#1 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

I bought the game from Steam a few hours ago, and I noticed that the game requires 4 GB of RAM and a Gtx 460 to run. I already ordered the game before I read them so I couldn't do anything but wait and see if it will run after it finishes downloading.

And lo and behold, the game runs with no problems. Not only that, but I can run it at 1680 by 1050 with everything maxed out including FXAA antialiasing selected (it doesn't say a number). And for the most part it runs at 60 fps. Im on the second mission and the lowest I've seen it drop is 41 fps (and that happened during those interactive cutscenes where I can move the camera around a bit).

During gameplay its usually 60, even when there is a lot of stuff on screen (enemies and large background vistas). It sometimes drops at like 52, but rarely (as I said, only during those cutscenes actually dropped in the forties).

So my question is, why are the minimum requirements so high? If my GTX 285 can run it at these details and framerate, I imagine there are even slower cards that can run it well at lower resolutions and 30 fps. Also, I have 2 GB of RAM (which is below the minimum of 4 GB) and I only experienced a bit of stuttering ocasionally. And I read on the internet that it runs on XP with SP3 right out the box, even tho it doesn't support it. (I'm running 7).

#2 Posted by Doctorchimp (4055 posts) -

I'm pretty sure the 285 is quite a bit stronger than a 460...

It's like comparing a 580 to a 660.

The second number sort of declares its weightclass with the first being the series. So that 8 is pretty top-grade even though you're 3 generations behind the 600 series.

#3 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Doctorchimp: That's not true at all.

The 285 is about the same performance-wise as a 460. And a 580 is actually a bit faster than a 660, but about the same as a 660 Ti.

#4 Posted by runnah555 (148 posts) -

This is why I only console game now...

#5 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

#6 Posted by FritzDude (2273 posts) -

Specifications

GTX 460

GTX 285

Graphic clock675648
Processor clock13501476
Texture fill rate37,851,8
CUDA cores336240
Memory clock (Mhz)18001242
Memory1GB GDDR5 256-bit1GB GDDR3 512-bit
Bandwidth (GB/s)115,2159,0
DirectX11,010,0
OpenGL4,13,3
BUSPCI-E Gen2 x 16PCI-E Gen2 x 16

You are able to run Dishonored because the GTX 285 in particular is a good card. Newer series of cards doesn't necessarily mean faster GPU's, just better technology.

#7 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@SlasherMan said:

@Doctorchimp: That's not true at all.

The 285 is about the same performance-wise as a 460. And a 580 is actually a bit faster than a 660, but about the same as a 660 Ti.

But I wanted Doctorchimp to be right. It would make my life a shit load easier. Explain to me the logic of something of lesser or equal quality having a higher numerical value. WTF graphics card manufacturers?!

#8 Posted by runnah555 (148 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

It's pointing out the general frustration i have with PC gaming. I will sacrifice some graphical quality to know that 99.99% of the time that I put a disc in the console it will start up and play. I PC gamed for nearly a decade before I go the point where is was just too much of a hassle to bother with.

#9 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

My system may not be labeled as suported, but the game does run in 1680by1050 with everything maxed out at mostly 60 fps. So in the end I get twice the framerate, and almost twice the resolution than the console versions.

#10 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@FritzDude:

Interesting. My card is factory overclocked to 700 Mhz. So the frequency seems to be higher than a stock 460. That's good to know.

#11 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -

@runnah555 said:

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

It's pointing out the general frustration i have with PC gaming. I will sacrifice some graphical quality to know that 99.99% of the time that I put a disc in the console it will start up and play. I PC gamed for nearly a decade before I go the point where is was just too much of a hassle to bother with.

Every platform has it's pros and cons. It's really like having to choose between two bowls of shit, you just have to decide which one's smell you can handle. I was in the same situation as yours just from the other side. I've been console gaming for over almost a decade now and I switched to PC because I just couldn't handle the shit on that platform. These days I keep my PS3 for BD, netflix, and exclusives. Any other game I will buy for the PC.

I will fully agree with your point about console being very easy to use and knowing that 99.99% of the times the game will work just as intended but on the other hand if it doesn't you're pretty much left at the mercy of the developer.

Sorry for my snarky remarks. I responded to your comment about 15 minutes after I woke up and before I had my coffee which is not a good thing to do. I need to stop doing that.

#12 Posted by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

Same with yours.

#13 Edited by RollingZeppelin (2105 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@SlasherMan said:

@Doctorchimp: That's not true at all.

