# Fallout 3 Has Gone Gold; System Specs



## Rl'Halsinor (Oct 10, 2008)

I know there is plenty of angst over Bethesda taking up the franchise but I have got to say from what I've seen trailer wise it looks very interesting and the fact that it will provide hours upon hours gameplay is a plus for me. AND there is no DRM!

System Specs as listed at Gamespy as of Today 10/9/08: 

Minimum System Requirements: 

Windows XP/Vista 
1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista) 
2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor 
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better) 


Recommended System Requirements: 

Intel Core 2 Duo processor 
2 GB System RAM 
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA 8800 series, ATI 3800 series) 


* I have the video card and system RAM; I just hope my Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.0 GHz (socket 939) will be okay.


----------



## Pants (Oct 10, 2008)

I already pre-ordered my copy for the 360! I can't wait. That week is gonna break the bank though.  Guitar Hero: World Tour and Fallout 3?  I'll have enough gaming to keep me busy for the next year!


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Oct 10, 2008)

I have to admit that this one caught me off guard because I really didn't pay any attention to any of the reviews or previews until a few days ago.

As I said, however, the trailers containing some good solid detail really grabbed my attention.  I'll wait to see how the gaming community responds but this may be the first game in a long time that I buy within the first two weeks of release.


----------



## Blackrat (Oct 10, 2008)

Pants said:


> I already pre-ordered my copy for the 360! I can't wait.




Same here. The end of the month can't come soon enough...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 10, 2008)

Awesome my laptop can run it, I even got recommended.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 10, 2008)

w00t! Beating recommended, and handily.  Currently, I've got an E8400 (@ 3.6GHz, on stock cooling), HD4850 (w/ dual slot cooler, overclocked by me), 4GB RAM.

Won't need to upgrade for a while, it seems - yay!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 10, 2008)

my only question is whether i get this for my PC or for my PS3.  The PC has the recommended specs beat, and a 22" monitor, but my PS3 is hooked up to the 42" Plasma...


----------



## Felon (Oct 10, 2008)

It's on my must-have list for 2008, along with Saints Row 2 (next week) and Fable 2 (the following week). God bless Gamefly.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 10, 2008)

Rl'Halsinor said:


> * I have the video card and system RAM; I just hope my Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.0 GHz (socket 939) will be okay.



Heck, yeah. Nearly equivalent to early Core 2 Duos, that CPU. I think the E4300, for example, was around the 4400+ or 4600+ mark. And that's not a mile away from 3800+, by any means. Relative to the minimum spec of a 2.4GHz P4. . . *snort*. Your CPU would (and does) eat _a pair of them in tandem_ for breakfast.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 10, 2008)

I've got the super-awesome-ultra-limited edition preordered from Amazon. Including Vault Boy bobble-head, lunchbox, and PipBoy digital clock. You could say I'm a fan... (I ordered the Xbox 360 version).


----------



## Pyrex (Oct 10, 2008)

The clock is spiffy, but an extra $50 for it?  Ouch.

*preordered the Collectors edition that has everything but the clock for $70...*


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Oct 10, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Heck, yeah. Nearly equivalent to early Core 2 Duos, that CPU. I think the E4300, for example, was around the 4400+ or 4600+ mark. And that's not a mile away from 3800+, by any means. Relative to the minimum spec of a 2.4GHz P4. . . *snort*. Your CPU would (and does) eat _a pair of them in tandem_ for breakfast.




Thanks Aus Snow.  Your descriptive language is metaphorically clear.  

*Additional Information:*

Supported Video Card Chipsets: 

NVIDIA GeForce 200 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 9800 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 9600 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 8800 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 8600 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 8500 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 8400 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 7900 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 7800 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 7600 series 
NVIDIA Geforce 7300 series 
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 series 
ATI HD 4800 series 
ATI HD 4600 series 
ATI HD 3800 series 
ATI HD 3600 series 
ATI HD 3400 series 
ATI HD 2900 series 
ATI HD 2600 series 
ATI HD 2400 series 
ATI X1900 series 
ATI X1800 series 
ATI X1600 series 
ATI X1300 series 
ATI X850 series


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 11, 2008)

Rl'Halsinor said:


> Minimum System Requirements:
> 
> Windows XP/Vista
> 1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)
> ...



