›

Game Specs

MarillMarill
edited July 2009 in Tales of Monkey Island
I hate to start another new topic asking questions.

I'm just wondering if my computer will be able to handle the game. The only thing that really lets my computer down compared to the specs for the game is my processor. I don't use my computer for gaming that much anymore so it is outdated at the moment :P but Tales doesn't look like it needs that anyway.

Tales
Operating system: Windows XP / Vista
Processor: 2.0 GHz + (3 GHz Pentium 4 or equivalent rec.)
Memory: 512MB (1GB rec.) Sound: DirectX 8.1 sound device
Video: 64MB DirectX 8.1-compliant video card (128MB rec.)
DirectX®: Version 9.0c or better

My computer
Op system: XP
Processor: 1.6GHz (AMD Athlon)
Memory: 2gb
Video: Nvidia 5800 256mb
Direct X 9/10 - not sure

I was going to upgrade my computer sometime as I need a new motherboard/processor as you can see :P Do I need to get that sorted before I get the game, or would it be able to handle it for the time being?

Comments

  • IkzaiIkzai
    edited July 2009
    From my limited computer understanding the game will probably run a little slow and/or choppy. You'll probably be able to play it... but enjoyably? Hmmm...

    EDIT: I was going to suggest you use http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest but as it seems, I don't see any Telltale games on there.
  • CyphoxCyphox
    edited July 2009
    What's an AMD Athlon 1.64 ? This CPU doesn't exist?! Do you mean 1.64GHz? Or one 64bit CPU? Cause there's no AMD Cpu out there with 1640mhz
  • MarillMarill
    edited July 2009
    Ah.. sorry.

    1.6ghz
  • WillWill Telltale Alumni
    edited July 2009
    You will probably be able to run the game, but like Ikzai said it will likely be a bit chuggy. If you buy the game and just can't get it to work, just write in to support@telltalegames.com and we can always cancel your order and refund you.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited July 2009
    I have a Nvidia 5200, but I was able to get the Wallace and Gromit and Sam and Max Season 2 demos to run just fine, with Wallace and Gromit on Notch 3 graphics settings and Sam and Max Season 2 on high. You might not be able to get all those fancy effects but it'll still run pretty well I'm sure.
  • MarillMarill
    edited July 2009
    Will wrote: »
    You will probably be able to run the game, but like Ikzai said it will likely be a bit chuggy. If you buy the game and just can't get it to work, just write in to support@telltalegames.com and we can always cancel your order and refund you.
    If you guys are releasing a demo sometime, I'll be able to test it on my computer before I buy.

    I haven't bought it yet as I'm waiting for my bank to transfer money to my paypal account, that wont clear until the 14th July. Will the demo be out by then?

    Thanks for the reply. :)
    I have a Nvidia 5200, but I was able to get the Wallace and Gromit and Sam and Max Season 2 demos to run just fine, with Wallace and Gromit on Notch 3 graphics settings and Sam and Max Season 2 on high. You might not be able to get all those fancy effects but it'll still run pretty well I'm sure.
    Ah, thanks :)
  • maximmortalmaximmortal
    edited July 2009
    Why don't you test one of the Wallace and Gromit demos? Last time I checked they had the same specs. Not sure if that's changed since.

    Edit: Oh, didn't read this:
    I have a Nvidia 5200, but I was able to get the Wallace and Gromit and Sam and Max Season 2 demos to run just fine, with Wallace and Gromit on Notch 3 graphics settings and Sam and Max Season 2 on high. You might not be able to get all those fancy effects but it'll still run pretty well I'm sure.
  • MarillMarill
    edited July 2009
    Even so it is a good idea. I'll do that.
  • OzzieMonkeyOzzieMonkey
    edited July 2009
    You should be able to run it smoothly, but you'll have to turn the graphics quality and/or screen resolution down. I did that for the W&G demo, but then again, that game does tend to have a few issues anyway. The mouse might be a bit slow moving, but not enough to ruin the experience for you. That might depend on the resolution you set the game to though.
  • Threepwood4LifeThreepwood4Life
    edited July 2009
    Should run fine from your specs, I have the same processor speed and it seems fine, may slow at loading points but other than that you should get very playable.
  • onemanandhisdroidonemanandhisdroid
    edited July 2009
    Real clock speeds themselves don't mean anything - you can only compare chips of the same model this way. Any Corei7, Core2Duo, Phenom or Athlon64 clocking in at even lower clock speeds than 1.6 Ghz would eat your CPU for breakfast. Assuming this is an Athlon XP, as previous Athlons didn't come in higher clock speeds than 1.4 Ghz. It's the XXXX+ rating you should be looking at. On similar notes, the Athlon XP equivalent of the recommended 3.0 Ghz Pentium4 processor clocks in at about no more than 2.2 Ghz. It's just a wholly different series of chips and cranks out more performance per clock cycle than Pentium4s.

