Is Systemrequirementslab.com accurate?

[plantation]

Hey guys, I was wondering if the website http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/intro.aspx is accurate. My problem is that I'm getting mixed responses for how my computer will handle Guild Wars 2; this website is saying that I pass the minimum system requirements by a fairly large margin, but other people are saying I'll barely make the cutoff. Other people are saying I can play on high settings, not at all, etc. etc. etc.

So anyways, does this website give me a good idea of how well I'll be able to play the game, or does it have a history of being inaccurate?

[illinivb7]

I mean you can look at the min specs and compare your specs to it. In general I would trust the website as it is simply comparing your specs to the min specs vs the apparently uneducated opinion of others as there is no way you can either not play it, or play it on high with the same system.

[plantation]

My issue is with the video card. I have no idea if a GTX 7800 (for example) is better than what I have. Using a Radeon HD 6450 at the moment.

[Deleted]

It gives a very general indication that can point you in the right direction, but view it only as an estimate.

Best way is always to try, either with a demo or a free trial. Second best is to check for benchmarks with your CPU and GPU and make an estimate from there. Thirdly, ask people with equal or similar setups.

Also, take a look at the system requirements.

[Deleted]

I believe the website was designed as to give you a general idea of what you should expect when running a certain game. Yes, it does have it's mistakes, for example it recently started reading my video card to be 1g when I only have 512mb, some time ago it told me I could run certain games flawlessly when I clearly couldn't etc.

I still use the website though, flaws and all. But if you don't trust it you can always google GW2's minimum system requirements and see if your machine can run it

[Asmekiel]

I always have one problem with "minimum system requirements". They never state the resolution it applies to. Is it 1024x768, or is it 1920x1080 or something else...

[Deleted]

The site simply compares your specs to the ones officially listed by the developers.

The thing is, developers like to advertise the lowest possible system specs while users have very different minimal standards.

I'm not sure of the stance now, but WoW only required a Pentium 4 with 1.3 Ghz at some point with 1GB of RAM. But while it might be possible to launch, it would be virtually impossible to play the game on such a system.

On the other hand some user may consider anything below full-HD and 40 FPS unacceptable.


So take those minimum requirements with a pinch of salt. They might refer to a 800x600 resolution when standing alone staring a wall.

[openair]

My issue is with the video card. I have no idea if a GTX 7800 (for example) is better than what I have. Using a Radeon HD 6450 at the moment.

Well you should read the rest of the video card requirements. It also lists X1800, another ATI card. So yes, a HD 6450 > X1800.

But looking at benchmarks for Radeon HD 6450, they are similar generation to the Intel HD 3000 (which is listed as a minimum video card by GW2). This is probably why people are saying you 'barely' make the cut off. Your video card is comparable (yours is better though) to a video card that is on the minimum requires.

[Milkshake86]

Well you should read the rest of the video card requirements. It also lists X1800, another ATI card. So yes, a HD 6450 > X1800.

But looking at benchmarks for Radeon HD 6450, they are similar generation to the Intel HD 3000 (which is listed as a minimum video card by GW2). This is probably why people are saying you 'barely' make the cut off. Your video card is comparable (yours is better though) to a video card that is on the minimum requires.

X1800 is not a GTX 7800, soo yea. 6450 is below the spec of a gtx 7800.

[openair]

X1800 is not a GTX 7800, soo yea. 6450 is below the spec of a gtx 7800.

No, X1800 is not a GTX 7800... I never said it was. The X1800 is an ATI card. The GTX 7800 is an nvidia card. I was pointing out comparing his 6450 to a GTX 7800 was pointless when GW2 also lists an ATI card as well (X1800)... And no a Radeon HD 6450 (a 2011 card) is not below a GTX 7800 (a 2005 card).

[Bluedragonwolf]

The site only really compares your current specs to those listed by the developers as their minimum requirements. Minimum requirements doesn't always mean satisfactory in it's playability though. If you're looking for 60fps, steady and all the time, yeah, you're not going to get that.

