I'm a bit worried about the actual playabilty of BeamNG.

My computers not very good ( \/ See below \/ ) and i can play detailed maps on ROR with three of gabe's vehicles without any lag, im not sure why everyone says there computer sucks...

 

It's not just the amount of cores that makes a processor good. You can have a Pentium D, but it will still get destroyed by a Core 2 Duo. Same amount of cores, entirely different processors.

And expecting 3.4GHz quad cores to be crappy specs at any point, I feel sorry for you.

Been running a 2.5GHz quad core since 2008 (Phenom 9850 Black) still handles everything I throw at it.

In short, no a 3.5GHz quad core wont be "crappy specs" by late 2013.

Yes, it will be pretty laggy. Pentiums were never known for being powerful, even when they first came out.

As a suggestion, i5 CPUs are pretty cheap, and definitely a lot more powerful than your Pentium.

 

I know, however, I do not want to be running a core 2 duo on crysis 3. I imagine even with my good specs. (quad-i7 @ 3.6 12 GB RAM HD7770 GHz edition) I will get lag during explosions etc. And I hate lag.

 

No, you'll run smooth with that setup. Even if you had some problems running it, it would be due to the midrange card. An upgrade to a 7970 or 8xxx series card will see you running max graphics without a problem.

Crysis 3 Specs:

Minimum

• Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
• DirectX 11 graphics card with 1Gb Video RAM
• Dual core CPU
• 2GB Memory (3GB on Vista)
• Nvidia/Intel example setup: Nvidia GTS 450, Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (E6600)
• AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD5770, AMD Athlon64 X2 2.7 Ghz (5200+)

Recommended

• Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
• DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM
• Quad core CPU
• 4GB Memory
• Nvidia/Intel example setup: Nvidia GTX 560, Intel Core i3-530
• AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD5870, AMD Phenom II X2 565

Hi-performance

• Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
• Latest DirectX 11 graphics card
• Latest quad core CPU
• 8GB Memory
• Nvidia/Intel example setup: NVidia GTX 680, Intel Core i7-2600k
• AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD7970, AMD Bulldozer FX4150

 

Not for a person that can't build their own computer, but if you can build your own you save and get a better set-up. So for me, they are.

 

Yes they are. Having worked on many Dell desktops and laptops over the years, I can most definitely say they are.

Even for someone that can't build their own computers, Dells are bad.

 

Hmm, Personally I beg to differ, I have had 2 Dells in my time and both have been splendidly hardy and rather top notch, Maybe not the top spec of machines, but both were advertised as gaming machines and took around 3 years to be outdated (Pretty standard in my eyes). Then again my lastest one is almost 10 years old now so they may well have changed their product and customer satisfaction ethic.

 

Three years to being outdated is pretty poor for something advertised as a "gaming machine". My current desktop, that was no where near top spec when I built it, is currently 5 years old and is just starting to show its age.

 

In all due respect, the fact that you 'built' your machine says it all, Remember that these machines are consumer machines, built for one purpose... Those who do not know. They are built to break down, to get old quickly. A bluechip like that of Dell, HP, Acer, Asus ect. ect. has to sustain its sales and profits margins. In order to do this you need customers, and to get customers you have to make things last an acceptable amount of time (in the consumers eyes), to gain their trust so they purchase again in quick succession. They do, as every other corporation does. In my opinion Ford is the absolute worst for this, However that is another story haha.

On a personal level with large company built machines I have had more issues than I can think to speak of with my mothers acer laptop, It is quite horrific. I have also heard of extremely bad reports of complete hardware collapses with specific HP models. Both of our Dells on the other hand. Although very old now, still truck along and run older games for the kids.

All in all, its all down to personal experiences with these companies, its pretty much the same as the ongoing and absolutely ridiculous Xbox vs Playstation war. It will never end because its all based on the end user, and their personal satisfaction with their purchase.

 

My dad built a beige box back in 1996 and it will still run some windows xp games. Like nancy drew for my sister and some other things. On the other hand, my dell xps 430 barely runs those. That's why I am learning to build computers.

 

This is a completely mute argument. Dell and other machines are buit from the same components as "home built" pcs, if you put the same chipset, same cpu, and the same gpu into a home computer it will perform exactly the same as its "professional" counterpart while costing much less.

There is absolutely no point in buying dell hp, or other pre-built pcs for home use. Their only advantage is the extended on-site warranty, which I doubt anyone would pay for a home pc.

