System requirements for Beta?

[Cyath]

Hi, I don't have the beta yet (nor do I plan to get it) but I DO plan to get the finished version, and I'm wondering what kind of system requirements are needed to run the game smoothly...I checked out Blizzard's site, but those are only the minimum system requirements, I want the recommended ones, which they didn't post.

So I thought I'd ask here and find out how different people have been doing with differing setups. I need this information because I'm about to buy a new computer and the compatibility of that with the final release of WoW will definitely be a factor in my purchase. ^_^ So any information you can give me on how you've been doing with such-and-such a system will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

[Bolty]

If you have a 2.0+ Ghz processor and a DirectX9 video card, you will have smooth sailing.

For example, I have a 2.53 Ghz P4 processor, but I use a GeForce4 Ti 4600. It is not a Dx9 card, so my frame rates range from 60 FPS in small, enclosed areas to 10-15 FPS in the large, wide open landscape areas. I have heard that an equivalent processor with a DX9 card (ATI Radeon 9700, GeForce FX, for example) will never drop below 35 FPS.

As for RAM, due to current memory leaks in the client, it's hard to say how much RAM is good enough. I have a gig of RAM and never run into hard-drive-thrashing slogginess, but I have heard of those with less hitting the barrier.

-Bolty

[Cyath]

Wow, the founder of the LL responded to my post! I feel so honored. ^_^

No, seriously, thanks for the information. Now I know what to get for my new machine. So we're looking at about 2.3Gb processor, good graphics card and 512+ Ram right?

Anyone else wanna share their experiences?

[Nystul]

You can certainly get by with less machine than Bolty has (although I suspect going less than 512 mb ram would be very bad, and I'm skeptical that this game will ever have a memory-leak free client). This is not a twitch game so low fps will not hurt your gameplay unless it drops below 10 or so. If you search the back pages, you should find several threads regarding people's systems and graphics cards and how well the game runs.

Here is my experience. I am using an Athlon 1700+ XP (that's a 1466 mhz processor), 512 MB DDR-SDRAM, and a Geforce 3 Ti-200. In general, the game runs very well, and I would not feel obligated to upgrade if I end up playing the full release version. Occasionally (usually when I just log in, in hilly areas) I get about a minute of horrendous graphical artifacts (only about 50% of total polygons get rendered properly during those times), but otherwise there are zero artifacts and the game runs very smoothly (stormwind is *still* an exception). My rendering problem may be a driver issue, or maybe game is trying to display data before everything is pulled from hard drive. The game does crash typically a few times each night. But hopefully a lot of that will be resolved through the beta process.

[DeeBye]

I have an Athlon XP 1700+, 512 MB DDR RAM, and a Radeon 9200 SE. The game runs fairly well for me at 800X600 with all of the goodies turned up, and I get marginal-to-decent framerates at higher resolutions.

It still chugs along a bit when I enter new areas or go on flights, but overall it's quite playable.

If you want to run WoW very smoothly, I'd go along with what Bolty estimates. 2+ Ghtz processor, 1 gig RAM, and any later DX9 card. Right now, the optimal card for WoW (and most other games) considering power-to-price would be a Radeon 9800 Pro.

[Yrrek]

Let me know if you find a 2.3Gigabit processor, I have been looking for ages but have only found the Gigaherz kinda. Bleh. :D :lol:

Just playin with ya! :)

[Brainiac4]

Sure.

My system is a p4 2.2Ghz, 1MB RDRAM, with gf4ti4600 video card. I get nice performance at 1280x1024 in 32-bit color. I expect to have a better video card (probably a Radeon 9800 or x800) by the time WoW is released.

The single best thing you can do for yourself is get a decent graphics card. Next best is lots of RAM. Third best is fast processor, but the fastest processor in the world won't do you any good if you're running 256MB of RAM and onboard video. :)

[Charis]

ANY new computer you would buy today would do absolutely fine, without
the slightest question. The only way you could shoot yourself in the foot would
be to go too low in RAM (128MB-256MB) or get on-board graphics.

I'm running a 1.3 GHZ P4 and an ATI 7000-era basic card with just 32MB video RAM.

