Will Alan Wake work on my system?

[Zg4Life]

EDIT BY ADM: I've merged all threads asking if Alan Wake will run on their systems into one thread. If you want to know if the game will run on your current or future computer post the specs here and one of our forum members will help you out. Please note that nothing is known about the current needed specs of Alan Wake so all posts found below are speculating.

you think alan wake gonna work on my computer?

Video card: 7600GS 512MB
Intel core2 E6300
1GB of RAM

directX 9c
Service pack 2

so.. ?

[Morry]

Yes.
Though it depends on how well you want it to work. You can expect it will struggle if you are running it at 1600x1200 with full AA and AF, but tone down the resolution and some graphics will make the game run just fine.
However, Remedy still hasn't released any recommended specs, we can just go by the flawless demonstration of running the game on a Intel Quad Core @ 3.3ghz with a 7900gtx.

You can refer to the FAQ for a more detailed analysis. http://brightfalls.net/alan-wake-faq/

[Zg4Life]

thnx man!!!
=] the game come out on Q1 2007?

[sidetwo]

Please read the FAQ Morry linked to in the post. There is no release date yet.

[Onjoo]

you think alan wake gonna work on my computer?

Video card: 7600GS 512MB
Intel core2 E6300
1GB of RAM

directX 9c
Service pack 2

so.. ?

Alan Wake is Vista only. IT won't work on Windows Xp. That said, it cannot be played on service pack2 and directX 9. You'll need Vista and included directX 10.

I also recommend buying another memory chip. 2GB+ of ram is recommended for Full Vista gaming experience.

[CarelessCrow]

How well do you think an AMD Athlon Duel Core 4200+, Duel 7600 GS 512mb, and 2 GB Ram will run it? With Vista of course.

[Kaylel]

It won't be 100% on any computer that doesn't have a DX10 video card, and last I heard the one's nvidia released got recalled, or at least some of them.

[Blaze*]

CPU - PENTIUM D 2.8GHZ 820 DUAL CORE
GPU - LEADTEK WINFAST 7950GT 512MB 256BIT
MEMORY - 2GB 667
MOTHERBOARD - ASUS P5LD2
iam afraid that the CPU is not okay....
iwant to run the game on high settings without filters.
will work okay? thanks.

[||G||]

we don't really know yet, it's not released...

[fmlad2002]

It won't be 100% on any computer that doesn't have a DX10 video card, and last I heard the one's nvidia released got recalled, or at least some of them.

Some of the early 8800 gtx cards were recalled, however all have now been rectified. More dx10 compliant cards will be released in the very near future.

[Dark River]

I wouldn't stress too much about your video card. I believe that aslong as it's Vista compliant than it will run Alan Wake.
These are my guestimates for the game

Minimum:
Pentium 4 3GHz with HT
1 GB RAM
7600GS 256MB or Radeon Equivalent
DVD Rom

Recommended:
Pentium D, Athlon X2 or Core 2
1.5 GB RAM
6800 Ultra

[BigPauler]

I've been reading through the forums and I can see that many people have questions about whether Alan Wake will work on their systems. Seeing as it hasn't been released yet, I can understand the difficulty in nailing down it's performance requirements. However if anyone has any estimates as to what it likely would require I would really appreciate it. I am looking at buying a new system for my son, and would like to know if it will be enough to run wake before finalizing the purchase, the specs are:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 1GHz FSB Socket AM2 Dual Core
Motherboard: ASUS M2N-SLI DELUXE
Memory: PC4200 2GB DDR2 (Dual Channel)
Hard Drive: Seagate 120GB SATA
VGA: ASUS EN7600 GS 512MB PCI-Express

Thanks very much,

- Paul

[Morry]

Hi Paul,

As we saw on the IDF conference, a quad core cpu with a 7900gtx ran Alan Wake at perfect framerates. Going from this info, a dual core system won't use as many threading enhancements but should still do the job. You might see some slight stuttering when it comes to streaming the large landscapes, that's just my guess. As for the 7600gs, it's not a DX10 card. However, we don't really know what the differences will be when it comes to DX10 and DX9.0L. From what I hear, Intel is dropping prices on CPUs in the next month or two if you are willing to wait for that. Otherwise, the only other thing you might want to look at is a slightly better video card like the 7900.
Overall, I expect your system to run the game fine.

[BigPauler]

Thanks for the help, I'll keep an eye out for those price drops!

[rioshin]

Of course, if you're waiting for the Intel price drop, I'd say it would be good to wait a bit for the DX10 graphics cards to drop in price, as well.

The GF8800 GTS might be a bit expensive for now, not to mention the GTX, but once ATI joins the DX10 competition, I'd expect a price-drop from NVidia, which might mean the 8800 GTS becomes a reasonable alternative to the current DX9 cards.

[thb]

Hi everybody,
I looked at the system requirements thread but since my PC is so... unstable... I have never really able to use the system requirements to find out if my PC can play a game.
So I ask this: If I can play Rainbow Six Vegas on the PC (with the HDR and all) no problems will I be able play Alan Wake (and Crysis also)?

[pctechxp]

Hi

I have a Pentium D 950 (equ to 2 Prescott P4s) running at 3.4Ghz with 2 MB L2 cache, 2 GB RAM and an NVIDIA 7900 GTX with 512 MB VRAM

Vista Ultimate runs smoothly on my machine, will Alan Wake?

Thanks

pctechxp

[MRD]

Vista runs smoothly? how much FPS do u get running vista?

[pctechxp]

Haven't run a frame rate test yet but Vista gives a performance score of 5 with a score of 5.9 for graphics (the max you can get if my understanding is correct)

5 for CPU cycles (this is the lowest of the scores) so as AW is an MS released game the performance benchmarks given by vista should be a good indicator shouldn;t they?

The games advisor on windowsgaming also gave a score of just one below the max and said it was in the top 12% of systems tested.

[AlanWake07]

Hello!

I just bought a new computer and I was thinking that how well can my PC run Alan Wake?

System specs:

- AMD Athlon64 X2 +4200mhz
- Kingston 1024 mb ram (800mhz) ( I'm going to buy another 1 gb ram when Alan Wake is released)
- Nvidia GeForce 7950Gt (256 mb vram)
- 250 Gb harddrive
- DVD-Drive
- and I'm going to buy Windows Vista Home Premium

[Maddieman]

With the information we've currently got, the only system guaranteed to run Alan Wake flawlessly on is the Xbox 360. :)

[MRD]

With the information we've currently got, the only system guaranteed to run Alan Wake flawlessly on is the Xbox 360. :)


Alan Wake was demonstrated at the Intel Developer Forum in September 2006, running on an Intel Core 2 Quad processor clocked at 3.73GHz. The demonstration took the form of a tech demo, showcasing engine features such as day/night cycle, volumetric light, weather and physics. It was revealed that the game engine is multi-threaded and able to make full use of all four cores, with separate threads for physics, graphics & sound processing and seamless streaming of world data. It is therefore likely that the Xbox 360 version will also be able to take advantage of the Xenon CPU's three cores which have a total of 6 threads.

It was also claimed that the game is unlikely to run on single-core systems, but hyper-threading enabled Pentium 4 CPUs may be able to run it with significantly reduced detail.

So, during the IDF presentation Alan Wake was running very smoothly on a cpu speed of 3.7ghz with an intel Quad-core cpu, With most likely more than 1GB of RAM.

Judging from that to run everything on high i assume you will need a quad-core cpu at a speed of around 3ghz, with a good video card. However i think if you have a good dual-core cpu with a high end video card it should run smoothly too. Anything more than dual-core probably is to just get that extra crank.

Easiest and cheapest way to have the game running smooth would be to get it on XBox360. In the FAQ it is said that AW should run at at least 30 FPS for the 360, which is good, and i like the ''at at least'' part, which means 30 or more :)
At first i was concerned because the 360 only has 3 cores as opposed to the 4 cores of the quad-core cpu. But to my knowledge the 360's tri-core cpu is very optimized for gaming and is close to being on par with some lower-end quad-cores.

Alan Wake is being programmed on 5 threads. The 360 has 2 threads on each core so 6 threads in total. 1 thread extra to have the game running smooth. I am not sure about how many threads dual-core cpu's have though, if they have 6 or more, the game should run very smooth, if you also have a very good video card of course along with goood amount of system RAM.

[sidetwo]

No actually Maddie is right. It is not currently known what is required to run Alan Wake on the PC side.

The game hasn't gone through optimization and the specs of the computer running the IDF presentation is something of a guess. Think of it as a high point, something that if you have that or better you could run it. But it doesn't mean that if you don't have those high specs you won't be able to run the game flawlessly.

So like Maddie said, based on the current information we know, "the only system guaranteed to run Alan Wake flawlessly on is the Xbox 360". Everything else is guess work no matter how you look at it or phrase it.

[MRD]

I was just reviewing of what specs the game was run on flawlessly. Im not saying thats the only specs you need to run it. Like i said, even a good dual-core cpu may have the game running flawlessly. I wasn't correcting maddieman, just adding to his point. :)

[Maddieman]

ADM put this clearer, but just to clarify: the problem with using the IDF demo as a reference point is that the game isn't finished yet. The demo showed off a lot of the game's cpu heavy effects (volumetric lighting and physics simulation for instance), but we haven't seen how the gameplay and ai works, or how many enemies, npcs & vehicles are going to be on-screen at a time -- or how all of this works together.

That said, it's probably a good ballpark figure for PC system specs (if you take the assumption that both versions are being developed to the 360's fixed hardware limits), but until we know for sure from Remedy, we can't guarantee it'll run well on your pc when the game is finished.

