While it still won't operate on our trusty Macintosh Performa 5200, PC gamers with less-than-stellar rigs will be pleased to know that Valve recently lowered the
previously announced system requirements for
Left 4 Dead. Well, okay --
the only thing they lowered was the video card memory requirement from 256 MB to 128 MB, but we imagine that this will allow access to a much larger number of casually outfitted PCs. To find out if you'll be able to join in all the zombified reindeer games upon
Left 4 Dead's Nov. 18 release, check out the full list of requirements we've posted after the jump.
- OS: Windows XP, Vista, Vista 64
- CPU: 3.0GHz P4, Dual Core 2.0 or AMD64X2 (or higher)
- RAM: 1 GB for XP / 2 GB for Vista
- Disc Drive: DVD-ROM Drive
- Hard Drive: At least 7.5 GB of free space
- Video: DirectX 9 compatible video card (Video card must be 128 MB or more and should be a DirectX 9 compatible with support for pixel shader 2.0)
- Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
capt_carl @ Oct 25th 2008 7:11PM
I think that 3D card requirement is more modest than when Half Life 2 first came out.
Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 7:41PM
The VRAM perhaps, but it's like measuring CPU's by how many GHz they have - there's so many other things to take into account, and a 256MB card now could be several times more powerful than a 256MB card back in 2005.
capt_carl @ Oct 25th 2008 8:17PM
They are. The GeForce 7600GT/512 in my old computer is way faster than the old Radeon 9800XT/256.
Farius The Artist @ Dec 14th 2008 2:41PM
My system is:
Core 2 Duo 2.3 and ati radeon *1550 1gb ram and Left 4 Dead working 1024*728,anistropic filter 2*.This game very useful,ıt working all PCs.
Tom18230 @ Oct 25th 2008 7:13PM
I'm sure this won't make much difference to the graphics (a real noticeable difference anyway).
I hate it though, I built a good gaming pc for a reason but no games take advantage of my hardware. It's not even a real high spec pc (Q6600 2.4gHz, 8800GTS 640mb, 2GB RAM) but I can play every single game at 1400*900 on the highest settings (except crysis, of course). Kinda crap.
opifex @ Oct 25th 2008 7:21PM
Sorry Tom, but thats not even a gaming rig. Your graphics card is a bag of shit, the only reason you think it plays every game high is simply because you play a bunch of old games, try playing modern ones (theres plenty of games that will stress that GFX card out other than Crysis)
Also, another reason on why you think that PC is so good, is because your monitor is a bag of crap.. a "Good" gaming PC has a 20-24 inch monitor, taking upto a good Res of 1650x1050, or even 1920x1200, play a game you think your PC can handle fine on these resolutions and watch it blow up :)
Lorben @ Oct 25th 2008 7:22PM
Well, that's because 1400x900 is a pretty low resolution (for a PC anyway, 720p is 1280x720). Now if you get a monitor that allows for 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 then you'll see it choke.
SunKing @ Oct 25th 2008 7:23PM
Jesus Tom, consider yourself lucky that you can play games at the highest settings. I'm not sure what settings I'll be playing L4D at but it certainly won't be 1440*900 maxed out. Also, making games scalable to weaker hardware does not necessarily mean that the developers have held the game back graphically.
Oh and don't worry, I'm sure that soon enough there will be games out which will bring your rig to its knees so you'll have that to look forward to.
Otimus @ Oct 25th 2008 7:28PM
Jesus Christ, opifex, that's the biggest piece of crap I've read on this site all day. An 8800GTS isn't a gaming card because it's older? What sort of twisted 'tard logic is that? You're the kind of people that make PC gaming bad. HIS point is VERY valid. Hardly many games stress even mid-range hardware, and the tiny few that do, that aren't Crysis, are console ports that are poorly made.
Tom18230 @ Oct 25th 2008 7:27PM
Old games? So are TF2, Crysis, Dead Space, Age of Conan and Wacraft III (just kidding lol) old games?
How is it not a gaming pc? It's is primarily built for gaming. I can play every game that comes out at the highest settings on the monitor which suits me (20" is big enough for me, since I sit close, I don't need, nor want a bigger one).
Whatever though, I'm not going to build a complete overkill pc just so people on the internet will notice it as a "gaming pc."
Wes @ Oct 25th 2008 7:28PM
Agreed Tom. I too have a pretty nice pc. Its a shame that no games really take advantage of my hardware though.
I've always felt thats one way that consoles kind of hold us pc gamers back.
Games like COD4 are a bit developed around giving the same gameplay experience accross all platforms including the lowest common demoniator. An xbox 360 doesn't compare to my pc, let alone a Wii such as in the COD4 mutliplatform situation where the lowest common demoniator. I kind of hope that with more cpu/gpu power, better immersion might become possible or better graphics/sound. I mean, just look at what modern pcs can do for games compared to games in the 70s like pong.
