Assassin's Creed minimum PC specs revealed

First the source: LINK and LINK

Here are the min specs:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ubisoft's support team has revealed the minimum PC specs for Assassin's Creed on the PC. The minimum specs include a Dual core processor 2.6 Ghz, 3GB recommended RAM, 256MB Direct X compliant video card, a DVD ROM dual layer drive and 12GB of space.

Assassin's Creed PC minimum specs

Supported OS: Windows XP / Vista (only)
Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)
DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive
Hard Drive Space: 12 GB
Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)

*Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
ATI RADEON X1300-1950 / HD 2000 / 3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600-6800 / 7 / 8 / 9 series

Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT supported. These chipsets are the only ones that will run this game.

NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

After trying the game on my X360.... i tell now ... GET IT!!!

Great game (if you dont like arab dont play it )

Its not yet available at systemrequirementslab.com

end...

 

Thats BS that laptop cards can't run it. That's a lie.

 

Most games say that Ps2cho. Look at the requirements to most games. It never says it won't "run".... just not officially supported.

 

So my new laptop would be able to run it on bare minimum settings?

 

Thank you Ubisoft for optimizing your games for PC *cough*

 

Yea, really....
You would think they spent the 5-6 months between releases optimizing it, but apparently they didn't really care. Luckily I've already beaten it on my 360, but I hope it runs decently on the 8600m for those who haven't played it yet

 

Any news on a demo coming out to try out and see how the game performs?

 

They never released one for the 360 so I wouldn't be too optimistic about them releasing one for the PC version.

 

You have not even seen it on PC yet. It is probably going to look much better.

The 360 version runs at 720p (possible less if it is upscaled like many games on the 360). It suffers from pop-in, stuttering and lots of little bugs (the PS3 version is even worse).

http://www.gamebrink.com/blog/2007/11/15/most-hd-game-resolutions-not-even-720p-let-alone-1080p

Plus, look at the 360 specs:
the 360 uses a 3.2 GHz CPU with three cores. You would need roughly a Core Extreme Quad to match that and a 2900XT on the GPU side. Even if the latest desktops have faster GPUs and more memory, notebooks sure don't.

Having said that, I only got to the 6th assassination on my PS3 so I am looking fowrda to completing the game on my PC.

 

Time for some crazy OVERclocking on 8600M GT baby!!!!

 

That's BS for minimum specs.

Companies should follow Blizzard and Valve's lead: great, ultra-scalable games. HL2 EP2 - constant 40FPS at WSXGA+ and high settings on the 8600m GT. Stop following Crysis and building your games for future computers.

 

Assassins Creed isn't a great game.

It is fun and entertaining at first, but after you have completed 1/5th of the game .. it's practically over, because everything is just going to repeat itself.

And the console versions weren't that diffrent, one site says the X360 looks better, the other says PS3 version looks better .. so you can't really say which looks sharper unless you have tried em both. (Also don't forget to use PS3 full power (look at the system settings) because most of the gaming sites what review PS3 games haven't looked these options.)

 

Quoted For Truth.

 

That's how I feel about it. I haven't played in weeks because it got so old. Was definitely a fun game at first though before the novelty wore off.

 

I agree. I think the Source engine still delivers excellent graphics and any game with better graphics but performs like crap has put too much focus into the graphics and not enough on the actual game. An example of this would be Crysis. While it may look good, that doesn't mean anything if you can't actually play the game. Besides that, Crysis is only mediocre at best. Call of Duty 4, on the other hand, is very well optimized. It runs maxed out w/2xAA at 1280x800 on my laptop. I think more developers should follow this model.

 

very very true
i 100% agree with lithius

!STOP MAKING GAMES FOR FUTURE RIGS!
i think we pc gamers need to protest this - just kidding

 

those requirements sound like another bad and un-optimized port.

 

There was a good point made at Digg. Instead of streaming the levels, it seems like they're loading it all into the RAM, making for the ridiculous 3 GB recommendation. Made more absurd that you may have to edit your system since a single program can only be allocated 2 GB of virtual memory.

Sad part is that it sounded like a good game, and I was wanting to try it out.

 

I bet it will run just fine even on your guys` 8600m GT. Maybe on medium, but that is still fine. We are talking about 2008 now, so stop complaining that a last yeat midrange card can`t maxx out a nowadays game.

I don`t mean to bust your bonkers, but those who got the 8600m GT knew what they were getting and the fact that the card can play even newer games is something worth considering.
I have the best last gen gpu and even though most new laptops score twice in 3dmark06 I can still play just fine any game. And I mean ANY GAME. It`s all about the drivers these days...

 

I like the unreal engine , delivers nice graphics...

 

I am with you on the 8600m being a mid end card and it's performance is exceptional. However.....

How does GF7950 gtx underscore let's say a 8600m GT which is features in new laptops.....
GF7950 gtx is a high end card and 8600m GT is a midend card, they are not comparable in terms of performance, even though 8600m GT is a newer generation most gamer still play the game in DX9 mode, (8600 can't handle DX10 decently anyways), so GF7950 gtx has an edge over 8600 being a high end card with faster mem and larger bus-width.

From Notebookcheck.net Go 7950 GTX Scores average of 5358. @1280 x 1024
From my personal experience: DDR2 - DDR3 8600 Scores around: 3200 - 3700 @1280 x 1024
Therefore, Go 7950 is superior, of course you can play fine in most games.

 

I beleive that what they mean is that while a GeForce 6800 for PC will run it (at bare minimum) the laptop version 6800m might not since it's not equivalent to the PC GeForce 6800 but a little less powerful.