    Looking at this, a real clock speed of 1.6 Ghz means you're running an Athlon XP 1900+, a processor roughly meant to compete with a Pentium4 1.9 Ghz. Which means you're a tiny bit below the minimum requirements. Like, 0.667 Ghz. Panic! Not! :D
  • MarillMarill
    edited July 2009
    Real clock speeds themselves don't mean anything - you can only compare chips of the same model this way. Any Core2Duo, Phenom or Athlon64 clocking in at even lower clock speeds than 1.6 Ghz would eat your CPU for breakfast. Assuming this is an Athlon XP, as previous Athlons didn't come in higher clock speeds than 1.4 Ghz. It's the rating you should be looking at. On similar notes, the Athlon XP equivalent of the recommended 3.0 Ghz Pentium4 processor clocks in at about no more than 2.2 Ghz. It's just a wholly different chips and could crank out quite a bit more performance per clock cycle than its Pentium equals.

    Looking at this, a real clock speed of 1.6 Ghz means you're running an Athlon XP 1900+, a processor roughly meant to compete with a Pentium4 1.9 Ghz. Which means you're a tiny bit below the minimum requirements. Like, 0.667 Ghz. Panic! Not!
    I have to admit that I'm still learning about this stuff, but when it comes to processors I know nothing :P You're right it is an Athlon XP, I'm sorry I've got all of my specs memorised but that (I'm not on my own comp right now to check).

    Thanks for explaining that, I might understand it better when it's not nearly midnight for me :D I shouldn't worry too much about getting a new motherboard/processor for this game right away (my motherboard can't handle anything faster than my current one).
    You should be able to run it smoothly, but you'll have to turn the graphics quality and/or screen resolution down. I did that for the W&G demo, but then again, that game does tend to have a few issues anyway. The mouse might be a bit slow moving, but not enough to ruin the experience for you. That might depend on the resolution you set the game to though.
    Thanks. My resolution is some obscure widescreen resolution (new monitor is widescreen, unlike my old one :S ) but I usually play games in nothing higher than 1024 by 768.
    Should run fine from your specs, I have the same processor speed and it seems fine, may slow at loading points but other than that you should get very playable.
    Oh great. thank you :o
  • onemanandhisdroidonemanandhisdroid
    edited July 2009
    Marill wrote: »
    Thanks for explaining that, I might understand it better when it's not nearly midnight for me :D I shouldn't worry too much about getting a new motherboard/processor for this game right away (my motherboard can't handle anything faster than my current one).


    Kind of a crude analogy, but think of processors as car types and models, and the clock speeds as their corresponding horse powers. No matter how many horsepower you'd give say your average truck, it'd still be big, slow and hungry compared to your average car due to its design and build.

    If processor development had stopped at around Pentium4 and AthlonXP, they'd probably need clock speeds of 8Ghz+ to be able to keep up with modern processors which can calculate much much more per clock cycle. Which is kind of physically impossible - as a general rule of thumb the higher the clock speed the more heat is being produced in turn. And the more power is being drawn - if modern processors were clocking in at 10Ghz rather than at about 1.6 to 3.2 Greenpeace would have probably bombed chip factories all over the world already. :D I was kind of like you too when I first bought my first PC - always kind of puzzled why Wing Commander 2 would run faster on a friend's 25Mhz 486 machine than on my 386. I mean, my machine was running with 40Mhz, that's almost double the clock speed than his! How could that be? :D

    Back then things where fairly simple compared to today. There were not as many processor types made, and they all had a single core too! Nowadays you can pick from roughly a handful of different types, and they also consist of one to four cores! Doesn't help that the names under which they're being sold are as non-descriptive as they've never been: If you wanted maximum performance and had to pick between an Intel 286 or an Intel 486 that was kind of a no-brainer. Higher numbers means more horsepower right? Right! Now take a look at these! Are we confused yet? Maybe you are meant to be: Electronics boutiques still often times bank on the consumers habit of being obsessed with higher numbers: 3.2 Ghz processor (what we're not telling you is that this Athlon64 is fairly obsolete) - 1 whopping gigabyte of video memory (never mind that the corresponding GeForce8600 GT chip runs out of steam way before this to be of any kind of useful). And so on.

    This topic in a nutshell: The Megahertz myth. And personally I'd wait for the demo too.
  • MarillMarill
    edited July 2009
    Wow, I understood some of that.

    Thanks. I'm looking forward to trying out the demo, hopefully tonight :D
  • RaveyRavey
    edited July 2009
    It runs surprisingly well, better than any other Telltale game besides maybe SBCG4AP. My laptop is pretty slow (Pentium 4 1.7GHz, 512MB Ram, Ati Mobility Radeon 9600 32mb) and it still ran smoothly and looked great.
  • MarillMarill
    edited July 2009
    Yeh it does run on mine after all

    It was very sluggish moving the mouse on the title screen, so just turned down all the settings for now (640 by 480 :O quality 1) and it runs perfectly. Too bad I didn't get to play much as it was like 1:30 in the morning. Damn having to go to work next day >_<
Sign in to comment in this discussion.