GeForce 8800 recommended for DIRT

Does this require an even better graphics card than what is recommended for Crysis?

Diffrent games = diffrent specs

Its up to the developers to make the games look good but also have the game optimised for the system its on.  Its apprent that DiRT was not optimised very well for the PC version, cause if it was then that would mean that 360 and PS3 easily beat a 8800 GTX since the game plays fine on them with full visuals.

System requirementsMinimum:
Windows XP
Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz or Athlon 64 3000+
1GB RAM, Graphics Card: GeForce 6800 / Radeon X1300 or above
DirectX Compatible Sound Card
Recommended:
Windows XP/Vista
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66Ghz or Athlon X2 3800+
2GB RAM
Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 or Radeon X1950
Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Sound Card

 

Does this require an even better graphics card than what is recommended for Crysis?

ball_of_air

The game looks beautiful on my 8800gts. If only I were actually good at it. :cry:

*click for full size*

[QUOTE="ball_of_air"]System requirementsMinimum:
Windows XP
Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz or Athlon 64 3000+
1GB RAM, Graphics Card: GeForce 6800 / Radeon X1300 or above
DirectX Compatible Sound Card
Recommended:
Windows XP/Vista
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66Ghz or Athlon X2 3800+
2GB RAM
Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 or Radeon X1950
Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Sound Card

 

Does this require an even better graphics card than what is recommended for Crysis?

subrosian

Thats the Minimum, the game would have most of the settings cut down to the lowest one. 

Thats the Minimum, the game would have most of the settings cut down to the lowest one.

justforlotr2004

No, its the recommended.  The minimum is an X1300. 

The game looks beautiful on my 8800gts. If only I were actually good at it. :cry:

*click for full size*

Teufelhuhn

Looks the same as the 360 demo.

The game looks beautiful on my 8800gts. If only I were actually good at it. :cry:

*click for full size*

Teufelhuhn

HA.HA. You suck at driving games.:lol: 

[QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

Thats the Minimum, the game would have most of the settings cut down to the lowest one.

Teufelhuhn

No, its the recommended. The minimum is an X1300.

Oh my bad didnt read it correctly. 

HA.HA. You suck at driving games.:lol:

Pro_wrestler

Great, my $1250 laptop cant play it, i think i'll stick to the 360 version.

Crysis was made for a wide range of specs. I guess Dirt isn't.NobuoMusicMaker

Nope, not at all.  ITs a 360 port, just like Lost Planet.  And like Lost Planet, they're sticking to SM 3.0.  It makes sense, since it means that they can keep most of the engine the same as it was on the 360 since they don't have to target GPU's with less features. 

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

HA.HA. You suck at driving games.:lol:

Teufelhuhn

:lol: I've mastered that demo already, though they can be aggressive, I now bust up the cars for fun. 

yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)cobrax75

Blimey.

*sigh*

If only some devs could optimize like Crytek... :(
foxhound_fox

even better if they could do it like valve:)

The game looks beautiful on my 8800gts. If only I were actually good at it. :cry:

*click for full size*

Teufelhuhn

Just look how beautiful Germany looks. I love my country. 

Great, my $1250 laptop cant play it, i think i'll stick to the 360 version.

marklarmer

yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)cobrax75

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Lost Planet dips below 35 often on those settings, considering the worlds are small and theres so much blur I jsut feel like punching the screen at the poor cross-over, seems a pretty decent game too but damn ... no wonder sales are worse on the PC for games like this. 

*sigh*

If only some devs could optimize like Crytek... :(
foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Meu2k7

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.  

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Meu2k7

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

I have something weird going on with mine for some reason.

multiplayer I can play it maxed at 1650x1050, without any problems.

Singleplayer though, it lags like crazy on that setting, its not low FPS either, I get like 5 second pauses, and then it goes to normal for 5 seconds.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Mudig

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

The lighting is so advanced...really.

It has the best lighting in a game yet.

If you turn off HDR, it will run on about anything. 

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Mudig

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista. 

[QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)cobrax75

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

And I do play it on Vista. Get only 20fps. It kills me.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Mudig

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

And I do play it on Vista. Get only 20fps. It kills me.

then your lucky that it even starts up, many people cant get it to work at all.  The game has no support for vista  at all.

try the patches if you havent already though....those should help. 

Just out of random curiosity... *installs DIRT demo on laptop...*

This is because that Lost Plant claims the 6800 was minimum but every few seconds it complains that the framerate is too low... 

[QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)cobrax75

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

Yeah, people with 7600GT's can run it near maxxed in XP, yet I can't run it near maxxed with a 7800GT (overclocked it too), 2GB of RAM, and a E6400. The next patch is supposed to bring big performance increases to dual core CPU and Vista users though. Let's hope it delivers. Although the game still looks good as it is on my PC. 

