I can run champions Maxed out on a single core P4. So single cores should in theory be able to handle STO. My concern with the specs is weather or not this is actually being tested.
So, looks like you've dumped the idea of real support for Mac/Linux already. Or is there any plans for supporting OpenGL graphics in the future? And remember Cedega/Cider/wine IS NOT REAL SUPPORT. That won't make me buy the game.
Where have you been? Linux or Mac with STO has never been supported, even from the start. You can't dump something you've never had. But STO runs DX9, so stop you're baseless complaining. Wine runs most DX9 games, especially those from a straight C compiler like STO. I'd only complain if they opted for a .NET based launcher or something, which none of us know about yet. And if you're on a Mac, just bootcamp to a copy of Windows on your Apple hardware.
I know some people are going to start commenting to this that "if you want to really play this game, get Windows and live with it". That can be something that you are willing to pay for, but I'm not. I don't need stuff that runs only on Windows.
Windows is the defacto for gaming. It's not a measuring stick of the OS, just a fact that most people run Windows who want to game. Which is why the developers target the biggest audience. You can roll Windows 7 RC-1 for free until summer of next year provided you download one from a torrent or get it from someone who already downloaded a copy. Or install XP for dirt cheap... you can still find retail and OEM copies out there on eBay.
With that said, I'm a fan of Linux and I run a few Linux boxes at home (one server and one MythTV system). But its developer community is just too far behind to play catch-up with reverse engineering the proprietary DX10, let alone DX11, so I don't use it for gaming.
Glad its the same as CO. Means I'll have those wonderful recommended settings (maybe with a few things off, my computer isn't super powerful but good enough.)
Now all we need is the subscription model...
(and hopefully, one day, STO will come to either console and/or Mac.)
You are KILLIN me Cryptic! Where's the MAC love? Seriously though, I hope we'll get some news soon for us mac users. Or failing that, at least an update on the platform status (Xbox 360 please!).
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics
I don't think the person who wrote the system requirements knows what they're stating there. That's the most confusing system requirements I've seen for video cards/GPUs.
First, Intel "HD Graphics" (built-in video GPU) is never going to be nearly as fast as a dedicated video card like those listed above.
Second, the 7950 is the 7th NVIDIA generation's enthusiast gaming card (ie: top-end for 7th gen). It will be MUCH faster than say an 8400 which is a newer, but slower card. The second number in an NVIDIA card measures its performance for that generation (1st number is for generation). So a 7950 > 8600 > 9500 > 220.
Third, you did not mention the suffix for the 7950. There is a GT and a GX2 model. The GX2 is pretty much a dual GPU card and absolute top-of-the-line for the 7th generation NVIDIA cards.
Here's some performance comparisons for fillrates, which is as close as you can get to comparison across different generation cards since memory speed and size also plays a roll. But these fillrates are a card's raw power. MP/s = millions of pixels per second and MT/s = millions of texels per second (texture pixel).
7950 GT... Fillrate: 8,800 MP/s, 13,200 MT/s
8600 GT... Fillrate: 4,320 MP/s, 8,640 MT/s
9500 GT... Fillrate: 4,400 MP/s, 8,800 MT/s
220 GT... Fillrate: 5,000 MP/s, 10,000 MT/s
So if Cryptic lists an NVIDIA 7950 as a requirement, that means you need a card that can match or beat its raw performance. So for each generation after this, that would be:
8800 GT (according to Cryptic an 8600 or less card won't cut it)
9600 GT (according to Cryptic a 9500 or less card won't cut it)
240 GT (according to Cryptic a 220 or less card won't cut it)
And those requirements are obviously too high.
So, let's compare that to their ATI requirement of an X1800. Again, they didn't list the suffix for the 1800, which is either GTO, GTO rev.2, XL, or XT. Let's go with the XL since it shares similar performance to the GTO and is somewhere in the middle. For ATI cards, the MT/s (millions of texels per second) is the only raw power comparison we have across multiple generations. Similar cards along ATI generations (to match or beat the 1800 XL:
1800 XL... Fillrate: 8,000 MT/s
2900 Pro... Fillrate: 9,600 MT/s
3750... Fillrate: 10,700 MT/s
HD 4830... Fillrate: 18,400 MT/s (next one down is the 4550 at 4,800 MT/s)
So for ATI, we look like we're at a much better range. For Cryptic's early requirement mention of an NVIDIA 7950, we're much too high at 13,200 MT/s.
