REAL minimum system requirements

H

Hartigan

First time out of the vault
Alright, I know there is already at least one thread that deals with F:NV system requirements, but here I'd like to hear from someone who have already played the game on a system that subcedes (is this really a word?) minimum requirements that are listed by Beth. I'm especially interested in the CPU speed.

OS: Windows 7/Vista/XP
CPU: dual core 2.0 GHz
Memory: 2GB RAM
Storage: 10GB free hard drive space
Video card: NVidia GForce 6 series, ATI 1300XT series

I don't believe a game that uses ol' Morrowind engine needs at least 2 GHz dual core processor to run (I don't mind playing it on Low Settings with crappy textures and so on, I'm not interested in visual fireworks) but I'd like to make sure before I enter the store. I have a 1.67 GHz Certino Duo, 2GB RAM and I can play F3 with moderate lags on the Medium/High setup.
 
Its not the Morrowind engine, its the Oblivion Engine...
Anyways, if it can run FO3, it can run New Vegas, they really didnt upgrade the engine from Fallout 3, just added a bit to it.
 
Thanks!

Then why such a difference?

Fallout 3:
Minimum: Pentium 4 2.4 GHz / Athlon XP 2500+, 1GB RAM
Recommended: Intel Core 2 Duo / Athlon 64 X2 5200+, 2GB RAM

Fallout: New Vegas:
Minimum: Dual Core 2.0 Ghz, 2GB RAM
Recommended: Pentium Dual Core E5200 2.5GHz, 3GB RAM

It plays the same as Morrowind, though. :)
 
Yeah but Obsidian have added a lot more NPCs to it, and the gamebryo engine, being the buggy crap is it, struggles. Sure, if it was a fully optimised worthwhile engine, it'd be fine, but it's not. System requirements are probably higher due to the higher amount of NPCs.
 
Maybe they are just being realistic about the req this time ;)

Morrowind didnt have Ragdoll, heck, didnt even really have a physics engine :P and that's just one of many differences from the Morrowind -> Oblivion Engine. Though, I must say, I came to love Morrowind more than Oblivion, somehow. It just had a charm that Ob didnt quite manage to contain.
 
Okay, thanks a lot! It seems I will have no choice but to buy, check and then worry about it. I'm not feeling like resorting to illegal sources even though that'd be one "safe" way out. There should be a demo version available for fuck's sake!

Anyways, if anyone's checked, please speak! :)

Well, I played Morrowind like 5 or 6 years ago then I played FO3 just when it came out -- and honestly I couldn't tell the difference! :) I guess Beth just deals with things in a specific way, and all their games just kind of "feel" similar if not the same.
 
I'm having bad framerate with a semi-decent quad core, a Geforce 9800GTX and 8 gb RAM. FO3 chugged a lot too but i think it's the added NPCs that's bring me down to 15, since a big skirmish (around 20 combatants) against the Powder Gangers went to almost unplayable. Performance's pretty awful for me...
 
I have corei7 at 1.6 GHz and it's working fine, but slows down for a lot of NPCs, true. I'm playing on High though, despite the game recommending "Medium".
 
Thanks for the replies, guys! I just want to report it works fine on my Intel Centrino Duo 1.66 GHz as well. Load times are not so long and irritiating as expected, even while having the minimum 2GB of RAM. Indeed, there are some problems with the framerate when more than 2-3 NPCs appear on the screen at the same time but it's pretty much playable anyway.

So, if you're still holding off because of the restrictions, you don't have to. If you can run FO3: Piece of Shit with a decent framerate, Fallout: New Vegas will be working fine for you too! :) . . . and it seems the game's really worth your caps! :)

The topic may be closed.
 
I have 2 gb ram, Nvidia Gforce 9600GT and AthlonXP 3200+, and it runs normally on medium settings (with some stuttering from time to time, I don't know what affects this, probably another issue like that one with dx3d.dll).
 
I'm running it PERFECTLY well, with no FPS drops or lag on an acer laptop.

my specs -

AMD V120(2.2ghz)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 with 893MB of memory
2 Gig Memory

I was blown away by its stability, and besides a few bugs and crashes (that are very, very rare) it's running like a dream.

What I find very interesting is that playing Fallout 3 was ridiculous - it was like playing a slideshow it was so laggy.

I've also turned up textures, effects and fades to the max and still haven't had any problems. Maybe I'm lucky?
 
Intel Core 2 Duo 6400
GeForce GTX260
2GB Ram
Windows XP

Game runs very good at 1280x1024px with ultra high graphic settings. Not even Fallout 3 runs that good for me.
 
Well, it runs on my Pentium 4 3.06Ghz. Could be better, though.
Good thing I get a new mainboard and quadcore CPU next week.
 
Does anyone know if I still be able to play with 1.81 athlon (single core), 1 gb of ram, and geforce 6x (256 mb) ? Well, for f3 it was enouth.
 
zkylon: The game suffers from the Oblivion bug of inflation so you may want to quit and restart the game now and then. The clean cache allows much smoother game in hectic parts.

MaToX: I have a similar system (2gig ram, 320 mb 6800) and the game isn't too bad. As I said above, I need to restart now and then (especially if I qsave / qload a lot in a row) and I have some sound issues (stops playing effects like vats beeps or jumps then tries to play it all at once causing freezes but that might be related to my on board sound card too.)
The only real problem the game has comes from the vista moments when a lot of seperate entities have to be drawn suddenly (like jumping into a tunnel while 180' turning or climbing a ridge) which may cause a small freeze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top