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)trix5817

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

Yeah, people with 7600GT's can run it near maxxed in XP, yet I can't run it near maxxed with a 7800GT (overclocked it too), 2GB of RAM, and a E6400. The next patch is supposed to bring big performance increases to dual core CPU and Vista users though. Let's hope it delivers. Although the game still looks good as it is on my PC.

When is the next patch? 

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Mudig

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

Yeah, people with 7600GT's can run it near maxxed in XP, yet I can't run it near maxxed with a 7800GT (overclocked it too), 2GB of RAM, and a E6400. The next patch is supposed to bring big performance increases to dual core CPU and Vista users though. Let's hope it delivers. Although the game still looks good as it is on my PC.

When is the next patch?

I have no idea. I remember I was waiting for the 1.3 patch, and they said it would come out like the first weekend of April or something like that. It doesn't, it comes out 4 weeks later. I guess that's why it took them 6 years to make STALKER lol. 

[QUOTE="marklarmer"]

Great, my $1250 laptop cant play it, i think i'll stick to the 360 version.

subrosian

Asus C90 says you're wrong. 

I would rather play this for console.playstation2004

Yeah, I'm getting it for PS3. I was just pointing out that it's just as demanding as Crysis for PC power. 

8800 Gts really aren't that expensive anymore. With rebates you can get an eVGA brand 8800 for less than $250.

Aside from that, the fact that the card is recommended only shows that it is poorly optimized.  

The game works fine in Vista and has the same performance in XP. I couldn't play it @ 1680x1050 even on the lowest settings since it was all choppy. Played smooth on the 360 though and looked just as good.  Plus my PC cost a lot more than $600.00

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="marklarmer"]

Great, my $1250 laptop cant play it, i think i'll stick to the 360 version.

jachichorro

Asus C90 says you're wrong.

We'll see... there aren't standards in "upgradeable laptop component" design yet. It's ultimately the existance of a standard form factor for desktop gaming the creates the competition that leads to low prices. Will the Asus C90 take a standard GPU, or will it rely on manufacturers developing for some new "portable form factor", with less powerful cards that cost more money?

Right now, a desktop PC is the most cost-effective means of building a gaming PC. I can have a powerful 5.1 surround system, a Radeon HD 2900xt, 2 gigs of memory, a 2.8ghz Core 2 Duo, a 20" 1680x1050 monitor, full size keyboard & mouse, 250gb hard drive, et cetera... all for under a grand.

Is it good-to-go? No... But it's a significantly more powerful (and upgradeable) machine than even the Asus C90.

For playing Dirt? I'll stick with a desktop. I love my IBM R51 for sitting in my leather recliner, wirelessly browsing the internet, but when it come to some serious gaming - I'm booting up my gaming PC.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)Deihmos

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

And I do play it on Vista. Get only 20fps. It kills me.

then your lucky that it even starts up, many people cant get it to work at all. The game has no support for vista at all.

try the patches if you havent already though....those should help.

The game works fine in Vista and has the same performance in XP. I couldn't play it @ 1680x1050 even on the lowest settings since it was all choppy. Played smooth on the 360 though and looked just as good. Plus my PC cost a lot more than $600.00

We were talking about STALKER. 

Well, my laptop features an ATI x1400 and Core2 Duo 2.0Ghz (>Athalon X2 5000+)... Nowhere near the greatest gpu but it's the minimum soo... Granted also I"m not using the latest drivers... I'm sticking with Omega, even though they're outdated and I should use DNA's...

At bare minium(including no AA)... at SD resoultions we get this...

Not bad for SD resolution... Looks fine on an SDTV or a CRT HDTV screen I might add... I'd be happy to see this done on the Wii...

But looks aren't everything... Scroll right...

Eh... That's no good...

And after my random driver optimizations...

Not enough improvement... Maybe if I overclock... but it's too warm(not hot) in this room (don't ask why I don't go into the room with AC, or use my desktops...)

Now, I can't stand when devs say something is minimum and when you're at or exceed the minimum, the games isn't even near playable without any extrordianry hacking... Oh sure, I was running a bunch of stuff in the background, but that usually doesn't impact performance enough to make a significant difference of more than 1-2 fps...

Are devs living in the same timeline here that 20fps is considered good?

[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]yes, it has very bad optimization (dirt that is)ball_of_air

Seems better than Lost planet, my 8800 GTS 2GB RAM 3.2 Ghz P4 run it maxed 1650x1050 no probs.

Anything is better than STALKER. Must be one of the worst optimized games out there.

Its not that bad unless you are on Vista.

And I do play it on Vista. Get only 20fps. It kills me.

then your lucky that it even starts up, many people cant get it to work at all. The game has no support for vista at all.

try the patches if you havent already though....those should help.

The game works fine in Vista and has the same performance in XP. I couldn't play it @ 1680x1050 even on the lowest settings since it was all choppy. Played smooth on the 360 though and looked just as good. Plus my PC cost a lot more than $600.00

We were talking about STALKER.

Were we? I thought this thead was about DIRT.

It was, but somebody mentioned how Stalker was poorly optimized.