What spec PC do you reckon will be required to run EHM 2007?

BlackCats101 · Post by **BlackCats101** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:48 pm

As I only have an AMD Athlon 64 1.8ghz I am fearing the next relaese of FM 2007/EHM 2007. The current versions both run fine on mine for now, but they will be pushing for upwards of 2.2ghz processors to run soon. Are there any easy updates for the Processor speeds to speak of, or does ny such upgrade require serious work on the PC? Or is all of this unnecessary?

Elias26 · Post by **Elias26** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:52 pm

Is there a relese date for the 07 version yet? I think it will run slow on your current system but it should still work because as far as I know It's basicaly the same game.

RdeceKrilo · Post by **RdeceKrilo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:54 pm

BlackCats101 wrote:As I only have an AMD Athlon 64 1.8ghz I am fearing the next relaese of FM 2007/EHM 2007. The current versions both run fine on mine for now, but they will be pushing for upwards of 2.2ghz processors to run soon. Are there any easy updates for the Processor speeds to speak of, or does ny such upgrade require serious work on the PC? Or is all of this unnecessary?

EHM needs a lot or RAM, how much do you have now ?
As for the processors .. it depends on your motherboard.Read the manual and find out what processors are supported by it.You can just upgrade processor if you are lucky enough or you must upgrate your motherboard and processor and/or RAM if you are not.

BlackCats101 · Post by **BlackCats101** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:58 pm

I've got 512mb, 120GB Hard Drive

Post by **Alessandro** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:07 pm

If you have the occasion i'd suggest to invest in some RAM memory

Elias26 · Post by **Elias26** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:08 pm

RdeceKrilo wrote: EHM needs a lot or RAM, how much do you have now ?
As for the processors .. it depends on your motherboard.Read the manual and find out what processors are supported by it.You can just upgrade processor if you are lucky enough or you must upgrate your motherboard and processor and/or RAM if you are not.

Basicaly it would probably be easyer getting a Dell or somthing. I would make the HD in you pc now a secondary drive...

Post by **archibalduk** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:15 pm

I wouldn't expect the required specs to shoot up too much in the next version. The reason FM needs so much computer power is because it has so many teams and players meaning that many more fixtures need to be simulated in the background.

EHM has a fraction of the number of teams and players so I wouldn't worry about the system requirements too much.

Post by **archibalduk** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:16 pm

I have 448mb RAM and a Celeron 2.2Ghz (it's a laptop) - EHM flies on it.

Octavian · Post by **Octavian** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:41 pm

Should do the job. Intern "flashy"

memory is the most important for EHM. However with 512 you're quite safe, but I would advice you to put another 512 for the future

.

Also very important is to have a PC clean of spyware, spyware usually slow down your PC.

Don't worry my friend, I don't think Riz is planning to make a 3D simulaton engine for next release

Fortune · Post by **Fortune** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:02 pm

now Im playing EHM on PIII 866Mhz, 256 ram

Post by **joehelmer** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:08 pm

I'm playing EHM on a Pentium 4 2.80 GHz and 0.99 RAM

BlackCats101 · Post by **BlackCats101** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:52 pm

If I won the lottery one of the first things I would buy would be the ultimate gaming PC....
The problem is that the technology is moving so fast that it would start to depreciate in value almost instantly...*sigh*

Post by **archibalduk** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:44 pm

I think if you got something top spec then it would probably last for a rather long time. 2Ghz PCs have been out for years and they're still more than adequate. Also, Radeon 9800s have been around for at least four years and can run the vast majority of games at very high quality.

I wonder how the introduction of Windows Vista will affect the development of PCs. I think it could drive down prices because it's going to be quite demanding in the way of RAM and graphics.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 pm

I've had my 2.4 GHz Pentium machine for about 3 years or so now and it's still powerful enough to handle any game I come across. The only things I've done to it have been adding RAM and a 2nd hard drive. RAM requirement tend to go up over time (I remember when I wanted to go from 4 MB to 8MB but held off for a long time because it cost so much). For most games (not an EHM type of game though) the important thing is your graphics card. You've got to have a good one to play many of the newer games. I got mine with a 256MB geforce card and it's done me fine.

Mairosu · Post by **Mairosu** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 pm

AMD Athlon 2400 XP/512 RAM here. It flies, I finish a season in one day usually.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:14 pm

You finish a season in a day? How the heck do you do that? Do you just got on vacation and leave it until the next day?

noctambulist · Post by **noctambulist** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:30 pm

BlackCats101 wrote:As I only have an AMD Athlon 64 1.8ghz

The beauty of the Athlon 64 is that the motherboards are no different for any 64bit processor. So you can even get an X2 dual core and plop it right in. Double check it on the motherboard's web site, but the pin structure is the same for all of them and you should have no problem.