The point to take here is that if you're thinking of upgrading specifically to play Alan Wake, then you're probably best to wait until Remedy explicitly release a recommended system specification. Until then, everything is subject to change (much to the despair of fans of Wake's sporty red scarf).

Or, like I said, get an Xbox 360. :)

[MRD]

I got mine! :) So far only Gears of War is my only game though...but i can't get enough of it.

[Morry]

It's a requirement for developers to have their 360 games run at a minimum 30fps, so I would be guessing that Remedy are putting as much detail in the game to maintain that performance.

[MRD]

30 FPS is fine for pretty much any game for me, except shooters that require a lot of combat, especially FPS. But i usually stick to PC for fps shooters anyway.

[=assassin=]

Reading through likely specs, is it at all possible that my single core Athlon 64 3800+ will run the game, seeing as it mentioned with settings reduced a P4 with Hyper threading might, and that Athlon 64's are far stronger in games that the P4's ever were?

I also have 2GB RAM and currently a 7900GS.

[MRD]

Sure it will run, good ram, decent video card....but dont expect to turn on graphic detail to high...you'll have to stick to low detail.

[=assassin=]

Cheers for the reply, that's not so bad then, I was getting a bit worried about all this talk of dualcore! Just after being able to play it, so low settings won't be too bad for me.

[MRD]

Man, talk about dual-core isnt new at all...lol. Dual core has been out for a while, its the quad-core talk that should scare you. But yeah, if you have good RAM and a good video card with a single core processor that has Hyper Threading, you should be able to run the game in minimal detail IMO. Im glad i bought a xbox 360, i always thought the 360 is a dual-core for some reason, turns out that it is tri-core.

[=assassin=]

My CPU doesn't have hyper threading though? So I take it now that is a no?

[MRD]

a single-core cpu without hyper threading : i doubt it. There was mention from remedy that alan wake may run on a pentium 4 equivalent cpu with hyper threading...but if its jsut single core with no HP, then i doubt it man.

[Praveer]

My PC conf.

Intel C2D 6600

2GB ram

Nvidia 8800 GTS

Now will it run on My PC with all eye candy turned on??:lol:

[thb]

Let me get this straight...
Dual Core Hyper Threading Pentium 4 3.40GHZ, 3.39GHZ CPUs with an Nvidia 8800 GTS and 2GB of RAM can handle AW.... right?

[Helgaiden]

So... i know that the game was tested and ran on an intel core quad, and will require multiple processing threads/CPUs to run effectively...

but what about for AMD or Intel dual core systems? How well would this work? Im lookin to build a DX10 futureproof system soon and i need to know because originally i wasnt planning on building a Desktop until AW came out...

but im an AMD guy at hear and it saddens me that they've lost their advtantage they picked up when the Athlons came around lol. But im considering an intel dual core as well, i just need to know how well a general dual core system (geforce 8800gts vidcard) would run this (even speculation is fine). Thanks.

[sidetwo]

Noone knows to be honest. I'm pretty sure a dual core would run the game well but it's all just speculation and you shouldn't build a "futureproof" system based on that.

If you do want it to be futureproof then get a quad core, otherwise wait until Remedy release system specs and then base your system around those.

[Helgaiden]

well i figure futureproofing a system based on AW will pretty much futureproof it for anything else. If i end up waiting i'll likely just go with an AMD 2x4 or 4x4 system if its THAT far ahead in the future lol. Well i hope for public's sake that this game ends up being AMD friendly as well.

[Morry]

The thing is, we don't really know when Alan Wake will be released, so future proofing could mean anything from a couple of months to a couple of years.

[Dark River]

From previous experience, how well did Max Payne and the sequel run on the PC? Well I believe at the time the it was optimized pretty well for slower systems, so yeah, I really really believe that this game will run well for less than new systems...as long as you have a mid-range CPU, and I by Mid-Range, I don't mean your Athlon 3200. I mean a Pentium D or Athlon X2 3000 or higher.

Hold on...wait oh I forgot, the PS2 Ports we're terrible...forget it, I still played Max Payne on PS2 :)

I also think when it came to the IDF video that the reason why they had such an awesome machine to show Wake is because well...to be frank is it embarassing to show a game off that may have a Framerate drop during a Demo? maybe..f**k knows.

[sidetwo]

I also think when it came to the IDF video that the reason why they had such an awesome machine to show Wake is because well...to be frank is it embarassing to show a game off that may have a Framerate drop during a Demo? maybe..f**k knows.

No the reason they showed it off on such a computer was to sell the Quad Core processor. IDF stands for "Intel Developer Forum" and Alan Wake was used as a promotion tool.

[Dark River]

....Good Point :o

[Onjoo]

What I've seen and read, Remedys new game engine uses CPU as much as possible and as many cores as available.

One major difference between Vista and Xbox360 version is the hard drive. Game developers can use the x360 hard drive if available, but in PC world the hard drive is of course an essential part of the whole package.

Back in the days using a striped RAID helped the game performance hugely.

Next-generation console game engines use CPU with multiple cores and RAM to stream data straight to graphics and sound card, but in Windows a game is installed to the hard drive and the game data is constantly being read from both the DVD and the hard drive, so do you think a RAID solution might help the performance or is it just a waste of money?

[Ufomies]

Considering the fact, that the release of the game will probably be pushed to 2008, and the price levels for multicore CPUs and native DX10 cards are going down fast, I'd assume it will run on most of the decent hardware. After all, the physics are calculated on one core, while the other(s) will be available for other functions. Two gigs of DDR(2) is probably the minimum amount of memory one should have for a game like Alan Wake. What comes to the GPU, if you have an LCD, there's no point in using high AA/AF settings, since the native resolution is what you get, basically. I'd say playing Alan Wake on a high end DX9 card (such as Radeon 1950 Pro, which costs about 150 € nowadays) or a mid-range DX10 card (which would probably refer to 8600-series, if it wasn't lacking the performance people were hoping for) would be a solution, satisfying enough for most gamers.

[B10H4Z4RD]

Hi, this is my pc:

-Amd 3800+ X2
-8600GTS
-2Gb Ram

Will work okay?

Sry for bad english. :D

[Fjällräven]

Intel pentium E6300 duo core 1.86 GHz
1gb(2gb soon) RAM
Nvividia geforce 8600
Windows vista of course
DVD-drive
250gb of harddrive

So what do you think?

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Yes it will work..but a core 2 duo e6600 might be a better option.

[schizrade]

Basically, the more CPU cores you have, the better the game will run. A decent DX10 card will suffice, and by the time this games cames out and Vistas Bugs are worked out, (early to mid 2008) DX10 cards will be everywhere and 8800X's will be old hat. Don't plan on spec'ing anything until Q1 '08. We have almost another full hardware cycle to go before this game arrives. Slow down and enjoy the true DX9 games that have finally arrived after god knows how long. I just upgraded from my old R9800 P4 2.8 because up until this point there was real need to. I can run BF2 on mid-high settings with this old beast.

Don't do what countless others have done in the past: spec a system for something that does not exist yet on an infant API. WAIT. ;)

[guaps]

I'm not a PC user, but I found this in an interview

Well, they showed it to us on a dual core processor in a machine with around 2GB of RAM (perhaps more) and a single ATI Radeon X1900 series graphics card - all running perfectly well on a massive HD screen with anti-aliasing enabled.

Source: http://www.yougamers.com/articles/4489_remedy_interview_-_part_3_the_power_behind_wake-page1/

[vividly_pathetic]

Will the game run smoothly on a mid-range MacBook running Vista?

I need to decide if I'm getting one or a 360 before the game's out. Preferably the former.

(Intel core 2 Duo, 1GB ram, Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64mb of DDR2 SDRAM)

[sidetwo]

It won't work on that as your videocard is lacking. It's safe to assume that a 256mb graphics card would be a minimum.

[guaps]

Don't count on it working at all on a Macbook.

Remember the Macbook isn't a gaming machine, at least not 3D games. But its still an awesome laptop.

[vividly_pathetic]

Arg, I can't afford a Mac Pro so I guess it'll have to be a 360 :(

[sidetwo]

I doubt it'd work even on a Macbook Pro. Laptops are never really a good idea for gaming systems, even if they are as powerful they overheat quite quickly.

Having said that I love Macbook's, I'm actually getting a white Macbook in a couple of months but purely for work. I'll stick to my 360 for gaming.

[guaps]

Arg, I can't afford a Mac Pro so I guess it'll have to be a 360 :(

Considering the vast number of fantastic games coming to the 360, I can't see why you would be disappointed about getting a 360.

Even though Apple have been trying to get into the gaming world lately, they are first and foremost workstations - and extremely good at that.

I've been using a mac laptop and a game console (first a Sega Dreamcast, then a Xbox 360) for many years now as a work/gaming combo and it works great that way.

[Maddieman]

Considering the vast number of fantastic games coming to the 360, I can't see why you would be disappointed about getting a 360.

True, but I think some people still don't appreciate having to buy a new console / upgrade just to play a specific game. Still, next-gen games requre next-gen hardware... If you're into games, I guess you just have to accept that you're going to have to spend something along the lines of $300-$800 on gaming hardware every 4 years or so (pc or console).

I'd pretty much resolved to buying an X360 to play Alan Wake, but the news about it possibly running on dual-core systems offers a glimmer of hope. Then again, I'm in no hurry to upgrade to Vista... so I guess it doesn't change things much for me. :)

[vividly_pathetic]

Well, apart from this game I've got nothing particular to look forward to on 360, plus I'm normally too broke to buy games... :O

Oh, and I meant Mac Pro, the monster desktop, not MacBOOK Pro, which I wouldn't mind having either... :)

But I've never normally been into PC gaming (apart from Broken Sword) so I guess I'll get me a 360 and pray the next GTA and Halo will be worth the money.

