Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Can you REALLY game with the Minimum Specs??
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2024
- Sometimes the minimum recommended settings set by a game developer can seem REALLY low making you wonder what the game would actually be like when played with those specs... so today, thats exactly what I tested with the new Destiny 2 PC Edition game.
○○○○○○ Items featured in this video available at Amazon ○○○○○○
► Amazon US - bit.ly/1meybOF
► Amazon UK - amzn.to/Zx813L
► Amazon Canada - amzn.to/1tl6vc6
○○○ All music provided with permission by audiomicro.com ○○○
SUBSCRIBE! bit.ly/sub2Jayz...
WATCH MY MOST POPULAR VIDEOS!: (link)
••• Follow me on your favorite Social Media! •••
Facebook: / jayztwocents
Twitter: / jayztwocents
Instagram: / jayztwocents
About JayzTwoCents
Your one stop place to shop for fun and educational videos on all things tech! Oh, and don't forget gaming! Gotta make time for gaming!
Can you REALLY game with the Minimum Specs?? | JayzTwoCents
• Can you REALLY game wi...
JAYZTWOCENTS
/ jayztwocents
LOL, everyone saying I copied RandomGaminginHD or whoever, sorry... but Ive never seen a single video of theirs... good to have more data though right?
His video was on recommended specs.
JayzTwoCents he did a vid on both min and recommended specs but I trust that you didn't steal his idea or anything
The channel is run by a young British guy, I've been following him for a few months, very good videos, mostly focused on budget. So no, you did not copy, all his videos are budget-friendly and he doesn't have a patent for that... People are idiots..
Videos about budget builds are usually more interesting than high end builds if i'm honest.
It seems like that no one can produce content which has been produced by someone else already, like you said, it's better to have more information about this topic.
Glad more bigger UA-camrs are tackling budget orientated situations. Really enjoyed the video :)
RandomGaminginHD yes there are spots of budget pc gamers out there. I'm one of those who switched to budget pcs from console :)
I liked your video more
Whoo RgiHd fanbaseee
Funny to see you here... Wait..
RandomGaminginHD Lol didn't expect to see you here man love the videos keep it up!
10:32
Jayz - “Wow look how smooth this is.”
Me: WOW
Also Me: *Watching in 30fps*
When you’re used to 10 FPS and 30 looks insane
@@brillywilly2998 I am.
BrillyWilly - William Ratcliffe 60fps user has entered the chat
MonoType Well I used to be stuck at 60 fps but I recently upgraded my pc and got a 1440p 144hz monitor. It’s ridiculously smooth.
BrillyWilly - William Ratcliffe damn, would get a 144hz monitor but I don't have the money or the space rn lol (I use a drawing tablet as my monitor that's why I don't have space)
I remember back in the day (win95/98) minimum specs meant the game will run... but at 5fps
Windows 97?
Oops! Ment win98 lol
razz56rob1 Nah i think you definitely meant Windows Desktop Update
Meant*
World of Warcraft raiding on a minimum spec in 2005 meant the tank would out DPS you and healers would ignore you... and 5-7 FPS.
Back in the 90's and early 2000's, the "minimum requirements" were _just enough_ the run the game, but you'd be lucky if it was even playable. They were pretty much useless.
Now, I find that the minimum spec are not only reasonable, but sometimes more than enough to handle most programs.
That's because back then minimum was the actual lower limit. As in, "it will not run on anything less than this, period." Today "minimum" is no longer the lower limit. It's more like the recommended specs were back in the day. "You could run it on less, but we don't recommend it." The only reason they still have "recommended" specs today is because people expect them. They're usually set at something that can max out the performance on the same settings that "minimum" will be only acceptable at.
I can remember my old graphics card wasn't even compatible with some games
I seem to remember someone from Microsoft made a comment something like this about Flight Simulator 2004 (I think) and its minimum requirements: "It'll run, but you won't enjoy it"
Of course you can play with minimum specs, console players do it all the time ;)
Trey B.
Lol ok. Not like console games are optimized for consoles... smh
I don't think you got the joke
Good one.