But as other's have said, this game is probably more RAM and actually HD heavy (these save game files are HUGE).

The funny thing is, I just recently built my own gaming PC, and now I play mostly EHM which doesn't even make my machine sweat.

BlackCats101 · Post by **BlackCats101** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:35 pm

Is it also unfair to compare processor speeds (eg ghz) between Pentium and AMD processors?

noctambulist · Post by **noctambulist** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:49 pm

No, I would say that it is fair to compare processor speeds between AMD and Intel. It would be a valid comparison between an AMD 2.5ghz processor and a Pentium 2.5ghz just for example. Though it gets a little more complicated when you start talking about the differences between Celeron, Pentium, Itanium, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, and Sempron chips. There are differences and advantages of all of them, but it is a much more accurate comparison than say Intel and the Mac Motorola chip for example where processor speeds vary greatly.

My personal opinion though is that with AMD you get more bang for your buck. But I wouldn't criticize anyone for going with Intel, especially if you are looking at buying a brand new system.

noctambulist · Post by **noctambulist** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:02 pm

noctambulist wrote:No, I would say that it is fair to compare processor speeds between AMD and Intel. It would be a valid comparison between an AMD 2.5ghz processor and a Pentium 2.5ghz just for example.

Actually, I'm not correct on this. What I should clarify is the a AMD Athlon 64 3500 is equivalent in speed to a Pentium 4 3.5ghz. The actual speed of the Athlon 3500 is 2.2ghz which is slower but the processing power is equal or more than the Pentium. So the "3500" number is what you compare to the Pentium to compare the processor speeds not the actual ghz speed.

Sorry for the confusion - just wanted to clarify this.

BlackCats101 · Post by **BlackCats101** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:13 pm

Mine is an AMD Athlon 64 3000+......But if it says 1.8ghz surely this is the speed I have to take it for when examining required PC Spec for games etc....Most game cases only give the Pentium Speeds required as well...

Post by **E5150_ca** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:49 pm

BlackCats101 wrote:Mine is an AMD Athlon 64 3000+......But if it says 1.8ghz surely this is the speed I have to take it for when examining required PC Spec for games etc....Most game cases only give the Pentium Speeds required as well...

Techno babble:

Intel's Pentium 4 and Xeon chips use a technology called Netburst, which uses either 20 or 31 pipeline stages. This means that a single thing, such as "Add A to B and store the results in A" is broken down into 20 or 31 separate stages. The same workload on any AMD64 chip (Athlon 64 or Opteron) takes 12 stages. This means that in order for an Intel processor to add A to B and store the result in A, it has to do 20 or 31 things. For AMD to complete the same workload, the processor only has to do 12 things.

This is why an AMD chip operating at 2.8GHz processes data faster than an Intel chip running at 4.0GHz. Even though the Intel chip is going faster in MHz, it is doing less work per clock cycle. This results in more clock cycles being required to produce the same results, and therefore its net output is something less than the MHz value alone would indicate.

Non-techno babble:

It boils down to a design tradeoff. Do you want to do less work at a faster pace(Intel), or more at a slower pace(AMD)?

If anyone needs more clarification I can try and explain it more.

Post by **timmy_t** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:30 am

The intel chips run pretty hot too.

noctambulist · Post by **noctambulist** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:29 pm

BlackCats101 wrote:Mine is an AMD Athlon 64 3000+......But if it says 1.8ghz surely this is the speed I have to take it for when examining required PC Spec for games etc....Most game cases only give the Pentium Speeds required as well...

AMD named their processors like the Athlon 64 3000+ in a way so that you could compare them to Intel. Though your processor is a 1.8ghz, you use the 3000+ number when examining required PC specs when they only give Intel numbers. So in essence, your 1.8ghz processor is similar to a 3.0ghz Pentium processor. If a game were to require a 2.0ghz (Intel) processor, you would be well over the spec to run it with an AMD Athlon 64 3000+.

Post by **archibalduk** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:45 pm

I found this page from Wikipedia about the differences between the two. Basically, there's more to a CPU's speed than GHz. Whilst the AMD chips don't have as a high a clock speed, they make up for speed in other ways. As E5150_ca explained (but to a much higher level than me

).

What spec PC do you reckon will be required to run EHM 2007?

What spec PC do you reckon will be required to run EHM 2007?

Re: What spec PC do you reckon will be required to run EHM 2

Re: What spec PC do you reckon will be required to run EHM 2

Re: What spec PC do you reckon will be required to run EHM 2