54 replies to this topic

[PFC Carsten]

Quote

Is an Internet Connection required?
Internet Connection is NOT Required for Single player once the game is downloaded.

Thank you for this!!

[admiralbenbow123]

Ruccus, on 25 April 2019 - 04:48 AM, said:

In terms of graphics cards the AMD equivalent of a GeForce GTX770 would be a Radeon R9 280X. For newer AMD cards the 380, 470, 480, 570, and 580 should all meet or exceed minimum specs.

Thanks!

[CtrlAltWheee]

80 gb is rough. If anyone at PGI is considering condensing that, it would be appreciated.

[Geno DCLXVI]

Wow, I'm surprised that this actually will run on my rig. I was thinking of just getting the pre-order bonuses and then actually playing MW5 later on when I upgraded, but looks like I'll be able to play it on release

[NocturnalBeast]

Remember, most of the time "minimum" system specs are just what you need to launch the game / program and not actually play it with any decent visuals or frame rates. It is Unreal 4 though and should run great on most modern PCs. I play Conan Exiles and it is a modern Unreal 4 game and runs great (other than some instancing issues, but that is on their end). The recommended system specs will be a more useful benchmark.

Edited by Ed Steele, 25 April 2019 - 11:19 AM.

[Harlock69]

Xeno Phalcon, on 24 April 2019 - 03:12 PM, said:

A demo would be nice.

Agreed. I'd like to see if my rig will run it before I plunk down the dough.

[Luscious Dan]

I was expecting to need a new system to run this, but it miiiiight be playable on lowest settings. Old faithful is still operating near 100% after 5+ years but I really do need an upgrade

[NocturnalBeast]

Luscious Dan, on 25 April 2019 - 01:53 PM, said:

I was expecting to need a new system to run this, but it miiiiight be playable on lowest settings. Old faithful is still operating near 100% after 5+ years but I really do need an upgrade

If you can run MWO, which is made with the horribly optimized Cry Engine at playable frame rates, then you should be able to run MW5.

Ruccus, on 25 April 2019 - 04:48 AM, said:

In terms of graphics cards the AMD equivalent of a GeForce GTX770 would be a Radeon R9 280X. For newer AMD cards the 380, 470, 480, 570, and 580 should all meet or exceed minimum specs.

AMD is never the equivalent of a GeForce card, unless it is way more expensive. With AMD you get what you pay for.

[Ruccus]

Ed Steele, on 25 April 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

AMD is never the equivalent of a GeForce card, unless it is way more expensive. With AMD you get what you pay for.

Currently the Radeon RX570 can be had for $130 to $140 on Newegg, and the RX 580 can be had for $190 to $200. In terms of price for performance the RX570 still beats the new $150 GeForce GTX 1650.

The RX580 is overall competitive with the GTX 1060 for the same price, though the GeForce GTX 1660 is faster than the RX 580 for a reasonable increase in the budget ($220 to $230 for the GTX 1660 at Newegg). The price and performance of the Radeon RX 590 is comparable to the GTX 1660. I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing one card over another other in the 580, 590, 1060, 1660 grouping based on personal preference and budget (assuming the RX 590 and GTX 1660 don't drop down to the price of the other two). They're all good gaming cards that provide reasonable value here.

It's when you get to the $300+ range where AMD starts to struggle to offer cards with the raw performance of Nvidia. The Radeon Vega 56 is a bit slower than the GeForce RTX2060 at the $300 price point, and the Vega 64 can't match the RTX2070 let alone the RTX 2080. The Radeon VII is AMD's top end card, but considering how much power they have to push through it to keep up with the 2080 it seems AMD's Vega architecture is struggling to keep up with Nvidia's Turing architecture at the top end.

[Brizna]

80 Gb!! Nowadays developers use disk space as if they didn't pay for it... oh wait....

[Athom83]

Brizna, on 26 April 2019 - 05:05 AM, said:

80 Gb!! Nowadays developers use disk space as if they didn't pay for it... oh wait....

I mean, nowadays you can pick up a 500GB external SSD that plugs in via USB-C (and performs much better than an internal HDD btw) at Best Buy for like $100 or so (what I got mine for, but was during a sale. The 1TB version is on sale for 175 right now).

[Laser Kiwi]

I have a lowish end reasonably new computer, its nice to know the 1060 is a reasonable card, seems to play most things, just couldn't stomach forking out for a 1070 or a 20something, kinda makes sense though since this games been in the works a while

[NocturnalBeast]

Ruccus, on 26 April 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

Currently the Radeon RX570 can be had for $130 to $140 on Newegg, and the RX 580 can be had for $190 to $200. In terms of price for performance the RX570 still beats the new $150 GeForce GTX 1650.

The RX580 is overall competitive with the GTX 1060 for the same price, though the GeForce GTX 1660 is faster than the RX 580 for a reasonable increase in the budget ($220 to $230 for the GTX 1660 at Newegg). The price and performance of the Radeon RX 590 is comparable to the GTX 1660. I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing one card over another other in the 580, 590, 1060, 1660 grouping based on personal preference and budget (assuming the RX 590 and GTX 1660 don't drop down to the price of the other two). They're all good gaming cards that provide reasonable value here.

It's when you get to the $300+ range where AMD starts to struggle to offer cards with the raw performance of Nvidia. The Radeon Vega 56 is a bit slower than the GeForce RTX2060 at the $300 price point, and the Vega 64 can't match the RTX2070 let alone the RTX 2080. The Radeon VII is AMD's top end card, but considering how much power they have to push through it to keep up with the 2080 it seems AMD's Vega architecture is struggling to keep up with Nvidia's Turing architecture at the top end.