Otimus @ Oct 25th 2008 7:28PM
and on top of that, the monitor comment.. it's like..
"heh.. heh.. Like.. what.. 1440x900? Oh god, that's SO Crappy! It's not the best! So it's crappy, oh my god, what a bag of crap!"
Someone should literally BEAT you with a shovel.
adamje42 @ Oct 25th 2008 7:30PM
Wow opifex, you are kind of a douche. He said himself it wasn't specced very high. Get over yourself.
Otimus @ Oct 25th 2008 7:30PM
Wes, it's not really consoles to blame for that. It's more the blame of having to work with many arrays of hardware, and most gamers having the lower end hardware to begin with. I mean, man.. plenty of people still game with 9800 Pros and FX 5200s.
Tom18230 @ Oct 25th 2008 7:34PM
Games developed for a console are easier, since there is a specific set of hardware to develop for, and you can optimise it for that hardware.
On a pc, you have to pick a lowest common denominator, and set for that. Developers don't want to make games for very high spec pc's since they feel most people don't have them. Considering the amount crysis sold, they are clearly wrong.
t3kni9e @ Oct 25th 2008 7:43PM
This is why I quit PC gaming. You guys are going on and on about how games either do not take advantage of your super fast PC while others are talking about how games on high res make your PC catch a flu. Then some of you shit on the 360/PS3/Wii because it doesn't have the same graphics as if it really matters...
What I really hate is how a computer can meet requirements and still not be able to play it at even 20fps. I can't even play WoW unless im completely zoomed in because the framerate will drop below 10. Even though WoW is an old ass game. Then there's the part where not all video cards are compatible with games.
I'll take my cheap console over your highly expensive PC anyday. Sure I won't be able to play Diablo III (assuming it's not released on console), but atleast I don't have to spend a fortune. Then again you guys are probably rich, because I would never spend 1,500 on a gaming rig when I could put that towards souping up a Mustang GT.
Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 7:45PM
I play on an x1950Pro 512MB which can't handle anything more than Low/Medium on Crysis at 1680x1050. But games like GRID, TF2, DMC4 and FC2 all run at high with 4x anti-aliasing.
So in summary, opifex is talking out of his ass when he says its not a good rig. Sure, 25% of PC gamers might have a GTX 200 series or an ATI 4xxx, but that doesn't mean any card lower than that is dogshit, because most games have much lower requirements to look good than Crysis.
Tom18230 @ Oct 25th 2008 7:48PM
I spent £800 (including case, monitor,keyboard/mouse, vista ultimate 64bit...) a year ago, probably costs £500 now. So no, you don't need to spend $1,500 on a pc to play games.
Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 7:50PM
t3kni9e, that's spurious and you know it. A rig which can max out every game (except Crysis which isn't even that good anyway, and this PC would still make it look very nice) can be had for 600 bucks.
Consider that to fully enjoy a console you need a HDTV, and you presumably had to buy a PC anyway to be able to post your flawed assumptions on the internet, and your price argument starts to get more than a little ridiculous.
PC games (here) are £25 compared to £40 console games. PC versions also get DLC free and unlike the 360, multiplayer is free and on dedicated servers.
And finally there have been no major games released in the last few years that have been incompatible with different video cards - barring awful ports of games nobody would want to play anyway.
Jeff @ Oct 25th 2008 7:57PM
Wow, I didn't bother to read most of this, but FUCK YOU HAGGARD.
That is a very good rig with extremely more power than any of the gaming consoles. I have the same videocard and I, too, can max out any modern game except crysis with nice antialiasing, 60 FPS, at 1680 x 1050.. which is superior to 720p.
Tiptup300 @ Oct 25th 2008 8:10PM
I think Crysis 1 is just a poorly coded game.
wicko @ Oct 25th 2008 9:08PM
lol, opifex is kind of a moron. Sounds like he's only just discovered the internets, LOLOLOL ANONYMOUS
Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 8:26PM
Wait, what?
Did you put the wrong name or something..?
Slayer @ Oct 25th 2008 8:28PM
Congrats Opiflex, you proved how much of a douche bag you are. You obviously have no idea what your talking aboiut. Most of the newer pc games out now float around the same system requirements. Tom's pc falls within most modern games requirements out right now and will run most of them great. Let me take a guess. The only pc's you consider to be a good gaming rig are ones that are overkill in requirements right?
Blazur @ Oct 25th 2008 8:29PM
Tom...get Dead Space. Trust me, you'll appreciate the detail that went into that game.
Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 8:32PM
I'm serious Jeff, what did I do? I'm on your side in this, Opifex is the one who said the guy's rig was bad.
Jeff @ Oct 25th 2008 8:40PM
I meant optiflex, immense apologies dude.
Mogster @ Oct 26th 2008 6:50AM
All you guys have done is prove how crappy PC gaming really is...
Haggard @ Oct 26th 2008 6:59AM
Uh, read the ones that aren't flaming the guys rig and are talking about how cheap it really is?
Bowser the Baptist @ Oct 26th 2008 7:06AM
Hag and I have already established that PC gaming is the equivalent of Beverly Hills Chihuahua, why does there have to be another flame war on this subject. It's an irrelevance.
Haggard @ Oct 26th 2008 7:35AM
Bowser, I think you should pick up a dictionary, look up 'irrelevant', head back to that comments thread and then look up the definition of 'intentional misunderstanding'.
Arzdarz @ Dec 4th 2008 5:39AM
Hmmm, your comment is really dumb. Why in the hell do you think a game producer would deprive himself of a substantial number of potential customers just to please your crappy desire?
Were you not loathsomely rich you wouldn't look forward to the time when your pc won't run games anymore...
Finally, game graphic engine can't be judged only by the stress it puts on the hardware. Grow up, little kid.
capt_carl @ Oct 25th 2008 7:47PM
to add onto the previous argument:
My old computer would choke with TF2 and other Source-based games when I bought my new 20" widescreen. 1680x1050 was too much for a Radeon 9800XT/256mb and 2gb of DDR memory. AGP8x just didn't have the bandwidth for that resolutions like those. Now my current gaming computer is a QX6700, 8gb DD2-800, and a GeForce GTX260 Core 216. It only chokes with Crysis.
MBO @ Oct 25th 2008 7:51PM
wow. an entire page devoted to one guys pc specs.
Tom18230 @ Oct 25th 2008 9:10PM
I'm honoured :)
DangerMouse @ Oct 25th 2008 9:30PM
So is your inbox.
FSK405K @ Oct 25th 2008 7:53PM
Didn't they already substantially lower the system requirements just by announcing that it would be on XBox 360?
Superstar90 @ Oct 25th 2008 8:00PM
ZING!
Mr Khan @ Oct 25th 2008 8:19PM
Console architecture always does more with less, specs-wise
Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 8:37PM
Mr Khan is right - console games are able to look really good for what they run on because the developer can focus their attention on optimising for that particular hardware.
I'm very pro-PC but this is a good advantage for consoles.
Geist @ Oct 26th 2008 3:18AM
Haggard is right, but for the wrong reasons. Consoles that do more with less because you're not splitting up system resources between the number of processes that you would be on a PC.
Premature ejaculation man @ Oct 26th 2008 4:07AM
The right reasons, but your reasons are also right.
Why can it only be right and wrong? Rather than right and right?
Sinister Rouge @ Nov 18th 2008 11:05AM
@Haggard
Pro-PC? It's not a political party for fuck's sake. I enjoy playing games regardless of the hardware they're on.
...apart from PS3, obviously.
thethirdmoose @ Oct 25th 2008 8:33PM
For about $100, you can get a 9600GT which can play crysis on very high at decent framerates with antialiasing turned off at 1680x1050... There's no reason for devs to gimp their games to suit people who refuse to upgrade.
CaramelZappa @ Oct 25th 2008 8:35PM
They are NOT gimping the game, they are just making it more accessible to more people. Just because it can support older graphics cards isn't going to make it look any worse on the new ones.
ryan @ Oct 25th 2008 11:17PM
Exactly, put the graphics on low, the game will probably move accordingly.
Put them on high, and you'll get some nice eye candy accordingly. :D
t_m @ Oct 26th 2008 4:48AM
ok... i'll send you my laptop and you work out how to jam it in there....
CaramelZappa @ Oct 25th 2008 8:33PM
It would be pretty nice if they could get it to run on the Asus N10 with its 9300 and atom processor. I know though, the processor is nog gonna cut it.
Nadril @ Oct 25th 2008 8:55PM
CPU- AMD Athalon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6ghz $60
GPU- EVGA 8600GT 256MB $40
RAM- Corsair 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 800 $45
HD- Seagate 400GB 7200RPM $50
CD/DVD- LITE-ON 16x DVD 48x CD $18
Mobo- BIOSTAR nForce 520D $49.99
CASE- Linkworld /w 400W PSU $36.99
OS- Microsoft XP OEM $90
Total: $390
There. A PC that can run pretty much any game you want out there (at least on mediumish settings) for the price of a 360. Boy PC gaming sure is expensive huh?
Nadril @ Oct 25th 2008 8:55PM
Forgot to mention, all prices @ newegg.com