And I won't even bother for "Intel HD Graphics" since built-in GPUs are not in the same league as dedicated video cards. Cryptic probably threw that in for laptops. Any built-in Intel GPU is going to be dog slow for any new game.
Hey guys i was just asking if anyone knew how to check these requirements and if you could Pm me about it Thank you .
You mean on your own PC?
If you're running Windows, just open your Device Manager, under the Hardware section of your System Properties (in the control panel). Then expand Display Adapters.
CO only requires a single core processor. Why is STO different if it is the same engine?
I don't think you understand what they mean by engine. The engine of a game has a loose and indirect connection to the graphical requirements of a game, if any. STO can have fare more polygons and textures than CO, and therefore require more GPU power. As for CPU power, the STO engine is based on the CO engine, but it is obviously going to be heavily modified for STO (to the point of no longer being able to swap it with the CO engine).
The system requirements seem like they will work out fine -- I just hope that a Mac version is made eventually, because I'd prefer to play it on that (but am totally willing to make sacrifices in order to play the game one way or another). Even though I already meet said requirements, I will definitely be improving my system in the coming months to ensure the gameplay experience is high-quality. Can't wait!
I've got an AMD Phenom X3 8550 Triple Core Processor, 3Gb ram. Running on Vista. My PSU is only 220w which i agree i'll prolly need to upgrade. I have a couple of PCIE slots and i think one PCIEx16. As its an Integrated Motherboard GPU i have thankfully i'm not using up one of those slots already.
Triple Core? Never knew they made them, always thought there were dual and quad cores.
Well having empty PCI slots is a good thing. And upgrading the Power to a higher system won't cost that much. You can get a 400w from Best Buy for $30. (But make sure it's fully compatiable with your computer first, especially with the dimensions). At the same time you buy a low-end video card for somewhere between $30 (online) to $70 (Best Buy).
I don't think the person who wrote the system requirements knows what they're stating there. That's the most confusing system requirements I've seen for video cards/GPUs.
First, Intel "HD Graphics" (built-in video GPU) is never going to be nearly as fast as a dedicated video card like those listed above.
Second, the 7950 is the 7th NVIDIA generation's enthusiast gaming card (ie: top-end for 7th gen). It will be MUCH faster than say an 8400 which is a newer, but slower card. The second number in an NVIDIA card measures its performance for that generation (1st number is for generation). So a 7950 > 8600 > 9500 > 220.
Third, you did not mention the suffix for the 7950. There is a GT and a GX2 model. The GX2 is pretty much a dual GPU card and absolute top-of-the-line for the 7th generation NVIDIA cards.
Here's some performance comparisons for fillrates, which is as close as you can get to comparison across different generation cards since memory speed and size also plays a roll. But these fillrates are a card's raw power. MP/s = millions of pixels per second and MT/s = millions of texels per second (texture pixel).
7950 GT... Fillrate: 8,800 MP/s, 13,200 MT/s
8600 GT... Fillrate: 4,320 MP/s, 8,640 MT/s
9500 GT... Fillrate: 4,400 MP/s, 8,800 MT/s
220 GT... Fillrate: 5,000 MP/s, 10,000 MT/s
So if Cryptic lists an NVIDIA 7950 as a requirement, that means you need a card that can match or beat its raw performance. So for each generation after this, that would be:
8800 GT (according to Cryptic an 8600 or less card won't cut it)
9600 GT (according to Cryptic a 9500 or less card won't cut it)
240 GT (according to Cryptic a 220 or less card won't cut it)
And those requirements are obviously too high.
So, let's compare that to their ATI requirement of an X1800. Again, they didn't list the suffix for the 1800, which is either GTO, GTO rev.2, XL, or XT. Let's go with the XL since it shares similar performance to the GTO and is somewhere in the middle. For ATI cards, the MT/s (millions of texels per second) is the only raw power comparison we have across multiple generations. Similar cards along ATI generations (to match or beat the 1800 XL:
1800 XL... Fillrate: 8,000 MT/s
2900 Pro... Fillrate: 9,600 MT/s
3750... Fillrate: 10,700 MT/s
HD 4830... Fillrate: 18,400 MT/s (next one down is the 4550 at 4,800 MT/s)
So for ATI, we look like we're at a much better range. For Cryptic's early requirement mention of an NVIDIA 7950, we're much too high at 13,200 MT/s.
