Assassin's Creed - 3GB of RAM recommended

Wow, and you thought Crysis had high HW reqs...

http://www.yougamers.com/news/17001_ubisoft_unveil_the_pc_specs_for_assassins_creed/

eep!

PC game requirements are getting so daft, you might as well just get a console - they're cheaper.

Considering how poorly Crysis sold, you have to wonder why they're doing a PC conversion at all. Assassin's Creed is a great game, but no way I'd buy PC hardware ( even acknowledging that Ram is still pretty cheap ) to play it. If I didn't already have a console, I'd buy one to get away from the PC hardware / obsolescence race though.

How much RAM does the PS3 and XBOX 360 have again?

512 - but it does not have Vista... :)

Do i really need to play Assassin's Creed?

Same problem as with the gfx cards. The gap is getting wider and wider between low range and high end systems, even more if you take the rising notebook market into account. If they continue with this without presenting a real "i must have this" game, this market will get smaller and smaller.

Nice future for consoles and casual to reasonable specced full price games for computers. UT3, Crysis, Assains Creed, ... not really worth the money. Were is the new Dungeon Master?

The last game which was worth it's high specs fot the time of it's release was Ultima 9.

price of a pc upgrade to play games (this wont even play doom3 letalone anything new) vs 360?

me thinks 360 wins

too bad ive skinted myself this month on
an iPOD 160gb £230ish
a xoom h4 £200
a zoom B2.1u £130 (but id probably found it cheaper if i looked)

and with other financial concerns i wont be spending anything till the summer it looks

I'm fairly certain it will run just fine with 2GB or it will tank. Most 32bit OS's can't deal with apps that need more than 2GB of memory allocated to just one application. As a result very few people have more than 2GB of memory installed If they really do that then they will be crippling the game for most of the userbase which is just stupid. I'm sure someone will sort this out before final release.

Darkheart

BOOM. I shan't be purchasing this, then.

(Mind you, i have the xbox version so why would I?)

If i would be nVIDIA/AMD i would work my ass off getting a super duper €100 card for PCIE, AGP and notebooks out in order trying to establish a reasonable min spec standard and keep people interested in updating instead of trying to sell those silly €300 gfx cards (in Japan a PS3 costs less than that) which no one relies on beside of maybe FutureMark.

WTF is happening with these specs, they probably recommend a 512mb graphics card too.

The 360 plays this game very well, using 512mb of shared RAM. So why the hell does it need 3.5Gigs total to run well on a PC? Are they seriously saying there's over 2 gigs being used by vista. That's a joke. Shame we can't go back to the Amiga days of gaming, just boot the disc directly. Windows Vista could've had a games mode, with a simple directx layer which loads on booting the game DVD directly, allowing the machine to go into "games" mode, without any operating system overhead.

12 Gigs hard disk space? The dvd only holds 7 gigs maximum, where's the extra 5 gigs come from? Why can't it store the game compressed as it is on the DVD, just like the 360 does?

Ram is so cheap now it isn't funny. $30 - $80 for 2GB depending on whether its PC6400 or PC8500

I'll be surprised if you need more than 2GB, and I with those kinds of resources the game may be better than the console version. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

so why does it run on a 360 with 512Mb and needs 4x that much for Windows XP surely they could code a decent version rather than porting.

Mate, you're talking rubbish.

Vista works fine on 512MB - naturally more is better, as with most things. A crappy graphics card is the real bottleneck on Vista.

Anyway, back to the point. There's no reason why a modern game shouldn't be able to run well on any OS with 1GB RAM and a decent graphics card.

I suspect that game makers increasingly spout off about bizarre system requirements for their work-in-progress game to generate a bit of hype for themselves. For instance, I doubt Assassin's Creed would have even got a mention here (Puki aside) if it wasn't for this.

I'll install 4GB just to see the media in all its glory.

I'm pretty sure I am going to be claiming this media.

Many modding groups are already planning the plundering of the media. Assassins Creed 3D artists have been located and are currently being lured: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=048467

Believe me, there is more - much more. Why else would I be absolutely covered from head to toe in baby oil?

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=64221

My Vista Enterprise x64 consumed 2.8GB RAM with no programs running, just after a fresh reboot. My XP consumes only 130MB after reboot with no programs running.

Isn't there a limit on how much memory WinXP and Vista 32Bit can access anyway?

3.2GB I heard(?)

3.4gb'ish iirc.

Anyways....

The extra gigs are typically required for swap-space, Gears of War states 12gb on its box also, but only takes 10gb.
(it had a nice lengthy 30 minute 'decompressing' section in their installer....)