I did lol
kelan andersson is this a joke? Is this sarcasm? Please be so
5:30 my brain in tests
Lol relatable
Same
"Old Hardware"
"GTX 970"
Tell that to my lovely 660Ti.
Add 1 to your 660ti and it'll be a 1660 ti
@@potatocubes69 top ten Epic gamer moments
Whats a gpu it sounds like something that would make my 9 year old computer run team fortress 2 better
I've played through AC Odyssey, all 3 Tomb Raiders, Metro Exodus, Resident Evil 2, and every other new game with a 660 ti and an i5 3350p. It's not great, but 30 fps is better than not playing any games.
Tell that to my lovely gt 240
In my mind minimum: 30 fps smooth, recommended: 60fps+ smooth
No
@@443x4 yes
@@jacobdaniels3246 oh yea yea
i'm spoiled with my 120fps so nah
ARDEACT that has nothing to with the post
"16 GB RAM minimum"
Since when?
RoseWolfz Prime
It entirely depends on what you are playing. Take PUBG for instance. I have 8 GB of RAM and it runs fine, despite some benchmarks showing I might be losing 2-3 fps. Unfortunately, I can't justify $80 for 2-3 higher fps. You mentioned just a game, but I agree that there are other cases where more RAM is necessary. I still wish there were 6 GB sticks of DDR4; 12gb seems like it would actually be the sweet spot.
Thats the reason i bought 16gb of ram 4 years ago i anticipated this situation.
Michael Gloner most of the games i play use 10 to 12 gb of ram
Since google chrome and windows use a shit ton of ram now.
Yeah I saw benchmarks for different RAM capacity on Linus’s channel, 4GB scores about 2-3 frames under 8GB, which scored 1-2 frames under 16GB.
I don't feel like D2 is a good example, it's exceptionally well optimized and by far one of the best ports I've ever played.
@@wikeyfps I mean it kinda is. Built for consoles and bungie employed vicarious to push the pc release
The framepacing in this game is godlike.
Every time I see or hear "D2" instantly the thought is Diablo II
Joe Pesci Division 2? Destiny 2? Diablo 2? All looters
El3mental Gaming the pc version was built from the ground up for pc. It wasn’t just a port from console.
Has anyone tested crysis yet? Is the recommended Hardware available by now?
Yes, but actualy no.
Crisis requires raw ghz on the cpu side because it has terrible multithreading.
It requires raw gpu bandwith, as it can only utilize 2-4gb of vram.
I don't know if there are mods to fix the mulithreading and vram usage. If so, we have achieved the ability to run crysis.
It will be a new era in humanity when we will be able to run Crysis
Try fs2020
I never really understood minimum specs because there isn't ever enough information. Is it minimum for 1080p? What framerate is "minimum"? Is it 30? What settings? Is it at the absolute lowest? or medium? whatever the default options are?
devilmikey00 I think Ubisoft did it with AC: Origins or South Park; minimum is for 720p at 30fps according to Ubisoft.
Yeah I’ve seen Ubisoft and I believe square enix mention resolution and framerate for specs in the past but it’s not done enough.
Its not supposed to min for one known configuration, its min the developers think is a good play experience. There is little point comparing frame rates or resolutions when on some games 30fps feels fine as long as its consistent, while on others it feels bad if you get any dips below 60. Likewise resolution doesn't matter near as much in some sorts of graphics than others. Finally most critically games don't scale perfectly, so being below min specs could result in stuttering or even like infamously on far cry 4, not run at all.
Minimum specs, to me, means the bare minimum to run the game at its absolute lowest settings. At that point you aren't too worried about 720, 1080, 4k or any of that... 30 fps, unstable. It's not a good experience but it's an experience none the less.
I used to have a hyper potato PC and I played TF2 with mods to make it as potato as my PC. Roblox mode activate xD
Hamish McGregor minimum specs put by devs is the required to run the game and work at the lowest possible settings.
He showed off destiny 2 at least instead of the games that RandomGaminginHD played. All this means is that we get 2 quality videos about recommended specs and minimum specs for different games.
