I thought they annouced the requirements back in the early Fall of 2005 before we knew the game was going to be delayed. Hmm, memory is a bit fuzzy from back then. I do remember all the "Will my PC play Oblivion" threads. We had about 40 to 50 or so of those.

I am curious too. can I run the game with my specs and get every bit of new vegas?

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit
Intel® Core™ i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80 GHz (8 CPUs), ~ 2.8GHz
8192MB Memory
DirectX 11

Video Device
ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series
DAC Type: (400 MHz)
Approx. Total Memory 4070MB

My Hard drive is 7200 RPM 1 Terrabyte of Space if that helps.

Yes

How many times before lag?

Yeah, that seems to be happening. My PC is now 3 years old, but my GTX 8800 is still holding up admirably. I don't expect that I'll have to do any upgrading for any game that is cross-platform with the current generation of consoles, which should be around for at least a few more years.

Plus, a relatively cheap upgrade, like going to a 4890 (like I did and they are cheap now) gives a night and day increase in game performance. A $120 or so video card today is a good upgrade for you.

If people are really desperate for requirements then just take a look at Fallout 3 and made an educated guess.

To max Fallout 3 you needed around..

CPU: 2.7GHz single or 2GHz dual/quad
GPU: Nvidia 8800 series or ATI HD 3800 series
RAM: 2GB

New Vegas is NOT going to sky rocket in requirements.



You should try being more coherent. If you are theoretically asking how many times over you could max New Vegas then its only once with that GPU.

Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game
Run game
Exit game

Repeat for all time.

That's how many times.

Yeah, I've considered a new video card, but until I come across a game that I can't run at 1920 x 1080 at High settings, I'm not going to bother. Money isn't really an issue (as you say, the new cards are much cheaper now than they were a few years ago), but I tend to upgrade based on what I need, rather than what happens to be available. As soon as I start struggling to maintain decent performance with a new game, I'll swap in a newer card and add another few years to the life of this PC.

it sorta irks me that the specs are not out yet. plus i pre-ordered from amazon, not from the ( 34 used and new) section most products usually have so it should ship fairly fast. still ill have to wait a bit while everyone else is playing D: :facepalm: lol i got the pre-order bonus raider tribal armor + machete. perfect bonus for me.

It's FO3's game engine and they didn't make any game-breaking changes to graphics or physics, so I'm betting if you ran FO3 you'll run NV as well. Maybe even better, the engine was optimised a bit between Obli and FO3, the same may hold true for NV.

i can run FO3 fine if it wasnt for my windows 7 64-bit. i guess they never officially put win 7 on the support list. people complain left and right about it causing compatibility crashes. but all in all the specs for the game are low and not extremely demanding like other titles

Considering the graphics are basically identical, I'm thinking it could be one safe assumption that the system requirements will be exactly the same as FO3. :tops:

best buy lists the system requirements for FO:NV

Minimum PC System Requirements
PC Processor Type
Dual Core processor
PC Processor Speed
2GHz
PC Operating System
Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP
PC System Memory
2GB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space
10GB
PC Video
NVIDIA GeForce 6 series video card; ATI 1300XT series minimum video card
PC Additional Requirements
Internet service and free Steam account required for activation .

I looked everywhere on ATI 1300XT and the closest i got was ATI X1300 apparently thats a very low end 256 MB card no more than 40 bucks or so. The specs are a good estimate but i dont think these are the actual system requirements

This is interesting. Dim minds make dumb mistakes together. Three years or so ago, whenever Mass Effect i was ported from the Xbox 360 by DemiUrge, EA named some really STUPID, idiotic, ignorant minimums for it.

The X1600 Pro had been far down in the bottom of the Mainline group's speed rankings, and the Geforce 7600 GT made it look more like a business card card in comparison for just about everything (it had far superior shader functionality than what the Geforce card had, and actually was its equal in Oblivion, but not in much else).

ATI rushed through a couple of improved replacements, first off by tuning the X1600 XT slightly and renaming that one to "X1650 Pro", they were just about equal with the 7600 GT. The other was a detuned X1800, which carried the name X1650 XT. It was a clear winner over the 7600 GT, save that it cost far too much at the time, leaving the 7600 GT as the value winner.

Meanwhile, they had literally thousands of X1600 Pro chips still sitting in warehouses, unsold. They reflashed those to give them a new identity, and called them "X1300 XT" cards. They are much slower than the majority of the X800 cards from the prior generation, and an X850 is what is named as Fallout 3's minimum Radeon, and only the two fastest X800s are faster than the slowest of the three X850 cards. It looks like there's someone at Best Buy who is as stupid as EA was when the port to PCs of Mass Effect I was prepared at DemiUrge.


Gorath

eh apparently.. dual core as a minimum is a bit scary though. cause thats the recommended core processing speed for most games. not the minimum. for example. one game may have minimum requirement a single core 2.66 GHz but the recommended would be dual core processor. not even naming the GHz or clock speed at all just plain dual-core

It is always best to try and hit the recommended specs for any pc game, or at least come close. The minimum specs to play a game can be deceiving. I've seen some games that were technically playable on the min specs, but forget enjoyable or with a framerate over 10. Other games play just fine on min specs, but you'll miss out on some eye candy.

