Assassin's Creed - Rumoured System Specs

snowdog · 17 Jan 2008 at 19:45

Well, I meet all those requirements, hope my 8800GTS 512 can rock this on full though.

Edit: Except the 360 controller, I got a ps2 pad though for usb, since the game also was on ps3 it should be fine for me.

3GB eh? Hmmm, might try it in vista just to be 100% sure to not get any hdd stutter.

Tefal · 17 Jan 2008 at 19:47

wouldn't 3 gb of ram rule out nearly all 32 bit machines?

Streeteh · 17 Jan 2008 at 19:47

3 gigs of ram will write off a large portion of windows XP users as for those that have high end graphics cards (with large amounts of ram) XP is unable to detect that much system ram.

In conclusion - i doubt these are real.

snowdog · 17 Jan 2008 at 19:49

May be real, but they might take account for the unoptimized hogged (Vista) pc's, I doubt you'll have ram shortage if you've got a deticated gaming account in xp with only basic xp services & processes and the game.

Anyways, it's just a recommendation, often it's a bit innacurate to the real requirements for maxed gaming.

Darg · 17 Jan 2008 at 20:56

Remember these are the recommended specs which generally mean "what will run this game maxed out" so these might be right.

Windows can recognise 3.5GB of RAM. I have 4x1GB sticks in mine atm and it's seeing them as 3.5GB.

MumboJumbo · 17 Jan 2008 at 22:30

knowledge123 said:
Sounds like total rubbish, the architecture of the 360 is not that* much different to the PC, so unless they have made major changes to the levels (joining some together or what not) I call shenanigans. No game uses 3GB RAM*.

*afaik, but I could be wrong.

well if it uses moer then 2gb then the next step up is logicaly 3gb over 2.5gb also bf2 can use around 2.5gb. on vista 64bit a lot of new games are pushing it into the 3gb's.

snowdog · 17 Jan 2008 at 22:34

8igdave said:
well if it uses moer then 2gb then the next step up is logicaly 3gb over 2.5gb also bf2 can use around 2.5gb. on vista 64bit a lot of new games are pushing it into the 3gb's.

Explain ?
How can a 32 bit app use more than 2 gb :confused:

?
Or do you mean including background stuff ?
Or is there some modification like with supcom that allows BF2 to run in 64 bit mode ?

No game uses 3GB RAM*.

*afaik, but I could be wrong.

Try supreme commander with the 64 bit modification on the exe: Load up the biggest map with 7 ai's and you'll see after an hour or so

.
CoH replay recording also eats RAM for breakfast, increasing by the second, oddly it clears a lot of ram when alt tabbing and tabbing back though ( dual screens so I can observe RAM usage when actually ingame, and it's diff compared to when alt tabbed.).

MumboJumbo · 17 Jan 2008 at 22:45

bf2 including background apps will use 2.5gb considering back ground apps still count i fail to see why you could be talkign about just the game as its illogical.

snowdog · 17 Jan 2008 at 22:52

Because background apps can be 1000 mb and they can be 150 mb, depending how cluttered your windows install is, and how much apps you're running.
A clean & optimized install will only use 100-150 mb...

It's different per user...

MumboJumbo · 17 Jan 2008 at 22:53

considering thats probably taking vista into acount as windows are trying to push it as the new thing therefore ever spec will be around vista now or at least haev a separate spec for it. I usualy got 800mb of stuff in the background when playing games.

Stev · 17 Jan 2008 at 22:57

Assassins sneaking around wearing WHITE IN THE DAYTIME is pretty fail from the get go, so i don't even need to look at system specs

.

MumboJumbo · 17 Jan 2008 at 23:01

yeah i did think the story and game failed in the whole idea of an assasin who cant be seen yet is so blatently obious. But the gameplay was fun... till it got repetitive.

madmanrizzla · 17 Jan 2008 at 23:49

3 GB!!!!!! WTF hope this aint true!!!

MumboJumbo · 18 Jan 2008 at 00:08

why are you all crying over 3gb? ram costs hardly anything.

perox · 18 Jan 2008 at 00:12

8igdave said:
why are you all crying over 3gb? ram costs hardly anything.

Haha quoted for truth.

psychas · 18 Jan 2008 at 00:13

bahhhh... maybe those specs to run all smooth on very high but i believe you could run with lower spec machine

dbmzk1 · 18 Jan 2008 at 00:46

If those are true then it will be the worst port in history.

It's a boring game anyway

skullman · 18 Jan 2008 at 00:48

According to that, even the minimum requirements say you need a dual core CPU and 2GB RAM.....as if.

rtk · 18 Jan 2008 at 02:45

dbmzk1 said:
If those are true then it will be the worst port in history.

It's a boring game anyway

What? you couldn't have played it on PC yet, so your basically talking out of your arse!

Why don't we wait till this game is available, and we can actually play it on the PC before we judge!

dbmzk1 · 18 Jan 2008 at 02:52

rtk said:
What? you couldn't have played it on PC yet, so your basically talking out of your arse!

Why don't we wait till this game is available, and we can actually play it on the PC before we judge!

You're the one who appears to be talking out of your posterior. In case you haven't caught on yet, I was talking about the game itself, not the PC version specifically. It's a boring game. Think before you post.