Queen's Gambit system requirements

[Frans 0]

Can anyone tell me why the minimum system requirements of QG are different from ArmA's, when it's effectively just a bunch of addons and missions? I'm wondering if I'll be able to run it on my humble Radeon 9800 Pro. ArmA runs quite well, on low settings.

On the official QG website the minimum system requirements are stated as follows:

- CPU: 2.5 GHz Intel / AMD processor

- RAM: 512 MB

- Video Card: nVidia Geforce 6600GT with 256 MB RAM, Pixel Shader 2.0 or ATI Radeon x800 with 256 MB RAM & Pixel Shader 2.0

- Free HD Space: 6 GB

- Software: Windows 2000 or Windows XP and DirectX 9.0c

- For Online Play: Internet connection

- Original version of ArmA installed.

ArmA minimum system requirements from the wiki:

- 2 GHz or better Intel or AMD processor, or equivalent of.

- 512 MB of memory.

- nVidia Geforce FX with 128 MB RAM & Pixel Shader 2.0 or better or ATI Radeon 9500 with 128 MB of RAM & Pixel Shader 2.0 or better

- 5 GB of Disk space (or more as needed for downloadable add-ons)

- Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

- DirectX 9.0c

[Shadow NX 1]

Since the game itself is still the same i think you will encounter no problems if ArmA already runs ok for you.

[goodguyswearblack9 0]

Me

P4 2.5 GHZ

1 GB RAM

Radeon X1300

Do you think I can still play Arma, or will it be a mess because the CPU is the minimum?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Me

P4 2.5 GHZ

1 GB RAM

Radeon X1300

Do you think I can still play Arma, or will it be a mess because the CPU is the minimum?

The CPU will probably manage it (barely..), but the X1300 is on the very low end side...

[goodguyswearblack9 0]

Ive always played Arma with the X1300, and it's fine on low settings.

[-HUNTER- 1]

nah m8

start saving some money buy x1950pro or something, not too expensive, but good increase in playability!

I had the same card!

[Bracken 0]

I am wondering this also, as I have a 6600GT 128mb which, like others runs arma fine on low/med as long as a keep the view distance ~1100. Does anyone please notice a lower/higher framerate difference between Porto and Saharani?

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Maybe the specs were upped slightly because of the engine changes made since version 1.00? It'd make sense.

[volkov956 0]

Ive always played Arma with the X1300, and it's fine on low settings.

I have a x1600 with 256mb DDR3 in one of my systems and guess what it runs like crap ever since patch 1.08 , 1.07 and lower it ran fine tho oddly

[goodguyswearblack9 0]

I don't have the money for a new card, but am happy I can at least play on OFP settings lol.

[maruk 80]

Overall, if you are happy the way ARMA 1.08 works on your computer, Queens Gambit will run pretty same way.

We decided to move HW requirements up a bit with the expansion just to ensure people will not have unrealistic expectations about their HW.

You may be surprised how often people with on board Intel graphics or Geforce MX can buy such a game and seek for support afterwards...

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Didn't Microsoft announce a new system for their next OS (which would be Vista, was announced in like 05)? It gives you a score of your core components then an overall score, then games publishers would put the minimum required scores of each bit (like CPU, Graphics card and RAM) then u could see a more accurate description of if it'd work or not. Naturally, they didn't put it in, most likely because nobody else had the code handy for them to "aquire" and rebrand in typical MS fashion. Anyway, if they did this system these expectations of it running perfectly on the minimum requirements would be less common.

Oh and Maruk I had an MX card! The pain! It ran better than I expected though haha, I think the 1.5gb of RAM helped somewhat, but it was pretty ugly.