Brink PC Gets Steamworks, System Requirements

[JeP]

Is this Auzner/Etek discussion leading elsewhere than more and more flame ?

[badman]

Guys, please keep it civil. This stuff can be discussed without turning it into borderline flaming.

[Fireseed]

Guys, please keep it civil. This stuff can be discussed without turning it into borderline flaming.

Ok as wished now a topic related question

Will Brink support mobility graphic cards like the Nvidia GT 540M ?

[Auzner]

Is this Auzner/Etek discussion leading elsewhere than more and more flame ?

So few people here know anything about computers that I can’t just let him get away with this.

You people are the minority.

If that’s such a hurtful number then why do video cards continue to be made? There would be no video card market and $300+ for a SINGLE part if this was such a minority. R&D for these new video cards takes A LOT more money than developing a video game. This is not debatable, you’re just not getting it. You’re just enraged over a console port that’s not even worth playing. Play a game that’s actually optimized for a computer. No one cares about Crysis, it’s always been a glorified tech demo. Console ported games like CoD/BF have always just been for the “jump in for a year” masses. That’s why so many people still have E6600/8800, because those were when CoD got really popular. They all recommended the same things to their friends and it spread. Now less people care about the gaming and more about if their precious rig runs the latest title or not. ME2, L4D2, SC2, Bioshock, Fallout all run at max settings on my computer and that’s all I care about. I don’t care if some console port (GTA4, FC2, BC2, etc) runs at low because it’s not what I’m dedicating my time to. My hardware is for me to enjoy games I like, not prove to everyone I can run what just came out. Too many games seem to be selling on just “look I just came out, see if you can run me!” which is why all their gameplay is reused (too many CoDs and similars).

I spent ~1 minute glancing at steam hardware survey again. 40% have a very good video card (7,8,9) from HD 3/4/5/6 gen and 200/400/500 gen. Steam has over 2 million users. So it would be reasonable to say 800,000 people keep their hardware updated. There are more people out there who didn’t take the survey or who aren’t on steam. But 800k sounds fair enough for a picture. When over a million copies of a game are sold it’s a big deal. I wouldn’t say it’s a minority. If at least half of those people don’t buy games then they’re not even using their hardware the way they should, but the game still sold. If games aren’t killerapps then no one will upgrade their video card.

[system]

Can you just drop the video card already? I’m talking about the CPU here, which will be a bottleneck in this game too. No matter what graphics card you have.

[Auzner]

Can you just drop the video card already? I’m talking about the CPU here, which will be a bottleneck in this game too. No matter what graphics card you have.

This requires more arguing. But CPU bottlenecking is a minor concern. Anyone with 3/4/6 cores won’t have issues. It’s just that “dual core” can go pretty far back (939/775 PD) and those are very old and slow for today’s games. It is rare to find someone who gets a GTX 480 for an Athlon X2 3800.

[system]

From the steam survey:

Physical CPUs
1 cpu7.87%-0.36%
2 cpus 52.48% -0.30%
3 cpus 1.25% -0.06%
4 cpus 37.32% +0.74%
5 cpus 0.01% +0.01%
6 cpus 0.87% -0.04%
8 cpus 0.18% 0.00%
12 cpus 0.00% -0.01%

Intel CPU Speeds
Below 1.4 Ghz0.28%-0.01%
1.4 Ghz to 1.49 Ghz 0.13% -0.01%
1.5 Ghz to 1.69 Ghz 2.14% -0.05%
1.7 Ghz to 1.99 Ghz 5.84% -0.04%
2.0 Ghz to 2.29 Ghz 9.42% -0.12%
2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz 29.96% +0.34%
2.7 Ghz to 2.99 Ghz 12.58% -0.26%
3.0 Ghz to 3.29 Ghz 9.14% +0.09%
3.3 Ghz to 3.69 Ghz 2.79% +0.07%
3.7 Ghz and above 1.08% -0.02%

You can argue that this is for Intel CPU speed, well, Intel CPUs account for 72% of the survey, I doubt on the AMD side things will be very different.

So half the people still run on 2 cores and most people have below 3GHz. And those who have 4 cores, most of them have lower the 3GHz because, let’s face it, a quad core costs more than a dual core at the same speed.

For me, most people are very close to the minimum specs.

[maggol]

[QUOTE=Rong;277726]Would I be able to run this?

Nvidia GT120
Intel Quad Core Q8300

I usually play on 1024x768 all my games. I just want to make sure I get a smooth FPS.[/QUOTE]

I think it still can play BRINK

[Auzner]

I don’t care anymore if you don’t understand. At this point it’s clear to everyone there’s a dispute and no one is going to read any further. Now I’m listening to the Dune soundtrack.

[system]

I don’t care anymore if you don’t understand. At this point it’s clear to everyone there’s a dispute and no one is going to read any further. Now I’m listening to the Dune soundtrack.

I understand that you don’t understand that the CPU is still a major player and if it can’t sustain high FPS, the GPU will not magically draw stuff out of nowwhere.