[Raveness]

What's this I hear about AW being a Windows Vista exclusive? Say it isn't so :(

[sidetwo]

Alan Wake has always been Vista exclusive. People should really go through the FAQ:
http://www.alanwake.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1055

and as always on the front page it's got this little image badge at the bottom of the page:
http://www.alanwake.com/images/front_10.jpg

So bottom line is if you want to play it on PC then you need Windows Vista, otherwise the only other option is the Xbox 360.

[vividly_pathetic]

What's this I hear about AW being a Windows Vista exclusive? Say it isn't so :(

Disgusting, isn't it?

[vividly_pathetic]

Well, I've decided I'm gonna just upgrade my crappy old PC till I can afford something better. I'm looking to get Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Anyone recommend any good motherboards that support it? And also any good graphics cards?

[Morry]

If you are looking to upgrade for Alan Wake, a dual core is good...quad core is better. In the next few years, you can expect a lot of games to have multithreading. Since devs like to make games for consoles, the code will be optimised for the 360 (3 cores), so a quad core will set you up for this generation of console-PC games.
As for the video card, the x1800 and 7800 series are comparable to the current consoles, so aim for those. The x2800 and 8800 series do have DirectX10 though, so that is another thing to consider.

[vividly_pathetic]

Cool. Well, I'm broke so I'll have to settle for dual core for now. What do you guys think between ATI and NVIDIA? I'm leaning for the latter but I'm not sure which one is better for 3D (not just games, but for stuff like 3DS Max and Maya).

[AlianAnt]

I would still think a high-end Nvidia card will do better, but thats just me.

[Morry]

Difference between the two is usually just figures on a benchmark sheet, though in this round, the nVidia cards seem to be performing better. Ati has always had the slightest upper hand in small graphical quality though.

[vividly_pathetic]

Cool, thanks guys. I was leaning towards Nvidia. Well, off to count my pennies and blow them on eBay...

[Raveness]

A good 8800 GTS is a nice high-end affordable card, depending on what manufacturer is cheapest in your region.

Plus you get DX10 with it.

[DMuk]

How do you think my sytem will cope with the game as it is before mentioned upgrades?

Intel E6600 OC'ed to 3.4Ghz on Asus p5k deluxe mobo(will have a QX6600 or 6700 or higher by the time AW comes out and the prices have dropped)

3gig OCZ DDR2 PC2-8500 Reaper(will 4gb+ by the time the game is out)

Inno3d 8800gtx ultra

2x150gb WD Raptor's
1x 500gb WD Caviar RE2
without the noted future upgrades,how well do you think it would run it.by the way,good thread this,keep it going.

[AlianAnt]

I imagine that it would run decently before the upgrades. Sheesh, you've got a monster machine there.

But again, thats just as it appears. Specs for the game haven't been released yet.

[guaps]

Tim Sweeney from Epic Games recently had this to say about dual vs. quad core CPUs for gaming. Nice to know if you are planning on upgrading your PC.

If you're buying a CPU primarily for gaming, the sweet spot of the market seems to be dual-core. There, you can get a higher clock rate than is available (at least economically) in quad-core. All UE3 games, for example, scale really well to two cores, and you get significantly more performance than single-core much of the time. Though UE3 and many other engines scale somewhat to 4 cores, the benefits aren't huge.

That will change in a couple of years, but that's another upgrade cycle.

If you plan to do heavy level-building and mod making, I'd recommend quad-core. The development tools scale well to quad-core, having lots of content authoring apps open in Windows benefits from quad-core, and if you're going to be running a dedicated server on your machine to test a mod while also playing on that machine, it helps for that.

[ulysses79]

Alan Wake won't work on my system, my config is fx5700 & p4 2800 ht. I'm a console gamer & I have a PS3, why don't Remedy develop Alan Wake for PS3? Xbox 360 is an awful console, most of Xbox 360 fail easily. Why don't Game Developers boycott Xbox 360? Game Developers care money than gamers. Please check this link, it's very very strange news about Xbox 360's shameful hardware.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160603

[Maddieman]

Lets keep this on the topic of PC specs -- there are other threads for discussing the Xbox 360/Vista exclusivity.

[bluesky787]

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!

Intel Core 2 Q6600
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 800Mhz Ram
500GB SATA-3 Seagate
EVGA GeForce 8800 GTD 320MB

Windows XP Pro SP2
Windows Vista Ultimate scripped down to barebones

My question is I am dual booting XP and Vista,
will my system work SMOOTH on Alan WAke or will
it lag a lot? Please any estimate is better than nothing...

What happens if Nvidia still not come out with real (nonbeta)
drivers for 8800 by next year? Am I screwed or what? SInce
this being another M$FT vista only game.... I really like the graphics...

Please tell me if it will work good..

[Helgaiden]

Core2duo e6600, sometimes i o/c it to 3ghz (1333fsb) when its not hot out...

8800gts 640
2gigs DDR2 800 ram
Vista of course
raptor 150gig

[bluesky787]

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!

Intel Core 2 Q6600
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 800Mhz Ram
500GB SATA-3 Seagate
EVGA GeForce 8800 GTD 320MB

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!

Windows XP Pro SP2
Windows Vista Ultimate scripped down to barebones

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!

My question is I am dual booting XP and Vista,
will my system work SMOOTH on Alan WAke or will
it lag a lot? Please any estimate is better than nothing...

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!

What happens if Nvidia still not come out with real (nonbeta)
drivers for 8800 by next year? Am I screwed or what? SInce
this being another M$FT vista only game.... I really like the graphics...

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!
Please tell me if it will work good..

Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!
Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!
Will Alan Wake work on my system?!!!!

[MRD]

Sorry, Alan Wake will not work on your system. You must upgrade it more to a quad-core for best performance.:)

[Onjoo]

Sorry, Alan Wake will not work on your system. You must upgrade it more to a quad-core for best performance.:)

Just one quad-core? No No No, Atleast 4 Quad-core processors with 32 Terabyte of Ram and the Operating System should be atleast Windows 7. ;)

Or you can always buy Xbox 360!

From Alan Wake FAQ: (http://www.alanwakefaq.com)

Nothing is certain about the specifications but you will need Windows Vista and a fairly high spec PC. Remedy have showcased Alan Wake running smoothly on an Intel Core 2 Quad system overclocked at 3.73Ghz with a GeForce 7900GTX.

Markus from Remedy has said "Alan Wake would pretty much not run on any single core processors, although it may be possible to run on single-core Pentium 4 processors with Hyper Threading enabled, with noticably reduced image quality/experience."

The game will use a separate processing thread dedicated to physical calculations. Since Remedy is using Havok, there is no support for Ageia PhysX cards, so all the physical calculations are done using the CPU. Markus has explained that a normal Core 2 Quad will use 80% of one core for physical calculations.

[bluesky787]

Just one quad-core? No No No, Atleast 4 Quad-core processors with 32 Terabyte of Ram and the Operating System should be atleast Windows 7. ;)

Or you can always buy Xbox 360!

What happens if Nvidia still not come out with real (nonbeta)
drivers for 8800 by next year? Am I screwed or what? SInce
this being another M$FT vista only game.... I really like the graphics...


THEY tested in on a Quad core that runs 3.7GHZ each, I don't have that much money to get that CPU, so mine is only Q6600, my thing is will Alan Wake SLOW DOWN, stutter, glitch, jerk, crash, aka not be smooth on my system or will it be SMOOTH as silk also?

Please answer!!

[Onjoo]

What happens if Nvidia still not come out with real (nonbeta)
drivers for 8800 by next year? Am I screwed or what? SInce
this being another M$FT vista only game.... I really like the graphics...

Please answer!!

Ask Nvidia! I don't know.
Nvidia and Ati are working hard with the Vista drivers. I'm quite sure there will be final and polished drivers before Vista Service Pack1 and 2008.

And with the current knowledge about Vista gaming I think you won't be in any trouble running AW smoothly.

[MRD]

LOL. I dont know why but this thread made me laugh. I can just picture bluesky running around the room all panicking, calling nvidia asking if alan wake will work for him, LOL.

[luciano12]

Hi! I have an AMD x2 3800+, 1gb ram, motherboard: m2n4-sli and 7600GS. Do you guys think it will work? Thanks.

[sidetwo]

yeah should at least run it.

I'm picking myself up a Quad Core based computer next week, mainly for Crysis and stuff but should work perfect for Alan Wake. I'm only getting a 8600GT at the start but when Alan Wake gets released I'll buy a better graphics card a week or so before.

[gatygun]

Waste of time to upgrade your system for directx 10 games.

Fact is always the first generation of videocards are sucky for where they where original made for.

Look at the dx9 cards they sucked hard, like the dx10 cards will be at the time these games get out in the shops.

About the processor part:

At the time this game gets released the 4-cored cpu's wil be as cheap as a amd64 these days. And there will be already 8-cored cpu's.

If this game is getting released as i readed, at 2008 in the middle. then the grafics of it are oldschool and we will have already like 50 other games using these kind of grafics and specials and more.


If you did look at the game, this game only takes so much cpu power because it prolly has some major distance with alot of objects to be rendered.

