SimCity 4 System Requirements
Roch, NY Roadgeek
Requirements for the new SimCity 4. I bought the game today, and
while I have not played it yet I thought I would post the System
Requirements as they are listed in the SimCity 4 instructions.
Mininum Requirements:
Windows 98 and above running a 500MHz Pentium III or AMD Athlon
processor.
128 MB of RAM.
8x CR-ROM.
1 GB free HDD space plus space for saved games and Direct X install
(if neccessary).
16 MB video card with DirectX 7.0 compatible driver. 3D accelerated
mode requires a 16MB Direct 3D capable video card.
DirectX 7.0 compatible sound card.
Recommended:
1GHz Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon processor.
256 MB RAM.
32MB Direct 3D capable video card with Direct 7.0 compatible driver.
May not get any serious playing time in until this weekend. I post
some thoughts on the game in the future.
Cody Goodman
quite slow and difficult to play.
Even people with 2.0 GHz machines complain of the game lagging along.
"Roch, NY Roadgeek" <drp...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2a10cfd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
Sherman Cahal
news:_7A0a.3010$1q2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> You'd better meet the recommended requirements, or else the game will be
> quite slow and difficult to play.
>
> Even people with 2.0 GHz machines complain of the game lagging along.
It does lag along with my 2.2 GHZ system with 512 MB of RAM. I had to
purchase another graphics card because the one that came with my Sony was
not compatable. Study (and write) down the names of those graphics card and
study them carefully, because those are the only ones that Sim City 4 *will*
support. If you have the incorrect card installed, then the game will not
run (and display no message).
--
Sherman Cahal
Author of Ohio River Valley Roads,
http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads
> "Roch, NY Roadgeek" <drp...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2a10cfd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> > Some other groups have said they could not find the System
> > Requirements for the new SimCity 4. I bought the game today, and
> > while I have not played it yet I thought I would post the System
> > Requirements as they are listed in the SimCity 4 instructions.
> >
> > Mininum Requirements:
> >
> > Windows 98 and above running a 500MHz Pentium III or AMD Athlon
> > processor.
> > 128 MB of RAM.
> > 8x CR-ROM.
> > 1 GB free HDD space plus space for saved games and Direct X install
> > (if neccessary).
> > 16 MB video card with DirectX 7.0 compatible driver. 3D accelerated
> > mode requires a 16MB Direct 3D capable video card.
> > DirectX 7.0 compatible sound card.
> >
> > Recommended:
> >
> > 1GHz Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon processor.
> > 256 MB RAM.
> > 32MB Direct 3D capable video card with Direct 7.0 compatible driver.
> >
> > May not get any serious playing time in until this weekend. I post
> > some thoughts on the game in the future.
> >
> > Dave
> > www.davids-world.net
> >
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Cody Goodman
"Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
news:3e42e...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Even people with 2.0 GHz machines complain of the game lagging along.
>
> It does lag along with my 2.2 GHZ system with 512 MB of RAM. I had to
> purchase another graphics card because the one that came with my Sony was
> not compatable. Study (and write) down the names of those graphics card
and
> study them carefully, because those are the only ones that Sim City 4
*will*
> support. If you have the incorrect card installed, then the game will not
> run (and display no message).
I have seen people with 2.2 GHz CPU/1 GB RAM/128 MB Graphics Card/200 GB HD
have problems with this thing. This is an issue with the software that must
be fixed.
Sherman Cahal
What kind of graphics card? The program is real picky on the cards and it
must, must match whats on the box.
Cody Goodman
> What kind of graphics card? The program is real picky on the cards and it
> must, must match whats on the box.
In most cases they have the right type of graphics card.
I am NOT Gene Wood!
Whaaaaaaaa?!?!? Where the heck is MACINTOSH on this list?!?!?
Justin
"I am NOT Gene Wood!" <wachov...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0697d58.03020...@posting.google.com...
My Mac runs Sim City 4 - just go get a dual 1.4 Ghz G4 Tower, chip the
processors, get Virtual PC 6 with Windows XP Pro and then slap a Windows
NVidia card into an extra slot and there you go.
Justin
Brian Polidoro
"Justin" <jco...@removethisairmail.net> wrote in message news:49402E600096D846.0910C23F...@lp.airnews.net...
Or just get an equivalent PC for about half the price. Or for the same price get a 3Ghz PC.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mr. Mojave
Pat O'Connell
Time for you to learn how to program a Mac...
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Brian Polidoro
"Pat O'Connell" <nvc...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:3E487645...@lvcm.com...
I'd say they figured it wasn't worth releasing a Mac version. I can think of 2 reason's. One is that the number of Mac users is
much smaller than PC's. Second and more important to this example is that because Mac's are far behind in terms of speed, only top
of the line Mac's can run it. Which makes the small number from reason number one even smaller.