And I won't even bother for "Intel HD Graphics" since built-in GPUs are not in the same league as dedicated video cards. Cryptic probably threw that in for laptops. Any built-in Intel GPU is going to be dog slow for any new game.
Arg, that makes me nervous my PNY GF 9400GT won't cut it after all! :eek:
I just updated my beta application with some parts I got for a new system. I hope it's taken into consideration.
i7 920 processor
12G DDR3 1600 Ram
ATI Radeon HD 5870 graphix card
Windows 7 64 bit
*hangs head in shame*
My poor computer is far below minimum specs. Looks like I'll be saving for a couple months. It runs Champions on medium graphics though, which is odd.
This has been posted once before in the forums, that is how I found this site. There is no selection for STO yet, I used Champions since they are very similar.
Triple Core? Never knew they made them, always thought there were dual and quad cores.
Yup, AMD does. They started to sell them from remnants of their quad core CPUs with 1 failed core after fabrication. But that's just a rumor. Now they are making them with 3 cores just to compete in the bang-for-your-buck market.
Arg, that makes me nervous my PNY GF 9600GT won't cut it after all! :eek:
Don't worry, your 9600 GT is probably fine for STO at normal resolutions. The point of my thread was to state that writing down the 7950 or higher card as a requirement was probably wrong. Especially since they mentioned it along with ATI 1800 and Intel HD, which is way below what you have in terms of performance.
Yup, AMD does. They started to sell them from remnants of their quad core CPUs with 1 failed core after fabrication. But that's just a rumor. Now they are making them with 3 cores just to compete in the bang-for-your-buck market.
Don't worry, your 9600 GT is probably fine for STO at normal resolutions. The point of my thread was to state that writing down the 7950 or higher card as a requirement was probably wrong. Especially since they mentioned it along with ATI 1800 and Intel HD, which is way below what you have in terms of performance.
Sorry, it was a typo. It's the 9400GT, not 9600GT.
Well, hopefully Rekhan see this and revises the requirements prior to launch.
Sorry, it was a typo. It's the 9400GT, not 9600GT.
Hmm. 9400 would probably run it, but might have to turn down quite a few graphic settings to play smoothly, and no high resolutions like 1600x1200, 1680x1050, or 1920x1200.
I am suprised to see a minimum speed requirement for DVD readers.
Yeah, sort of silly since all games these days are installed on a drive. Heck, a 1x old DVD-ROM would work just to install it. Or if they offered a download for it, that requirement would only be on the retail boxes.
Comments
2.53 Dual Core
4 GB of RAM
9600 GT + 512ddr3
250gb hdd
I think this will run, not bad for a 13.3 thin and light lappy me thinks
my current build should run at max no prob.
Cpu: i7-950 @ 3.06 ghz
ram: 12GB DDR3 1600mhz Kingston Hyper X
GPU: ATI Radeon 5870
HDD: 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda
I thought requirements would be higher but I'm happy with what they are, not to low not to high
I am a VERY happy panda right now... thanks Cryptic
Let's travel to the stars...
Where have you been? Linux or Mac with STO has never been supported, even from the start. You can't dump something you've never had. But STO runs DX9, so stop you're baseless complaining. Wine runs most DX9 games, especially those from a straight C compiler like STO. I'd only complain if they opted for a .NET based launcher or something, which none of us know about yet. And if you're on a Mac, just bootcamp to a copy of Windows on your Apple hardware.
Windows is the defacto for gaming. It's not a measuring stick of the OS, just a fact that most people run Windows who want to game. Which is why the developers target the biggest audience. You can roll Windows 7 RC-1 for free until summer of next year provided you download one from a torrent or get it from someone who already downloaded a copy. Or install XP for dirt cheap... you can still find retail and OEM copies out there on eBay.
With that said, I'm a fan of Linux and I run a few Linux boxes at home (one server and one MythTV system). But its developer community is just too far behind to play catch-up with reverse engineering the proprietary DX10, let alone DX11, so I don't use it for gaming.
Pentium 4 Duo 2.8 GHz
3 GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4670 1 GB GDDR (brand new! Just for STO!)
200 GB HD (I need a bigger one lol)
I guess this makes my PC right smack in the middle.
Now all we need is the subscription model...
(and hopefully, one day, STO will come to either console and/or Mac.)
I don't think the person who wrote the system requirements knows what they're stating there. That's the most confusing system requirements I've seen for video cards/GPUs.
First, Intel "HD Graphics" (built-in video GPU) is never going to be nearly as fast as a dedicated video card like those listed above.