The ideal system for not much money is atm for anygame:

8800gts 320mb 270 euro, if you get the 640mb version 333 euro ( cheap and powerfull )
dual core 6600e 170 euro ( cheap and powerfull )
2gb of ddr2 ??? euro check it out yourself ( cost not much to )
get some crappy vista
all other specs aint important. or figure it out yourself.

ps

stop bitching about get a quad core proccessor etc, if you checked the benchmarks quad core's are realllly not worth to buy because there performance increases are really tiny if you compare it to the dual cores. (( anyway who cares quad core cost only like 250 euro these days )

nice job done on the weater effects, but all other stuff is just random stuff that is putted in all games already.

my english rox

[sidetwo]

stop bitching about get a quad core proccessor etc, if you checked the benchmarks quad core's are realllly not worth to buy because there performance increases are really tiny if you compare it to the dual cores.

Not quite. The performance jump is only really seen for game made for quadcore processors, like Alan Wake.

If this game is getting released as i readed, at 2008 in the middle. then the grafics of it are oldschool and we will have already like 50 other games using these kind of grafics and specials and more.

Sure but who cares? The graphics are still insanely good and it's the story and gameplay that makes me interested in the game. NOT the graphics.

my english rox

Sure does 'rox'.

[MRD]

Hey guys, i decided that i will buy a new PC for alan wake,and for America's Army version 3.0 Fall 2008 releas, but instead of spending a lot of money now, im going to buy it in 1 year, (summer 2008)

I will say the specs and can someone give me a rough estimate of how much you think everything will cost in total (1 year from now)

CPU: Intel core2 Extreme QX6800 (8MB L2 cache, 3.73 GHZ.
Memory: 4GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 SDRAM 1066mhz 4DIMMs
Hard drive: 500GB
Motherboard: UNKNOWN (insert which you think is best now and estimate price 1 year from now) I think best one is some type of nvidia?? Not sure.
Video card:Nvidia Geforce 8800 Ultra 768MB

[sidetwo]

Yes that will run it perfectly fine.

[MRD]

What is a good motherboard? And how much would that kind of system cost a year from now?

[sidetwo]

I have the P5N32E-SLI Plus and its really good, been highly reviewed as well. That's my preference anyway for Intel based CPU's.

[nik214]

Hey everyone :)


I know i will be able to run the game, but on high? My monitor can support 1280x1050............

ASUS P5B
8800GTS 640
2GB corsair XMS2
core 2 duo E6400
320gb seagate

thanks!

[Morry]

Man, I feel so little with my current setup. All these people appearing on the forums with their dual core CPUs and current gen video cards. I'm still running on a P4 2.6ghz, 9600xt.
Rule of thumb - we have seen the game run on a 7900GTX with a quad core, so take your reference from that.

[nik214]

Man, I feel so little with my current setup. All these people appearing on the forums with their dual core CPUs and current gen video cards. I'm still running on a P4 2.6ghz, 9600xt.
Rule of thumb - we have seen the game run on a 7900GTX with a quad core, so take your reference from that.



Was that on high settings?

[AlianAnt]

From what I know, you don't show a game to the press on anything but max settings.

[nik214]

ah ok looks good then

[MRD]

Go for the quad-core cpu...besides by 2008 quad core will be useful for gaming.

[nik214]

If i got a Quad, i would have to get a new motherboard :(

[MRD]

That sucks. One of the reasons i hate pc is the fact that there are so many compability issues. They make certain parts only work with certain parts so that you are forced to always upgrade and spend money.
I wish that pc technology wouldnt go out of date so fast, it would be good if you could buy a really good computer top of the line, and for it to be good for say...4-5 years. But now, you buy a good computer and by the 2nd year it already starts becoming obsolete. In my opinion, the main advantage that consoles have over pc's, is the fact that a console will not go obsolete until around 5 years or so, but in those 5 years, you can play all the best games and not worry about how it will 'perform' But besides that, pc has advantage.

[Morry]

If you bought a reasonable PC today, it should last you four years before the latest games become unplayable. I did this with my old PC, that wasn't even that great when I bought it, and it lasted four and a half years. You just have to cope with tuning the video settings of games and not being able to run them at ridiculous resolutions.

[MRD]

Granted...you could set lots of options to low graphic settings(and feel like youre not getting the full experience of the game)

But you do see my point right?

[Morry]

Yes, I see your point. I just feel that too many gamers focus on performance and graphics, rather than what the game can actually provide in terms of experience and fun.
You could have the best shader engine on the market, but does this provide for a great game? I remember the first time I played Max Payne, it was on a computer so slow that you could tell when an NPC would turn in to an inanimate corpse by the CPU stutter. But I kept on playing the game because of the experience. It didn't matter that I wasn't experiencing the best particle effects the game had to offer, I was enjoying myself playing one of the best action games I have ever experienced. That's what counts.
I expect the same quality of gaming from Alan Wake. As long as the gameplay is everything we have come to expect from Remedy, I don't care if my system can't handle maximum resolution with full AA.

[mda]

Hi :)

From what I've read, it seems likely that there may not be a definite answer for this question yet, but in case someone has any idea - Will having a dual core cpu instead of a quad prevent the below rig from running AW on maximum (or, very high/close to max) video quality, similar to what you would get from a quad, even if the dual core is ridiculously fast (see below)? My apologies if this is still one for the as yet unanswerable box, I couldn't quite piece together an answer from what's already been said. Cheers for any info/tips!

CPU:E6750 oc 3.84G
COOLING:ASUS silent-squareII with AS5(make some modification achieve better effect)
MB:GIGABYTE P35-DQ6
RAM:OCZ System-lite DDR2 800 1G*2
HD:WD 5000AAKS 500G*2 RAID 0
Optical:Pioneer 18X DVD-RW
VGA:INNO 8800GTS A3 stepping version 640MB OC 700/1800/2180

Kind Regards,

Joseph W

EDIT:

Will having a dual core cpu instead of a quad prevent the below rig from running AW on maximum (or, very high/close to max) video quality

Never mind, going to get a Quad instead anyway...

[Dark River]

You won't need a Quad-Core, if your machine (right now) can run Bioshock, Supreme Commander, Rainbow Six, at Medium to High Settings. You will be able to play this game fine. Remedy optimised the **** out of the Max Payne games, and like Bioshock as well, pretty much no one will miss out.

Please somebody kill this thread!

[STEALTHGUY1986]

I am going to upgrade my pc and these are my pc's configaration:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Video Card: Nvidia Geforce 8800GTS or Geforce 8800GTX 0r 8900GTS(Provided it has PCI Express 1 support)
RAM: 2GB

Will I be able to play future games on high-med settings for atleast 2 years?

[Morry]

I am going to upgrade my pc and these are my pc's configaration:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Video Card: Nvidia Geforce 8800GTS or Geforce 8800GTX 0r 8900GTS(Provided it has PCI Express 1 support)
RAM: 2GB

Will I be able to play future games on high-med settings for atleast 2 years?
That is better than my current setup and I am having no problems playing every game at high detail.
High to Medium settings for the next 2 years is pretty much guaranteed.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Thanks man.

[Morry]

In particular, the CPU and RAM should be good for three years. After two years, if you are not satisfied, just upgrade the video card.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Since there is no new info. I was thinking about the game's requirement and these are my estimates:
OS: Windows Vista
Processor: Within (3.0-3.6Ghz) and with HT.
RAM : 1.5-2Gb
Videocard: Nvidia Geforce 6800GT-7600GT
Harddisk : 10-12Gb

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Can anyone tell me whether Intel's Dp965lt motherboard supports PCI Express 1.1 interface?Also can anyone suggest me a motherboard which supports both PCI Express 2.0 and 533Mhz of DDR2 memory.

[Reto]

I think i can run this game pretty well because crysis work high grapichs

c2d e6300 (maybe new when alan wake realesed)
2gb ram
8800gt

[sdrawkcab]

To MRD: Trust me...your PC will run Alan Wake smoothly. Hell, I'm sure you're giving NASA's best PC a run for it's money. Damn! Just don't spoil the goodness!

[Johns]

Some speculation on my part: P4 w/ or w/o HT is crap... so at least E2xxx. Since it's Vista - 2GB of RAM min. And I hope/think a GF7900(7800)/X19x0(X1800) if they don't make it SM4.0 required:eek: If they don't and its oprimized like MP was... may work smooth even on GF7600/7300. Just a week or so ago I upgraded to C2D E6750 and 2GB DDR2 800, but kept my X1950XT. By the time it's released I'd probably have 4GB of RAM and perhaps a new VC if a find a worthy replacement of X1950. As for in general I expect(hope) that a E2140(OC'd of course), 2GB RAM and X1950pro/GF8600GT would be quite enough for a medium/high settings. So if you have a similar rig I would recommend that you shouldn't worry until it gets out... and if you plan on upgrade specially for AW I'd wait for it to get out or at least to have an official requirements.

[PostaL]

Hey guys my friend told me about this game so i figured id check it out and i checked it out and it looks sooo good! Id say its close, or even better graphics than crysis! (sad to say lol)

My Specs are:

-2 GB DDR2 800 Ram (OCZ Gold)
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.8GHz @ 2.8GHz on stock cooling
-Nvidia PNY 8800GT 512MB GDDR3
-ASUS P5N-E 650i SLI Motherboard
-200GB Sata Harddrive
-DVD Burner Drive
-500 Watt Rosewill Powersupply SLI Ready
-Windows XP Media Center Edition (do i need vista to run this?)

Please tell me if i can run this game smoothly on all high options and at 1440x900 resolution?