With that said, here I can got for 340E the following:

i5 2500K @ 3.3 Ghz
4GB DDR3 Corsair
Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3

I think I can get about 180E for my current rig.

[Aza]

Am I the only one surprised at how fairly low the min specs are? I’m a little surprised alot of people are complaining at how high it is, especially on the cpu area. Anyone who’s played games based on Id’s engine should have a pretty good idea at how cpu bound they tend to be.

Anyway, more on topic. I do wonder about the VAC system in general. It seems to work beautifully on first party valve games such as tf2 and such where I’ve hardly ever encountered cheaters. Then on the flip side you have third party games utilizing it and it seems like it might as well not be there. Which has me wondering, if Badman could answer, If whether or not the third party dev’s have to take a more active role in utilizing the VAC system to make it as robust as it is on valves own games, and if so care to comment on how SD plans to take on potential cheaters on the pc?

[Tec]

Auzner it’s funny that you type alot of info and it looks like you dont understand
anything about PC console ports and how devs throw to the PC market an
unoptimised products - i mean garbage (and i m not going to explain)

Watch this movie and look a the FPS drops.

The guy that recorded the movie plays on:
i7 920 @ 4.2 GHZ, Asus 5970, OCZ 120 GB SSD…Min FPS 60…Max FPS 200+.
With the above specs the game should have run on stable 250 fps (if the game would allow
it should have run it on stable 1000fps maximize). Game that runs with old engine and gives
you this kind of performance with very old updated engine + bad graphics is a direct console
port with some PC components like server browser and mouse/keyboard support.

Why, lets say crysis warhead which for sure have far better graphics than brink, can run perfectlly
with the minimum system requirements of brink ??? You know why ??? Because it’s a PC game.

I’ve got 2 CPUs which i change sometimes to check performance on games,
one is q6600 and the second is e6750. With games that are optimised for PC there is
almost no differences in terms of performance between both.

[kilL_888]

[QUOTE=Tec;278235]
Why lets say crysis warhead which for sure have far better graphics than brink, can run perfectlly
with the minimum system requirements of brink ??? You know why ??? Because it’s a PC game.

I’ve got 2 CPUs which i change sometimes to check performance on games,
one is q6600 and the second is e6750. With games that are optimised for PC there is
almost no differences in terms of performance between both.[/QUOTE]

so. your argumentation is basicly, crysis warhead runs fine with brinks min specs, because its a pc game. ok…

“better” is also a good term when objectivly discussing a topic about graphics. how do you messure better when comparing brink and crysis? the game with more palms and trees wins? hm…

what crysis does, it has the best looking lightning i have ever seen in a computer game. the other post processing effects like depth of field, motion blur, hdr have most games nowadays.

“optimized for pc” is also a very generel term. the 2 cpus that you have and use as a comparison are, if im not mistaken, 1 dual core and 1 quad core cpu. you have to know that most (pc) games are not optimized for 4 cores. im sure there are games that get better performance with 4 cores, but i think the majority of games dont benefit from it.

to get back to crysis. i did some massive tweaking and benchmarking with crysis2 when i bought it. i overclocked both my cpu and gpu to get more performance. i discovered that overclocking my cpu has no impact on frames whatsoever. overclocking my gpu gave me a few frames though. this means, and in most modern games thats the case, the cpu is the bottleneck. just wanted to point that out, too (again).

[Aza]

No offense Tec but that’s a dumb comparison. CoD has always been a joke when it came to their pc counterpart. To even compare the two is somewhat of an insult to SD. A better comparison would be their own past games made, or at the very least games made on the same engine. And if it hasn’t been said over and over by SD already the game was developed on the pc first and then ported over to the consoles. You might be confusing that the content of brink itself was more console oriented than the actual development of the engine/performance of the game.

And for you to say that crysis warhead would run perfectly using brinks minimums specs, I’m starting to wonder what your definition of perfectly is.

[Tec]

[QUOTE=kilL_888;278241]so. your argumentation is basicly, crysis warhead runs fine with brinks min specs, because its a pc game. ok…

“better” is also a good term when objectivly discussing a topic about graphics. how do you messure better when comparing brink and crysis? the game with more palms and trees wins? hm…

what crysis does, it has the best looking lightning i have ever seen in a computer game. the other post processing effects like depth of field, motion blur, hdr have most games nowadays.

“optimized for pc” is also a very generel term. the 2 cpus that you have and use as a comparison are, if im not mistaken, 1 dual core and 1 quad core cpu. you have to know that most (pc) games are not optimized for 4 cores. im sure there are games that get better performance with 4 cores, but i think the majority of games dont benefit from it.

to get back to crysis. i did some massive tweaking and benchmarking with crysis2 when i bought it. i overclocked both my cpu and gpu to get more performance. i discovered that overclocking my cpu has no impact on frames whatsoever. overclocking my gpu gave me a few frames though. this means, and in most modern games thats the case, the cpu is the bottleneck. just wanted to point that out, too (again).[/QUOTE]

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6750 (4M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) Product...