They configured the game with the PC version of these cards and while they do not say that laptop cards won't work, they do point that they are not the ones they configured/tested the game with.

They are covering their ass.

 

I'm not complaining that my card can't run X game. I'm complaining because I dislike the mentality of making games and concentrating so hard on the graphics, that only future rigs can max out the settings. I wish that they would concentrate more on gameplay, while still making the game actually playable.

 

Power pc != x86 but still those requirements are insane....

 

Bah it will run flawlessly on my laptop for couple of hour... than ill probably delete it...

FEAR MY 8800M GTX!!!

 

i'm almost positive that is the recommended settings, not minimum.

 

I truley agree with you. They complain about pc-game sales being down and then make games that only computers from the future can run at a pleasent speed.

 

I think the consumers play into the developers hands when they speculate on 'how it will run' and just wind up feeding the marketing machine.

Wait for the demo and pray that the game mirrors its performance, so that we, the consumers, can have a demo that can be used to see if it will run on our machines so that we can decide to buy or not based on it's scalability to our hardware.

 

I`m too tired to search for the link, but there was a big arguement about Crysis in which I stated my opinion clearly. That game SUCKED in each and every way: gameplay(self explainatory),story(aliens and koreeans sounds like a racist joke),graphics(you need MORE THAN 3 SLI to run the game in very high , dx10 and 8xAA, since graphics is the only thing separating crysis for all other fps,and the goal is set to high...)

And about my 7950GTX, I meant that opposite to the 8600M GT which gets pretty close to play all med in crysis, as do I pretty much maks my gpu feel like a joke.Was las gen`s best gpu and a new game now will barely give me smooth framerates because of bad implementing and lack of optimisation and support? I would expect something that was the best to be better than that and feature greater support from developers...but it seems that with each new series, the old ones are brushed away. And that`s the real advantage of the 8600m GT, it`s more today.
The 7950go GTX is as of 19th Nov 2007 history.

 

Lack of support? nVidia does not support mobile cards period. That's for the manufacturers, and www.laptopvideo2go.com.

 

oh well I already have this game on my 360 . The pop-in doesnt bother me much cause it still looks amazing.

 

way to optomize ubisoft (Y)

now you see how much work the PS3/360 really does tho.

and im 100% positive it will look alot better than console versions.

 

Couldn't agree more. I was stoked about AC when I first heard about it. I've played it on XBox...meh. Looks great but if I want a movie I'll go rent a dvd.

 

It's simply coded for the consoles and not the computers...its like emulators on the computer...the better the code gets, the better the performance, less compatibility issues, more stability etc.

 

I'm sure there's settings for 2560x1600 with 16xAF and 8xAA, but a computer that can run those settings smoothly doesn't exist yet.

 

i think the xbox 360 runs a rough equivalent of the 7800GTX desktop gpu and it runs pretty darn well...so in reality anything above go 7950gtx should do fine on high settings.

 

Except the CPU is PowerPC, not x86. Porting Xbox games to PC results in a massive drop in performance. For example: Halo 2 PC and Gears of War PC were pretty faithful to the original, but they ran incredibly slow. Halo 2 didn't even look good.

 

i agree, but i think with proper optimization AC should do well in laptops. I doubt it will have the same requirements as the ridiculous Crysis. The game looks more shader heavy like Oblivion so anything that can handle oblivion should do well for AC i'd say. an 8600M GT can play Oblivion on max everything on 1280 resolution, so at these resolutions it should give pretty decent performance for AC as well no? (oblivion test done on Velocity Micro C90 Ultra with e6600, 2gb ram, 8600m gt, etc)

 

Ugh, I sense another poorly optimized PC port. But if I even wanted to get this game someday it will be for 360 anyways, because I prefer the controller for these types of games and achievement points!

 

Gears of War was not a slow port. In fact my go 7800GTX managed to run Gears of War in 1920x1200 with only some options on Medium, rest on High. That I must say is not a badly optimized game by any means.

 

get an xbox 360 then a cheap laptop ive tried AC on the 360 and its hella cool but repetitive.

im not too fond of a PC port since previous ports havent been that great. my fav halo 2 wasnt so good. =/

 

yeah those ports can be hell sometimes i just hope thy dont screw it up with this game. We all know how bad they can do, just look at resident evil 4.

 

Those must be recommended specs. No way a game like that will have minimum be a dual core 2.6 GHz CPU, 512MB video.

Considering the GeForce 6600 and ATI X1300 is officially supported tells me that the 8600m GT should run it just fine. I don't know what would be running in this game that would make it so CPU intensive, yet only require a three year old video card to run?

I don't buy these specs as minimum, but possibly recommended. Unless it is highly unoptimized, which wouldn't surprise me either.

I have an X360, but these days can't manage to run any games because wifey is always hogging the TV while watching our little one

 

yee I should be able to play it on minimum settings!
I think that I just have to wait for the M15x with 8800m gtx to come in Holland

 

Man im sick of game designers WoWing too much and caring about graphics and not caring about gameplay and patch improvement...

good old days of Diablo (one ofcourse), Starcraft, doom2... those were what you call GAMES....nowadays look at Supreme commander and all those good-for-nothing high specced games... is gaming really about graphics?! Are kids nowadays so indecent as to only care for graphics? I think not! Or else why do people still play DoTA and CS and Starcraft? COS IT'S FUN.

Ubisoft better not fail me.... I've been their proud supporter since Splinter Cell 1....and clocked every title since.

>< @ RL