If you're wanting performance, then I'd avoid laptops and stick with a desktop and they are ALWAYS faster with like features due to cooling issues. If you're just looking for portability, the system you describe will run the game.
Thanks for your response. I'm not looking for performance, just as long as it runs, and I don't mind running at low screen resolutions either my monitor maxes out at 1280x800 haha. I'm at University, and unfortunately don't have room for my quad-core desktop, so I'll just have to muddle through.
I run at 1600x1200...I was contimplating putting my spare GTX285 in my PC but I wasn't sure..since I've never run two graphics cards before.
I'm still kind of a PC noob.
At 1600x1200, you're fine with that GTX 285 on almost everything maxed out (except may be AA, which is always a performance hog on NVIDIA cards, but 4x is plenty anyways, even though you could get by with 8x).
With that resolution, you're just under 2 million pixels, so you're fine.
The GTX 285 is a solid card and good performer for that resolution. Here's its specs:
It's raw fillrate is 20,736 MP/sec. Of course with nothing but rendering 3D images, your card can handle 333 million pixels per second (20,000 / 60 frames per second). With a lot of high graphics settings putting processing demand on your GPU, that number will drop significantly. But you have plenty of overhead to have a very smooth experience with almost maxed settings at 1600x1200 with a GTX 285.
BTW, is that a 1GB or 2GB model? They came in both flavors, and the 2GB one has a completely different layout. If you have the 1GB model, I'd recommend Arctic Cooling's cooler for that card as it lowers GPU temps to 40s C and is very quiet even at full fan speed. If you have the 2GB model, those aftermarket coolers won't fit.
I have the a Gateway SX2800-01 (http://computershopper.com/desktops/reviews/gateway-sx2800-01) . I am currently able to play CO ok with moderate video settings but I plan on maxing this machine out. I am upgrading it to 8GB of RAM and want to put in the best video card possible. It is a slimline pc so it I was wondering what every one thought the best video card I could put in this system would be. obviously size is a concern but also power as well. Thoughts welcome.
Also I have a question how do the nVidia geforce 2?? series cards would would stack up on the minimum and recommended reqs.
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.
So what about Xbox 360 will it be available to Trek fans with console's or are you going to dissapoint us and just release it to those wealthy enough to afford a kick TRIBBLE Pc... If so I've been wasting my bloody time keeping track of this game.!!.
I have the a Gateway SX2800-01 (http://computershopper.com/desktops/reviews/gateway-sx2800-01) . I am currently able to play CO ok with moderate video settings but I plan on maxing this machine out. I am upgrading it to 8GB of RAM and want to put in the best video card possible. It is a slimline pc so it I was wondering what every one thought the best video card I could put in this system would be. obviously size is a concern but also power as well. Thoughts welcome.
Also I have a question how do the nVidia geforce 2?? series cards would would stack up on the minimum and recommended reqs.
All things being equal the fill rate of the GMA x4500 is 1.6billion pixels/second, and the fill rate of the Nvidia Geforce 8400M GS/ 8400GS is 3.2 billion pixels/second. So assuming the game is similar to CO, then the 8400 will be okay for STO users. Best news I've had all day.
I am suprised to how many people are breathing a sigh of releif at these requirements. This is a gaming forum right? These requirements are pretty basic. My rig won't even break a sweat on this game. Star Trek should be cutting edge . Direct x 10, quad core, Geforce 200 series. Time to move on from that XP TRIBBLE people. The gaming industry will only move on when you do. Check out Future Marks new title on Steam. Shatterd Horizon, Now theres a step in the right direction.
I am suprised to how many people are breathing a sigh of releif at these requirements. This is a gaming forum right? These requirements are pretty basic. My rig won't even break a sweat on this game. Star Trek should be cutting edge . Direct x 10, quad core, Geforce 200 series. Time to move on from that XP TRIBBLE people. The gaming industry will only move on when you do. Check out Future Marks new title on Steam. Shatterd Horizon, Now theres a step in the right direction.
While I agree the game should be cutting edge, and this is a forum about a game. Many on here are Star Trek fans, enthused about the game. I don't know if I speak for the majority, or the minority, but there are others than my self, who are not die-hard gamers who have to have the latest and greatest computer equipment, who are also waiting for this game with great anticipation.
Graphics are not, and should not be the only dimension to a great cutting edge game.