And the reason pcs are not getting outdated are the consoles. They hinder improvement in games, because they only have so much computing power. And since 99% of developers make their games with consoles in mind, well you get the picture.

But with the next generation of consoles around the corner, there will be a big and sudden jump in the requirements of games. Crysis 3 is the first of those games, that were made with the next generation of consoles as a potential platform. That's why its so much more demanding than anything we saw until now.

In the early 2000s and late 90s if you bought a gpu or cpu, it was outdated in 6 months. And barely usable for anything else than as a paper-weight in a year. But after developers started focusing on multi-platform instead of developing solely for the PC this changed. Because the actual console generation willl always limit the progress that can be achieved in games. They're saying that the next generation of consoles (ps4, xbox720) will have to last until at least 2020 to be financially feasible. So we will have a big leap forward this year, after that 1-2 years of slow progress while the developers tap every last ounce of resource the consoles can offer, and after that stagnation. Which means your pc's won't get outdated again for years.

 

What exactly does the fact that I built my own computer say?

I agree on the built to break down bit for cheap pre-builts.

And it is down to user experience, but on that front I've had enough experience with all the major brands to know not to suggest a lot of them. Ask the experienced people on computer forums, 9 times out of 10 they won't suggest Dell.

Except they aren't. Most pre-builts will get you a low spec PSU, cheaply made case without good airflow in mind and underpowered CPU/GPU coolers. Also pre-builts aren't made slowly by hand, most of the time they're just thrown together by a machine or a person who doesn't really care.

Games developed for consoles then ported over to PCs have always been worse than the other way around. Graphics wise a PC is just more powerful than a console, it's as simple as that.

You must be joking, right? That has to be the biggest load of crap I've ever read. It's just simply not true.

An Athlon64 was not "outdated" in 6 months, nor was an nVidia 5900 or ATI 5800. No computer hardware gets entirely "outdated" in 6 months.

 

Lets hope my AMD FX-4100 3,6Ghz 4 core, and Asus HD 7770 will run the game without lag

 

It's not the manufacturers fault, that noobs buy pcs with a hiend Cpu and a low-middle class gpu for gaming.

It's simple as what? Of course current pcs are more powerful than a 6 year old console. But you can't do anything with that power because the AAA games are not made for the PC exclusively. Games still look better on the pc, but mostly only because of the higher rendering resolution and more advanced filters. But without the consoles games could have much more features and could look much better still.

And there is no other way around. Either a game is developed exclusively for the pc, or not. You can'T port a PC game to a console simply because you'd have to throw out features to be able to get it to run on the limited resources of a console.

I'm not joking, I've been replacing components in my pc almost every 6 months just to be able to keep up with the demand of games. And outdated doesn't mean its useless it means you're not able to play games on it on the highest settings. And how does an 5800 factor into this? Its only a 3 year old card.

Of course if you got a high-end gpu like an 5950 it might have lasted longer than 6 months. But only those buy a $500 card who have too much money to spend. It looses value too quickly. You can argue if its 6 months or 8 months or even a year, the point is 10-15 years ago a pc got outdated much quicker than in the last 5 years.

 

Based on what most of you are saying, I'll probably have to turn the graphics settings down to get a decent 30FPS but I already do that with RoR to get the max FPS I can so it shouldn't be a big deal for me.

 

You can record beamng with no stuttering with these specs. Core i7 960 3.2Ghz / GTX 580 / 8GB DDR3 RAM / Windows 7 x64 / 1920x1200 Thats what t-dev recorded with.

 

So you're telling me its the consumers fault that the manufacturer sets up the builds that way? Next you're going to tell me it's the car companies fault that people crash their cars.

If you've ever gone to a manufacturer's site and built a PC on it you'll see what I'm talking about.

Dell XPS 8500, comes with an Intel i7 3770, 8GB of ram (upgradeable to 24GB), but only comes with an ATI 7570 (upgradeable to an nVidia GT640). Please tell me how its the consumers fault for that.

So the Crysis games weren't PC exclusives? You do realize that there are games that are made for both PC and consoles, yet tailored for both? Max Payne 3 is a prime example; available on the both consoles and PC, yet the PC people get much larger textures and way better graphics than the console people can get.

Please, just stop posting your crap here.

PC games have been getting ported to consoles since the beginning of gaming.

