Generals Specs?


Recommended Posts

this is from fileplanet

The Sneak Peek was the Multiplayer Test created in November 2002, so it not optimized and does not reflect the final retail product. To run the Sneak Peak, you MUST meet the following requirements:

- 2 Gigahertz CPU minimum

- 512 MB RAM minimum

- GeForce4, or more recent Direct3D-capable video card

These system requirements do not reflect the final system requirements for the retail game, but will be necessary to operate the Sneak Peek since it is using unoptimized code.

--------Minimum Requirements for Enlistment--------

OS- Windows 98/2000/ME/XP

Processor - 2.0 Gigahertz or Faster CPU

Memory - 512 MB RAM

Hard Drive - 1.8 GB

CD-DVD - 4 SPEED

Graphics – GeForce4 of more recent Direct3D-Capable Video Card

3D Accelerator - Direct3D* (Required)

DirectX - Version 8.1

Network - TCP/IP compliant (2-8 Players)

Internet - 56.6Kbps (2-4 Players)

Internet - Broadband (5-8 Players)

Input - Keyboard, Mouse

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-639724
Share on other sites

It ran perfectly on my system:

AthlonXP 1900+ @ ~1.5ghz

Radeon 8500 64mb DDR

256mb 2100 DDR RAM

You can only run it on one resolution, which is 800*600, so the game looked like crap on my LCD monitor with a higher native res.

Just download it and run it with the sandbox and test it out for yourself. It's a pretty good game, and i intend on buying it when it comes out.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-639774
Share on other sites

Dude, I have the Multi-Player on 2 machines at my house. And, BOTH, work fine. One is my dual P3 1.26 and the other is my little P3 733. It runs fine on both. 2 Ghz, bah! And you can install it on lower than specified machines. The multi-player install has checkboxes. If you check 'em you can install it.So, if unoptomized, Generals runs fine on my P3 733 then I don't think anyone has anything to worry about. :cool:

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-640675
Share on other sites

Well of course it takes a lot of power to run this game, think of the stuff it has to do. It has to do all the AI for ALL the individual units, rendering the scenes, explosions, sound and all the other stuff that is done off the focus area. Just pop a new CPU into your mobo, they are so cheap now anyways.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-640723
Share on other sites

Dazzla, the 800x600 limit is only in the beta. In the final version, you'll be able to chose almost any resolution.

And as for the specs I posted, and the ones on FilePlanet, the minimum specs I posted are for the retail release of the game. The specs that're listed on FilePlanet are only for the beta, and even those are overkill. They just want to make it clear that the beta might not run decently on anything lower then 2GHz, even though in most cases it'll run just fine. I ran it once on my old Duron 1gig rig, and it ran decently, although only at low detail levels.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-640800
Share on other sites

axis Posted on Feb 3 2003, 11:13

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

Well of course it takes a lot of power to run this game, think of the stuff it has to do. It has to do all the AI for ALL the individual units, rendering the scenes, explosions, sound and all the other stuff that is done off the focus area. Just pop a new CPU into your mobo, they are so cheap now anyways. 

Ok, the way to make a game run better is very simple. Get hardware that can handle the different processes and free up your proc. Graphics Cards are already doing that. Um, sound? Let's see get yourself an Audigy 2 and it'll lighten the load on your proc as well. Yes, a faster proc is always better, but they aren't as cheap as some would say. I mean I just got my 2 P3 1.26 Ghz Procs with the 512KB Cache and man, they were still, with my company discount, $164/proc. I can understand the need for a better proc in most cases because do to the fact that this game is one of the first to be able to do the Cinematic Computing Mumbo Jumbo that Nvidia has been touting, but even with that in hand, I still belive that a 700Mhz will do for a final code release of Generals. The reason I belive this? Very simple, WC3 came out and it has alot of graphical operations in it, but it's minimum sys req. was I think a 450? Maybe a little less or more. But then you get UT2K3, it needed a minimum 733 Mhz. Again, with that game, my little P3 733 was playing on a graphical and performance lvl higher than what you would have thought. Now, maybe that's just because I know how to configure my rig, but still. I'm sure that a machine with a 700 Mhz proc will handle it. I mean come on read my post above. I got my 733 Mhz P3 running the online Multiplayer Demo and it said it needed a minimum proc ok 2 Ghz! I do belive that I trashed those specs. Granted when I start the game up, the title screen comes up with a box that says my system does not meet the requirements but all I have to do is click ok and the rest is play time. My lod times are about 2 seconds behind everyone else online in the game. Which tells me that maybe some other people are playing on not so efficient machines or on machines like me. But regardless, I really think everyone is getting worked up for no reason. :)

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-641049
Share on other sites

Gees Unreal Tournament runs pretty well on my Mates comp and hes only got a PIII 1GHZ, GeForce3, and it runs pretty reasoable

this game Looks like it requres about 1/3 the power that UT2003 does. Im willing to bet 1/10th my credibility that this game is moooore then playable on a 1GHZ system, with a geForce 2.

Cant wait for its release but.

Is it Feb 13th/?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-654804
Share on other sites

this game Looks like it requres about 1/3 the power that UT2003 does. Im willing to bet 1/10th my credibility that this game is moooore then playable on a 1GHZ system, with a geForce 2.

Is it Feb 13th/?

no way in hell this game could be playable with a geforce 2 no matter what processor speed...

the thing lags somewhat (when ya have a huge army) with a 2.6 533fsb and rdram and a ti4200

I want a 9700

but no Generals is supposed to be in stores Tuesday the 11th

where is Splinter Cell? :p

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-654879
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll try to be a little helpful here:

The minimum required system specifications to run Command & Conquer Generals is as follows:

? OS: Windows XP/ME/2000/98 (Windows 95/NT not supported)

? CPU: 800 MHz Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon processor

? RAM: 128 MB

? CD/DVD-Rom Speed: 8x

? Hard Drive Space: 1.8 GB free hard disk space plus space for saved games, Windows swap-file, and DirectX 8.1

? Video: 32 MB AGP video card using the Nvidia GeForce 2, ATI Radeon 7500, or more recent chipset with DirectX 8.1 compatible driver

? Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible PCI 16-bit sound card

? Input: Keyboard, Mouse

Additionally, the following specifications are required for multiplayer:

? 256 MB RAM for 3-8 players

? One set of game discs per player. Disc 1 and Disc 2 cannot be used simultaneously for multiplayer games.

? Internet (2-4 players): 56Kbps or faster direct Internet connection

? Internet (5-8 players): Cable, DSL, or a faster direct Internet connection

? Network (2-8 players): TCP/IP compliant network

Recommended system specifications:

? CPU: 1.8 GHz or faster Intel Pentium IV or AMD Athlon processor

? RAM: 256 MB or more

? Video: Nvidia GeForce3 or better Direct3D capable video card

Note: Some PCs equipped with the VIA KT133a chipset might encounter problems with Command & Conquer Generals.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/62870-generals-specs/#findComment-656325
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!