Hello Cryptic,
Thanks for the update; however, I didn't see the Mac specs listed. I'm sure that is an oversight on your part since a company as forward thinking and creative as yours would not neglect the world's most effective OS system in favour of the bug-prone, if oddly dominant, windows system. So could you add the Mac details please? Thanks folks, I'm looking forward to joining Starfleet on my MacBook. Cheers,
I am suprised to how many people are breathing a sigh of releif at these requirements. This is a gaming forum right? These requirements are pretty basic. My rig won't even break a sweat on this game. Star Trek should be cutting edge . Direct x 10, quad core, Geforce 200 series. Time to move on from that XP TRIBBLE people. The gaming industry will only move on when you do. Check out Future Marks new title on Steam. Shatterd Horizon, Now theres a step in the right direction.
MMOs can't be too exclusive or they lose business. Most developers try to get their games to run on a wide variety of systems so as to get as many players as possible.
Hello Cryptic,
Thanks for the update; however, I didn't see the Mac specs listed. I'm sure that is an oversight on your part since a company as forward thinking and creative as yours would not neglect the world's most effective OS system in favour of the bug-prone, if oddly dominant, windows system. So could you add the Mac details please? Thanks folks, I'm looking forward to joining Starfleet on my MacBook. Cheers,
At this point, they are not releasing it for MAC OS... I am on a mac but will be using bootcamp to play CO runs amazingly on it
That's wrong, the minimum spec requirement is a Geforce 7950 which has a 256bit memory interface, and the 8400 series has a 64-bit memory interface. The fill rate isn't going to be fast enough.
That 8400 is going to feel fairly sluggish running STO.
I see no post that states it would run it well, only that it meets the requirements in order to play. But if you needed the rush from posting some negativity, I guess you got your fix.
Time to move on from that XP TRIBBLE people. The gaming industry will only move on when you do.
XP isn't "TRIBBLE". Not sure the whereabouts of that random comment. XP is faster and more stable than Vista. I run Windows 7 and am very happy with it. It is what Vista should have been and just as fast as XP, if not faster with the 64-bit kernel (Windows 7 32-bit kernel is oddly slow even though it has less to process).
But I've been nudging Cryptic to "move on" and give us DX11 support (as well as of course DX9 support). So the "gaming industry" for us here with STO are the ones dragging their feet.
XP isn't "TRIBBLE". Not sure the whereabouts of that random comment. XP is faster and more stable than Vista. I run Windows 7 and am very happy with it. It is what Vista should have been and just as fast as XP, if not faster with the 64-bit kernel (Windows 7 32-bit kernel is oddly slow even though it has less to process).
But I've been nudging Cryptic to "move on" and give us DX11 support (as well as of course DX9 support). So the "gaming industry" for us here with STO are the ones dragging their feet.
Right on... I did give a solid effort into running Vista Ultimate but I several and severe issues with Vista and after a month I just ripped it out and put XP back in. Vista was the first upgrade I've ever regretting doing. Windows 7 is looking very exciting so looks like I might finally be making the upgrade myself. You really can't blame XP owners for not upgrading, they are just smart enough to stick with something that works vs enduring something just because it's new.
I have to admit, I do like that new Apple commercial with the "Trust Me" memory flashbacks. They are so on the mark with that. If only Apple didn't suck when it came to a broad software market.
Right on... I did give a solid effort into running Vista Ultimate but I several and severe issues with Vista and after a month I just ripped it out and put XP back in. Vista was the first upgrade I've ever regretting doing. Windows 7 is looking very exciting so looks like I might finally be making the upgrade myself. You really can't blame XP owners for not upgrading, they are just smart enough to stick with something that works vs enduring something just because it's new.
Thanks, I used XP for a long time and it's still stable and fast. I still use it on my Netbook since those slow PCs can't run the Aero interface very well. And if you're not running the Aero interface, there's little reason to have Vista or Windows 7 when XP is still supported.
I am an early adopter of Windows 7, right when it went to RC-1 earlier this year. I'm still using RC-1 even after the retail boxes came out, lol, it's that amazingly stable. When Microsoft released Vista, I was almost dreading continuing on Windows and was looking towards switching to Linux and kissing easy gaming goodbye by having to fiddle with Wine. Thank goodness Microsoft got something right with Windows 7.
I have to admit, I do like that new Apple commercial with the "Trust Me" memory flashbacks. They are so on the mark with that. If only Apple didn't suck when it came to a broad software market.
Not really, if you think about it. If Apple is so awesome, how come Windows is still the leading OS? Sure, Apples are pretty and all, but they are too expensive. People say how Apple's OSs are the best thing since sliced bread... If that's so, then how come they have to bash Windows in commercials? Apple is desperate to get a piece of M$ market, and they will do anything to get it. The commercials can be funny, but that's about all they are.
