Just how reliable are recommended specs
- Thread starter Gelly54
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Minimum means it'll run, so you won't get a refund when your experience sucks.
Recommended is usually a trustable lowest point of reference, it means you can run a decent looking game at a good frame rate.
Depending on the game, you could need a completely different system to run everything on max.
Recommended is usually a trustable lowest point of reference, it means you can run a decent looking game at a good frame rate.
Depending on the game, you could need a completely different system to run everything on max.
I used to look at them everytime before I bought a game in the shop back when I had a athlon 64 and radeon 9800 pro.
Now I dont bother, I know my pc is capable of running pretty much anything, some cutting edge games with the settings toned down a bit like ArmA 2 and Flight Sim X.
I have found that reccomended specs can be a bit ludicrous, Shogun 2's for example are preposterous, my rig runs it great and its many tiers below the reccomended. Do they do it for marketing reasons perhaps?
Now I dont bother, I know my pc is capable of running pretty much anything, some cutting edge games with the settings toned down a bit like ArmA 2 and Flight Sim X.
I have found that reccomended specs can be a bit ludicrous, Shogun 2's for example are preposterous, my rig runs it great and its many tiers below the reccomended. Do they do it for marketing reasons perhaps?
It's a rough guide.. imagine if someone had a 30inchx3 eyefinity display setup.. and with a res of over 7500+ x whatever. It wouldn't run.
Most people should be able to press windowskey and pause break, read of their spec and compare to get good enough framerates.
Most people should be able to press windowskey and pause break, read of their spec and compare to get good enough framerates.
Yep I remember my sister laptop met the minimum spec for Civ 4. It was slow and laggy at the start when you only had one city. It would have been completely unplayable late in the game.
The minimum spec normally doesn't suggest a minimum resolution so they can get away with having a very low spec in that column as it will run the game, just at a horrible low resolution.
There is also the windows experience index rating but I think only GFWL games have it on them.
There is also the windows experience index rating but I think only GFWL games have it on them.
Last edited:
It varies so much for different games, that a general conclusion is hard to draw. I've had games for which my machine was below the minimum spec that ran fine, while I've had games for which my machine met the recommended that ran badly.......
Still now-days I find that the recommended spec is usually a decent baseline for a game to play reasonably.
Still now-days I find that the recommended spec is usually a decent baseline for a game to play reasonably.
Well I think its disgusting and I may have to write a letter to the authorities to complain
Maybe we could build a sticky to show true maximum specs for games for us fellow gamers?
You're talking about way too many variables there.
Also where does it start and stop? Being able to run a game at max at what resolution? at what fps? everyone has their own preference in minimum FPS.
For a better indication of the recommended specs for most games, the general rule of thumb is to double the games minimum requirements. I remember reading that years ago, I stuck by it too, until consolitis spread like wildfire. Nowadays I don't need to bother looking at the min/rec specs as I'm pretty sure my rig (lol, I hate it when people refer to their PC as "their rig") will run most games tricked out, thanks to the aforementioned consoltis.
This is what I usually go by when reading specs.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,015
- Location
- Surrey, UK
A lot depends also on your resolution. Recommended specs like to assume you're gaming at a low res, IMO. So they say your 8800GT will still play it fine, but only at 720p.