The 285 is about the same performance-wise as a 460. And a 580 is actually a bit faster than a 660, but about the same as a 660 Ti.

But I wanted Doctorchimp to be right. It would make my life a shit load easier. Explain to me the logic of something of lesser or equal quality having a higher numerical value. WTF graphics card manufacturers?!

It has a higher number because it's a newer generation. The first number indicates the generation and the second number, the power of the card relative to the other cards in that generation. If you want to know where your card stands int terms of absolute power, just look at this hierarchy chart:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

#14 Posted by runnah555 (148 posts) -

@mordukai: Hey no beef here.

@Alexandru: And that makes the experience worth the extra cost and hassle? I say it does not, good graphics are nice, but they won't make a good game bad or vice versa.

#15 Posted by JP_Russell (1174 posts) -
@runnah555 said:

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

It's pointing out the general frustration i have with PC gaming. I will sacrifice some graphical quality to know that 99.99% of the time that I put a disc in the console it will start up and play. I PC gamed for nearly a decade before I go the point where is was just too much of a hassle to bother with.

But the OP is talking about how the requirements are way higher than they need to be, meaning the game is far more system friendly and inclusive than they suggest and should actually be playable on very, very old systems.  Your comment would make sense if this were a case of the game's requirements being lower than they ought to be, but it's the opposite, so I'm a little confused what about the OP's account resurfaced your ire.  Are you pointing out a frustration toward inaccurate system requirements in general, or...?
#16 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1472 posts) -

At this point, the Unreal 3 engine isn't all that demanding.

#17 Posted by Jams (2966 posts) -

@Alexandru: I had a hard time deciding if I should upgrade my BFGTech 285 GTX OC. Every time I put it up against any decently priced graphics card, it still out performed it. The only difference were things like power consumption, heat generation, DX11 support and other miscellaneous things like that. I ended up getting a 660Ti and it's barely on par with the 285 and with even some memory disadvantages.

#18 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@Jams: 660 Ti ? Are you sure you don't have a CPU botleneck?

#19 Posted by mordukai (7185 posts) -

@JP_Russell said:

@runnah555 said:

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

It's pointing out the general frustration i have with PC gaming. I will sacrifice some graphical quality to know that 99.99% of the time that I put a disc in the console it will start up and play. I PC gamed for nearly a decade before I go the point where is was just too much of a hassle to bother with.

But the OP is talking about how the requirements are way higher than they need to be, meaning the game is far more system friendly and inclusive than they suggest and should actually be playable on very, very old systems. Your comment would make sense if this were a case of the game's requirements being lower than they ought to be, but it's the opposite, so I'm a little confused what about the OP's account resurfaced your ire. Are you pointing out a frustration toward inaccurate system requirements in general, or...?

I think he does. If the OP would have actually looked at the system requirements before buying the game then he would have not bought it thinking his system does not meet said requirements and that's a lost sale.

@Alexandru: I would ask your question on the official Dishonored boards. The developers are actually very responsive to the community. Maybe they would offer you a suitable answer.

#20 Posted by crazyleaves (648 posts) -

Same goes with AMD, I have a HD3870 it's only a 512mb but has ddr5 ram. So in order to truly upgrade I need to go for a HD5850 or a HD6850. If I went for something lower in the second number it really wouldn't be worth it.

#21 Edited by Jams (2966 posts) -

@Alexandru said:

@Jams: 660 Ti ? Are you sure you don't have a CPU botleneck?

I don't have a CPU bottleneck. It is an early generation i7 920, but it's more than enough to run games. The way they made the 660 Ti cheaper was to cut the memory interface from 256-bit to 192-bit and it definitely can show up in certain types of games. For instance, one of the games I tested the card out with was Everquest 2. The 285 could handle it on near max no problem. The 660 Ti would bog down pretty bad on parts where there was a lot of enemies in sight and in one city in particular, the games FPS dropped to single digits until I dropped the settings to really low. But in the Witcher 2, I couldn't really run it maxed out on the 285, but I could on the 660Ti even with ubersampling on.

#22 Posted by Venatio (4493 posts) -

My computer is old as hell but it runs Dishonored on highest very smoothly, I suppose the requirements are very low

Same with Borderlands, everything on highest with ambient occlusion off

#23 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Jams said:

@Alexandru said:

@Jams: 660 Ti ? Are you sure you don't have a CPU botleneck?

