Project Reality Forums

Right well first off sorry for the foolish question, i'm just clueless to system requirements in order to run games and such, with all the memory and such confusing the hell out of me.. So just curious if this system is capable of running what the title contains, and if so would it be stable or laggy?

One thing that also confuses me is looking into it furher, the CPU seems to state : 4 x 3.20Ghz so would that mean it's something like 12.8Ghz? And it's also quad core, which i imagine is rather good?

Gallant AMD 955 - Dino PC Ltd

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition
Operating System: Microsoft? Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-870A-USB3L
Memory: 8GB DDR3 1333mhz (2x 4GB)
Hard Drives: 1TB S-ATAII 3.0Gb/s
Optical Drive: 22x DVD?RW DL S-ATA
Graphics card: NEW! NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 1GB
Sound card: Onboard 7.1 Audio
Case: Xigmatek Asgard
PSU: 400W Xigmatek
Warranty: 3 Year Bronze Warranty

Thanks in advance..

Yeah, you can run it, but not sure full high...

Kieran wrote:Right well first off sorry for the foolish question, i'm just clueless to system requirements in order to run games and such, with all the memory and such confusing the hell out of me.. So just curious if this system is capable of running what the title contains, and if so would it be stable or laggy?

At any kind of reasonable resolution and eye-candy settings, it would run rather laggily. Also it's not a foolish question because you asked now before you bought it. The foolish thing would've been to buy it, then come on and ask why your game wasn't running well, claiming the PC was brand new. Then I'd try to explain it but you'd have buyer's remorse and get really defensive about it then I would be condescending and I'd end up with another infraction

Kieran wrote: One thing that also confuses me is looking into it furher, the CPU seems to state : 4 x 3.20Ghz so would that mean it's something like 12.8Ghz? And it's also quad core, which i imagine is rather good?

It states 4x3.2ghz because it's 4 cores running at 3.2ghz each. Most knowledgeable are going to cringe reading the following analogy, so if you already understand how cores work, don't read the next paragraph:

Think of it like the tires on your car. When your car is traveling at 32mph, each wheel is traveling at 32mph individually as well. Does that mean that the effective speed your car is travelling is 128mph? No, it's just 4 separate entities going at the same speed. The processors work the same way. Each one is doing it's own thing @ 3.2ghz, being assigned little tasks and completing them at 3.2ghz.

Kieran wrote: Gallant AMD 955 - Dino PC Ltd
Thanks in advance..

If I were buying only from that store, I'd shell out an extra 130 pounds and buy the following configuration. You lose 4gb of ram but that's insignificant compared to what you gain (better case, much better GPU, better mobo, better PSU). The motherboard can be changed to any other one in the sub-100 range. Something like a GB 870 series.


Edit: Oh and if you have enough money, buy this config
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee94 ... native.png

My computer isn't as good as that and I fun on medium high on PR with an average FPS of 40

Right thanks you three, especially Pyrsus for the level of detail you provided..

If anything i'm slightly worried how a total of ?500 isn't enough to run the modern day games at a reasonable level of quality, because don't get me wrong i'm no way trying to run PR or Arma II etc on full graphic settings, i'd happily settle with low-med..

But just out of curiosity, is it a total waste of money to go for this now that i've said what im after? Like the last comment in particular especially has encouraged me to go for it seeing as he can run at a reasonable rate, if anything i've always favoured the gameplay over graphics, so i'd be happy to run on low-medium settings..

If anything i'd use it to play games such as GTA, and the older call of duty's so if it's not capable of any of that at a setting less than high, then yeah.. I'll have to look for higher end PC's.

And oh Rudd, is it possible to see your system specs please?

Operating System
Windows 7 home basic
Processor
Quad core 2.83Ghz
Memory
4GB RAM DDR2
Video Card(s)
1GB GTX 275


though that powersupply of yours looks a bit weak for the hardware its supplying?

Yeah that's the one thing that came up to me when i was researching the specs, i think i'll go for afew pound more and up to to 500-600, it'll be way more than the graphics card requires and i'll have energy left over for.. whatever else is needed!

And thanks for that, the specs are higher on the one im looking at apart from the whole GhZ area, hope it's not to be a major setback because of that..

How does one check one's FPS while playing PR?

I have a TERRIBLE PC, but I can run on pretty high settings.

Terrain: High
Geometry: High
Texture: High
Lighting: Medium
Dynamic Light and Shadow: Low
Texture Filtering: High
AA: 4x
View Distance: Max


My PC specs:
Intel Pentium Dualcore 1.6ghz (OC to 1.7)
Nvidia 9500GT 1gb (OC from 550 to 700mhz gpu clock, 400 to 540mhz memory, 1350 to 1700mhz shader)
4gb **** DDR2 RAM around 350-400 mhz
Windows 7... 32 bit


The only catch is I have to lower all the "high" settings to "medium" if I want to play Shijia Valley (memory.dll error). All other maps work 100% lag free.

I also keep my computer optimized, which may have affected these results.

Right well sure seems to be a wide range of answers..

I think if anything i'll go for it, seeing as the specs seem to be if not the same, better than the majority posted, and if they can run some maps on high then im sure i can go ahead and play at least on medium.. Maybe even low, so thanks alot guys..

Tbh if you don't post what resolution your using, specs and settings are useless to others.

Oh right, well i'd be running it through a 42" TV if that's any help.. And the resolution on it is 1080p..

Kieran wrote:Oh right, well i'd be running it through a 42" TV if that's any help.. And the resolution on it is 1080p..

THIS CHANGES A LOT!

I would recommend upgrading the gpu to at least a gtx 460, if not a 560 or 560 ti.

The 460 should cost the same, if not less than the 550 ti, and gives a large performance increase! SEE LINK
GeForce GTX 460 1GB vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti ? Performance Comparison Benchmarks @ Hardware Compare

The 550 Ti may struggle running ArmA with such a large resolution.

Right well thanks for the input, i do however have an older 21" PC monitor which i may use too then if the 42" Seems to be too big..

I'll certainly look into it, but just to get a final answer.. Can the PC run project reality and other modern games at a reasonable FPS rate of minimum - medium graphic settings?

Your build will probably be able to run PR on all high.

As for "modern" games, if you mean current generation games, then yes this should be able to run them at least at mid level graphics on a 20in display.

Rapid12 wrote:How does one check one's FPS while playing PR?

open console

type renderer.drawfps 1

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:open console

type renderer.drawfps 1

Cheers, a few digits in red said 16.0/66.0 which was variable, the 16 sometimes raised upto 19 and down to 15, with the 66 fluctuating also. What does this mean?

Let me google that for you


renderer.drawFps [0,1] - Displays the current frames per second (FPS) and the time in milliseconds between frames.

Thanks Snipe. So it's apparent that my system is pants at playing PR, yet it manages BF2 no problem.