Devs need to start listing the resolution and the FPS they're getting when they reveal their damn specs. For all I know the recommended could be intended for 1080p and 30fps while minimum is for 800x600 for 60fps. So many games I've bought that I had exceeded the recommended specs only to find out I can't maintain steady 60fps at my resolution (1080p) with the settings the game automatically fucking sets.
The problem is they usually don't test their games on the machines they consider have the minimum specs. They just throw hardware used for old titles that they consider might be as heavy as their new game at minimum, so... never trust those "minimum" specs, they are usually way higher or way lower than what it should be.
Just type the name of the game and your gpu (and CPU) into Google or yt and see how it performs
Watching this guy makes me feel so poor. I play Destiny 2 on PC with all the graphics settings down and I still only get 30fps with frame drops to 25 in the middle of a big fight..
You lucky bastard...
My laptop is aging it has an i7-8thgenHQ with a gtx 1060 6gb with maxQ In a lot of games that is demanding or modern I have to turn the render scale down to like 25% but I'm building a new system soon without a gpu only ryzen apu, that will run light games like smite way better than my laptop. However it's dying could be related to dell products, cuz I really wanted to replace the thermal paste after a year and the wifi chip was stripped. Or it was best buy when I had to get my batter replaced.
So pretty much the console experience then? As long as your loading times aren't as horrendous as console then you are still above PS4 and xbone xD
5 FPS on Medium settings here
Oh shit, so since I posted this comment I ended up buying a custom PC from a friend. An i7 with 32gb of ram and a liquid cooled 1080. Destiny 2 runs above 60fps on max settings 👌
im a RandomGaminginHD fan and i dont think you copied him. this video shows no signs of that, this video is very different, just a similar title.
i'm a fucking crow
I thought you are a fuckin crow
Omg… Get me a good idea, that nobody ever did
@@agresivnapanda1720 Na he's a FOOKIN LASER SIGHTS
Neither of these youtubers are using an original concept.
Can you play with the minimum specs? Yes, I've played with LESS than minimum specs plenty of times
Dalia Stoian I think he means at a decent fps and is still a good experience, with smooth gameplay.
I do realise that game companies set the minimum requirements for 30+ fps on medium, so that is not really the actual minimum, I just wanted to point that that for some people a game can still be playable at less than 60 fps(the minimum for the average gamer I guess), especially if you lower the resolution(not to much so the aspect ratio is still ok and the picture is still pretty sharp) and the quality settings. And this results in a pretty good gaming experience, for me at least. Compromise the eye candy for stutter free or almost stutter free gameplay
720p is always an option.
Makes no sense playing with a crap setup that doesnt even show half the graphics in the game, along with 30-40 ps, yet people still want to state they can play the game, I wouldnt call it playing the game, not at all
I don''t remember a single game I played because of the graphics... Even tho my PC is above recommended (for this game) I tend to play on lower settings and/or 720p for easier multitasking on other monitors because it just doesn't matter to me :/ As for FPS, 60+ is great, 30+ I won't complain. I have more problems with bad AA and screen tearing than FPS...
Anyway, his point stands in my case, and quite a few people I know. Maybe it's age.
My first pc is the minimum spec requirements for this game, and my current rig is the recommended. What a coincidence lol
Before watching the video; yes, I have played with even below minimum specs many times myself.
:(
It always irks me, how people think, if your PC cannot run the latest FPS at 200 fps, you might as well toss it into the bin. PC gaming is pretty wide field, after all. I wonder what persentage of Steam's catalogue you could run just fine with that setup.
Most people would be perfectly fine with 1080p 30fps. Console gamers do it all the time. Tech reviews seem to act like even 60fps is unplayable and you need 100 to have fun. I personally play at 1440p 80 fps but would be able to play at 1080p 60fps
I remember back in the day people were happy with 30 to 60 fps as a range they consider gaming worthy. Anyone that did like 60 fps min and were up in the 90 fps 100 fps were considered hardcore. Now 60 is the new minimum and a digit underneath is unplayable. Its silly to me, really silly
Well 60 FPS is decent but I prefer 65+ stable just to make it smooth enough to not notice fps drops etc.
Only a small percentage of gamers have uber PCs that can run high frame rates at 4k.