Second, the 7950 is the 7th NVIDIA generation's enthusiast gaming card (ie: top-end for 7th gen). It will be MUCH faster than say an 8400 which is a newer, but slower card. The second number in an NVIDIA card measures its performance for that generation (1st number is for generation). So a 7950 > 8600 > 9500 > 220.
Third, you did not mention the suffix for the 7950. There is a GT and a GX2 model. The GX2 is pretty much a dual GPU card and absolute top-of-the-line for the 7th generation NVIDIA cards.
Here's some performance comparisons for fillrates, which is as close as you can get to comparison across different generation cards since memory speed and size also plays a roll. But these fillrates are a card's raw power. MP/s = millions of pixels per second and MT/s = millions of texels per second (texture pixel).
So if Cryptic lists an NVIDIA 7950 as a requirement, that means you need a card that can match or beat its raw performance. So for each generation after this, that would be:
And those requirements are obviously too high.
So, let's compare that to their ATI requirement of an X1800. Again, they didn't list the suffix for the 1800, which is either GTO, GTO rev.2, XL, or XT. Let's go with the XL since it shares similar performance to the GTO and is somewhere in the middle. For ATI cards, the MT/s (millions of texels per second) is the only raw power comparison we have across multiple generations. Similar cards along ATI generations (to match or beat the 1800 XL:
So for ATI, we look like we're at a much better range. For Cryptic's early requirement mention of an NVIDIA 7950, we're much too high at 13,200 MT/s.
And I won't even bother for "Intel HD Graphics" since built-in GPUs are not in the same league as dedicated video cards. Cryptic probably threw that in for laptops. Any built-in Intel GPU is going to be dog slow for any new game.
Only 3? What a crappy computer. :P
You mean on your own PC?
If you're running Windows, just open your Device Manager, under the Hardware section of your System Properties (in the control panel). Then expand Display Adapters.
No those are not the same specs!
From FAQ:
"CPU:2.5GHz Single Core or 1.8GHz Dual Core"
CO only requires a single core processor. Why is STO different if it is the same engine?
I don't think you understand what they mean by engine. The engine of a game has a loose and indirect connection to the graphical requirements of a game, if any. STO can have fare more polygons and textures than CO, and therefore require more GPU power. As for CPU power, the STO engine is based on the CO engine, but it is obviously going to be heavily modified for STO (to the point of no longer being able to swap it with the CO engine).
yeah buy a mac to play video games -Epic Fail
Triple Core? Never knew they made them, always thought there were dual and quad cores.
Well having empty PCI slots is a good thing. And upgrading the Power to a higher system won't cost that much. You can get a 400w from Best Buy for $30. (But make sure it's fully compatiable with your computer first, especially with the dimensions). At the same time you buy a low-end video card for somewhere between $30 (online) to $70 (Best Buy).
Arg, that makes me nervous my PNY GF 9400GT won't cut it after all! :eek:
i7 920 processor
12G DDR3 1600 Ram
ATI Radeon HD 5870 graphix card
Windows 7 64 bit
My poor computer is far below minimum specs. Looks like I'll be saving for a couple months. It runs Champions on medium graphics though, which is odd.
http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/intro.aspx
Yup, AMD does. They started to sell them from remnants of their quad core CPUs with 1 failed core after fabrication. But that's just a rumor. Now they are making them with 3 cores just to compete in the bang-for-your-buck market.
Don't worry, your 9600 GT is probably fine for STO at normal resolutions. The point of my thread was to state that writing down the 7950 or higher card as a requirement was probably wrong. Especially since they mentioned it along with ATI 1800 and Intel HD, which is way below what you have in terms of performance.
Interesting.
Sorry, it was a typo. It's the 9400GT, not 9600GT.
Well, hopefully Rekhan see this and revises the requirements prior to launch.
good news !
If you overlcock your single core to 5GHz on liquid nitrogen, you'll probably be fine.
Honestly, if your single core is close to 3GHz, you're probably more than fine.
I am suprised to see a minimum speed requirement for DVD readers.
Hmm. 9400 would probably run it, but might have to turn down quite a few graphic settings to play smoothly, and no high resolutions like 1600x1200, 1680x1050, or 1920x1200.
Yeah, sort of silly since all games these days are installed on a drive. Heck, a 1x old DVD-ROM would work just to install it. Or if they offered a download for it, that requirement would only be on the retail boxes.