Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
01-12-2010, 01:40 AM
http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/intro.aspx

Go here, pull up STO and test your system.

If you don't make the minimum reqs use common sense, if your hardware is just 1 generation below the spec you know you can lower settings, maybe turn off shadows, etc
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
01-12-2010, 02:18 AM
I'm fortunate enough to have a few gaming rigs at the house, all of different varieties.

Son and I got a little excited about 64 bit DX10 and up gaming. The newer OS's, I7 cores supporting copious amount of memory, SSD, GDDR5 and expanding. It was like building those old PC1066 RAMBUS Pc's back in early 2k that kicked butt..yet were over-rated to an extent.


What we forgot? The gaming titles that are capable of bottlenecking our old single thread FX cores aren't out yet. While there is a game or two, released, that requires DX10 and higher preventing the old fella from conquering them.

Fear not single core FX owners. STO is no different. Keyword for this title is DX9. Even if sites say fail on the single core ballgame, you should be able to max up STO and rock the night away. Son was maintaining 44-77 FPS is high pop clusters and static environment FPS from lower 100 to 200, with ground texture stares in the 3's.

It's fairly consistent with all the older & newer MMOs. So, don't go upgrading if your budget limited, from your Beastly FX cores, as long as you're limiting the OS to XP and DX9.

Since many have those type chips seated in the ole Asus A8 & equivalent boards. My only suggestion is to dump the dual 78, 88, 96 and ATI equivalent GPU's and score a single GTX 200 series or ATI equivalent and higher card to achieve a higher FPS and smoother gaming experience.

In either case, STO won't end up being a power point slide presentation. We'll have it lnstalled on the rigs but if either of us are seated at the single core..at least we know it already rocks, on it.


Countdown till kickoff..we're excited about testing the newer client.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
01-12-2010, 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexuslexus View Post
Sorry guys, but you are both wrong. The game will still install if you do not meet the mininum requirements... I installed the game on a Celeron M 900 running at 2.2 Ghz, which is a single core, and the Intel on Board Gfx card, and it even launches and plays on minimum settings...

It even failed the test at http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/ for CPU, GPU.

So please don't go and give wrong advice to people.
But is it enjoyable playing at that setting? No. Low single and double digit FPS right.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
01-12-2010, 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalonDigital
That can you run it software isn't very good at detecting stuff. It says my processor isn't good enough, but I have a Dual Core 3.6ghz processor.

Now my question is that I have an older MSI Nvidia GeForce 7800 GTX with 1GB video ram. Technically this is like one model or two below the "minimum cut-off"

I think its capable of handling it but I'm more worried that the system will say its not high enough. I can go get a new card before the official release, but I'd probably miss the beta period, so that would suck.

What do you guys think?
It will play on that card. But I don't think Cryptic will help.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
01-12-2010, 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sho Matsu****a
My GPU 7600GT is just below min specs and has been running fine. Never an issue at all.
That doesn't surprise me. I been telling people the GPU specs were high. I knew the 7600 GT could handle it on medium settings.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
01-12-2010, 03:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkspaz View Post
VIDEO CARD: FAIL (I suspect the fact that it's a laptop threw it off a bit)
Minimum - NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics
Me - GeForce 8200M G

under the Video Card listing it breaks it down a bit, oddly enough I passed everything it listed

Video Ram
Required - 256 MB
I have - 880.0 MB
your video card is prolly to slow I'd imagine, the 7950 which is the min is far more powerful than a 8200, the only difference is its dx10, which doesn't make that much of a difference
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
01-12-2010, 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkspaz View Post
VIDEO CARD: FAIL (I suspect the fact that it's a laptop threw it off a bit)
Minimum - NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics
Me - GeForce 8200M G

under the Video Card listing it breaks it down a bit, oddly enough I passed everything it listed
That video card, whilst being 1 series higher than the 7950 listed as minimum, is actually the absolute bottom end of the 8-series cards. I would not expect to get a great frame rate from that at all.

I would say at minimum you would need to be looking at an 8600 GT in order to play this with a decent frame rate. Especially during the BETA where it's less likely to be optimised.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
01-12-2010, 03:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualifried
it will prevent it's own installation or runtime if min specs are not met
My computer does not meet the min specs and it installed with no problems. Then on runtime it warned me and gave me the option of dropping down alot of the settings and still running. I haven't gotten to the game part yet, but it did at least render the opening screen. In the end I and the poster will have to have computers with a dual core processor and better graphics card in order to have a smooth running, graphically enjoyable gaming experience.. but until tax return season, I'm crossing my fingers that I'll at least have some game play
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
01-12-2010, 03:41 AM
In the case of this system your CPU is as much a limiting factor as anything. As for the video card, if you can force it back to run on DX9c you might be able to see a performance bump as well. I assume you already have all the settings toned way down and are running at a reasonable resolution.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20 Maybe this helps some people
01-12-2010, 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Knight
But us is it enjoyable playing at that setting? No.
That is your opinion and not every one can afford to go out and buy new computer parts.

My tip if you are having problems with meeting the requirements is to go in to advanced video options
and tweak down some things, there are at least 4 things i always turn down if necessary and that is:

1. Bloom effects don't have to be set to the highest, try half.
2. Particles/debris can also be turned down as in, you don't have to see all that grass around you to enjoy the game.
3. Shadows
4. Resolution, just one step lower than your default is also making a difference.

Or just turn down everything and slowly increase to see how much your computer can handle.

I also noticed some options for single core cpu's but as i can't logg in now and check what they were
you just have to find them yourself, they are at the same place though.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 AM.