I don't have a CPU bottleneck. It is an early generation i7 920, but it's more than enough to run games. The way they made the 660 Ti cheaper was to cut the memory interface from 256-bit to 192-bit and it definitely can show up in certain types of games. For instance, one of the games I tested the card out with was Everquest 2. The 285 could handle it on near max no problem. The 660 Ti would bog down pretty bad on parts where there was a lot of enemies in sight and in one city in particular, the games FPS dropped to single digits until I dropped the settings to really low. But in the Witcher 2, I couldn't really run it maxed out on the 285, but I could on the 660Ti even with ubersampling on.

I find it hard to believe that a 13 GB/s difference in memory bandwidth (which is about all that the 285 has over the 660 Ti) would be the cause of an old game (notorious for being CPU bound, mind you) running this bad. It's more likely that this is just a driver issue with the newer cards. And while you're correct about cutting the memory bus down to 192-bit, you're forgetting that the 660 Ti runs much faster GDDR5 memory than the 285's GDDR3. Running faster memory allows you to get the same or better bandwidth rates even if you cut down the bus width, so it's not as significant as you may think (think of it as a street, wider street with lower speed vs a narrower one with a much higher top speed allowed). A 680 has half the bus width of a 285, and yet that's easily 35 GB/s ahead in memory bandwidth.

Regardless, something's wrong with your setup or drivers if you're not getting significantly better results than your 285 (at least in newer games, where those should definitely be optimized for newer cards with fairly functional drivers).

#24 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@crazyleaves said:

Same goes with AMD, I have a HD3870 it's only a 512mb but has ddr5 ram. So in order to truly upgrade I need to go for a HD5850 or a HD6850. If I went for something lower in the second number it really wouldn't be worth it.

5850 is pretty nice. Ive had one for a year know cant max out any new games, but can get at least high on everything which is all I wanted.

#25 Edited by Jams (2966 posts) -

@SlasherMan said:

@Jams said:

@Alexandru said:

@Jams: 660 Ti ? Are you sure you don't have a CPU botleneck?

I don't have a CPU bottleneck. It is an early generation i7 920, but it's more than enough to run games. The way they made the 660 Ti cheaper was to cut the memory interface from 256-bit to 192-bit and it definitely can show up in certain types of games. For instance, one of the games I tested the card out with was Everquest 2. The 285 could handle it on near max no problem. The 660 Ti would bog down pretty bad on parts where there was a lot of enemies in sight and in one city in particular, the games FPS dropped to single digits until I dropped the settings to really low. But in the Witcher 2, I couldn't really run it maxed out on the 285, but I could on the 660Ti even with ubersampling on.

I find it hard to believe that a 13 GB/s difference in memory bandwidth (which is about all that the 285 has over the 660 Ti) would be the cause of an old game (notorious for being CPU bound, mind you) running this bad. It's more likely that this is just a driver issue with the newer cards. And while you're correct about cutting the memory bus down to 192-bit, you're forgetting that the 660 Ti runs much faster GDDR5 memory than the 285's GDDR3. Running faster memory allows you to get the same or better bandwidth rates even if you cut down the bus width, so it's not as significant as you may think (think of it as a street, wider street with lower speed vs a narrower one with a much higher top speed allowed). A 680 has half the bus width of a 285, and yet that's easily 35 GB/s ahead in memory bandwidth.

Regardless, something's wrong with your setup or drivers if you're not getting significantly better results than your 285 (at least in newer games, where those should definitely be optimized for newer cards with fairly functional drivers).

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/02/01/bfgtech_geforce_gtx_285_ocx/

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130809

These are the two cards I have. I don't know what else to tell you other than the 285 could really hold it's own.

Edit: the 285 has 1GB of GDDR3 on a 512-bit memory bus not 256-bit like I said previously. I do have the overclocked version, so maybe that's why.

#26 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Jams said:

These are the two cards I have. I don't know what else to tell you other than the 285 could really hold it's own.

I wasn't disputing that. There's no doubt it's still a very capable card.

#27 Posted by Jams (2966 posts) -

@SlasherMan said:

@Jams said:

These are the two cards I have. I don't know what else to tell you other than the 285 could really hold it's own.

I wasn't disputing that. There's no doubt it's still a very capable card.

What are you disputing then? I not super knowledgeable when it comes to GPU's. I'll also say when I first got the 660Ti, I had to download beta drivers because the one on the site didn't show support for it, but the beta driver did. So maybe now it'd be a different story.