The game plays amazingly good, and as I'm not used to, expecting, (or care about!)
photorealism in a game where I'm trying to kill orcs, it's been a very smooth experience.
Contrast that with a Call to Duty demo which was utter "slideshow", ie one HALF a fps!
And as was said above, it's not a fast reaction game at all.

Recommendation: 2.3 Ghz or faster CPU (can you even buy lower nowadays?)
512MB or a 1 Gig of ram, and for a graphics card, I think the sweet spot right now is
between the ATI 9600XT and the 9800PRO, or if nVidia, a GeForceFX 5700 to a FX 5950
(not the fastest on the planet, not overpriced, and DirectX 9 enhanced). You'll only need 128MB
of Video Ram, I would neither go for less nor more.

Nystul, thanks for your input on video cards. I've since done a ton of reading, and to condense it
to a few sentences...
- the GeForce TI4200 was a card ahead of its time for speed, power and reliability, and still works well
- the GeForce MX series was a dud.
- ATI or nVidia seems now a matter of preference (ATI had a hands-down winner status for a while there)
with ATI giving highest quality image, nVidia giving least hassles with drivers (on average)
- Ultra budget winners: GeForce 5200 , or ATI 9200 or 9600SE (yours for about $70)
- Budget winners (great bang for buck and a very good bang at that): GeForce ATI 9600 Pro or XT, nVidia 5700 (~$130 range)
- More bang, still good value: ATI 9800 Pro (XT great, pricey), and nVivia 5950 Ultra (just under $200?)
- High end - who cares, why waste your money and spend 400-500 when it will be second rate in 9 months?

Which did I pick for an upgrade to my P4 1.3 system... an Asus 9600XT with VIVO for about $180. I hemmed
and hawed between that a minimalist GeForce FX5200 but figured I wasted more $ in lost time than in the difference between the cards and just 'went for it'. I kinda wanted video in capability anyway, and that
helps justify getting a new card in the first place. I'm hoping I can get one more year and/or one more generration of games with this upgrade and hold off on another computer for 1-1.5 yrs. :P

Charis

[Saxywoo]

Greets,

Okay, I've been slacking off on this topic lately. Since the second push, I haven't tested it to see if the beta with work on my desktop system, though the first push worked out okay. Here's the specs:

Desktop System:
Pentium III 600MHz
756MB Memory
Diamond Stealth 550 4x AGP (16MB)
Windows XP Retail (Pre SP1)

Laptop System:
Pentium M 1.5GHz
512MB Memory
ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 (??MB)
Windows 2000 SP4


My laptop, which is by far better, handles the game much, much better than the desktop. My main focus was seeing how "low" a system that can handle the beta, and as I said before, I slacked off on that. Perhaps I'll ask Bolty if we can test out his old Pentium II and see if that will run the beta.

But as the other posts have said, any new system should handle the game fine, since video cards are a long cry from what I'm running in my desktop system.

However, there are other posts that have dealt with the other "tweaks" for the graphics. Things like "showwater" which turns off the textures for watersurfaces. But those are accessed through the console (reached by hitting the tilda (~) key, found above the TAB key on US keyboards). For more options, you might want to go into the console, and type "HELP GRAPHICS."

Good luck, have fun, and we'll see you out there.

SaxyCorp

[Jim]

Hi

This is from my EQ 2 post: WoW check those "Recommended" System Requirements...1 GB RAM :angry:
LL EQ 2 Post !!!

The Beta Application requires the use of Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher and must be filled out "From" the Computer which you are intending to use for the beta test.

System Requirements:

Minimum:

-Operating System: Windows 98/2000/ME/XP
-Processor: 1 Ghz
-RAM: 512 MB
-16x CD-ROM or DVD-ROM
-Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible. Pixel shader and Vertex shader compatible hardware with 64 MB of texture memory
-Sound Card: DirectSound compatible audio hardware

Recommended:

-Operating System: Windows 98/2000/ME/XP
-Processor: 2 Ghz or greater
-RAM: 1 GB
-16x CD-ROM or DVD-ROM
-Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible. Pixel shader and Vertex shader compatible hardware with 128 MB of texture memory or greater
-Sound Card: DirectSound compatible audio hardware

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's supposed to be the requirements for entering the beta, right? So, since the beta is distributed by downloads, why "16x CD-ROM or DVD-ROM"? Looks to me like they copied it from some competitor's box. Or it was put together by some clue-less paper jockey.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi,

That's supposed to be the requirements for entering the beta, right?  So, since the beta is distributed by downloads, why "16x CD-ROM or DVD-ROM"? Looks to me like they copied it from some competitor's box.  Or it was put together by some clue-less paper jockey.

