good thing I got a crappy 17" LCD monitor.

will I be able to?...

I got
4.00 GB of RAM or memory
64-bit Operating system
AMD athlon X2 dual Processor 5400+ 2.80 GHz(not sure exactly what it is... but...)
Radeon HD 4670

tell me if you need to know something else?

cem_ea_id.Mlgdude wrote:

MAIN.PettingZooponyP wrote:

cem_ea_id.BoycottMW2 wrote:9800 GT 512MB
AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core 5000+(2.6 ghz)
4 gigs of ram
Windows Vista 64 bit


I should be able to run it at high settings.

How are you going to run at high settings when you only have a dx10 video card? To run this on medium to high you are probably going to need a quad with a 5770 with 1gb vram and if you want resolutions higher than 1680x1060 or 1920x1080 prepare to get something nicer than that. They have stated current gen equipment will not be able to run this game flat out.

Source?

Go dig through the 50 pages of * that are on these forums now asking the same damned thing its in there somewere. Also think about it if you want to run this game on high you do need DX11 capable hardware, DX10 will be medium spec and DX9 will probably the lowest settings.

would i be able to run it with 4GB ram, Gigabyte GTX260 (Nvidaia) and a Intel Core Duo E6850 @ 3.00ghz

I have a Dell with a P4 3Ghz, 2 Gig Ram, and planning on getting a Radeon 9550 256mb Vid card( because that is the highest my motherboard supports). I run Fallout3 fine as well as MW1 with a Radeon 1300 512mb card now, but the 1300 will not run CoD:WaW nor MW2.Will a 9550 run, or have a chance of running, BFBC2?

I guess everybody will have to wait until December, or January. Only once people start running this game will we have a good idea of what will run it decently. I've heard you will need a beastly computer to run it on highest settings, so we will have to wait and see.

How good will this, or at all, run bc2? please give an aswear from 0 to 10. where 0 is cant run the game=)
I run ArmA2 at medium with no lagg

Processor Information:
Vendor: AuthenticAMD
Speed: 2109 Mhz
3 logical processors
1 physical processors
HyperThreading: Supported
FCMOV: Supported
SSE2: Supported
SSE3: Supported
SSSE3: Supported
SSE4a: Supported
SSE41: Unsupported
SSE42: Unsupported

Network Information:
Network Speed:

Windows Version:
Windows XP (32 bit)
NTFS: Supported

Video Card:
Driver: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
DirectX Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version: 6.14.11.7813
DirectX Driver Version: 6.14.11.7813
Driver Date: 17 Sept 2008
Desktop Color Depth: 32 bits per pixel
Monitor Refresh Rate: 60 Hz
DirectX Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
VendorID: 0x10de
DeviceID: 0x640
Number of Monitors: 1
Number of Logical Video Cards: 1
No SLI or Crossfire Detected
Primary Display Resolution: 1280 x 1024
Desktop Resolution: 1280 x 1024
Primary Display Size: 13.27" x 10.63" (16.97" diag)
33.7cm x 27.0cm (43.1cm diag)
Primary Bus: PCI Express 16x
Primary VRAM: 1024 MB
Supported MSAA Modes: 2x 4x 8x


Sound card:
Audio device: Realtek HD Audio output

Memory:
RAM: 2046 Mb

Miscellaneous:
UI Language: English
Microphone: Not set
Media Type: DVD
Total Hard Disk Space Available: 194466 Mb
Largest Free Hard Disk Block: 27009 Mb
Steam Hard Disk Usage: 36989 Mb
OS Install Date: nov 11 2008
Installed Packages: Firefox

seriously u guys are so optimistic with your systems, I doubt the game will even run smooth at minimum according to these specs,well excluding the owners of hd 4870 or GTX 260, these guys should be able to play it well enough.
As for me my system is good enough to max the game out and even turn on the aa,however, I suspect I will also have some fps dips down to 40 or something. my specs are:
cpu: AMD Phenom 2 x4 955 Quad Core, Black Edition - 3.2 ghz
Graphics- 2x Radeon HD 4890 from sapphire Crossfired and overclocked - 1GB each card
RAM- 6GB DDR3 1333Mhz ram
OS:Win Vista 64 bit Ultimate
HDD- 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black, 32mb cache, 7200rpm
Powersupply - Corsair HX 1000W
Case - NZXT Tempest

cem_ea_id.NightHawkAZE wrote:seriously u guys are so optimistic with your systems, I doubt the game will even run smooth at minimum according to these specs,well excluding the owners of hd 4870 or GTX 260, these guys should be able to play it well enough.
As for me my system is good enough to max the game out and even turn on the aa,however, I suspect I will also have some fps dips down to 40 or something. my specs are:
cpu: AMD Phenom 2 x4 955 Quad Core, Black Edition - 3.2 ghz
Graphics- 2x Radeon HD 4890 from sapphire Crossfired and overclocked - 1GB each card
RAM- 6GB DDR3 1333Mhz ram
OS:Win Vista 64 bit Ultimate
HDD- 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black, 32mb cache, 7200rpm
Powersupply - Corsair HX 1000W
Case - NZXT Tempest

thats a good computer, lols.
but crysis has better graphics than bfbc2 by the look of it, just not the destruction, do you think a duel core 3.00 ghz processor could run it? with my gtx260/4gb ram?