Thank you all,
PostaL


[No signature banners please - Maddieman]

[Jay M]

Hey guys my friend told me about this game so i figured id check it out and i checked it out and it looks sooo good! Id say its close, or even better graphics than crysis! (sad to say lol)

My Specs are:

-2 GB DDR2 800 Ram (OCZ Gold)
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.8GHz @ 2.8GHz on stock cooling
-Nvidia PNY 8800GT 512MB GDDR3
-ASUS P5N-E 650i SLI Motherboard
-200GB Sata Harddrive
-DVD Burner Drive
-500 Watt Rosewill Powersupply SLI Ready
-Windows XP Media Center Edition (do i need vista to run this?)

Please tell me if i can run this game smoothly on all high options and at 1440x900 resolution?

Thank you all,
PostaL


[No signature banners please - Maddieman]

Yes, Vista is required. As mentioned before, its best to wait until Remedy releases the actual minimum/recommended hardware requirements before asking the forums. All answers are pretty much educated speculations at this point. I'm pretty sure once the game is golden, the system requirements will be released and SysReqLabs will have it on their website to test your system. But by looking at your system specs, I say all you need is Vista and you're good to go.

[PostaL]

Yes, Vista is required. As mentioned before, its best to wait until Remedy releases the actual minimum/recommended hardware requirements before asking the forums. All answers are pretty much educated speculations at this point. I'm pretty sure once the game is golden, the system requirements will be released and SysReqLabs will have it on their website to test your system. But by looking at your system specs, I say all you need is Vista and you're good to go.

Thanks... but vista has so many bugs and im scared to upgrade lol

[Johns]

Thanks... but vista has so many bugs and im scared to upgrade lol
How the hell do you know it has "so many bugs" then? Come on people, stop making lame excuses. If you don't wanna try it - don't.

[1234BGD]

Just a question will it work on mine ;)

Intel Xeon 3GHz (will upgrade to newer Xeon as they come)
4GB Ram
Ati 3870 (thinking to add one more for crossfire)
I run on 1680x1050
Yes, and vista on board works so far so good

:)

[PostaL]

How the hell do you know it has "so many bugs" then? Come on people, stop making lame excuses. If you don't wanna try it - don't.

I'd be glad to upgrade as soon as they fix bugs lol... like i said.. i like vista and i have it here on a dvd but im waiting

[PostaL]

Just a question will it work on mine ;)

Intel Xeon 3GHz (will upgrade to newer Xeon as they come)
4GB Ram
Ati 3870 (thinking to add one more for crossfire)
I run on 1680x1050
Yes, and vista on board works so far so good

:)

yes u should run it just fine

[Johns]

I'd be glad to upgrade as soon as they fix bugs lol... like i said.. i like vista and i have it here on a dvd but im waiting
That's not a valid argument. You could wait till SP1000 and still say it has bugs. Nothing's perferct. FYI updates are released regularly, the unspecified "bugs" you mention might be fixed already.

[MRD]

I have both XP and Vista, I am very happy with vista and found no bugs

[llamaman13]

how should this do?

3-GHz Core 2 Quad CPU
two Nvidia 8800GTX GPUs in SLI
4-gigs of RAM

[STEALTHGUY1986]

As smooth as butter. So stop worrying and start anticipating , my friend.:)

[MRD]

You'll need a better video card to run everything on ABSOLUTE MAX without dropping framerate

[Morry]

You'll need a better video card to run everything on ABSOLUTE MAX without dropping framerate
Not necessarily. Dual 8800s are pretty much the best you can get at the moment. A year ago we saw the game running on a single 7900, so unless Remedy have chucked in a ton of graphical updates, it's more likely that they have made the engine more efficient.

[Dennis]

Hey will Alan Wake work on my system?

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
ATI Radeon 2600 Pro
2 Gb Ram
Vista

[MRD]

Yes it should run ok but dont expect to have all the graphics on max.

[AnttiApina]

Hy Alan Wake hypers! I wanted to know will this game work on my system?

My specs:

Intel Pentium D 3.20 GHz DUAL CORE
NVIDIA 7600 GT
1 GB RAM (:()

So will Mr. Wake even run on my computer? If not what should i get more ram or new processor? Are Wakes system requirements tougher than Crysis?



Waiting for answer

-AA

[sdrawkcab]

So far, Wake's system specs seem to be a little more toned down opposed to Crysis(But that can change). Remedy seems to have high compatibility and optimization in mind.

Dealing with your system; your video card and Ram may be the only problem. Upgrade your video card, I'd say to no less that an 8400. However, seeing that AW isn't out yet, save for a bit and purchase an 8800. Or, if you want, go SLI with 8400...or even with your 7600. But, think ahead, so saving for an 8800 would be the smarter thing in this case.

Try to get atleast(minimum I'm talking here) another gig of ram, totaling 2 gigs. I'm guessing your motherboard memory banks are dual channel. In that case, the next stick of ram you buy should preferably be of the same specs your current stick of ram is. To put it in layman's terms, dual channel ram doubles your data path. Like a highway, with twice the amount of lanes, so more traffic(or in this case, data) can pass through. But it can only make use of that technology if all the sticks of ram are of the same specs. But for best performace, try 3-4 gigs, maybe at 800mhz each. Also, if you're putting 4 gigs of ram, you'll need a 64bit OS for all 4 gigs to be used, as a 32bit OS can only address up to 3gigs, or 3.4 in some rare cases.

As for your processor...that'll do just fine. No worried there what so ever.

[AwAke4Alan]

Although I don't yet have my new planned PC. Beacuse I'm still waiting on the new line of Nvidia cards. It will be somthing along the lines of quad core, SLi (high end cards), 2-4GB RAM (depends on speed).

I was hoping that would be enouhg to run Alan Wake at 2560x1600 full eye candy with say 50+ fps? ((EDIT)): I would like at least 8xAA if the game will offer it. Id prefer alot more like 16xAA. Even besides motion Blur.


What do you think?


Thanks :)

[Johns]

Although I don't yet have my new planned PC. Beacuse I'm still waiting on the new line of Nvidia cards. It will be somthing along the lines of quad core, SLi (high end cards), 2-4GB RAM (depends on speed).

I was hoping that would be enouhg to run Alan Wake at 2560x1600 full eye candy with say 50+ fps? ((EDIT)): I would like at least 8xAA if the game will offer it. Id prefer alot more like 16xAA. Even besides motion Blur.


What do you think?


Thanks :)
I think(not just me actually), 1600x1200 and above kinda makes AA not unnecessary. Especially if you have to choose btw resolution and AA.

[Valhalla]

I think(not just me actually), 1600x1200 and above kinda makes AA not unnecessary. Especially if you have to choose btw resolution and AA.

Not unnecessary? I think he means unnecessary, or not necessary.

[Johns]

Not unnecessary? I think he means unnecessary, or not necessary.
No. I was trying to underline it with double negative:lol: Of course, what I meant was that it better w/o AA in high resolutions - not that much of a difference and(sometimes) a lot more fps.

[AwAke4Alan]

I wouldn't think Higher res on PC monitors would make a difference. The image is still very sharp IMO. I set close to the monitor & can see the ugly jagged edges. I hope to use 16xAA if the game supports AA.

[sidetwo]

The higher the res the clearer and sharper the image, it makes a huge diff.

[Johns]

@AwAke4Alan, listen to the big dawg:lol:
The higher the res the clearer and sharper the image, it makes a huge diff.

[AwAke4Alan]

srr If I didnt make it clear, I certainly do know higher res = clearer & sharper.

But at 1920x1200 & 2560x1600, the games look so pixel clear, you diff need AA. At least 8xAA. IMO the higher the res, the more AA you need, or at least some to smooth jagged edges.

:)

[Wraithdagger]

You need AA no matter what resolution you use, there will always be jaggies. 4xAA is good for the majority of cases. I mean, how often are you staring at edges and saying, "Damn, this doesn't look smooth...", rather than pwning some baddies? :)

[Johns]

You need AA no matter what resolution you use, there will always be jaggies. 4xAA is good for the majority of cases. I mean, how often are you staring at edges and saying, "Damn, this doesn't look smooth...", rather than pwning some baddies? :)
Yeah, but very few high-end VC can run smooth todays games on such resolutions w/ AA... so I guess you'll have to choose btw AA and res(unless you can afford a super high-end system).

[AwAke4Alan]

Well for example, TDU at high res looks bad with jaged car edges even tho ur moving fast & theres motion blur. So I assume u drive around in AW, & might need some AA for the car edges. I'm just fusy with graphics. :)

[Johns]

Well for example, TDU at high res looks bad with jaged car edges even tho ur moving fast & theres motion blur. So I assume u drive around in AW, & might need some AA for the car edges. I'm just fusy with graphics. :)
Test Drive Unlimited(I don't play racing games)?
Is "fusy" something like obsessed? Well in that case you have to be "fusy" with money too, I don't know the requierments for TDU, but AW probably won't run smooth with AA and >16XXx1XXX on a "typical game system". I'm not saying you don't need AA, you'll probably have to sacrifice it.

[Quad Core Joe]

Hmm, cant wait for this game.


Case: Silverstone TJ09
Cooler: CoolITsystems Freezone
Motherboard: EVGA nForce 780i
Processor: Intel Core 2 QX9650 (4.25GHz)
PSU: Silverstone OP1000w ATX
Memory: 4gig Transend 9600 @1200
Graphics Cards: (2) XFX 8800 GTX SLI
HD: 4 WD RaptorX in Raid0
Audio Card: Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
Operating System: Windows XP/Vista dual boot

[Valhalla]

Quad Core Joe, you will need to upgrade your computer.

[sidetwo]

Quad Core Joe, you will need to upgrade your computer.
Really? He has two 8800 GTX in SLI mode and a quadcore QX9650 with a cooling system.