Just curious, do we really need minimum and recommended system requirements for computer games? Can't we just have one (preferably the recommended requirements)?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Oct 11, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> Just curious, do we really need minimum and recommended system requirements for computer games? Can't we just have one (preferably the recommended requirements)?



I like having minimum since it means that while yeah maybe with one game I can't make it as pretty as it can be, I can still play it, which is most important.

While on the other side if I see I got recommended it means it can still look nice and run smoothly.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 11, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I like having minimum since it means that while yeah maybe with one game I can't make it as pretty as it can be, I can still play it, which is most important.





Minimum specs tend to mean it can be booted up.  That doesn't necessarily mean playable.  My old PC met the minimum specs to run Supreme Commander...if I felt like seeing 1 frame every second.

Personally, I'd like to replace minimum specs with playable specs, and recommended with maxed-out.

I'll be playing this on the 360, despite having a gaming PC.  The fact that I can rent or resell the game afterwards, and play it on a bigger screen, means more to me than slightly better graphics.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 11, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Heck, yeah. Nearly equivalent to early Core 2 Duos, that CPU. I think the E4300, for example, was around the 4400+ or 4600+ mark. And that's not a mile away from 3800+, by any means. Relative to the minimum spec of a 2.4GHz P4. . . *snort*. Your CPU would (and does) eat _a pair of them in tandem_ for breakfast.





I wouldn't compare it to the E4300.  That chip was all about overclocking.  If we assume that Fallout 3 is comparable to Oblivion, this benchmark might be helpful.

AnandTech: Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 & E6400: Tremendous Value Through Overclocking

The 3800+ X2 should be fine. It's on the low end of the dual core chips, but the fact that it IS a dual core is what's most important to you.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 11, 2008)

TwistedBishop said:


> I wouldn't compare it to the E4300.



Cool. Neither would I. Or not directly, at least.




> That chip was all about overclocking.



Which is something most computer owners - and yeah, even gamers - don't do. Right. 

But as I said, the E4300 (OK, _at stock speeds_, to be 'precise') was [or is] closer to around about an AMD x2 4400+ or even 4600+ of the same era. Going by several reviews, benchmarks and so on. For overall gaming purposes, is also what I was meaning.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 11, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Which is something most computer owners - and yeah, even gamers - don't do. Right.




I'd say most people don't overclock, even among PC gamers.  But that's neither here nor there.

It's much clearer to say the X2s are comparable to the Core 2s.  The specs don't qualify the type of Core 2s anyway.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 12, 2008)

TwistedBishop said:


> Personally, I'd like to replace minimum specs with playable specs, and recommended with maxed-out.



EXACTLY. That's all I want. I mean, honestly, who here would shell out $40 just to see the computer game boot up only?


----------



## GlassJaw (Oct 14, 2008)

TwistedBishop said:


> I'll be playing this on the 360, despite having a gaming PC.  The fact that I can rent or resell the game afterwards, and play it on a bigger screen, means more to me than slightly better graphics.




+1

I've always been a PC gamer but I'm getting to the point now where I'm done with PC gaming.  It's just too much of a PITA to deal with system specs, patches, DRM crapola, etc.  

There's something to be said for putting a disc in a console and having it run without problem immediately.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 17, 2008)

Already pre-ordered it for 360.

I feel kinda silly because I've never played 1 or 2 so I'll probably miss all the in-jokes.

Still - looks fun.


----------



## Pants (Oct 18, 2008)

John Crichton said:


> Already pre-ordered it for 360.
> 
> I feel kinda silly because I've never played 1 or 2 so I'll probably miss all the in-jokes.
> 
> Still - looks fun.



Bah.