I'm not sure about processors anymore (what happened to when we could just look at GHz numbers). Will something like an Intel P8800 do the trick (2.66 GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 1066 MHz FSB) do the trick? I need to buy a new computer, but again, my knowledge on processors is about five years old ... so please let me know!
I'm not sure about processors anymore (what happened to when we could just look at GHz numbers). Will something like an Intel P8800 do the trick (2.66 GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 1066 MHz FSB) do the trick? I need to buy a new computer, but again, my knowledge on processors is about five years old ... so please let me know!
Yes. That's a mobile processor for a laptop. Its a Core 2 Duo.
Not really, if you think about it. If Apple is so awesome, how come Windows is still the leading OS? Sure, Apples are pretty and all, but they are too expensive. People say how Apple's OSs are the best thing since sliced bread... If that's so, then how come they have to bash Windows in commercials? Apple is desperate to get a piece of M$ market, and they will do anything to get it. The commercials can be funny, but that's about all they are.
Or has anybody found a PC that has all the recommended (not minimum) specs at like Dell or HP or Asus? I've been looking like heck, but nothing.
If somebody finds one, please pass it on!
Sorry friend, I can't help you there. I've built every PC I've owned. It seems a bit scary to most who haven't done it before, but you'd be suprised what a few hours surfing the web and reading reviews can do in helping you put a decent system together.
core 2 duo 2Ghzn(T6400)
4gigs worth of ram (and with a windows 7 64 bit OS on the way it will use those 4gigs)
ati mobility radeon 4330 with 512 MB DDR3
A well and by late next year a new desktop system I should be cool.
Sorry friend, I can't help you there. I've built every PC I've owned. It seems a bit scary to most who haven't done it before, but you'd be suprised what a few hours surfing the web and reading reviews can do in helping you put a decent system together.
This and building a PC is like lego if it doesn't fit in the slot it means you use the wrong slot so try the next
If you are still uncertain look up your local computer store (not one of those big branches just your local store) tell them a budget and what you need and they can work out something for you. You still be better of on your own though.
OK, I have been waiting for this game for a couple years now as I'm sure almost everyone on here has. But
I'm prettty sure I remember an interview about older PC's and will this game be able to run on them. I'm pretty sure they said yes but now I'm seeing the system requirments and it sure doesnt look like it. I have an AMD64 fx-55 2.6ghz 2 gigs of mem and a gforce 8800gts. My computer isnt that old.
Apple users can still run this game just fine, if not better than PeeCee users.. I use "Parallels" to play all my PC "only" games on.. so all you dell and hp users can put your starship where the sun don't shine.
It's good to be at a place where the "man" suggest what OS to use, and yet still have a choice... i think i hear some sheep in the background.
We just updated the FAQ, but wanted to call it out here, as well. Star Trek Online's system requirements are as follows: System Requirements
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit) CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+ Memory: 1GB RAM Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required Disc: 6X DVD-ROM Recommended System Configuration
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit) CPU: Intel E8400 Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon X2 5600+ Memory: 2GB RAM+ Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 / ATI Radeon HD 3850+ Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required Disc: 6X DVD-ROM
Comments
Thanks for your response. I'm not looking for performance, just as long as it runs, and I don't mind running at low screen resolutions either my monitor maxes out at 1280x800 haha. I'm at University, and unfortunately don't have room for my quad-core desktop, so I'll just have to muddle through.
At 1600x1200, you're fine with that GTX 285 on almost everything maxed out (except may be AA, which is always a performance hog on NVIDIA cards, but 4x is plenty anyways, even though you could get by with 8x).
With that resolution, you're just under 2 million pixels, so you're fine.
The GTX 285 is a solid card and good performer for that resolution. Here's its specs:
It's raw fillrate is 20,736 MP/sec. Of course with nothing but rendering 3D images, your card can handle 333 million pixels per second (20,000 / 60 frames per second). With a lot of high graphics settings putting processing demand on your GPU, that number will drop significantly. But you have plenty of overhead to have a very smooth experience with almost maxed settings at 1600x1200 with a GTX 285.
BTW, is that a 1GB or 2GB model? They came in both flavors, and the 2GB one has a completely different layout. If you have the 1GB model, I'd recommend Arctic Cooling's cooler for that card as it lowers GPU temps to 40s C and is very quiet even at full fan speed. If you have the 2GB model, those aftermarket coolers won't fit.
Also I have a question how do the nVidia geforce 2?? series cards would would stack up on the minimum and recommended reqs.
Oh ok ill have a look thank you very much
All things being equal the fill rate of the GMA x4500 is 1.6billion pixels/second, and the fill rate of the Nvidia Geforce 8400M GS/ 8400GS is 3.2 billion pixels/second. So assuming the game is similar to CO, then the 8400 will be okay for STO users. Best news I've had all day.