I really doubt he would need to upgrade for Alan Wake.

[Morry]

I think it's the best setup we have seen on the forums so far. If anyone can play it to the fullest, it's Quad Core Joe!

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Man, I wish I had a system like yours (Quad core joe).

[Valhalla]

Sorry guys, Iv'e been watching House too much, I was being sarcastic. Of course he won't need an upgrade lol.

[sdrawkcab]

Yeah, bomber...he only beats mine with his video cards. Damn you Quadcore Joe! Damn You!

Ha, doesn't matter, last week I took out two 1 gig sticks of ram and put in two 2 gigs. I now got 6 gigs of ram baby. Beat that sucker!...Man....I feel so ashamed right now.

[Valhalla]

Lol i wonder when you will need 6 gigs of ram if 2 or 3 is a great amount for now. By the way, if you TOOK OUT two 1 gig sticks, and PUT IN two 2 gig sticks, how does that equal to 6 gigs?

[sdrawkcab]

lol, forgot to mention(for the people that didn't know my specs), I was running on four 1 gig sticks, totaling 4gigs of ram. Taking out 2 of them and replacing them with two 2 gig sticks. Sorry about that.

I'll go to 8, but not any time soon. I'm a graphic designer and now learning game design, modeling and animation...hence the reason why I use so much ram. The 32 bit versions of the software I use don't really need anything more than 2-3 gigs, but the 64bit versions use much more resources.

[Valhalla]

Wow....i thought gaming uses the most resources.

[sdrawkcab]

Well...in a sense, it does, because the programs used to make the games/movies use quite a bit of resources, usually more than the game itself uses. When you're playing a game, in most cases, that's all you're doing. Not much multitasking is done, except when you're trying to kill a guy while flee into the bushes...

When you're coding a game, making an animation/model, sometimes a lot of multitasking is done. More than one resource-draining program might be being used, each eating a nice chunk of ram. Then there's rendering, which, by itself can be very time consuming and probably uses the most ram out of any other task performed on a PC.

Plus, I have to compensate for my lack of quad core, as I've only got 2 processors. Crap, I now realized I don't even have a quad core. DAMN YOU QUADCORE JOE!!!! Show off :)

[Valhalla]

Dont worry, 8 cores will be coming out soon :)

Then quad core joe will be obsolete and inferior! lol

[d3ath_fly]

Wow, people here have nice systems. Mine is nothing to brag about, but here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz
Ram: 2.5 Gb
HDD: 320 Gb
GPU: XFX GeForce 8600 GT 256 Mb
PSU: 450 Watt :cry:

I can run BioShock fine on dx10 with high settings, but I'll probably need to get a new power supply and an 8800 GT for AW, wont I?

[Valhalla]

I don't think so. I think any Geforce 8 series will run AW just fine, as long as you have a good amount of ram, and a good cpu.

Remedy was playing AW on a Geforce 7900, weren't they?

[sdrawkcab]

I believe they were running it on a 7900. And, knowing Remedy, it will be optimized for even med-end systems. I'd stock up on some Ram d3ath_fly. And in this age...450W is okay, butI'll advise to stay at around 500W-550W. Besides, PSUs aren't expensive at all. Why are you staying there? Because PCs can be upgraded, in a short space of time, I'm 100% certain you'll want to upgrade your PC, and with the hardware out these days, 500W+ is what you should be looking at. If you do purchase an 8800(which I'm sure you will), settle for nothing less than 550W. 600 is fine. The better your PSU, leaves one less component to worry about when upgrading later on in the future.

[Quad Core Joe]

Thanks guys. Ive been thinking of pluging in another 8800GTX, but I might wait until the next generation of cards come out.:D

[Valhalla]

Why should the PSU be no less than 550W?
Mine is only 400 i think.

[Johns]

Sorry guys, Iv'e been watching House too much, I was being sarcastic. Of course he won't need an upgrade lol.
Me too, cuz I was the only one who got it.:lol:
"Great" doesn't even begin to describe your rig, Joe! Could you post a screenshot with cpu-z + 3dmark06 score... I wanna fap.

[sdrawkcab]

What's your specs Valhalla?

Reason I stressed on atleast 550-600(a 525 will do for now, but try to think long term), concerning d3ath's setup(Note, I recommended 550-600 specifically for him, because he does have a beast) is because most of the newer hardware consumes more power. Also, when you're buying a PSU, it's good to keep it a lil above recommended wattage for future use. PC tech grows rapidly fast, and later hardware doesn't use less power, in most cases, it uses more. So buying with future upgrading in mind(because most people will make large-scale upgrades to their PCs about every 2-3yrs), you won't have to worry about your PSUw being an issue too much when you're making some upgrades. Most PCs, even high-end, can run on 450W-500W PSU with no probs(this varies of course). However, in the event that you do purchase some hardware that excels what you're currently running, your PC will be under powered and components can burn out/not work at all/work-and-stop/You PC may freeze repeatedly/PC may just keep shutting off/May not power up at all/PSU can even fry/fire...you get the idea. It's a risk no one wants to take, especially if you pumped money into your system.

If you have a lot more power than what you initially needed, the components in the PC will only use the amount of power they require to perform properly. So, having too much power is no real issue. Every time you add a component(extra harddrive,ram, vid card, and these newer processors - note an idle vid card can use anywhere between 20-40watts, while at full power can use 100+W), your power consumption increases. So buying a PSU that can withstand some heavy upgrades without having to be changed is the smarter move. Adding the wattage of all your components, plus 30-50% of that should give you a decent idea of where your PSUw should lie.

The more power, the better, especially if upgrading your system is a factor.

[Valhalla]

What's your specs Valhalla?

Reason I stressed on atleast 550-600(a 525 will do for now, but try to think long term), concerning d3ath's setup(Note, I recommended 550-600 specifically for him, because he does have a beast) is because most of the newer hardware consumes more power. Also, when you're buying a PSU, it's good to keep it a lil above recommended wattage for future use. PC tech grows rapidly fast, and later hardware doesn't use less power, in most cases, it uses more. So buying with future upgrading in mind(because most people will make large-scale upgrades to their PCs about every 2-3yrs), you won't have to worry about your PSUw being an issue too much when you're making some upgrades. Most PCs, even high-end, can run on 450W-500W PSU with no probs(this varies of course). However, in the event that you do purchase some hardware that excels what you're currently running, your PC will be under powered and components can burn out/not work at all/work-and-stop/You PC may freeze repeatedly/PC may just keep shutting off/May not power up at all/PSU can even fry/fire...you get the idea. It's a risk no one wants to take, especially if you pumped money into your system.

If you have a lot more power than what you initially needed, the components in the PC will only use the amount of power they require to perform properly. So, having too much power is no real issue. Every time you add a component(extra harddrive,ram, vid card, and these newer processors - note an idle vid card can use anywhere between 20-40watts, while at full power can use 100+W), your power consumption increases. So buying a PSU that can withstand some heavy upgrades without having to be changed is the smarter move. Adding the wattage of all your components, plus 30-50% of that should give you a decent idea of where your PSUw should lie.

The more power, the better, especially if upgrading your system is a factor.


I actually haven't got my PC yet, gonna wait some more for prices to go down on quad-core systems.
I've been looking at these systems though:

http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_420?c=ca&cs=cadhs1&l=en&s=dhs
Just click on Tech Specs to see whats in it. If you scroll down to the end for the PSU it only says 375W (standard). That is very little for a powerful system isnt it?

This system looks better I think: http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_720?c=ca&cs=cadhs1&l=en&s=dhs
It says 750W for the PSU.

[sdrawkcab]

If you can afford it, option 2 seems the better choice. You're right about that. I find it hard to believe option 1 gives you 375W PSU, that's not too bad for mid-end, but I think they can do a lot better with that. I'd definitely go with option 2. Quad core, SLI, optional Physics accelerator, Blu Ray reading device choices & it's also huge, and when size is an issue with PCs, the only real problem is storage. A bigger chassis usually means more room. More room usually means easier repairing/upgrading and better air flow.

I build my own PCs, so I save money. 1: I'm not paying for labour, but only labour for the parts themselves. And 2: I purchase when there's a sale. Waiting for prices to drop/sale is a good idea. In Trinidad, PC retail and wholesale is pretty competitive, so we get more than great deals here. Maybe you can get a qualified, trusted and, or experienced techie to custom build one for you? As I've stressed before, if upgrading is your thing and you'll be doing so more than the average consumer, invest in a good PSU. But, like I say...think ahead...go with option 2 if you can.

[Valhalla]

Thanks for the info, I'll definately be going for a system similar to the 2nd option. But I'm going to wait, since the game I am most anticipating is AW, I'm going to wait until it's near release date before getting my system. Seeing how this can be as far as a year away, that kind of system should be significantly cheaper a year from now.

Right now a 3.0ghz quad-core extreme, with 4gb ram and nvidia 8800 Ultra with 768 MB, is a bit under 2000$ If i wait about another 6-12 months price should be even lower.

[=assassin=]

I now have a laptop with the following specs:

Core 2 Duo 1.66Ghz
2GB RAM
Nvidia 8600M GS 512Mb
Vista Home Premium

Would it be likely that it would run on minimum smoothly? I'm after just being able to play the game; anything else would be a bonus. :) Thanks for any reply.

[Dark River]

I'd say yes, at low settings,

[Dennis]

Hi, will Alan Wake run on medium details on my notebook?