nfs.wolfvision wrote:

cem_ea_id.NightHawkAZE wrote:seriously u guys are so optimistic with your systems, I doubt the game will even run smooth at minimum according to these specs,well excluding the owners of hd 4870 or GTX 260, these guys should be able to play it well enough.
As for me my system is good enough to max the game out and even turn on the aa,however, I suspect I will also have some fps dips down to 40 or something. my specs are:
cpu: AMD Phenom 2 x4 955 Quad Core, Black Edition - 3.2 ghz
Graphics- 2x Radeon HD 4890 from sapphire Crossfired and overclocked - 1GB each card
RAM- 6GB DDR3 1333Mhz ram
OS:Win Vista 64 bit Ultimate
HDD- 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black, 32mb cache, 7200rpm
Powersupply - Corsair HX 1000W
Case - NZXT Tempest

thats a good computer, lols.
but crysis has better graphics than bfbc2 by the look of it, just not the destruction, do you think a duel core 3.00 ghz processor could run it? with my gtx260/4gb ram?

It should easily run it, and to the guy saying most of the systems wont run it on minimum you are crazy, my 9800 should easily run it at medium-high settings.

cem_ea_id.BoycottMW2 wrote:

nfs.wolfvision wrote:

cem_ea_id.NightHawkAZE wrote:seriously u guys are so optimistic with your systems, I doubt the game will even run smooth at minimum according to these specs,well excluding the owners of hd 4870 or GTX 260, these guys should be able to play it well enough.
As for me my system is good enough to max the game out and even turn on the aa,however, I suspect I will also have some fps dips down to 40 or something. my specs are:
cpu: AMD Phenom 2 x4 955 Quad Core, Black Edition - 3.2 ghz
Graphics- 2x Radeon HD 4890 from sapphire Crossfired and overclocked - 1GB each card
RAM- 6GB DDR3 1333Mhz ram
OS:Win Vista 64 bit Ultimate
HDD- 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black, 32mb cache, 7200rpm
Powersupply - Corsair HX 1000W
Case - NZXT Tempest

thats a good computer, lols.
but crysis has better graphics than bfbc2 by the look of it, just not the destruction, do you think a duel core 3.00 ghz processor could run it? with my gtx260/4gb ram?

It should easily run it, and to the guy saying most of the systems wont run it on minimum you are crazy, my 9800 should easily run it at medium-high settings.

you sure? my gtx260 lags on MW2 OCCASIONALLY, not often but it spikes. probably the matchmaking lols, on Crysis multiplayer its smooth, maxed out, 1600x1050. Imo I would be able to run this with my CPU working harder than normal but the Beta should FINGERS CROSSED!! be out soon, so we will see. minimum specs please DICE/EA!

After playing the ps3.. if you have equivilent hardware standards (IE Low).. you should get 30-40fps in a 1080P resolution .. obvjously none of us are going to play like that on our PC.. so upscaling the Res to something decent and getting the FPS going well will at a thought require a core 2.... 2+ gig ram and and 260+ or so (Remmeber it supports DX11, which is more resourve hungry but way pretier.. You could run the faster DX9 ?? does it support 9 ? ... which should blaze on some of the middle hardware.

Personally I am going to run W7, DX11, 280 (or better card) with 4gig (just to be sure).. But if it plays even half as good as the ps3 version its going to be awesome..

That said.. the balance seems to be pretyt good atm.. snipers are effective but require skill (the mouse is going to make sniping easier).. which will be something they will need to balance.. other than that..i am looking forward to PC beta.. (my preorder is in).. till then the ps3 is going to get smashed

cem_ea_id.Drathuu wrote:After playing the ps3.. if you have equivilent hardware standards (IE Low).. you should get 30-40fps in a 1080P resolution .. obvjously none of us are going to play like that on our PC.. so upscaling the Res to something decent and getting the FPS going well will at a thought require a core 2.... 2+ gig ram and and 260+ or so (Remmeber it supports DX11, which is more resourve hungry but way pretier.. You could run the faster DX9 ?? does it support 9 ? ... which should blaze on some of the middle hardware.

Personally I am going to run W7, DX11, 280 (or better card) with 4gig (just to be sure).. But if it plays even half as good as the ps3 version its going to be awesome..

That said.. the balance seems to be pretyt good atm.. snipers are effective but require skill (the mouse is going to make sniping easier).. which will be something they will need to balance.. other than that..i am looking forward to PC beta.. (my preorder is in).. till then the ps3 is going to get smashed

would my gear be good enough?
gtx 260 4gb ram 3.00ghz processor, duel core. on dx9, windows xp @ 1600x1050.

i should probably get a new processor, dx11 would be good but xp does me well.