Crysis 2 runs fantastiic on dual core cpu (with good gpu ofcourse).
Crysis 2 is not an example because it’s not a direct console port and
you dont need I5/7 to maximise graphics.
If it was a direct console port it was far more demanding than it is.
Crysis 2 on high settings( which are the lowest) looks and runs better than most
of the games that’s out today.

Most games today are console port (unless it’s a PC exclusive game)
but you need to know the differences between direct console port and
console port with good optimisation for pc.

[Senethro]

[QUOTE=Etek;278224]From the steam survey:

Physical CPUs
1 cpu7.87%-0.36%
2 cpus 52.48% -0.30%
3 cpus 1.25% -0.06%
4 cpus 37.32% +0.74%
5 cpus 0.01% +0.01%
6 cpus 0.87% -0.04%
8 cpus 0.18% 0.00%
12 cpus 0.00% -0.01%

Intel CPU Speeds
Below 1.4 Ghz0.28%-0.01%
1.4 Ghz to 1.49 Ghz 0.13% -0.01%
1.5 Ghz to 1.69 Ghz 2.14% -0.05%
1.7 Ghz to 1.99 Ghz 5.84% -0.04%
2.0 Ghz to 2.29 Ghz 9.42% -0.12%
2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz 29.96% +0.34%
2.7 Ghz to 2.99 Ghz 12.58% -0.26%
3.0 Ghz to 3.29 Ghz 9.14% +0.09%
3.3 Ghz to 3.69 Ghz 2.79% +0.07%
3.7 Ghz and above 1.08% -0.02%

You can argue that this is for Intel CPU speed, well, Intel CPUs account for 72% of the survey, I doubt on the AMD side things will be very different.

So half the people still run on 2 cores and most people have below 3GHz. And those who have 4 cores, most of them have lower the 3GHz because, let’s face it, a quad core costs more than a dual core at the same speed.

For me, most people are very close to the minimum specs.[/QUOTE]

You’ve read it wrong. Read it again. Get the calculator out. Look up the definition of most. My last post covered this.

There shouldn’t be an arguement here unless you think Steam’s numbers are not valid. Just read what you’ve copy/pasted!

[Tec]

[QUOTE=Aza;278242]No offense Tec but that’s a dumb comparison. CoD has always been a joke when it came to their pc counterpart. To even compare the two is somewhat of an insult to SD. A better comparison would be their own past games made, or at the very least games made on the same engine. And if it hasn’t been said over and over by SD already the game was developed on the pc first and then ported over to the consoles. You might be confusing that the content of brink itself was more console oriented than the actual development of the engine/performance of the game.

And for you to say that crysis warhead would run perfectly using brinks minimums specs, I’m starting to wonder what your definition of perfectly is.[/QUOTE]

Do you really ou think that brink (with the old limited idtech4 engine)
will have better graphics than MW2 (which i didn’t buy because lack of no dedis and mod tools) ???

“CoD has always been a joke when it came to their pc counterpart”
Lol -COD4 in terms of graphics/performance still looks great even today and i dont need to say that’s it still one of the best online games since the old good days of quake/ut and you dont need
the best computer to make it run stable on 250fps.

[Tec]

[QUOTE=kilL_888;278241]
“better” is also a good term when objectivly discussing a topic about graphics. how do you messure better when comparing brink and crysis? the game with more palms and trees wins? [/QUOTE]

You think that you can measure better graphics/technology with opinions ???

I dont need to compare and measure between Crysis and brink - Cryengine2/3 ver idtech4 is
all i need to know.

[Aza]

[QUOTE=Tec;278267]Do you really ou think that brink (with the old limited idtech4 engine)
will have better graphics than MW2 (which i didn’t buy because lack of no dedis and mod tools) ???

“CoD has always been a joke when it came to their pc counterpart”
Lol -COD4 in terms of graphics/performance still looks great even today and i dont need to say that’s it still one of the best online game since the old good days of quake/ut and you dont need
the best computer to make it run stable on 250fps.[/QUOTE]

Wait what are you even talking about now? Are you comparing how the game looks or how it performs? And if you think the idtech4 engine is old then the MW game engine is even worse cause its a derivative of the quake 3 engine. And yes i do believe brink has far better graphics than mw2.

Saying cod4 is the best game is an opinion. I personally would say q3 was the last best fps from a competitive standpoint but that has nothing to do with anything. And to be honest if anyones played fps games back in those days it was the norm that you had to pretty much upgrade your computer on a yearly basis to keep up with games coming out. So having min specs for components that were released almost 4-5 yrs ago doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me.

[JeP]

You think that you can measure better graphics/technology with opinions ???

And he’s right. Cause me for example I will most of the time put style on top of realism, and I’m fed up with realist modern FPS and for that reason Brink has, for me, really better graphic than Crysis.

Tec : can’t you just send all you flaming juice though MP ? This discussion has reach the boring line for a while now.