Update Minimum specs as of 12/01/14

Discussion in 'Player Support' started by TSR AlexS, Dec 1, 2014.

  1. ThePurpleHat

    Hello there,
    Now, please correct me if i am wrong, while windows is able hold more memory ( up to 36 bits/64 GB of ram) it is not useful for single high memory Processes.

    "1. Even though PAE extends the size of the physical address space, it does not extend the virtual address space. The virtual address space remains at 32-bits when in Protected mode which means that a running process can only address 4GiB of total memory even though the system as a whole can support much more. This limits usefulness on desktops but is very handy for servers that have multiple memory-hungry applications running at a time." ( TAKEN FROM HERE: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2386324/ram-usage-bit.html )

    Please correct me if i am wrong,

  2. Lord_Mogul

    True, and even on a 64-bit system any 32 bit process will unly be able to use up to 4 GB.
    But it with a memory hog like PS2 having 4 GB instead of 2 GB (3 GB with LAA) is a huge improvement.

    But since they will remove the 32 bit executable with an upcoming patch this will be unimportant in future.
  3. snipesharkVS

    I was looking for a thread that someone might hear my plea but did not find one so I am using this one. my esf has started behaving strangely upon exiting it. it sometimes will roll over and explode on flat level ground sometimes up to three times in a row. my resources come in quite slowly as I don't have a membership yet (im still waiting for my card to come in the mail). if you could look into this issue so im not wasting my vehicle rez on a ship that wont land properly for repairs it would be much appreciated.
  4. user101

    I have seen this before.... long time ago... I would guess you just switched to 64 bits. And now you have problems... "ADD MORE MAIN MEMORY" not this min spec stuff... that's not going to do it. You need 8 to 10 GB of good old machine memory... at a min.

    Not a thing wrong with PS2... just people trying to play without enough memory... Hope you ordered a 3GB Vcard... other wise you will be disappointed.
  5. Lord_Mogul

    Yeah, 3GB upwards is a thing of the future. 2 GB cards will handle PS2 and many games fine, but if you can get more, there will be clearly a benefit. Many games need enough space for textures. (I begin th notice it on my 2GB card aswell)

    Also PS2 needs lots of RAM (like many MMOs do). I notice that it goes up to around 5 GB usage before the framerate decreses significantly. In fact at around 4,7 GB I start noticing it.
    So yeah 8GB or more are highly recommended. People trying to play PS2 with 4 GB on a 64 bit system are at a huge disadvantage.
    Beneath the point that with 4GB on 64 bit the OS itself will eat a significantly amount away, they have less available space than the game will reasonably use.
  6. dugital

    i think this is bulls****
    iv been playing almost since its been out. 1 small update now i can not play.
    iv put money on this game i would expect. to play when i want.
    waste of time your driving this game to the ground all of you
  7. Lord_Mogul

    Which update are you talking about?
  8. Unadude

    I am very surprised my system I bought in February 2010 plays PS2 just fine.

    Granted, I have to play on MEDIUM graphics and I am also running JetBoost to disable most background processes.

    I did have to upgrade the graphics card. I could probably run on HIGH graphics if I get an even better GPU like an R9 290x.

    Gigabyte P55 UD2 (R11)
    i7-870 (overclocked to 3.2ghz turbo 3.7ghz)
    8 GB DDR3 (PC-1066)
    Windows 8.1 Pro (64 bit) - Updated of course. Vista came with my system orignally
    Nvidia GTX 760 OC Edition.
    CORSAIR CSM Series CS650M 650W Modular Power Supply (also updated)

    I have the computer stripped of nearly all other software except Office 2007 and Planeside 2.

    I recently ran into an issue where aircraft were "dancing" in the sky and I discovered the Windows 10 update notifier that was running in the system tray was to blame. Funny how just something that small can cause major problems like that. I guess when your hardware barely meets the minimum, you have to look for stuff like that.

    But, I am racking up some awesome play!!
  9. Skiptrace

    Don't get an R9 290x. a GTX 970 will be a much better upgrade, because A. Nvidia PhysX Is part of this game's engine, and if you get an AMD Card, it can't run the PhysX Engine anywhere near as well as the GTX 970.

    Here's some factors and information taken from a Tomshardware post.

    The 3.5 GB thing is a non factor ... kind alike Fox News, they love to get mad about things of no substance [IMG]

    If you use cards outta the box.....
    The 970 is faster at 1080p
    The 290x is faster at 1440p

    If you use cards w/ MSI Afterburner
    The 970 is faster at 1080p
    The 970 wins by the proverbial hair 1440p

    Other things to consider:

    970 comes with Witcher 3
    970 comes with PhysX, G-Sync and Shadowplay
    The 970 has outsold all R9 + R7 cards combined so if you decide to add a 2nd card later on will be plenty in the channel.