Mac's top out at about 1.5 Ghz while PC's are at 3 GHz, soon to be 3.2 GHz.
Sherman Cahal
> | >
> | > That's what I'm sayin. Where's my mac version?
> |
> | Time for you to learn how to program a Mac...
> |
> | --
> | Pat O'Connell
> | Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
> | Kill nothing but vandals...
>
> I'd say they figured it wasn't worth releasing a Mac version. I can think
of 2 reason's. One is that the number of Mac users is
> much smaller than PC's. Second and more important to this example is that
because Mac's are far behind in terms of speed, only top
> of the line Mac's can run it. Which makes the small number from reason
number one even smaller.
>
> Mac's top out at about 1.5 Ghz while PC's are at 3 GHz, soon to be 3.2
GHz.
While those numbers are true, a Mac 1.5 GHZ is comparably similar in speed
to a 2.5 GHZ. They use a different type of processor, and because of this,
it is customary to add approximately 1,000 MHZ to compare a Mac and a PC.
Therefore, the top of the line Mac will run Sim City 4. But you are right in
a sense, not many people own Mac's, and that is because they are great for
graphics editing and so forth, not gaming.
Justin
> > | > > Whaaaaaaaa?!?!? Where the heck is MACINTOSH on this list?!?!?
> > | >
> > | > That's what I'm sayin. Where's my mac version?
> > |
> > | Time for you to learn how to program a Mac...
> > |
> > | --
> > | Pat O'Connell
> > | Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
> > | Kill nothing but vandals...
> >
> > I'd say they figured it wasn't worth releasing a Mac version. I can
think
> of 2 reason's. One is that the number of Mac users is
> > much smaller than PC's. Second and more important to this example is
that
> because Mac's are far behind in terms of speed, only top
> > of the line Mac's can run it. Which makes the small number from reason
> number one even smaller.
> >
> > Mac's top out at about 1.5 Ghz while PC's are at 3 GHz, soon to be 3.2
> GHz.
>
> While those numbers are true, a Mac 1.5 GHZ is comparably similar in speed
> to a 2.5 GHZ. They use a different type of processor, and because of this,
> it is customary to add approximately 1,000 MHZ to compare a Mac and a PC.
> Therefore, the top of the line Mac will run Sim City 4. But you are right
in
> a sense, not many people own Mac's, and that is because they are great for
> graphics editing and so forth, not gaming.
I have a new Mac, and it does run Sim City 4 when booted into Windows...
the "megahertz myth" is something Mac users try to dispell often :)
Although lately, Intel processors have bypassed even the + 1 Ghz idea and
are realistically a lot faster than Macs - Apple has a lot of catching up to
do.
Blah
Justin
Brian Polidoro
"Justin" wrote ...
|
| "Sherman Cahal" wrote ...
| >
| > While those numbers are true, a Mac 1.5 GHZ is comparably similar in speed
| > to a 2.5 GHZ. They use a different type of processor, and because of this,
| > it is customary to add approximately 1,000 MHZ to compare a Mac and a PC.
| > Therefore, the top of the line Mac will run Sim City 4. But you are right in
| > a sense, not many people own Mac's, and that is because they are great for
| > graphics editing and so forth, not gaming.
|
| I have a new Mac, and it does run Sim City 4 when booted into Windows...
| the "megahertz myth" is something Mac users try to dispell often :)
|
| Although lately, Intel processors have bypassed even the + 1 Ghz idea and
| are realistically a lot faster than Macs - Apple has a lot of catching up to
| do.
| Blah
|
| Justin
If you look at the results on the second page of the article below, you'll see that a dual 1.25 GHz Mac is not as fast as a 2.5 GHz
PC and I don't think going to 1.5 GHz Mac will close the difference. And these guys are talking about graphics editing and the PC
is better now. Here's the gist:
" Of course, Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP, but if you're
spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system you're using makes little difference. What does make a huge difference
is if you have to sit and wait for rendering any longer than necessary. And, according to our benchmarks here, if you have an After
Effects composite that needs, say, two hours to render on the Mac, it'll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC. So, in
addition to the extra $629 you must pay for the Mac, it will cost you plenty of time as well, especially while using After Effects.
Time is money. After looking at these startling benchmark results, we have to gaze over at our beautifully-designed Macs and ask,
"Is it worth it?" "
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm
Here's another:
" What's there to say but the obvious: The fastest dual processor Mac has been soundly thumped by one of the fastest single
processor PCs. If this report had included a dual processor PC, the PC's margin of victory could have been even greater (at least in
the multitasking tests, and for PC software that's optimized for multiple processors). Even the Dell, a modestly equipped desktop by
current standards, matches or bests the dual 1.25GHz desktop Mac in numerous benchmarks. "
http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2003-01/2003_01_07_macpc.html#top