System Requirement: an advise...

[Pyrrhos1976]

My PC:
CPU: 1,8 Ghz
RAM: 1,5 Gb

WitP AE will need CPU: 2.0 Ghz minimum

I can't change my PC this year, so I fear AE will not be OK on my PC. What do you think ?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Pyrrhos1976

My PC:
CPU: 1,8 Ghz
RAM: 1,5 Gb

WitP AE will need CPU: 2.0 Ghz minimum

I can't change my PC this year, so I fear AE will not be OK on my PC. What do you think ?

IMHO the MIN specs are just to indicate that the game would run slower on machines that are below the specs... the WitP and WitP-AE are not 3D action games - so if the user is OK with longer turn execution everything should still work OK...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Pyrrhos1976]

Thanks !

No problem if the game run slower. I prepare my money for this summer !

[m10bob]

I agree with Apollo 11..You can also speed up your system if that is a problem by turning off some of the visual replays..

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Pyrrhos1976

My PC:
CPU: 1,8 Ghz
RAM: 1,5 Gb

WitP AE will need CPU: 2.0 Ghz minimum

I can't change my PC this year, so I fear AE will not be OK on my PC. What do you think ?

The specs on the webstie have not been updated. Don't believe them. The only thing about AE that takes up any more system resources is RAM and a bit more disk space. One play tester has gotten it to run on a Windows 98 machine with 512 MB or RAM. I have run it under Windows 2000 with 1 GB of RAM and a 1 Ghz processor. I didn't notice much difference from stock. It's quite playable.

Turn processing is about 10-15% slower the WitP (more things to do) and screen navigation is faster than WitP. We were able to speed up a lot of functions in the game, which has mostly compensated for having to process a bigger map and bigger database.

Of course the faster the CPU, the faster turn processing would go.

Bill

[Erik Rutins]

What Bill said. It will run fine on systems that can run WITP. We will update with final system requirements right before release.

[rjopel]

Which will be when?   [&o][:D]

[Akos Gergely]

Not wanting to sound more clever than the devs, but nowadays pure CPU frequency doesn't mean much. If you have a Core 2 Duo E8xxx running at 2.0 Ghz that's nearly equivalent in performance to a Pentium 4's 3.8 Ghz or in some cases it's much more...so CPU architecture definitely matters. If you have anything like a 1.8 Ghz Core 2 (or derivatie Celeron, Pentium Dual Core etc) or an AMD K8 (either Sempron, Athlon or Athlon X2) you should be fine with running it.

IMHO this 2.0 Ghz rating is still based on old Pentium 4 performance...

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: csatahajos
Not wanting to sound more clever than the devs, but nowadays pure CPU frequency doesn't mean much. If you have a Core 2 Duo E8xxx running at 2.0 Ghz that's nearly equivalent in performance to a Pentium 4's 3.8 Ghz or in some cases it's much more...so CPU architecture definitely matters. If you have anything like a 1.8 Ghz Core 2 (or derivatie Celeron, Pentium Dual Core etc) or an AMD K8 (either Sempron, Athlon or Athlon X2) you should be fine with running it.

IMHO this 2.0 Ghz rating is still based on old Pentium 4 performance...

Very true. I do my development work on a 1.6 GHz, dual core, Vista machine with 2 Gig 'o Ram. Sometimes I use a 1 Ghz, single pipe, XP laptop, with 500 Meg 'o Ram and it works just ducky too. Major limiting factor, in terms of speed is RAM, more = faster (duh), but so long as you gat a minimum, you can run the game. Processor speed is secondary.

I use a 1 GHz machine with 500 Meg 'o Ram to do development work for AE. If you got at least this, you are good to go.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Not wanting to sound more clever than the devs, but nowadays pure CPU frequency doesn't mean much. If you have a Core 2 Duo E8xxx running at 2.0 Ghz that's nearly equivalent in performance to a Pentium 4's 3.8 Ghz or in some cases it's much more...so CPU architecture definitely matters. If you have anything like a 1.8 Ghz Core 2 (or derivatie Celeron, Pentium Dual Core etc) or an AMD K8 (either Sempron, Athlon or Athlon X2) you should be fine with running it.

IMHO this 2.0 Ghz rating is still based on old Pentium 4 performance...

This is true. I was talking mostly about "legacy" machines with single cores. Dual cores don't always buy you extra speed. To truly get the most out of a dual core, the program has to be written with dual cores in mind. Some programs will actually run slower on a dual core because it is expecting all threads to run on the same processor and the program gets hung up waiting for threads to end that were taken over by the other processor.

I only have 1 dual core machine, the other three operational computers are single cores. One of my single cores is contemporary with the dual core (it's dual core capable, just has a single core processor). AE runs just a hair's breath faster on the single core than on the double core (which is probably architecture related, the single core is a desk top and the dual core is a laptop).

The original game was written back when the only dual cores were in servers. There isn't much for the second core to do, so it's idle most of the time (or doing other, non-game related tasks). One of the people on the team has a quad core and he gets very fast turn processing times, but that is probably due to the other features in his high end machine rather than just the quad core.

Bill

[Akos Gergely]

Yeah basically P4/netburst was the last Intel CPU architecture and the first to implement dual cores. After then came the much higher IP (instructions per clock) K8 from AMD and then Core 2 from Intel.

BTW I have A Phenom II quad-core and AMD provides some nice CPU optimizers, so in fact WITP runs on two cores nice and smooth (under XP that is). I won't say it's that much faster but certainly there is an improvement.