Slashdot Mirror


How are System Requirements Determined?

May Kasahara asks: "Seeing as how my Unreal Tournament buddies are considering upgrading to UT2004 soon, I thought I'd check out the system requirements ahead of time. I thought that I'd have no problems, seeing as how UT2004 is mostly just UT2003 with new content, but upon looking up the specs online, I found quite a different story. My PC runs on a 733mHz Pentium III, just meeting the minimum system req.'s for UT2003 (which runs very smoothly on my machine, BTW), but UT2004 requires at least a 1gHz processor for the PC version. Curious, I checked out the UT2003 system specs listed on the official site, and found much the same info-- specs that were quite different from those listed on the retail box in my storage closet. Naturally, I got to thinking about other games and apps, and what I want to know is: what gives? How accurate/trustworthy are system specs listed on a box? Are they artificially inflated to sell more hardware from companies that these publishers are affiliated with (nVidia in UT's case), or is there a more logical explanation?"

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. This is an interesting question ... by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Informative

    since in the case of pretty much every version of Windows, the box requirements are simply to run the operating system, and you'll need a much faster PC with a lot more RAM to actually run today's applications without wincing - and I'm referring to "simple" word processing and spreadsheets, not games.

    I think you could help answer your own question by trying the experiment of buying the game and checking out how well it works on your system. Then let us know, since you've made us curious :-).

    That being said, the odds are pretty good that more features mean more code bloat, which mean the need for faster processors and more memory. But since game performance has to be high, and since game customers are likely to complain about poor performance, the fudge factors used to determine performance specifications are probably a lot different from what Microsoft uses for Windows.

    To put this in perspective, consider Windows 2000, which ran fine on a 500mhz Celeron with 64MB RAM. Windows XP struggles on a 1.2ghz Celeron with 128MB RAM, and I know this because we have several of both systems. The 500mhz Windows 2000 system will actually outperform the XP box on a clean installation.

    What's strange about this, of course, is that there are few substantiative differences between 2000 and XP. There's more eye candy in XP and that's about it. So think about this: A little extra eye candy and you've worse than halved the performance.

    Since games are all about eye candy nowadays, that might be a good start at explaining the situation.

    Hope that helps.

    D

    1. Re:This is an interesting question ... by TeddyR · · Score: 2, Informative

      IMHO on an XP machine, if given the option of adding 100 or less mhz or 256mb ram [all other things kept the same], GO WITH THE RAM.. for the same price....

      XP on anything less than 256mb ram is unusable. 512mb ram is the least needed for comfortable system use.

      --

      --
      Time is on my side
  2. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    It wasn't off-topic but it was not informative either so it all averages out.

    Your response did not answer the question of "how system requirements" are determined. A satisfactory post would have included factors such as frame rates and the CPU/GPU power needed to sustain enjoyable frame rates.

  3. Depends on the User by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason the system requirements are so high for some games is not because the game really needs it to run, but because many times users are too lazy and/or ignorant to configure their system well and it's not the job of the game maker to tell them to run adaware to get rid of the 1000 pieces of adware they have or run msconfig to get rid of the 10-15 apps that open on startup. So yes, if you have gator, smartsearch, and 3-5 startup items, I can see that 1 Ghz is a good minimum.

    I ran UT2K3 on a P3 500 quite smoothly btw.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  4. The real deal by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Informative

    Goddamn there are a lot of BS'ers on /.
    You wanna know how they pick the specs for UT2003/4? They get a whole buttload of systems, and they run benchmarks on them (probably several times). The systems that average 20fps are deemed "minimum spec", and the ones that hit 40 are "reccomended". Its that simple. They don't pick them out of a hat, nVidia doesn't hand them to Epic, and marketing doesn't have any fucking input.

    As for what you'll want for a system, the video card is definitly the most important piece of hardware for a modern game. Performance is almost directly related to your video card. I've got a Radeon 9700 Pro (128mb), and UT2003 runs about 30-60fps on high detail. Personally, the lowest i'd go is a high end GeForce 3, but for what its worth the game did work on a 16mb ATI Rage card for me (albet at 1-5 fps). Don't worry about the processor too much, just as long as its not holding your video card back a whole lot. The only thing you really gain in UT03 by having a fast processor is A) Fancy physics (ragdolls), and B) Snappy load times. As for how much memory, well, 256 is the lowest i'd want. Any less and you'll get into some nasty swapping issues, which is a killer for performance. Contrary to a previous post, most of your memory isn't used for the OS. IIRC, Windows XP will shrink down to as little as 50-70mb, maybe even less (depending on background programs). UT2003 on the other hand, well, at max detail it can load in more than 600mb worth of data (mostly textures) to your RAM. Fortunatly, RAM is relatively cheap, and the more you have the better. The only other thing you'll want is a broadband net connection. Dialup is playable, but Cable/DSL makes a world of difference. (Plus there are tons of cool mods you'll probably want to download)

    Oh, and one other thing... I think one of the reasons the minimum specs got bumped up was due to the addition of the Onslaught gametype. Its like a mini version of BF1942. Big battlefields, vehicles, 32 players... its gonna take more iron to run a full scale war than a 6 on 6 bombing run match. But knowing Epic they've jazzed up all their maps and models as well.

    Anyways, my advice to May Kasahara is this: Wait for the demo. The UT community is buzzing with activity right now, as last week Epic announced that the demo would be out within two weeks. The deadline is exactly one week from today (Friday the 13th - heh). When that hits - and you'll know it because when the UT2003 demo was released internet performance dropped all around the world - give it a shot. You'll know then weather or not you need to upgrade, or if you can live with reduced quality and questionable performance.

    Happy gaming everyone.

  5. Re:determining sys requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You have to give the credit for this joke to Calvin and Hobbes however...