I need information:Is an athlon 2000+ able to run the game?

[annihilator]

Hi everybody;excellente forum!
I want to ask you a question bout the game.I'm changing the processor because Caesar 4 can't run on my thunderbird 1333mhz and i wanted to know if an athlon 2000+ can be good for this game.The minimun requirements says i need a 2,2ghz pentium 4 or equivalent, so i'm not sure that a 2000+ could be good.Everybody has an idea or tried?
I've also 1gb ramm and radon 9600pro advantage.

[tHeCuTtEr]

Hi annihilator,

if the minimum requirements say 2,2 GHz the Athlon 2000+ isn't good for you.
Here you have a list of the CPU Names and the real Clockrate:
CPU.........Clockrate
1500+ = 1333 MHz
1600+ = 1400 MHz
1700+ = 1467 MHz
1800+ = 1533 MHz
1900+ = 1600 MHz
2000+ = 1667 MHz
2100+ = 1733 MHz
2200+ = 1800 MHz
2400+ = 2000 MHz

As you can see, the 2000+ only has 1667 MHz!

[annihilator]

but so i need at least a 2100+ or 2400+ processor?

[tHeCuTtEr]

If you wanna have 2,2 GHz you need one of the following CPU's:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ "Venice"
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ "Orleans"
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ "Windsor"

[annihilator]

2400+ gets 2ghz so it can't help me.But i can't change my mainboard so there is no way?but somebody has tried the game with an athlon xp?

[tHeCuTtEr]

I think it will work with 2 GHz but not with full graphic effects and a high resolution.

[annihilator]

infact it's what i think.I doesn't matter about the grafics,i can use the game in 800x600 or 1024 with medium\low detail, but the important is that it's gonna work

[Mr. G]

infact it's what i think.I doesn't matter about the grafics,i can use the game in 800x600 or 1024 with medium\low detail, but the important is that it's gonna work

There is Athlon 2800+ also.

[Dobber]

I actually got the game to run on a 1.33 ghz machine with 512mb ram and a nVidia 128mb FX5200, but it was on the lowest graphics settings possible and was not a pretty sight.

[Mr. G]

I actually got the game to run on a 1.33 mhz machine with 512mb ram and a nVidia 128mb FX5200, but it was on the lowest graphics settings possible and was not a pretty sight.

So there is not anythings thats prevent players from play it on slower machines?

[Dobber]

So there is not anythings thats prevent players from play it on slower machines?
Probably as the game progresses and there is more activity for the processor they would run into problems, slow choppy video for one. As you move up the line from that 1.33 ghz, you would be able to play further into the game with the lowest settings before encountering a slow down.
I personally would not purchase the game if all I had was 1.33 ghz processor, nor would I recommend anyone purchasing it if all they had was a 1.33. But I can recommend downloading the demo and trying it to see if they like the game before they go to the expense of upgrading their PC.

[Mr. G]

Probably as the game progresses and there is more activity for the processor they would run into problems, slow choppy video for one. As you move up the line from that 1.33 ghz, you would be able to play further into the game with the lowest settings before encountering a slow down.
I personally would not purchase the game if all I had was 1.33 ghz processor, nor would I recommend anyone purchasing it if all they had was a 1.33. But I can recommend downloading the demo and trying it to see if they like the game before they go to the expense of upgrading their PC.

Same here.
But it's interesting to know how it runs on different machines.

[Rodoom]

My laptop:

Pentium M @ 1.7 Ghz
512 RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 (64 MB)

And I can run the demo with the lowest settings (800x600) quite fluently. Of course I need to close all other programs in the background, otherwise it really starts to crawl.
I am not really sure if it will be able to handle the "real game" with more things going around as Dobber said...

I will upgrade my laptop, but I am waiting for windows vista to be available to get one with it, I preffer clean installations than "upgrades" from previous versions.

[numbnutz]

fraps.com (free download) will tell you what kind of fps you are getting.

on my A64 3000 w 2GB and 2x6600GT SLI slows to 9-10fps at 1024x768 with everything off when zoom into busy city.

[Rodoom]

fraps.com (free download) will tell you what kind of fps you are getting.


Well, I installed FRAPS and I get a constant 20-28 FPS during the demo, even when zooming in.

When I get the full game I will tell you my laptop behaviour.

[Ing]

Guys, the frequencies in a processor mean nothing about the performance. The system requirements listed by the devs here is the worst I have seen. An Athlon 64 3500+ is much faster than a p42.2ghz. A p42.2ghz is equivallent to a athlon xp 2200+. The processor's performance does not solely depend on the clock speed.

The AMD athlon 3200+ that was mentioned on the box that was supposed to be equivallent to the P42.2 Ghz is actually the AMD equivallent of a 3.2 Ghz P4, running more efficiently with lower clock speeds.

The recommended is 3Ghz P4 which is slower than a 2800+ A64.

[drkohler]

Hi annihilator,

if the minimum requirements say 2,2 GHz the Athlon 2000+ isn't good for you.
Here you have a list of the CPU Names and the real Clockrate:
CPU.........Clockrate
1500+ = 1333 MHz
..
.
As you can see, the 2000+ only has 1667 MHz!Once again, this MHz rumour is spreading like a wildfire...
When Anno was started to be developed three years ago, available processors were standard Intel and Athlon cpus. The conversion rate between equal processor performances is roughly Intel (MHz) = 1.35*Athlon (MHz). The reason for the "better performance" of theAMD processor is the high efficiency of the Athlon on-die MMU compared to the off-die Intel MMU. Note that this is no longer true for the modern intel chips now, but the required 2200 MHz for Anno1701 corresponds to a 1600 MHz Athlon.
You will be able to run Anno1701 just fine, but in lowest settings only.

[Mr. G]

Guys, the frequencies in a processor mean nothing about the performance. The system requirements listed by the devs here is the worst I have seen. An Athlon 64 3500+ is much faster than a p42.2ghz. A p42.2ghz is equivallent to a athlon xp 2200+. The processor's performance does not solely depend on the clock speed.

The AMD athlon 3200+ that was mentioned on the box that was supposed to be equivallent to the P42.2 Ghz is actually the AMD equivallent of a 3.2 Ghz P4, running more efficiently with lower clock speeds.

The recommended is 3Ghz P4 which is slower than a 2800+ A64.

I have also reacted over that. The intel-core dou processors is sometimes clocked to 1,8 but is far better than a amd 2800+.

[Omikronman]

2 Ghz Intel Core Duo, 2048 mbyte RAM, 667 Mhz frontside bus and a 128+ mbyte graphics system, and the result iiiiiis ... 2 frames per second when the third evoulution of people on the island is reached ... no comments needed. -.-

[Nevynswe]

2 Ghz Intel Core Duo, 2048 mbyte RAM, 667 Mhz frontside bus and a 128+ mbyte graphics system, and the result iiiiiis ... 2 frames per second when the third evoulution of people on the island is reached ... no comments needed. -.-


well, sorry to say but that would be because you have a top notch system with a really bad videocard. you need a geforce 6800 or more (or ATI equivalent which i don't really know since i own a 6800GC myself heh) with 256mb+ of video memory. with an intel core duo rig i'd even aim for a videocard in the gf7900 range :)

good videocard with slow CPU, good videocard and CPU with little RAM, good CPU with slow videocard all lead to the same thing... an imbalanced PC that won't perform as well as it could if all three things were of similar strength.

i have an AMD64 3200+ with a GeForce 6800GS 256MB and 1 gig of RAM... i can run the game with a hiccup or two on 1024x768 with all effect settings activated. on the other hand, i only have the demo (so far) so i don't really know how my system will react to big settlements.