While not all of these are strictly PC to console ports, many are. http://www.giantbomb.com/pc-to-console-port/3015-2618/games/

So basically you're saying you're buying low spec video cards. My previous computer from 2005 and this current computer from 2008 were most certainly not "outdated" in 6 months. I was still playing new games at max graphics well over 6 months.

Also, I meant 9800, not 5800.

"too much money to spend", I smell a hint of jealousy here. People are free to do what they want with their money when building a computer. If you have the money to get the high end dual GPU cards, why not get it? Obviously if you can't afford it, you can't afford it, but that's no reason to crap on someone elses parade just because they can get more than you.

And nice way of twisting your argument there, you basically went from "back late 90s, early 00s everything was outdated and crap in 6 months", now you've changed it to "hurr durr computer parts get outdated"

EDIT: Figured I'd throw this in there, "outdated" does not mean "I can't play games at max graphics anymore". If you can't play newer games on even minimum graphics at acceptable framerates, then you have an outdated machine.

Dictionary.com: Outdated - Adjective - Out of date; obsolete.

 

I don't completely agree. When you buy prebuilt they tend to cheap out on any component they can. They get you a cheap mobo, ram, psu, and midrange cpu and gpu(unless you specify otherwise). Then they advertise it as 16gb of ddr3 ram(something of the sort) when it's really 1333MHz cl11 DDR3 ram, barely if even faster then high end DDR2 ram.

 

Exactly. You may be getting the same northbridge and soundbridge chips, but everything else built around it is where the quality matters.

 

Why would you cheap out on your own computer? Of course you have to specify what components you want in it, but even if you get decent parts you're still under the price of dell and hp and others. My experience is that the those computers are not made of gold either. They use the same cheap if not even cheaper components on their boards as the lowest end motherboard manufacturers, and they're not more durable or relaiable either.

He bought it that's how. So accrording to you if somone buys a lawnmower instead of a hedge trimmer, its the manufacturer's fault?

I don't even understand how crashing cars got into the picture.

You don't realize many things. Crysis is the only exception where they really made an effort to use the pc's extra resources. Throwing in higher resolution textures is doesn't mean its tailored for the pc, they just export them in a higher resolution from the originals. Which can be done with no effort. There might even be some other tweaks to the graphics. But that's not enough to use all the avaialable resources. When Max Payne 3 came out, it ran on a middle class pc easily. For Example Alan Wake uses less than 500MB of RAm on the PC, even with the higher resolution textures they included. When even the most common computers boasted at least 4GB.es of ram when it came out.
Unfortunately no other games are made like Crysis, even Crysis 2 was a cheapo console port, where they made no effort. And Crysis 3 is deliberately packed with effects that doesn't make much difference to the quality of the graphics, but uses excessive resources. So Crytek can claim back their position as the standard in PC benchmarking.

Well that's not your decision is it? You don't have to agree, hell you don't even have to like me, but you can't tell me where to post and what to post.

While I don't deny there were some games ported from PC to the consoles, its not common today. Even this list which goes back 20 years is very short and many titles on it are fictional, or casual games which are not very demanding, and some are not ports but games developed with consoles in mind from the get go.

No, basically I'm saying its pointless to buy the best avaialable hardware, because it looses value too quickly. I'm not buying low-end video cards I'm buying upper-middle class video cards which have the best performance/value figures.
And why is it hard to get that I said 10-15 years ago? Not 8 years ago, and certainly not 5 years ago. I said the exact same thing, that recently they don't get outdated because the frackin consoles keep games from becoming more demanding. So if you bought a high-end video card in 2008 then it propapbly willl play most games decently even today.

And I should have known that how?

BTW I had a 9800, it was a good card, I might even had it longer than 6 months. But since it was announced less than 10 years ago, strictly speaking its not in the time frame I gave.

Don't project your own way of thinking to me. You have no clue about what I can afford. If all you can do is bash me personally and can't come up with real arguments then its time to give up don't you think?

Only in your mind was this argument about anything else than computer parts, at least I never thought it was about anything else. I never meant it to be about anything else. Or you thought I meant that washing machines got out of date or what?

Excuse me, english is not my primary language, so I might have used the wrong word. In mirror translation outdated, translates into a word we would use for this. But maybe "surpassed" would have been a better choice of words, is that agreeable to you?

I never could bear playing any games with low graphics, I always needed everything to run maxed out. So to me anything that wasn't capable of running a game maxed out was obsolete. And guess what, my 3 year old upper-middle class vga just couldn't handle Crysis3, so I ordered new graphics cards today. Just because I can't afford it.