Regardless, why they can't just bloody design the game to stream from the disc like it does fine on the 360/PS3 so we can save some disk-space is beyond me.
(Gears of War had an excuse at least, as the new PC-exclusive content required them to compress the data to fit on a dual-layer DVD)

But yeah, insane requirements.......I've yet to play any 360 port aside from Gears of War (only example I can think of <.<) that actually RUNS decent on a moderate PC.
(which in my case is my laptop)

Ubisoft better release a demo at any rate, I'm curious to see how lazy a port job it'll be.

[EDIT] I wonder if all the frame-rate hitches/bugs in the console versions are still present.
(and any new bugs they incur due to the porting process, Ubi's current track record isn't faring too well)

Its supposed to be 4GB. but you can loose up to a 1GB because of the way the hardware maps memory from other devices into the same space (like video cards feks).

Even if you install 4GB on 32 bit Windows you won't be able to use all of it and any single application will only be able to use 2GB.

IMHO if your running Win32 your wasting your time going over 2GB, if you want more install X64 Vista as it's better supported than X64 XP.

Darkheart

Mmm.

I'll stick to 2GB until after I buy Assassins Creed. My 8800 GTX has 768MB of RAM so that is almost the 3GB.

Lazy is the word.

maybe they actually made assasins creed into a good game. Everything I read said it was pretty tedious and repetitive, with really boring research mini games taking up 70% of the game, and the actual assasinations being an anticlimax where its modtly canned sequences a quick run away and then you start over from scratch.

With a bit of luck they will have ironed out the bugs at least :)

There's been no-where near enough time to change the game around to make it more interesting, bugs being ironed out, maybe, but not a different storyline.

Hopefully the media is even better on the PC.

Vista x86 uses 640MB here with IE7 & AV running.

All this Vista bashing is very childish and mostly without any justification IMO. No different to when XP first emerged.

Its funny how lazy PC game developers got lately as graphic cards have more VRAM, systems have more RAM and harddisk space ...

10GB of medium quality trash (or 20GB in case of Vanguard with a visual quality of a poorly done B3D game if you don't have monster hardware to play it on higher medium or high) and a lot of other things purely wasted by the visual end.

I really thought that by 2008 they would have learned their lesson, that they are digging a grave of the size of a whole industry if they continue like this ... but it seems that first some mid sized studio must go out of business till those dumbheads learn it ...

If a game runs with 512MB on a console there is no intelligent nor acceptable reason it should not run with 1GB RAM and a 256MB VRAM card on XP / Vista. If they still insist on it they should fire their leads ...

note that while you use 3.25 gig in apps, the rest of the ram is actually used by kernal/os/devices, which pretty much means you're getting the full use of 4 gig usually.

Wow. That is alot. My computer would not, in any way run that. Its almost not worth it to have a subpar game running your system down so much.

I don't understand why they would need that much RAM. Textures and mesh data get stored on the GPU...they might delete and upload the data dynamically, but that still seems excessive.

Why: they are too lazy to do any work on the PC port ... isn't that obvious?
It runs on a X360 which is far lower speced and one would assume that the port from there to PC at least should not blow the requirements that far out the roof ...
But I guess the crappy DX10 implementations have their price there as well as it is known that the GSU optimations in the drivers is not bad, its catastrophal ... the fact that ATI is raising the performance 10-20% with each new driver shows that.
Sadly, by the time those drivers would be usefull, DX10 will be replaced by DX11 ... at least at the current rate.

stupid question here would be why the DX10 is causing that ... if they can use 3 x2 thread cores to do the physics etc (they definitely don't use shader units, they only have 48, not 128 like an 8800GTX), why don't they use the CPU as primary source on the PC as well and the GSU for the rest ...
I don't see why all try to force anything that could be done by the GSU into the GSU actually, especially at the rate at which Dual and Quad core are becomming standards ... thats plain stupid ...

The bugs were FUN! I mean, Multi-Altair Gameplay? Guards gaining sexual pleasure out of brick walls? Wierd broken legged horses? horses on the top of a watch tower? :-D

They've fixed most of these on the consoles now, but I find the game dull without them. The bugs kind of brightened my day lol.

Still, on occasion, a guard can be seen walking at a 45degree angle, that always makes me laugh my ass off!

The game was designed for consoles, and it's really gorgeous on the Xbox 360.

The hardware rat race on PCs never made much sense, but since the Xbox 360 and the PS3 hit the market, upgrading a PC for gaming became entirely ridiculous.

An Xbox costs less than RAM plus a graphics card, and certainly much less than a PC that comes anywhere near the system requirements of new games.

Just get it over with and buy a console for gaming and use your computer for... hm, computing?

X360 and Wii here ... but strats still only rock on NDS and PC ... everything else is too unprecise with higher speed motion.

I have never been even near the limit of my 2GB memory, and I was just fine with only ~700mb ram with Windows XP on my earlier computer. Now I'm using GNU/Linux on my laptop which doesn't use much RAM. Of course, if you're using a shit OS like Vista 4GB might be reasonable.