I know it's a different engine than HOI2... But, wouldn't it still mean that memory is being used on something you're not using? That would not be good.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
4GB of ram cost me $50, do I get a cookie? Seriously these aren't hefty requirements at all, it's the cpu I'm worried about. This kind of game really needs to make use of at least dual cores. I don't want my quad core cpu working on one problem at a time, like it's forced to with hoi2.
I have to laugh at people complaining about requirement. I got 256mb graphic card in early 2004*. If you both a computer during the last year or so thats below minimum requirements, it means that either you went for the cheapest option possible, or the people who sold it to you screwed you over.
*Granted, it's GeForce5700 with bugged pixel-shader thingie which means EU3 is unplayable on it... but that's rather Nvidia fault than Paradox
*Granted, it's GeForce5700 with bugged pixel-shader thingie which means EU3 is unplayable on it... but that's rather Nvidia fault than Paradox
Here is where your logic fails. Laptops are starting to outsell desktops and are becoming the norm for most households.
When you buy laptops, your video card options are pretty scant compared to desktops. Often you cannot get a decent card in the majority of available models, or the really good option is a massive step up in money.
I only have a laptop and unfortunately my ATI 3650 is decent for gaming, but the video memory is only 128mb with shared bringing the total to 256. Shared memory for ATI in my experience is lacking.
So I agree that there are plenty of cheap options if you own a desktop, but right now we are in a transition where everyone is buying laptops, but most manufacturers have not been able to bring moderately priced gaming machines that are not the size of a desktop, to the market. So there will be a lot of butthurtness over the specs for this game.
I am sure I can run it since it is very fast with EU3, I just want to run it faster. I am curious if there is a way to allocate more than 128mb of shared memory since I have 4gb of memory and I am sure HOI 3 will not be using all of it. Anyone know how to do this with mobile ATI cards?
I don't buy that argument about laptop prices. I got a nice dual-core 4-gig Ram, 20-inch laptop with 512MB video Ram Nvidia 8800M, all for about $1500 from HP. Including a Blu-Ray player.
Considering the last laptop I had several years ago cost $3500 and wasn't half this great, it should not be too hard to find one that will play this game very well, and not for too much.
Considering the last laptop I had several years ago cost $3500 and wasn't half this great, it should not be too hard to find one that will play this game very well, and not for too much.
Luckily I have a half-decent PC (quad-core, 6gb, 9800GT, &c.) but with regards to laptops, I have to agree with the naysayers. I mean, my mother recently bought a brand-new HP for about £500. I posted the specs in another thread, but forget them now. Either way, it has a GeForce 9-series mobility card (9200 M, I think), 3gb ram... dual core, blue-ray, &c.
Very cheap considering it has blue ray as standard... anyway the point is that despite playing a lot of newish stuff very well (HL2, Red Orchestra, &c. play on full GFX fine, and even Empire plays alongside nicely medium-high), EU3 runs at a veritable snail's pace. The GFX are fine, but scrolling the map takes forever, and it's basically unplayable on higher resolutions.
Clearly HoI3 will be worse, so I certainly empathise with people, and as I say it's a pretty decent laptop, and pretty new, so a lot of people with mid-to-high on-board GPUs with 'average' memory will certainly have issues.
Your best bet is a dual/quad-core PC with plenty of memory (I think I would certainly suggest 3gb DDR2 tbh) and a good card with solid memory.
My 9800 is 512mb I think, so I ought to be okay.o
Very cheap considering it has blue ray as standard... anyway the point is that despite playing a lot of newish stuff very well (HL2, Red Orchestra, &c. play on full GFX fine, and even Empire plays alongside nicely medium-high), EU3 runs at a veritable snail's pace. The GFX are fine, but scrolling the map takes forever, and it's basically unplayable on higher resolutions.
Clearly HoI3 will be worse, so I certainly empathise with people, and as I say it's a pretty decent laptop, and pretty new, so a lot of people with mid-to-high on-board GPUs with 'average' memory will certainly have issues.
Your best bet is a dual/quad-core PC with plenty of memory (I think I would certainly suggest 3gb DDR2 tbh) and a good card with solid memory.