I've played all of ten minutes of Fallout 2 and this still looks awesome. Maybe Fallout 3 will actually make me want to go back and try to play through the first two.


----------



## DarkKestral (Oct 18, 2008)

TwistedBishop said:


> Minimum specs tend to mean it can be booted up.  That doesn't necessarily mean playable.  My old PC met the minimum specs to run Supreme Commander...if I felt like seeing 1 frame every second.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to replace minimum specs with playable specs, and recommended with maxed-out.




Mythic's "minimum" specs for Warhammer Online are apparently this way, even to the point of supposedly being designed for medium graphics values with framerates of roughly 20 fps. (20-30 average fps w/ drops of no lower than 10 fps is what I consider "playable", but others may vary) Needless to say, I think that's a great policy, if true, because it gives a relatively realistic picture of what the game needs to run decently. (I don't mind dropping to low quality on some games, but I appreciate being able to normally run it at higher settings even during fiddly bits.)

I also think there is a place for saying "here is the stuff you need to get playable framerates on minimum settings, here's what'll get you to medium, and we recommend this setup for max settings."


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 18, 2008)

I hope my PC can run it. I can run Oblivion with better than the worst graphic settings, though it technically is a little under the minimum requirements. If they release a demo, I guess I will be looking at trying that first.


----------



## Blackrat (Oct 18, 2008)

Kaodi said:


> I hope my PC can run it. I can run Oblivion with better than the worst graphic settings, though it technically is a little under the minimum requirements. If they release a demo, I guess I will be looking at trying that first.




Unfortunately Kaodi, it seems they aren't going to release a demo.


----------



## Lazybones (Oct 18, 2008)

This may be the first PC game I've bought in the last six months. I have a 360 as well, but between Fable 2 and Gears 2 I think I'll have plenty to do on the console this season. Plus I got Oblivion for the 360 and missed out on what the modding community put out.


----------



## EricNoah (Oct 19, 2008)

Very psyched about this one.  The first two Fallouts were a couple of my favorite games, and Oblivion is probably my very favorite game (maybe tied with Jedi Knight II and the Half-Life franchise).  Fallout + Oblivion = awesome (I'm hoping!).


----------



## Bront (Oct 27, 2008)

Rl'Halsinor said:


> * I have the video card and system RAM; I just hope my Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.0 GHz (socket 939) will be okay.



Have you ever thought about throttling that puppy up?  I've been running mine at 2.5 Ghz for over 2 and a half years with no problems.  Heck, it's actually more stable (I think it has to do with the memory being high quality and having aggressive memory timings.

I need another GB of ram, but not likely to happen.  And my 7800 GT is just starting to show it's age.  My PC occasionaly stumbles on Mass Effect.

However, if you have a very good GPU, your CPU will matter less, to a point.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 27, 2008)

I decided to go with my PS3 for this one since I'm not quite sure my laptop has the chops for this game:

Intel Core 2 CPU T7200 @ 2.0 GHZ 997 MHZ, 2.0 GB RAM
Nividia GeForce Go 7400

I'd prefer it on my laptop since I'll always have it with me, but I want it at the best settings, and I know the PS3 can deliver that with my 37inch Flat Screen.  I am also suffering from a shortness of PS3 games (only 4).

Looking at my laptop what would all of you suggest?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 27, 2008)

Hm, I'd probably go with the PS3 then, Shalimar. . .

Notebookcheck: Mobile Graphics Cards - Benchmark List

The Go 7400 is there, just um, not very high up on the list.  CPU should be fine, but yeah, the last line of Bront's most recent post in the thread is oh so true, in this case unfortunately so.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 28, 2008)

When in doubt I've found that Can you run it? is a pretty good site to check.

My laptop, for instance, passes the minimum but is just a smidge short of the recommended.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 28, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:


> When in doubt I've found that Can you run it? is a pretty good site to check.
> 
> My laptop, for instance, passes the minimum but is just a smidge short of the recommended.



Thanks for the link. 

My laptop meet the minimum but the dedicated NVIDIA video card fall short of the recommended.


----------