While I agree the game should be cutting edge, and this is a forum about a game. Many on here are Star Trek fans, enthused about the game. I don't know if I speak for the majority, or the minority, but there are others than my self, who are not die-hard gamers who have to have the latest and greatest computer equipment, who are also waiting for this game with great anticipation.
Graphics are not, and should not be the only dimension to a great cutting edge game.
Thanks for the update; however, I didn't see the Mac specs listed. I'm sure that is an oversight on your part since a company as forward thinking and creative as yours would not neglect the world's most effective OS system in favour of the bug-prone, if oddly dominant, windows system. So could you add the Mac details please? Thanks folks, I'm looking forward to joining Starfleet on my MacBook. Cheers,
MMOs can't be too exclusive or they lose business. Most developers try to get their games to run on a wide variety of systems so as to get as many players as possible.
At this point, they are not releasing it for MAC OS... I am on a mac but will be using bootcamp to play
I see no post that states it would run it well, only that it meets the requirements in order to play. But if you needed the rush from posting some negativity, I guess you got your fix.
XP isn't "TRIBBLE". Not sure the whereabouts of that random comment. XP is faster and more stable than Vista. I run Windows 7 and am very happy with it. It is what Vista should have been and just as fast as XP, if not faster with the 64-bit kernel (Windows 7 32-bit kernel is oddly slow even though it has less to process).
But I've been nudging Cryptic to "move on" and give us DX11 support (as well as of course DX9 support). So the "gaming industry" for us here with STO are the ones dragging their feet.
Right on... I did give a solid effort into running Vista Ultimate but I several and severe issues with Vista and after a month I just ripped it out and put XP back in. Vista was the first upgrade I've ever regretting doing. Windows 7 is looking very exciting so looks like I might finally be making the upgrade myself. You really can't blame XP owners for not upgrading, they are just smart enough to stick with something that works vs enduring something just because it's new.
I have to admit, I do like that new Apple commercial with the "Trust Me" memory flashbacks. They are so on the mark with that. If only Apple didn't suck when it came to a broad software market.
Thanks, I used XP for a long time and it's still stable and fast. I still use it on my Netbook since those slow PCs can't run the Aero interface very well. And if you're not running the Aero interface, there's little reason to have Vista or Windows 7 when XP is still supported.
I am an early adopter of Windows 7, right when it went to RC-1 earlier this year. I'm still using RC-1 even after the retail boxes came out, lol, it's that amazingly stable. When Microsoft released Vista, I was almost dreading continuing on Windows and was looking towards switching to Linux and kissing easy gaming goodbye by having to fiddle with Wine. Thank goodness Microsoft got something right with Windows 7.
Not really, if you think about it. If Apple is so awesome, how come Windows is still the leading OS? Sure, Apples are pretty and all, but they are too expensive. People say how Apple's OSs are the best thing since sliced bread... If that's so, then how come they have to bash Windows in commercials? Apple is desperate to get a piece of M$ market, and they will do anything to get it. The commercials can be funny, but that's about all they are.
But that is entirely just my opinion.
Here's my favorite Apple commercial of all time.
Yes. That's a mobile processor for a laptop. Its a Core 2 Duo.
If somebody finds one, please pass it on!
Oops, sorry. Didn't realize I didn't think about it before I posted.
Sorry friend, I can't help you there. I've built every PC I've owned. It seems a bit scary to most who haven't done it before, but you'd be suprised what a few hours surfing the web and reading reviews can do in helping you put a decent system together.
core 2 duo 2Ghzn(T6400)
4gigs worth of ram (and with a windows 7 64 bit OS on the way it will use those 4gigs)
ati mobility radeon 4330 with 512 MB DDR3
A well and by late next year a new desktop system I should be cool.
This and building a PC is like lego if it doesn't fit in the slot it means you use the wrong slot so try the next
If you are still uncertain look up your local computer store (not one of those big branches just your local store) tell them a budget and what you need and they can work out something for you. You still be better of on your own though.
No problem, just make sure you do that next time.
I'm prettty sure I remember an interview about older PC's and will this game be able to run on them. I'm pretty sure they said yes but now I'm seeing the system requirments and it sure doesnt look like it. I have an AMD64 fx-55 2.6ghz 2 gigs of mem and a gforce 8800gts. My computer isnt that old.
It's good to be at a place where the "man" suggest what OS to use, and yet still have a choice... i think i hear some sheep in the background.
HAHAHA awsome, this will run like a dream.