#28 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Jams: I'm disputing your claims that the 660 Ti is "barely on-par" with a 285. It is a ridiculous statement to make, and even worse when you're quoting numbers without knowing what they actually mean. The whole point of my post was to show that having a much smaller memory bus is not as detrimental as you seem to believe when you put much faster memory on the card, and perhaps at least explain a bit about how those matter. Memory buses and clocks affect memory bandwidth, and that's where the 660 Ti falls slightly short of the 285 (13 GB/s short as I've stated). However, that alone does not stop it from being the significantly faster card of the two (which it is). That game suffering in performance is more likely the result of it being a very old game, and the card being very new so you can see how drivers can be an issue here especially when it comes to older games like that.

#29 Posted by crazyleaves (648 posts) -
@Bourbon_Warrior

@crazyleaves said:

Same goes with AMD, I have a HD3870 it's only a 512mb but has ddr5 ram. So in order to truly upgrade I need to go for a HD5850 or a HD6850. If I went for something lower in the second number it really wouldn't be worth it.

5850 is pretty nice. Ive had one for a year know cant max out any new games, but can get at least high on everything which is all I wanted.

Yeah I think I'm gonna go for the 6850 if it'll fit in my case, it's like nine and a quarter inches long! Unless I can find a 5850 on the cheap.
#30 Posted by AiurFlux (902 posts) -

I'm actually shocked by the high requirements that it has. I meet and exceed them, but really I can't think of a good reason why anybody should need a GPU that powerful for this game when visually it isn't a clinic in fidelity. It just seems odd. I mean it runs well and has all the bells and whistles that I'd expect out of it but it just doesn't seem to scale well in comparison to the console version technically. In my mind it either means they're overcompensating or they made an incredibly unoptimized game that needs specs to be that high otherwise it wouldn't fucking run properly.

But honestly I can't complain. I've had it locked at 60FPS consistently with no problems or drops. They did release a proper PC game which I'm rather happy about, unlike Skyrim. It would have been so tempting and easy to just half ass it and use the Bethesda name to sell copies.

#31 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@crazyleqves I think the 6850 is the equivalent of a 5750,vi think they changed the naming scheme on the 6000 series

#32 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: They did indeed mess up the naming schemes for the 6000 series, however, a 6850 is just a bit faster than a 5830. It's actually equivalent to Nvidia's 285.

@AiurFlux: Yeah some games just overcompensate and go too far. Check out Metro 2033's recommended settings for example. And I played that game on a dual core with an 8800GT and 2GB RAM just fine on normal settings at 1920x1080, and it still looked and ran great.

Keep in mind that Dishonored is an Unreal Engine 3 game. UE3 games are known to run generally really great and scale well across all kinds of hardware.

#33 Posted by Genjai (300 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

@mordukai said:

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Because you like downgraded graphics running subpar HD resolution and running at a 30fps or lower? I fail to see how your comment adds anything to this discussion other then you being snarky.

It's pointing out the general frustration i have with PC gaming. I will sacrifice some graphical quality to know that 99.99% of the time that I put a disc in the console it will start up and play. I PC gamed for nearly a decade before I go the point where is was just too much of a hassle to bother with.

Every platform has it's pros and cons. It's really like having to choose between two bowls of shit, you just have to decide which one's smell you can handle. I was in the same situation as yours just from the other side. I've been console gaming for over almost a decade now and I switched to PC because I just couldn't handle the shit on that platform. These days I keep my PS3 for BD, netflix, and exclusives. Any other game I will buy for the PC.

I will fully agree with your point about console being very easy to use and knowing that 99.99% of the times the game will work just as intended but on the other hand if it doesn't you're pretty much left at the mercy of the developer.

Sorry for my snarky remarks. I responded to your comment about 15 minutes after I woke up and before I had my coffee which is not a good thing to do. I need to stop doing that.

Good for you for owning up to you comment! My jaw just about hit the floor when I read this. I feel like no one online wants to admitting mistakes or misunderstanding or, in the event of correction, pointing out someone else's mistake without being a total douche about it. As the target of multiple, hurtful replies myself, I really appreciate this. Your reply made my day. :^D

#34 Posted by wewantsthering (1593 posts) -

@runnah555 said:

This is why I only console game now...

Sure, it's easier, but my load times are about 1-3 seconds and the framerate is locked at 60 at 1080p with everything cranked up. :-) I understand that it's easier because you don't have to worry about this stuff, but it's hard to deny its advantages in this late part of the console cycle.