Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Looks like it really is time to upgrade my QX6700, but damn that chip has done me proud. Might look into getting a second 680 GTX as well. Really excited for this game.

Yeah, geez. My quad core is 3.2ghz and I'm only 4 gigs of ram. time for the mobo/ram/cpu upgrade I suppose.

Kiro wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 10:33:
Looks like it really is time to upgrade my QX6700, but damn that chip has done me proud. Might look into getting a second 680 GTX as well. Really excited for this game.

I had an Q6600 until I upgraded to an Phenom II x6.. what an insanely bad decision that was in retro-perspective... still it serves me well right now (the Q6600 is still on my secondary PC, all that needs right now, direly that is, is a SSD), but the CPU and platform as a whole (mobo/chipset) is showing it's age. Next upgrade is gonna be Nvidia and Intel all the way. But I am waiting till dx12 hits now.... if I upgrade my GPU (670GTX) it's going to be to make VR fluid and smooth. And we'll see what's required for that.

I can't even put into words how sad it makes me that AMD has NOTHING to compete against the I7

Cutter wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 10:41:
Yeah, geez. My quad core is 3.2ghz and I'm only 4 gigs of ram. time for the mobo/ram/cpu upgrade I suppose.

I'm still running a Core 2 E8400. This has probably been the longest I've gone without a major upgrade or rebuild; still running Vista64 too. Probably because I have had no hardware issues, and software/OS problems have been few, far between and easily fixed. I've really not had any problem with the games I play either. Maybe turning down a few options, but nothing overly noticeable. And yes I realize I have just cursed myself by saying that . I've been seeing a lot of min-specs my setup would have some trouble meeting so I imagine I'll be building a new box within the year. Still working on my steam backlog though, so maybe longer than that hehe.

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

With a minimum requirement of 6GB RAM, you're going to need to be on 64-bit in practice, even if it's not a 64-bit executable.

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Isn't that kind of implied with the minimum being 6GB of RAM?

"PC on very high setting is REALLY stunning if you ask me."

If their latest trailers were recorded on the PC than we clearly have a misunderstanding of what stunning really look like.

*Yawn*

Oh, this is still a thing?

SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 12:44:
"PC on very high setting is REALLY stunning if you ask me."

If their latest trailers were recorded on the PC than we clearly have a misunderstanding of what stunning really look like.

Agreed.

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Given that it was posted in a tweet I would assume it was omitted due to the character limit.

I hope so. But who knows, like mentioned below, these guys also said the game looks stunning. The car racing video looked worse than Burnout Paradise, which is what, 6 or 7 years old now?

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.

I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:33:
I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

512 meg, I believe. Which makes something like GTA 5 amazing that it runs at all.

NKD wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 12:30:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

With a minimum requirement of 6GB RAM, you're going to need to be on 64-bit in practice, even if it's not a 64-bit executable.

uhh... Technically a single 32-Bit process in Windows can only address 2GB, so the executable would have to be running multiple processes in order to gobble 6 GB... which would be weird. Usually an application is a single process with many threads... not multiple processes with however many threads.

So, if 6GB of RAM is required... then the OS Must be 64-Bit. A 32-Bit Windows OS only addresses 3 to 3.5GB depending on how much it has to reserve for system drivers.

TheEmissary wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:25:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.

why would it be unlikely? vista can run everything 7 and 8 can. i know me and a few others here are vista holdouts who REGRET NOTHING!!! all patched up it runs flawlessly. maybe still a resource hog, but i've never noticed since i've always maintained an enthusiast level machine.

1badmf wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:51:

TheEmissary wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:25:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.

why would it be unlikely? vista can run everything 7 and 8 can. i know me and a few others here are vista holdouts who REGRET NOTHING!!! all patched up it runs flawlessly. maybe still a resource hog, but i've never noticed since i've always maintained an enthusiast level machine.

I feel like we need to throw you and your PC into the trunk of a car, drive you to a church and have them..... do something. I dunno what, just... dude that ain't right! YOUR WORDS ARE PAIN!

wtf_man wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:40:
A 32-Bit Windows OS only addresses 3 to 3.5GB depending on how much it has to reserve for system drivers.

No, actually a 32 bit OS CAN simply address 4GB of memory address space. What everyone always seems to forget is that your graphics memory (yes, even that on a dedicated GPU) has to be addressed by that same controller.

So it's nothing to do with system drivers. It just has to do with how much memory you have on your GPU. You can even easily test it. Just swap out the 512MB card with a 2GB one, and watch how your available system memory plummets.

But in any case, no matter how many processes or threads or CLOUD MAJICS! it uses, a 32 Bit OS can never address things beyond 4 GB of memory. Ergo, (Latin!), the minimum of 6 means it's going to require a 64 bit OS (even if the executable might still just be 32 bit.)

Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 15:06:
It just has to do with how much memory you have on your GPU. You can even easily test it. Just swap out the 512MB card with a 2GB one, and watch how your available system memory plummets.

I'll have to check that out! I always thought is was system drivers and RAM reserved for onboard graphics... not a discrete card.

Even an old dog learns new tricks from time to time.