Yes, but NVIDIA has much better driver support which is worth the higher price in my opinion.

[Ruccus]

Ed Steele, on 26 April 2019 - 10:07 PM, said:

Yes, but NVIDIA has much better driver support which is worth the higher price in my opinion.

I actually chuckled when I read this. I've been hearing 'Nvidia has better driver support' for over 20 years. Both companies support their cards just fine.

I have no problem with someone buying an Nvidia card over an AMD card or an AMD card over an Nvidia card because of personal preference of one company over the other so long as the performance of the cards in question are similar; buyer's remorse is less likely to set in if you're fond of the company's hardware and when you're spending hundreds of dollars on a piece of hardware you don't want buyer's remorse.

I just cringe when I think Nvidia's going to sell plenty of GeForce GTX 1650 cards based on their reputation instead of the card being a good budget gaming card. If you're going to spend $150 for a budget gaming card this month go with the Radeon RX 570 - it's a solid performer for the price and decimates the 1650. If you're going to spend between $200 and $230 then any of the four cards I listed would be fine - if you like Nvidia go with the 1060 or 1660, if you like AMD go with the 580 or 590.

[Omnissiah Wraith]

Hello! Can someone tell me - will it be OK - playing with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M ? i7-5700HQ ?

Thankyou

[NocturnalBeast]

Ruccus, on 26 April 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

Currently the Radeon RX570 can be had for $130 to $140 on Newegg, and the RX 580 can be had for $190 to $200. In terms of price for performance the RX570 still beats the new $150 GeForce GTX 1650.

The RX580 is overall competitive with the GTX 1060 for the same price, though the GeForce GTX 1660 is faster than the RX 580 for a reasonable increase in the budget ($220 to $230 for the GTX 1660 at Newegg). The price and performance of the Radeon RX 590 is comparable to the GTX 1660. I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing one card over another other in the 580, 590, 1060, 1660 grouping based on personal preference and budget (assuming the RX 590 and GTX 1660 don't drop down to the price of the other two). They're all good gaming cards that provide reasonable value here.

It's when you get to the $300+ range where AMD starts to struggle to offer cards with the raw performance of Nvidia. The Radeon Vega 56 is a bit slower than the GeForce RTX2060 at the $300 price point, and the Vega 64 can't match the RTX2070 let alone the RTX 2080. The Radeon VII is AMD's top end card, but considering how much power they have to push through it to keep up with the 2080 it seems AMD's Vega architecture is struggling to keep up with Nvidia's Turing architecture at the top end.

I have been using NVIDIA cards since back when it was 3DFX and you had to have a separate 2D card. I only once bought an AMD card and that was the only time I had problems with hardware.

[VigorousApathy]

Omnissiah Wraith, on 27 April 2019 - 11:49 PM, said:

Hello! Can someone tell me - will it be OK - playing with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M ? i7-5700HQ ?

Thankyou

Your CPU is 5% faster than min requirements, and also has 2 extra cores than min requirement. Your graphics card is 27% slower than the minimum requirements.

Edit: https://www.userbenchmark.com/

Edited by VigorousApathy, 28 April 2019 - 02:18 AM.

[Omnissiah Wraith]

VigorousApathy, on 28 April 2019 - 12:33 AM, said:

You're CPU is 5% faster than min requirements, and also has 2 extra cores than min requirement. Your graphics card is 27% slower than the minimum requirements.

ahh, than no chance without upgrade.

Thank you

[Tesunie]

Ed Steele, on 28 April 2019 - 12:17 AM, said:

I have been using NVIDIA cards since back when it was 3DFX and you had to have a separate 2D card. I only once bought an AMD card and that was the only time I had problems with hardware.

I have had AMD cards with no problems with the cards to date. My current computer has NVIDIA card, and so far no problems I can notice, though their interface seems a little clonky and keeps resetting my screen resolutions for most of my games upon every driver update... but that could also be Win 10 as well... I'm going to have to agree with Ruccus here, AMD and NVIDIA appear to be solid brands, depending upon what you want and how much you are paying for it.

If you really do want to prefer NVIDIA, there is no issue with it. My current card is doing well so far (besides aforementioned updates resetting screen resolutions and some initial difficulty getting it to not auto assign my resolution to something that isn't my screen size). My old computer, despite it's age and heat damage from poor interior fan layout (seriously, who places the heat sink fans to blow heat directly onto other components, like my wireless card with no vents!) it worked perfectly fine with an AMD card. (I had to run my old computer with the case opened for proper venting of heat. Otherwise my wireless card sometimes kicked out and my video card overheated and shut down.)

[Tesunie]

Omnissiah Wraith, on 28 April 2019 - 01:59 AM, said:

ahh, than no chance without upgrade.

Thank you

You might be surprised, it might still work. But it probably wont work very well. I use to run MW:O (back in 2012) on a computer that had a video card that was technically under minimum specs. Ran alright because the rest of the computer seemed able to compensate, but I got some... interesting bugs (things not even rendering in, like enemy mechs...).

Most likely, you'll want an upgrade to your video card at least. Depending upon age of computer (and finances), it might also be time to look into a new computer completely. Just... don't do what I did. I ended up placing a new computer on a credit card, and then left my job due to health reasons... Oops.