An HD 6450 (and please correct me if I'm wrong here someone), is just a step above an integrated graphics card. It's a recent card though, which works in your favor.

If you're really interested though, you can look up some info on how GPU's work. Lots of good info that might clear some stuff up for you. I don't know if they do it, but nVidia and AMD *might* have some info on their sites on how to compare their cards (eg, compare one AMD with another AMD).

[vesseblah]

So anyways, does this website give me a good idea of how well I'll be able to play the game, or does it have a history of being inaccurate?

CYRI compares your PC to the specs listed in the back of the game box and the game will start with that hardware, but it's probably not playable by any meaning of the word. WoW's minimum requirements for example are a bad joke. You can do questing at 10fps with every setting at the absolute minimum with those specs, but battlegrounds, raids or instances is never gonna happen.

If you can accept the fact that you can do solo content at lowest settings, then yes, you can run GW2. But if your computer is from the era of GT7800, it really is way way too ancient to ever survive group events for example, or instances, or PvP.

[Dedweight]

The site only really compares your current specs to those listed by the developers as their minimum requirements. Minimum requirements doesn't always mean satisfactory in it's playability though. If you're looking for 60fps, steady and all the time, yeah, you're not going to get that.

You might get 60fps if you meet the minimum requirements, would probably require a good bit of tweaking of the settings(including editing the configuration file to get lower than the in game low) but you might be able to get it. Would I expect you to get 60fps in a game on a system that barely meets the minimum? Not at all, in fact I'd probably be hard pressed to believe you are getting 20fps on Low in most games if you barely met them.

As far as the website goes it's generally accurate if you look strictly at the game requirements vs your system specs, beyond that the graph that shows how far above or below you are from the minimum/maximum requirements means almost nothing.

[Milkshake86]

No, X1800 is not a GTX 7800... I never said it was. The X1800 is an ATI card. The GTX 7800 is an nvidia card. I was pointing out comparing his 6450 to a GTX 7800 was pointless when GW2 also lists an ATI card as well (X1800)... And no a Radeon HD 6450 (a 2011 card) is not below a GTX 7800 (a 2005 card).

Are you really that naive to think that an older GPU can't decimate a new GPU? 7800 is an older mid to high end performance card, where as the 6450 is a DvD watching card, the 7800 is better and seriously not by a whole lot but sorry bud age does not equate to losing in this situation.

[Unknown User]

I always have one problem with "minimum system requirements". They never state the resolution it applies to. Is it 1024x768, or is it 1920x1080 or something else...

Generally it's what you need to run the game at the lowest settings. So the lowest resolution the game supports.

As for the graphics card.. I was running the latest beta weekend with a GTX 9800 because my 560 broke down. I could run at high settings at 1680x1050 but at 1920x1080 the fps was very low on all gfx settings. Not really sure how a 9800 compares to a 6450 though.

[Deleted]

not even close to accurate. It says I can't run MW3 for example. But I can run it on medium without any problems. Not only this also max payne, crysis, etc etc

[Milkshake86]

not even close to accurate. It says I can't run MW3 for example. But I can run it on medium without any problems. Not only this also max payne, crysis, etc etc

Resolution? 1064x768? Always keep in mind when games come out they are usually speaking of the requirements to power the current "normal" resolution. During the crysis(wars) era 1600x900 was pretty popular and 1920x1080 coming into the forefront, now its all about 1920x1080. If your running sub 1600x900 your probably going to have minimal problems running any game w/ even an older gpu and cpu.

---------- Post added 2012-08-20 at 04:27 PM ----------

Generally it's what you need to run the game at the lowest settings. So the lowest resolution the game supports.

As for the graphics card.. I was running the latest beta weekend with a GTX 9800 because my 560 broke down. I could run at high settings at 1680x1050 but at 1920x1080 the fps was very low on all gfx settings. Not really sure how a 9800 compares to a 6450 though.

6450 is miles behind a 9800.