My 9800 is 512mb I think, so I ought to be okay.
o
Okay, maybe the "Vista uses twice as much RAM" arguments are a bit flawed... But it doesnt change the fact that Vista easily has 3 times as many processes (atleast) at startup as my XP. (last time I looked on a Vista computer it had around 80 processes running as opposed to 24-28 on my XP)
I do agree with you about the "hardcore" specs. The real problem though is that too many people buy store bought computers instead of taking a little time to educate themselves on how to build their own computer.
Seriously people, its not rocket science
I built my first computer when I was 13, out of about 5 computers I had to salvage.If you look at store bought computers you will see a pattern after a while... They always use the best processors, but will have integrated or Budget graphics cards. (usually a GeForce 5200LE or some similar garbage) Usually also the bare minimum of RAM, and they never mention the brand, so its probably value RAM as well. I think its just a marketing trick. they prey on the little knowledge most people have and just use the best processor because thats about all most people know about computers... that and big hard drives. After all, anybody who knows better builds their own computers, its the perfect system.. for them.
They are a waste of money, pure and simple.
And dont even get me started on the price of operating systems... luckily if you know anyone who recycles computers you can get authentic XP Tags for around 10$. When businesses sell their computers and buy new ones they just throw them away... of course microsoft doesnt want you to know this
Last edited:
The problem though is that you are basically referencing your experiences with a mobile desktop. The reason a 20 inch laptop is cheap is because it is a massive size that is not very portable at all and therefore not very popular. Most people looking for a 20 inch screen size will just go for a desktop and get more for the price you listed.
I just hope that in the future a modular laptop standard emerges. It is ridiculous that Alienware is about the only manufacturer to release a laptop with a slotted video card that can be upgraded. That is where the anger should be directed.
The prices for the 20" model I bought never varied from the day of introduction...I did not get a fire sale nor have I seen such sales for this size system. Also, I doubt that it cost less to make a 20" laptop than to make a 17" one - if anything, screen size would dictate a more costly base price for the display. The other components between the two different sized laptops are relatively similar - the 20" is simply easier to keep cool and to make modifications upon. I wanted a less mobile laptop that is basically a full-time desktop replacement - but that's just my needs. And you are correct, not many people have opted for 20" screen laptops. But as I was saying, there are equivalent 17"-18" display laptops that cost the same or less than mine, if you shop around for them.
My main point was that only a few years ago, I paid $3,500 for a good high quality Dell laptop and what I got was a 15" screen, a much slower processor, less RAM and much less video performance. Today, for around $1,000-1,500 you can get a really nice laptop in a size factor that meets your needs.
I do have one caveat to this generalization though - I live in the US, where the prices remain very competitive. I can't say that my system would have been as inexpensive had I bought it overseas. A Ukrainian friend, upon hearing of my purchase of this particular laptop, estimated that, had I brought it with me to Ukraine on my last visit there, he would have likely offered me $2,500-$3,000 for it - and he would have in turn re-sold it for a profit. But that was before the economic crash this year.
Last edited:
I suspect that overall your assertion is correct in saying that desktops still outsell laptops globally, but it could well be that in certain niche markets, it is also true that laptops are starting to outsell desktops - but only in those markets. One just has to define the market. And of course if you are in that niche, it may seem like the entire market to you. Everything is relative, eh?
I recommend researching your statements before posting them online. It will save you the trouble of being incorrect.
Many markets have been buying more laptops than desktops. The US market is the one that finally broke that barrier this year. Korea and Europe have had many months with more laptop sales than desktops for years now.
Here is an article about the US breaking that barrier.
http://articles.latimes.com/p/2008/jan/01/business/fi-laptop1
Are you trying to destroy teh interweb?
On a serious note it is interesting, but not surprising, that laptops have, or very soon will, overtake desktop PC's in sales.
I have an AMD 64 4000+ CPU with two gig of RAM. Do you think I will be fine?
Johan, what you guys do is just great. I am most looking forward to the full command chain and to be able to delegate tasks to the AI on every level, so I can focus on the things, that I enjoy.
Johan, what you guys do is just great. I am most looking forward to the full command chain and to be able to delegate tasks to the AI on every level, so I can focus on the things, that I enjoy.
There's a shop just down the road that builds computers. You can buy any combination you want, but they sell their pre chosen specs for only slightly more or even less than they would sell you the individual parts. At least in Britain most cities, big towns have at least one decent computer shop that will try and sell you a sensibly balanced system at a reasonable price. You don't have to self build, unless you actually enjoy the experience.
