Prince of Persia PC System Requirements Released

16
With Ubisoft Montreal's cel-shaded platformer Prince of Persia hitting PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on December 2, the system requirements for the PC version have arrived.

"There are no recommended specs as basically anything you have over this will run it nicely," Ubisoft representative UbiRazz wrote in the game's official forum.

Minimum System Requirements

Supported OS: Windows XP/Windows Vista
Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
RAM: 1 GB Windows XP/2 GB Windows Vista
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0-compliant video card or DirectX 9.0-compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (see supported list)*
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0-compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 libraries (included on disc)
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive
Hard Drive Space: 8 GB
Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)

* Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
ATI RADEON X1600*/1650*-1950/HD 2000/3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6800*/7/8/9 series

Thanks to Shacker Alpha for the heads up.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    November 11, 2008 7:48 AM

    i don't buy it, system specs are so far fetched these days. these look very similar to what i was told i would need for L4D, and my athlon 3200 with 2gb ram and a geforce 6800 runs l4d at 50+fps at 1280x960 with high shader/textures... and Prince of Persia games tend to have fairly simple environments, and limited numbers of models running around...

    • reply
      November 11, 2008 7:51 AM

      it's like the explosion of dual-core processing has excused the developers from trying to write efficient game engines...

      • reply
        November 11, 2008 10:10 AM

        Ehh, not really, no. The explosion of dual-core processing has forced developers to write efficient game engines. The rapid escalation of clock speeds in the Pentium 4 days gave developers a free ride and removed the need to optimize their code. That ended when dual cores became the norm and clock speeds stabilized, forcing programmers to write code that's well threaded.

        • reply
          November 11, 2008 8:26 PM

          Uhh. What? You do know that a singe core of a C2D will smoke all but the highest end P4. Not to mention the P4's were routinely trounced by lower clocked AMD chips back in the day.

          • reply
            November 12, 2008 11:44 AM

            Yeah. And?

            Of course the Core 2 architecture is more efficient clock for clock than Netburst was. That has little to do with the number of cores - if there was a Core 2 Single, it would also trounce a Pentium 4.

            The "explosion of dual-core processing" has indeed put pressure on programmers to produce more efficient code. If they fail to do so, they end up with half the power of a C2D being unused, or three quarters in the case of a Quad.

            This was not the case in the Netburst era. Programmers could feel free to be lazy, because they could safely assume that each new processor would make their software run faster. They can't do that when processors are moving forward with thread level parallelism instead of instruction level parallelism or raw clock speed.

    • reply
      November 11, 2008 7:55 AM

      Those requirements are pretty low for these days. If it runs good for you all good though I wish they would be a bit more adventurous with them.

      • reply
        November 11, 2008 8:05 AM

        2.2 core 2 duo as minimum reqs don't seem pretty low to me.

        • reply
          November 11, 2008 8:09 AM

          When you can get a 2.5 GHz Core 2 system with modern ATI or nVidia GPUs, 4 GB of RAM, 500 GB HDD, and on and on for like $500....yea...2.2 GHz is low end.

          • reply
            November 11, 2008 8:19 AM

            time to upgrade then. I've got the 6600, 2.4 now I think. Seems pretty good for most stuff.

            • reply
              November 11, 2008 9:50 AM

              You can overclock that Q6600 pretty easy to 3Ghz+. Just make sure you got the cooling for it.

          • reply
            November 11, 2008 8:29 AM

            i was more-so commenting on the fact that they are telling you that you need way more computer than you do to run these games, as developers have been doing basically since dual-core cpu's came out... just promoting hardware sales...


            but... whatever.

      • reply
        November 11, 2008 8:17 AM

        But does Prince of Persia actually use the multiple cores?

        • reply
          November 11, 2008 9:03 AM

          Even if it doesn't, your typical mid-range $500-600 E8400 system is much faster than anything single core.

          • reply
            November 11, 2008 9:46 AM

            this is completely false.

            • reply
              November 11, 2008 9:53 AM

              What single core CPU is faster?

              • reply
                November 11, 2008 10:21 AM

                dual core procs aren't faster unless the software is written for it.... am i wrong?

            • reply
              November 11, 2008 11:04 AM

              Thanks for misunderstanding what I said. An E7200, E8400, etc is just plain a more efficient and faster CPU, regardless of single/dual core.

              • reply
                November 11, 2008 1:23 PM

                Is a 2.53 GHz E7200 faster than two 3.8 GHz P4 670 (Prescott-2M) CPUs? Just trying to figure out if a slower clock speed on a duo-core is faster than two synced Prescotts if the application isn't multithreaded. Appreciate the input.

    • reply
      November 11, 2008 8:04 AM

      Well, developers are aiming for console specs right? They're static, so over the course of a console generation you're going to hit a point where you don't need a top-of-the-line computer setup to handle the game + typical OS, etc overhead. I mean, how different are these specs from say, Assasins Creed's pc port.

    • reply
      November 11, 2008 9:04 AM

      I don't see how this is an issue. You can build a cheapo E8400 system with a 4850 for $500 or less.

    • reply
      November 11, 2008 9:27 AM

      My singlecore Anthlon 3000+ stick 2ghz and now @ 2.4gghz with 2gb of ram and an HD 2600 Pro will run this fine. I can max out all current games, far cry 2, fallout 3. System requirements are shit. It's for the hardware makers.

      • reply
        November 11, 2008 9:44 AM

        I wish Crysis ran better, but most everything else is good enough.

Hello, Meet Lola