    Sapphire and MSI are the two best 290x cards.
    Gigabyte and MSI are the two best 970s. (Debatable)

    The Gigabyte and MSI compete for best performance. Both routinely overclock well providing boost clocks over 1500 Mhz but the Giga wins more than it loses. Asus and EVGA have trouble breaking 1500.... with moist reviews around 1465. The Giga doesn't fit in many cases due to its 12.18" length and the Giga doesn't have the two its fans independently controlled. MSI shuts off its fans below 60C and will turn on one fan based upon GPU temps and the other based upon PCB readings.

    If you want to see why the Asus and EVGA don't overclock as well read about the differences in VRM Phases, power delivery, chokes, capacitors, memory / VRM cooling in the article here. The nitty gritty is towards the bottom of the pages for each card (2-4). Not also that EVGA fixed the design defect noted in the article in the new SSC model so be careful as both are still in the channel. They also increased the number of VRM phases but not enough to match Giga / MSI.
  10. Unadude


    I really had not decided on a particular card yet and I probably would have went with an Nvidia. I was just making a general statement that a better card LIKE the 290x might get me to run the game on high graphics.

    I just invested a wee bit of cash into upgrading my RAM from 8GB to 16GB. Not sure how much it will help but
    I always like maxing my RAM out. I thought my motherboard maxed out at 8GB but I recently discovered
    after a BIOS update it can go to 16GB.

    The game still runs pretty smooth. I have now installed Windows 10 and the game runs better with the same hardware then it did on Windows 8.1. I had much more incidents or "rubberbanding" on 8.1 than I have experienced in 10.
  11. rrrr

    A couple questions -

    1.) What are the minimum MOBILE specs for this game? As in, for laptops? I don't have one currently, but if I were to start looking, what would be the min to play this at decent frame rate? Should I get a 1920x1080 screen or is 1366x768 easier to get better frame rates?

    2.) My FPS meter use to bounce back and forth between CPU and GPU, but recent optimization pegs it at GPU all the time now.
    I have an R9 270X 2GB paired with a 4690k @ 4.2Ghz. Would would be a good upgrade that would be just enough to be balanced with my CPU? (as in, NOT OVERKILL)

    Someone above recommended a GTX 970 to a person with an i7-870. That sounds GPU overkill to me because it's a first gen i7.

    I'd like to get a GTX 760, due to native OSX support, but not sure if it's enough of an upgrade over the 270x to match the 4690k?
  12. Unadude

    1) Mobile specs are no different from desktop specs. But, be careful. Laptops are not know for their easy upgrading.
    I would look at the games RECOMMENDED specs and try to get a laptop with at least that or better.

    2) The first month I played the game, I was on a rig that had a Xeon processor very similar in specs to your i5-4690K. I was running the same GTX-760 I am now. I was able to play the game VERY WELL on HIGH GRAPHICS settings so I suspect the same would be for you. The GTX-760 is a great card. I am not sure how much more power it will give you over your R9-270X, though. GPUBoss website does give a bit of a performance gain to the 760 over the 270. Depends how dissatisfied you are right now with the 270X.
    You probably would see a bit of a performance gain. But, it may not be worth the $$$.

    Hope this helps.
  13. Pfundi

    I have to disagree with point 1. A Gtx 980M will not be able to max out GTA V @ 60 FPS, a normal 980 most probably will
  14. Devilllike

    i have intel core i5-2430M at 2.4GHz and nvidia ge force gt 540M with a ram of 6 will i be able to run this game after the update? i been playing this game for 2 years and i spent money on it i obviously hope I CAN PLAY just saying so far i didnt face any problems while playing on the minimum
  15. SexyButtt

  16. RedArmy

  17. SexyButtt

    yea i think so too.. any idea on how to resolve this?. i tried reinstalling all the drivers and even updated windows 7. a year ago i played ps2 on an i3 2gb ram and 256 vga ram lol.. it was kinda glitchy but still worked.
  18. RedArmy

    whats the exact VGA?
  19. SexyButtt

    i'm not quite sure what it is, the laptop is a dell inspiron l5 5000 series, it says nvidia chipset intel vga
  20. RedArmy

    http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2252&canMyGpuRunIt=Planetside 2
    the exact Graphics card ur laptop has
    you can click the windows icon and click run - than type in DXDIAG, and tab to display - that will show you the exact one uve got - im guessing the HD4400 according to Dells website