Intel Core 2 Duo T7100 (2x1,8 GHZ)
2 GB Ram
ATi Radeon HD 2600 XT
Vista Home Premium

thx

[Maddieman]

Most people here are guessing that the minimum specs are along the lines of:

Windows Vista
Dual core processor
2GB ram
Fairly recent graphics card (1 year old?)

But that's not official. We won't know for sure until Remedy/Microsoft announce the real specs. If you're planning on upgrading, personally I'd wait until there's some concrete info.

[yogibbear]

Vista 64bit
Intel Q9450
8800gt
4gb ddr2
650W PSU

near max? or will we need the gt200/rv770 to max it out?

[Johns]

Vista 64bit
Intel Q9450
8800gt
4gb ddr2
650W PSU

near max? or will we need the gt200/rv770 to max it out?
It's either that or SkullTrail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skulltrail). Don't put too much hope on GT200/R700 - they're basically a polished dual-gpu versions of the previous generation(or at least that's what's expected).

PS: Don't get me wrong - I do expect AW to run fine on mid range PCs, it's just that if it needs more than 8800GT(X), it'll probably need more than GT200/R700 too.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

How much RAM do u need for 'optimal performance',especially under Vista 64Bit?

[Bannik]

Difficult to say, some people have excessive amounts of RAM, for example 4Gb is still considered excessive, 2Gb is considered decent at the moment, but it will change and soon 4Gb will become the norm.

"Optimal Performance", I take it you mean, top settings? Maximum resolution? I wouldn't worry about that.

If my understanding is correct, every version of Vista 64-bit above Home Premium, that's Ultimate and Business can address up to 128Gb of RAM, but seriously, nobody needs that much.

I have 4Gb in my computer, but I have thought of upgrading to 8, but I had to stop myself because I feel that 8 is going too far.

Really though you should just wait for the game to come out and read the requirements, both the minimum and recommended specifications, as far as I'm concerned if my PC falls somewhere between the two, I'm happy.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Yeah, I mean't that. Basically I am not going to update my pc for the next 2yrs, so do u think that 4GB of RAM will be enough to play future games on 'med-high' settings?Other than this can anyone suggest me a video card which will help me to play games atleast on 'medium' settings for the next 2yrs.

[Raveness]

What about RAM clock speed? Will it make much of a difference if I have, say, 667mhz DDR2 instead of 1066mhz DDR2, or even 1800mhz DDR3?

[sdrawkcab]

If the amount of RAM you have is sufficient, it won't make that much of a difference. But faster speeds equals faster access time and transfer rates.

[Bannik]

If I were you, I would be more worried about Hard Drive performance, I am.

We're reaching the stage now where Hard Drives need to be fast, especially with Windows Vista, which keeps accessing the hard drive for no apparent reason tying up the bandwidth.

The old 7200 RPM 8Mb cache hard drive just won't cut it anymore, even if it is SATA2. That's what I think anyway.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

If the amount of RAM you have is sufficient, it won't make that much of a difference. But faster speeds equals faster access time and transfer rates.

I was reading a wiki article regarding Core 2 and there they had mentioned that one needs to pair the ram according to the fsb of the processor i.e. for a 1066Mhz processor ideal ram frequency would be either 533Mhz or 1066Mhz. Moreover they had also mentioned that in some cases using a 667Mhz frequency ram for a 1066Mhz Cpu can decrease the performance. Now, I want to know that how much 'validity' is there in the statement?

[Bannik]

As far as I'm aware, the Core 2 CPU doesn't have this problem, AMD CPU's however do, because of their design.

With AMD CPU's, you need to match the speed of the RAM with the FSB of the CPU.

I admit my knowledge may be a little out of date, but the last time I bought an AMD CPU, this is the problem I had, which is one of the reasons why I switched to Core 2 Duo.

[EnixLHQ]

That statement is a bastardization of what's really going on.

Simply: Keep your ratios as close as possible.

A processor works like this: 100 MHz × 5.5 = 550 MHz. That means the FSB of this processor is 100, and the chip runs that at a 5.5 multiplier, making a 550 MHz chip. If the FSB was 133, then the total MHz would be 731.5.

Processors today run around a 1066 Mhz FSB, and have multipliers in the 2's to 3's. This cuts down on heat and has other benefits, but that's another story.

RAM works in a similar way, but without multipliers. DDR (double data rate) RAM furthermore doubles the MHz that's usually reported. So, a DDR RAM chip running at 800Mhz is really running at (you guessed it) 1600MHz.

However, if your RAM and CPU are not on the same base ratio, then for every few CPU cycles you're not talking to the RAM or the rest of the system.

I won't get into the math, but what's important to take away from this is that if you have a processor running at 1066 and RAM running at 1600, your ratio isn't in sync. You system will run fine, but from an enthusiast's point of view you should either raise your CPU's FSB or lower your RAM's FSB to start matching. 4:1 and 2:1 are considered good. I've never seen a good 1:1, so don't worry about that. Just keep the ratio at an even number.

However, Bannik's right about Intel and AMD. AMD's show a significant decrease when the ratios are at odd numbers, while Intel's do not. So, keep that in mind if you start meddling around with your system.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Thanks for the info. guys.

[Raveness]

That's pretty thorough and exactly the answer I was looking for Enix. Is there a way to tell within Windows XP what the clock speed of the FSB and the RAM are? Some sort of system information panel or does DXdiag have a tab for that, somewhere in the BIOS?

[damian069]

why do people keep talking about SkullTrail for games, last i heard it is not meant for games and did not perform very well considering its high cost.

[EnixLHQ]

That's pretty thorough and exactly the answer I was looking for Enix. Is there a way to tell within Windows XP what the clock speed of the FSB and the RAM are? Some sort of system information panel or does DXdiag have a tab for that, somewhere in the BIOS?

Um, to be honest, not sure. I don't generally rely on Windows to OC/UC my stuff.

Best bet is to visit the website of the manufacturer of your motherboard and see if there are utilities available. Or, search online for your mobo and overclocking techniques to see what you get.

To start you off, get this little gem: CPU-Z (http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php). It's free, concise, and often the best recommended monitoring tool. It should gather the info you're looking for, but it won't help you make any changes.

[EnixLHQ]

Talking about this got me to test some things out on my system, since it has been a couple years since I OCed to any real extent.

My CPU is an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 running at 1066 FB, Multiplier x9, 2.4Ghz.

My RAM is OCZ's Vista Performance RAM, 4 Gigs in 2 2Gig sticks, running at 800Mhz 5-4-4-15 1T @ 2.1 volts.

I found that if I dropped the RAM's FSB down to 266 (532), but keep the timings, I can get a 1:1 CPU to RAM ratio. This would be a very very stable system, but now I have RAM bottleneck.

My CPU overclocks very nicely. I can push the FSB all the way up to 1430 to give me a 3.2Ghz rating, and keep it very stable, but I get this high-pitched whine coming from somewhere on the motherboard.

And so, I'm back to my previously tried and true settings. Pitty. 4 core 3.2's sound nice.

[damian069]

I got a new system recently but im kind of afraid to overclock it, specially with stock cooling.

[EnixLHQ]

NEVER OC with stock cooling. Your success rate directly depends on the temperature of your CPU at the OC settings. You have to keep it low.

[Johns]

RAM works in a similar way, but without multipliers. DDR (double data rate) RAM furthermore doubles the MHz that's usually reported. So, a DDR RAM chip running at 800Mhz is really running at (you guessed it) 1600MHz.
You mean twice less, right. If you buy a DDR800MHz stick, it is really a 400MHz, being Dual Data Rate = 2 x real = effective of 800MHz.
What about RAM clock speed? Will it make much of a difference if I have, say, 667mhz DDR2 instead of 1066mhz DDR2, or even 1800mhz DDR3?
With ram volume comes first - 4GB DDR800 are better than 2GB DDR1066. If you compare equal amounts of ram - then, again, the more - the merrier.

PS: DDR is basically the same as DDR(still stands for the same thing), just with lower power consumption and different layout, so it's not a mistake to "forget" the "2".

[Raveness]

Enix, you should post the testing results you mentioned to me on chat, the thing about the 8:9 ratio you clocked to get it 1:1 and it was a negligible improvement, or something.

[EnixLHQ]

You mean twice less, right. If you buy a DDR800MHz stick, it is really a 400MHz, being Dual Data Rate = 2 x real = effective of 800MHz.

Right. But you have to be careful: Some manufacturer's will list the full DDR rate, not the internal clock.

Enix, you should post the testing results you mentioned to me on chat, the thing about the 8:9 ratio you clocked to get it 1:1 and it was a negligible improvement, or something.

I don't really want to pull this thread off topic much further than it already is (unless no one cares), but I'll go ahead and post what I found.

First thing's first, I mentioned that when I OC'ed my CPU I started to get this high-pitched whine or hiss. I checked it out with my motherboard's manufacturer, BFG, and they assured me that hiss is what's known as 'capacitator hiss', and it shouldn't effect the stability or life of my system. As such, I pushed forward and am happy to report full stability with my overclock.

So, anyway, like I said in a previous post, I have a Q6600 that's stock at 1066FSB, 2.4GHz. My RAM is OCZ Vista Performance at 4 Gigs, which runs stock at 800Mhz 5-5-5-18 2T, but is built for overclocking.

When I built the system a long time ago, I didn't bother keeping the RAM at stock. I tightened up the timings quite a bit up to 5-4-4-15 1T, pushing up the volts to 2.1 to keep it stable. The big difference to note there is that I have 4 gigs of RAM, two 2GB sticks, dual channel, running at 1T.