--Pete

Hi

Pete I will take a guess a say these are the Requirements at this time...I think if they see that those requirements are a bit high & only 52 players qualify for the beta I'm sure they will lower it...but then again it is Sony who does "Not" care about the customer what so ever. I know I played EQ 1 for 9 months & hold a grudge !

(Q) How will the EverQuest II client be distributed?

(A)We will make the client available for download, and may have other distribution options as well.


(Q)Will my computer hardware affect my chances of being accepted into beta?

(A)We will consider all applications that meet the minimum hardware requirements. We want to test the game on low-end systems as well as high-end ones, so don't be afraid to apply just because your computer isn't state of the art.

Beta Applications and Testing FAQ

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think you missed the point. The beta is being distributed strictly over the net. Thus no CD or DVD involved at all. Thus no requirement for a CD or DVD player, 16X or otherwise.

If they gave that little thought to that one line, why assume the rest is any more meaningful.

--Pete

[Bob the Beholder]

So, any of you have experience with this working on a GeForce FX card?

I've got a 128 meg GeForce FX 5200, and with my 1.7 ghz processor, and 512 megs of RAM, I can't get above twenty FPS in Neverwinter Nights. Morrowind is choppy, and has all kinds of funky graphical errors. Worst of all, Diablo II stutters. It's not bad enough to affect anything, but it isn't the smooth performance one would expect from such a system.

I've got all the latest drivers for pretty much everything, too. Could it be that GeForce FXes just suck a lot? 'Cause my friend with a GeForce 2 is having no problems at all with NWN, or Morrowind.

[Roane]

I've an FX card, but it's the 5600 (Yeah, I need to get the new one, I know.). It works fine, though the framerate isn't as great as I might like. I think I average just under 20 when I'm out of doors. No visible choppiness or frame dropping, though. The 5200 is their 'bargain' version of the FX line. See this for details.

[Guest]

The particular card is known for being junk. An old Ti 4200 is a much better card.

The Fx 5600s seem to work ok, but really the only decient FX is FX 5900(and maybe the newest one thats just being introduced).

Currently for the money ATI is where its at. A 9700pro can be had for very cheap and a 9800pro is a good deal. On many benchmarks the 9700pro is going to beat a FX 5900.

[DeeBye]

The particular card is known for being junk. An old Ti 4200 is a much better card.

The FX 5200 isn't junk, it's just a discount card aimed at a market on a budget. The NVidia Ti cards are of course better, but they also cost more. If price was never an issue when it comes to upgarding video cards, we'd all have Radeon 9800 XTs and everyone would be happy.

[Guest]

The FX line more or less replaced the Ti line and preformed worse except for the high end cards.
The Ti's cost more now mainly because they work better and are harder to find. Originally the FX cards were more exspensive.


Introducing the low end FX line is something NVidia should be ashamed of. The MX is is the pure budget line IMO.

Here is a a link to an old article. I think there conclusions were a bit "fanoboi"(most games still work best with a Ti rather than a FX), but notice that it talks about the old prices on an FX 5200 being higher than a Ti 4600.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-8.html

[DeeBye]

The FX line more or less replaced the Ti line  and preformed worse except for the high end cards.

I'm not talking about the entire FX line of cards, I'm talking about the specific card in question, the FX 5200. It goes for just over $50US. If that's not a "budget card", I don't know what is.

I agree with you that compared to the Ti cards, the FX 5200 isn't as good. I'm just saying that it's a $50 video card, and it works well for a $50 video card. Ti's were never $50.

[Bob the Beholder]

Ah, man. And I got the damned thing back when they were 140 bucks.

Fact is, I got three of them.

I think I'm going to have to go sit in a corner and cry now.

I am made significantly more broke.