That said, FO3 ran pretty good for me on min specs, so I suspect NV will also run okay at the min specs. That said, it isn't very hard to meet the recommended specs for FO3 on any pc made for gaming that is less than 4 years old.

ah its understandable. i would buy FO3 but i dont want to spend 50 bucks on it if my Windows 7 X64 will crash during gameplay as ive read it does from so many. my older computer i had to dumb down the graphics of hitman blood money all the way to the point where facial features were all but recognizable. it looked as though the character model was still in the developing stage XD. my old specs were 2.52 GHz Radeon 9200 pro 512 MB system ram and Microsoft XP 32-bit i believe. it was complete caveman technology lol :brokencomputer:

I play FO3 on Windows 7 64bit and yeah, it occasionally crashes to desktop, but we're talking about once every 10-15 hours of gameplay, and with the abundance of autosaves everytime you exit a building or enter one, I never lose more than 5 minutes of playtime. Besides, FO3 was made before Windows 7 was released it doesn't say anywhere that it supports Windows 7. New Vegas on the other hand is being made with Windows 7 in mind and says it specifically supports the OS along with XP and Vista.

And frankly, I'm not sure my crashes are necessarily Windows 7 related. I have over 40 mods installed, a lot using scripts through FOSE that are running all the time, etc. so one of them may just hic-up once in a blue moon.

Hahahahaha Yet another reason consoles are superior to your PCs. Watching you guys squirm at system requirements and list parts that total to over $150 makes me glad that I'm a proud 360 owner.

I'm on Win7 Pro x64 as well and the only time Fallout 3 crashes is occasionally when I exit the game...and at that point, well, who cares?

Could be drivers not playing nice causing crashes for people. I'm using an nVidia GTX 285 and a Creative X-Fi ExtremeGamer sound card...the drivers seem to play nicely with Fallout 3.


Lol...well, all I can say is keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about something. You go out of your way to bash PC gaming so much around here it must be a sore spot for ya. :laugh:

I mean, I have a 360 and several other consoles. Why do you suppose I buy almost all of my games for my PCs? I just gave my nephew my over-4-year-old castoff PC and it runs Fallout 3 better than my 360 does...and it's more stable. Just sayin'. Squirm? Did you mean, "scoff?" I don't even read system requirements.

Really, though, why bother trying to pick a fight? We're all gamers and all of the versions of the game have the same content. Are you mad that you can't use mods or something?

Anyway, as many have said, the requirements for NV are extremely likely to be the same as Fallout 3. I haven't had to upgrade my PCs in a really long time because a lot of the games I've been playing are cross-platform, which can be run well on hardware from 2006.

Squirm at system requirements? Did you miss the part where I said any gaming pc bought within the past 4 years will run it fine? Or the part where I mentioned the dozens of mods I get to use? Out of the thousands available?

I own a 360 as well, to play those awesome games that never make it to PC like Dead Rising (which sold the system to me). It just sees much less use than my PC for gaming. Basically once I get bored with a new console exclusive, my 360 gathers dust for several months.



That is a marvelous side-effect of developers focusing on consoles that I have noticed as well. Because the graphics requirements stay the same on consoles, our PCs are better and better able to run the newest releases like gangbusters. Not to hate on consoles, because, like I said above, I own one and love it when I use it, but I can't conceive of buying a Bethesda game with an available construction set for anything but PC. I even bought FO3 and ran it on a 5 year old computer on Low Settings, just for the mods, rather than getting a copy for the 360 attached to my TV.

Of course, now I have a brand new PC made to be a 3D graphics workstation (my job) that doubles as my gaming PC, so there is no contest for me anymore.

Yep, you've got it so much bet..*RROD*

Actually, there was no Radeon 9200 with more than 256 MBs of RAM, and most of them had only 64 MBs. That one was only "Dx8" capable, so not good enough for Oblivion, four and a half years ago (and not even "OldBlivion" could help that one at first).

According to GameSpot, that particular Hitman game needed a Radeon 9500, which could handle Dx9.0"a" (pixel shader SM-2), which make me believe you are actually referring to the 9600, which was no faster than a 9200, but did handle Dx9, and was sold, at the very end of its production run, in some odd setups, possibly including 512 MBs.

The first lower-powered card I recall seeing with some ridiculous amount of RAM was the X1600 Pro with 512. Since it was a 128 Bit card, it could only deal with 256 MBs in game play situations, but since then, there have been plenty of Noob Scam low end cards with only 64 Bit memory systems being sold with 512 and even 1024 MBs attached to them.


Gorath

it gotten to the point where there were no more upgrade drivers for the card. it was so old, they already had better cards out by then that wasnt really expensive they didnt see the point to continue making driver downloads for a card not many had