comfortably at a decent resolution!), so we will just have to see if new games do something really interesting with the new 3D engine that Joel mentioned.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

What is "Direct X 9c"?

I know I am short on RAM (256M). Looks like I have 64MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

So I guess this isn't going to run on my PC?

That throws some water on my fire.

I thought the high-end graphics were for twitch games, so it's not something I've invested in.

That's the latest iteration of Direct X from Microsoft. It's a free download to upgrade. You may already have it. You can check by running dxdiag on your system. The 256 RAM is probably not enough. You can probably upgrade your memory for not too much. Your graphic card is fine. More RAM is always a good thing these days with Windows sucking up so much.

[Marc von Martial]

I have seen nothing in the WaW screenies that justifies anything like the recommendeds stated (which would run Half Life 2 quite comfortably at a decent resolution!), so we will just have to see if new games do something really interesting with the new 3D engine that Joel mentioned.

The huge map with all its interactivity sucks up a lot of RAM. That´s why the specs are so high. The AI needs it´s share too [;)]

[GreenDestiny]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
The huge map with all its interactivity sucks up a lot of RAM. That´s why the specs are so high. The AI needs it´s share too [;)]

So if we have less than the recommended RAM or video RAM the game turns will take longer? I Just want to know as I'm thinking about buying a new video card and this may give me more of a reason to do so.

[steveh11Matrix]

Is there likely to be a 'demo' or 'trial' that lets us see if it's worth buying with our old (read Stonehenge) silicon?

750MHz PIII running W2000 Pro with 384MB Ram and only built-in graphics, and no intention to upgrade - more likely replace in a couple of years or so.

Steve.

[Erik Rutins]

Memory upgrades these days are a good idea for both Windows 2000 and Windows XP. 512Mb is a good sweet spot for performance, especially if you use mutliple applications. In the vast majority of cases, a memory upgrade is a simple, painless procedure that costs $40-$50 for older memory (new memory types are actually cheaper these days). You can do it yourself as long as you follow the instructions and have a free slot on your motherboard.

There are sites like www.crucial.com that can walk you through this process, as can any local techie that you are familiar with.

The other minimum requirements are not steep - 800MHz processor and 32Mb Video have been pretty standard for years. On the video card side, you can get 64Mb and even some 128Mb video cards for less than $50 now - 32Mb is even cheaper, but if you're upgrading I would go to 64Mb or 128Mb.

Check this link New Egg Video Cards.

In general, I think you'll find that many games will be more enjoyable with extra memory and a little more video oomph.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

GreenDestiny,

ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny
So if we have less than the recommended RAM or video RAM the game turns will take longer? I Just want to know as I'm thinking about buying a new video card and this may give me more of a reason to do so.

Game performance at the minimum requirements is quite good in the game's lower graphics mode. However, the more you have in terms of RAM and Video RAM, the better the game will perform. The recommended specs are for a system that can turn everything up to high and still have instantaneous/snappy response.

System memory below 512Mb will definitely degrade game performance, but 384Mb as another customer reported, will probably work. I can't guarantee that because I haven't tried it, but it probably will work - albeit somewhat slowly. We've also continued some performance tweaks since those stats were compiled a couple of weeks ago, so I'll be interested to hear performance feedback from customers with low end systems once the game is out there. I wouldn't go below 32Mb on Video RAM though. I don't think the game would work with below 32Mb at all.

If anyone wants to check their system specs, a handy tool to "look under the hood" is Everest Home Edition. You can download it here: Everest Download Link

Regards,

- Erik

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The other minimum requirements are not steep - 800MHz processor and 32Mb Video have been pretty standard for years. On the video card side, you can get 64Mb and even some 128Mb video cards for less than $50 now - 32Mb is even cheaper, but if you're upgrading I would go to 64Mb or 128Mb.


- Erik

I would go so far to say that a 32mb card is outdated since at least a year. I think i replaced my 32mb card like 4 years ago or so [;)]

If you upgrade I woulnd´t even bother looking at a 64mb card. The 20 bucks you save are simply not worth the performance you wil miss.

Do they actually still sell 32mb cards ???

As for RAM, 512mb should be in every system these days, hell WinXp alone takes a nice 100mb of RAM when you have some security running too. If you game a lot take a gig. Highly recommended.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
The huge map with all its interactivity sucks up a lot of RAM. That´s why the specs are so high. The AI needs it´s share too [;)]

So if we have less than the recommended RAM or video RAM the game turns will take longer? I Just want to know as I'm thinking about buying a new video card and this may give me more of a reason to do so.

As a non-artist I have to say that I've played on the low graphics settings and could hardly tell the difference without having it be pointed out to me. Marc of course thinks the difference is very obvious, but then he's a professional artist. I'd bet that for most people, the low graphics setting will not be an issue. We gained some performance recently (Keith found something that nearly doubled the game speed) so I think most people running under the recommended specs will enjoy the game just fine. Yesterday, playing a game at high graphics on a system that matches the recommended system (2.8 Ghz 1 Gig 128 Mb video card) it took 23 minutes for the computer to play a full campaign against itself (as my daughter would say, "this game is so not War in the Pacific", which takes the AI over a week to play a full campaign). Using my 2.0 Ghz 512 Mb system with a lousy built in 64 Mb video card and the game set to low graphics, the game took the same 23 minutes.

[Mr.Frag]

it took 23 minutes for the computer to play a full campaign against itself

OMG!!! Think of the amount of testing we could have got done in WitP at that speed!!!

[steveh11Matrix]

Thanks, all.

My PC is old enough to need complete replacement of at least the motherboard (PC100 memory, both slots filled) to upgrade it at all. I haven't a clue what the video system is, never needed to know - it's plenty good enough for WitP and HOI/EU etc, and even just about runs Victoria. As far as I've been concerned, it's plenty of video horsepower to handle a strategy game, and I'm definitely *not* into 'twitch' games like FPS.

It seems that you're all intent on running off into the wild new yonder (tm applied for!) however. I'm really, really pleased to know that there's a lower graphics mode, and that the game still looks good in it, and that it will probably run in 384MB RAM, so that allows me to put off buying what is otherwise a not-needed upgrade to play it. I also realise that nowadays I'm really on the trailing edge of technology (I think that one's taken) and that sooner or later it'll be forced on me - but in the meantime, this lovely old machine (must be all of three years old) will simply *have* to do me - there are far too many competing calls on my cash molehill. I cannot justify upgrading my PC *just* to play GGWaW, nor would I want to try, so I'm happy that it will run.

I'd still like to try before I buy, though....

Steve.

[GreenDestiny]

Thanks for the info.
It looks like my 1.6 Ghz AMD Athlon,768 MB of RAM,64 MB G-force4 MX440 video card will be more than alright for this game. But I’ll probably still get a new card anyways and hopefully my system will last for a few more years longer. I’m just getting so tired of looking at my troops in RTW with pointy arms and legs now & days.

[Mr.Frag]

I’m just getting so tired of looking at my troops in RTW with pointy arms and legs now & days.

You should see RTW in true wide screen, it is staggering! [8D]