I decided to push my CPU this time around. 2.4 quad is nice, but I wanted a bit more. Q6600's aren't meant to truly be overclocked, and so you can not change the internal multiplier without physically modifying the chip. So, the poor man's overclock would have to do and I set out by pushing the CPU's FSB from 1066Mhz on up to an eventual 1424Mhz, with the CPU core voltage at 1.49 and the FSB voltage at 1.4 to keep it stable. This sets the CPU's total speed to 3.2Ghz. The internal bus clock on the CPU remained 356Mhz (this speed, reported by CPU-Z, is the frequency at which the CPU and the RAM talk, where as the 1066 or the 1424 is the frequency at which the CPU and the rest of the system talk).

However, at this speed, my RAM and CPU aren't very much in sync. This gave me a FSB:DRAM ratio of 8:9. And by my previous post, this is far too odd of a ratio.

This is where things get interesting and proves that there is no such thing as the overclocker's Golden Rule. Though I said that a more even ratio is preferable to an odd one (such as a 2:1 vs my 8:9), my tests didn't conclude that.

I scaled back my RAM's frequency to match my CPU's internal clock: 356Mhz, which in DDR terms is 712Mhz. Not that big of a difference from 800Mhz, right? Plus, it got me a 1:1 ratio. Theoretically, this should enable my CPU and RAM to be in constant communication and speed up the system. What I found, however, is that the lower RAM frequency bottlenecked the system.

Using 3dMark06 as a benchmark, and running each test 4 times and taking an average, here are my results. Higher number is better.

2.4Ghz CPU, FSB 1066, RAM 800, 2:3 = 11785 3dMark06 score

3.2Ghz CPU, FSB 1424, RAM 800, 8:9 = 15368 3dMark06 score

3.2Ghz CPU, FSB 1424, RAM 712, 1:1 = 14965 3dMark06 score

Every system is different.

[STEALTHGUY1986]

I am going to upgrade my video card, so can anyone tell me that which video card is best suited for a Q6600 processor??

[Johns]

I am going to upgrade my video card, so can anyone tell me that which video card is best suited for a Q6600 processor??
Gf9800GX2:p

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Lol!! I was going through some of the gamespot pages on Crysis and in one of them Crytek's CEO mentioned that the CPU and gpu should be in sync. So, that is the reason for the origin of this question:). Please help guys!!

[EnixLHQ]

Lol!! I was going through some of the gamespot pages on Crysis and in one of them Crytek's CEO mentioned that the CPU and gpu should be in sync. So, that is the reason for the origin of this question. Please help guys!!

Does he define 'in sync'? I ask because true in sync would be 1:1, and unless your CPU, FSB, and RAM are all 1066 you'd be looking at a bottleneck. Depends on your hardware.

[Johns]

Does he define 'in sync'? I ask because true in sync would be 1:1, and unless your CPU, FSB, and RAM are all 1066 you'd be looking at a bottleneck. Depends on your hardware.
LOL. The CEO meant that if you have high-end VC you should get a high-end CPU and vice versa. It would be silly to do something like this - QuadCore with integrated gpu (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_l2e0mf3CcA)

[STEALTHGUY1986]

Yeah, but is this q6600 a high-end processor??Well , compared to the rest of the quad cores it is just an entry level processor.However when compared to most of the dual cores it is a high-end processor. So by considering these facts, in which 'box' (high-end or low-end 0r mid-range) does it belong to?

[EnixLHQ]

I'd say it's firmly a high-end processor, as most systems would only have dual cores, and that there's only a couple other quad models.

[Johns]

Yeah, but is this q6600 a high-end processor??Well , compared to the rest of the quad cores it is just an entry level processor.However when compared to most of the dual cores it is a high-end processor. So by considering these facts, in which 'box' (high-end or low-end 0r mid-range) does it belong to?
I think, considering OC potential, it's definetly high-end.

[fayton]

Hey, I'm looking forward to buy a new pc, but i don't know if dual or quad, because of Alan Wake. Here is my recommend system

-Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 2x3,0GHz (maybe oc @ 3,6 GHz)
-Be Quiet! 600W
-ATI HD4870 1GB (coming the next few days)
-2x2GB Ram (1000MHz, branded product)
-S-ATA 32MB Cache Seagate 500GB
-ASUS P5Q Pro, Sockel 775 Intel P45, ATX

Will Alan Wake run on 1280x1024 with everything on very high and AA etc. on highest possible setting smooth without any bucking/jerking

I heard it will not need so much performance as Crysis. Is it right ?

And what about dual core or quad core, but the processor should not be double so expensice as the e 8400?

[damian069]

I think 1 gig of DDR5 ram is over kill at that resolution and Im not sure if alan wake is really 30% better at using quad cores. I went with the E8400.

[fayton]

hey nobody else ? please help, so that i can buy the computer

my english isn't the best so I don't know what you mean with ''over kill''

[damian069]

its un-needed, somewhat un-used. The more ram is for higher screen resolutions and at your resolution, I believe that 512 ram on yoru video card is all that is needed.

[fayton]

so you say buy the 512 MB Version that stay as long as the 1 Gig Version up to date ? mmmh okay will talk with other guys about that, but I think you are right. But I'm more sad that the users in this forum, where also i think official people of the Alan Wake developer are, who do not say anything to my question, if the E8400 is enough for the best graphics quality in 1280x1024 ?

[godot]

But I'm more sad that the users in this forum, where also i think official people of the Alan Wake developer are, who do not say anything to my question, if the E8400 is enough for the best graphics quality in 1280x1024 ?
They probably don't know. Minimum and recommended requirements are usually determined by the publisher's QA testing. After all, it's the publisher tech support who will have to guarantee those specifications.

[Zhinarkos]

Could my computer run the game on minimum settings and max fps? Can I get more graphics and still have flawless fps?

here are my specs:
Geforce 8800GTS(640Mt version)
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
4gt RAM
Windows Vista 32bit(yeah, I know 32 only supports little over 3Gt ram)

Also, do you think Alan Wake will require more or less powerful computer than Crysis? My guess is that it won't, since Crysis was way over exaggerated..

[damian069]

I think the graphics look a little half life 2-ish, problem is this thing will need massive graphics power for the shadows and dark to light type features. When you ask if you can run it include your resolution, its very important.

[khawaja007]

Hello people i've just bought a new PC...

3 GHz. Intel pentium 4 processor
2 GB RAM
512mb Nvidia Geforce 8400 GS
Windows Vista Premium Edition..

so guys wht do u think guys.. any hint or someting about how wake is gonna work on my pc...

if u can give any it will be appreciated...


thanx..

[Dennis]

Hmmm...I think your CPU and GPU are very poor...so I think Alan Wake would run on your PC on low details at best...you should pick up at least a Dual Core and a better gpu(Radeon HD 4850?).

[khawaja007]

yeah i think that my cpu needs more upgrade but i cannot do anything abt it .. its above my buget and as far as the gpu's concerned.. hmmm... for me i think it should be enough as its 512mb , it should run wake on medium details... cuz i think that if ur ram and gpu is gud than cpu isn't a big issue...

anyway thanks

[sdrawkcab]

Keep in mind, CPU and RAM go hand in hand...especially if it's SD DDR.

[khawaja007]

my ram's DD2.. n ur right a bit they both go hand in hand but its above my buget right now so maybe later....

[shwhjw]

Intel core 2 Quad core processor ~2.4 ghz
2gb of DDR3 RAM (4gb soon)
512mb ATI Radeon HD 3870
Vista, DirectX 10 :).

(sorry, just showing off :P)

[shwhjw]

sorry, double posted so now i have to find something to write in this one.

if the game's coming out Q1 2009, surely they must be starting to have ideas about the minimum/recommended specs..?

[sidetwo]

The game's coming out 'When it's Done'. There is no release date, so have no idea where you heard Q1 2009 from but it's wrong either way.

[sdrawkcab]

Is the game coming out q1 2009? Surely they must be starting to have ideas about the minimum/recommended specs..?

fixed!

[khawaja007]

hmmm... i think it will require a 512mb card to work great... and i think Ram should be 3gb for the game to work at its maximum and a quad core processor.. Wallaahhh... ;)

[Talryyn]

Larrabee GPU, 16gb ram, Nehalem CPU with 8 cores, 2tb HDD for install.... :)

[STEALTHGUY1986]

I strongly believe that when A.w. comes out the specs won't be that demanding as we are expecting it to be. Nowadays quad cores are cheap and for 199$/299$ one can get a decent video card. Not to mention the ram sticks are also cheap. So if you have a quad core processor say q6600 and a video card like say 9800GT or 4850 and atleast 2Gb of Ram , u will be able to run it on atleast med-high settings.

[Valhalla]

I haven't got my pc for alan wake yet. Going to wait until the game comes out and then buy one, since it will be cheaper than buying now.

I remember people already started buying their pc stuff for this game in like 2006, hehehe suckers.

[cubezero]

Intel core 2 Quad core processor ~2.4 ghz
2gb of DDR3 RAM (4gb soon)
512mb ATI Radeon HD 3870
Vista, DirectX 10 :).

(sorry, just showing off :P)

That's like "showing off" an ugly girlfriend, no offense.

[shwhjw]

yea, well i realise there are lots of much better computers out there. I think it's alright for a college boy who's short on cash -- i'm the only one on the course with a quad core, maybe the standards are higher here :p

[Morry]

That's like "showing off" an ugly girlfriend, no offense.
No, it's more like a good looking girl who doesn't need loads of expensive make-up to look good :P

[ancient]

That's like "showing off" an ugly girlfriend, no offense.

Are you serious? It's a decent system. Alan Wake should run fine.