As to lap tops, I wonder how long it will be before people are complaining that the spec is too high for their mid range mobile phone to handle.
As to lap tops, I wonder how long it will be before people are complaining that the spec is too high for their mid range mobile phone to handle.
No, they said that as of then, the sprites ran faster. Nothing about the final speed for each. Perhaps I didn't read well enough though?
I am a little confused here.
Min/recommended specs:
# PC with 1024 MB of RAM (2048 on Vista)
# Windows XP/Vista
# Graphics card with at least 256 MB onboard memory, and 2.0 vertex and pixel shaders.
"no major demands on the CPU, the faster the better of course.. but if you bought a pc with the other spec, you are more than fine..
the game itself uses like 1gb of HD space, so its irrelevant really"
Thos specs are relatively low IMHO..... I have an old computer 4year i think now.. that still can meet these req.
This could be problematic for those trying to play it on a laptop.... mostly because those without a dedicated graphic card could be in serious trouble.
Of course this all depends on how many vertices and polys there are the map that need to be rendered..... I also assume if you use counters(less polys etc less demand on your gcard)
My confusion lies in no major demand on teh cpu as teh game sues 1gb hd space.......... (now i have not seen the code yet) but depending on how many threads/processes are needed to run at any given could put quite a bit of demand on the CPU...... (which can be very problematic for those using multi core processors if the game engine does not support multicore processing.... you are just better off with a fast single core).
My caution would be that those with a duel core or quad that is below 2.0ghz may be trouble unless teh game supports multi threading......
Anyone who has vista shoudl already have at least 2gb ram or you are already hurtign yourself running most applications. XP at least 1G Ram(but do not go above 3gb as XP will not recognize it)
Your graphics card needed(based on teh above recommendations shoudl be at least gefore 5 series or better dedicated card)
CPU: all depends on if it multicore supported ( i doubt that it is IMHO)... if that is the case anyone with a mutlicore shoudl expect that only 1 core will be doign anythign and base their speed on one of their cores.....(not entirely true in that the OS can/will use yoru other cores for other applications though.. thereby freeing up a little from that 1 core for the game......
The only sense i can may of the HD comment is that the engine will use the HD as virtual memory.... which will be limited by your HD speed......(id that is it .. maek sure to defrag often)
Min/recommended specs:
# PC with 1024 MB of RAM (2048 on Vista)
# Windows XP/Vista
# Graphics card with at least 256 MB onboard memory, and 2.0 vertex and pixel shaders.
"no major demands on the CPU, the faster the better of course.. but if you bought a pc with the other spec, you are more than fine..
the game itself uses like 1gb of HD space, so its irrelevant really"
Thos specs are relatively low IMHO..... I have an old computer 4year i think now.. that still can meet these req.
This could be problematic for those trying to play it on a laptop.... mostly because those without a dedicated graphic card could be in serious trouble.
Of course this all depends on how many vertices and polys there are the map that need to be rendered..... I also assume if you use counters(less polys etc less demand on your gcard)
My confusion lies in no major demand on teh cpu as teh game sues 1gb hd space.......... (now i have not seen the code yet) but depending on how many threads/processes are needed to run at any given could put quite a bit of demand on the CPU...... (which can be very problematic for those using multi core processors if the game engine does not support multicore processing.... you are just better off with a fast single core).
My caution would be that those with a duel core or quad that is below 2.0ghz may be trouble unless teh game supports multi threading......
Anyone who has vista shoudl already have at least 2gb ram or you are already hurtign yourself running most applications. XP at least 1G Ram(but do not go above 3gb as XP will not recognize it)
Your graphics card needed(based on teh above recommendations shoudl be at least gefore 5 series or better dedicated card)
CPU: all depends on if it multicore supported ( i doubt that it is IMHO)... if that is the case anyone with a mutlicore shoudl expect that only 1 core will be doign anythign and base their speed on one of their cores.....(not entirely true in that the OS can/will use yoru other cores for other applications though.. thereby freeing up a little from that 1 core for the game......
The only sense i can may of the HD comment is that the engine will use the HD as virtual memory.... which will be limited by your HD speed......(id that is it .. maek sure to defrag often)