Most games are made to run well on mid tier systems, and run on lower tier VGA cards.
It's nice to have shiny expensive toys, but it's a bit like watching Top Gear and thinking you need that Ferrari they are driving this week as your daily drive.
4K gaming isn´t there yet so don´t talk about it..That´s my opinion.
I'm playing Fallout 4 on an Alienware Alpha with an i3-4310T, which is below minimum spec, heavily modded, and it's running beautifully at 1600x900@60fps. I was running 1920x1080 until I hit Vault 88 and it completely murdered my framerate.
I upped my R1 to a 4790t, those little PCs do really well if you don't mind reducing the resolution.
A moment of silence for the laptop celeron users 😔
You're forgetting the AMD E1 APU users...
I've played Minecraft 1.14.3 on Celeron G1610. It was playable
Mee too kid
FatHer Gascoigne what was your experience like?
I potato-modded a few games including GTA IV to run on one and it was very playable, not to mention a good laugh trying to identify the box-shaped vehicles
4:08 Casual flex
Wolfenstein 2 would be interesting, the minimum req is a r9 290/gtx 770...
It would be more interesting considering the previous Wolfenstein TNO ran on OpenGL 3.x and the drivers for 770 are long dead (on newer games like Witcher 3 and DOOM4 for example have way less fps than a 290, dipping way below 30 most of the time in witcher and barely hanging in 50s in DOOM4).
That game is very well optimized I play it fine on my gtx 660
Aussie Guy fps? Settings? Resolution?
hellscreamer21 yes!!!!
the only problem is, 290 is ~20% faster (overall) over 770...770 is more in 280x class, not even matching 280x...
IMO the H500P doesn't deserve getting spoken out with HAF in a sentence...
Really the plastic doesn't bug me as much speaking from an aesthetic point, but the fact that it's so freaking flimsy and the fact that they literally put a piece of plastic in front of the fans when they could have put mesh are the main two points that I have against it. Last I checked, high airflow doesn't happen when there isn't much airflow in the first place.
Pennywise Everybody is promoting a squeeking $ 200 plastic box, and that's sad, i cant understand why they didn't do something like the Meshify C...
I like this Everyman approach to things. Too many people focus on high end hardware when you rarely need it at all. Good work guys.
This is what I like to see, someone who actually tests what it is like to only have the minimum specs for a game. For a person that has only experienced things under 60 fps his whole life, I'm glad to see people build these types of machines.
You can go into the advanced system settings in the control panel and set the usable RAM then restart so you can use those 8GB sticks as 6GB
Jay, I would say, make this a thing for the big releases. You could even make a numbering scheme and give them like a 1-10 score on how they rated the specs. I would love that kind of content. That is one of the reasons I also watch RandomGaminginHD and the potato masher series from JermGaming. Budget stuff is way more interesting for me. Sure I love to see what can be achieved, but it is stuff that I cannot afford :P
*sees title*
Ah, first worlders...
More of this please. Actual builds with minimum and recommended please. :)
Definitely do "Player Unknowns Battlegrounds" the optimization is wack and I feel a lot of people would wanna know if they can ran it as it's getting so popular.
+Josh L I'll wait for the final release as doing this while it is in beta seems to be unfair
I doubt it will ever get to a final release before it dies
They are just going to take the money and run and probably never finish it
Using a Ryzen 1700 + GTX1070 here, which should serve as a fair example of any midrange gaming PC (IPC and clockspeed, obviously) - yeah, don't expect too much. I can get 140 fps, then 30 in a fight when fps matters. The game has a lot of work remaining to be playable (by my standards) on even its recommended hardware.
Should be out of beta by the end of the year per the devs. Would love to see a similar approach on it since the largest complaint has been optimization.
"The h500p is a worthy successor to the original High Airflow series." LOLOLOL
"Better than ever" Yeah right, the case sucks.
Steve says no xD
When Steve case blocks you.
I hate the H500P. I want Steve to continually bash it into a new revision. dual 200mm fans!!! Shitty plastic covering all the air flow = logic? LOL
That case really is shit...
When minimum specs give you much higher FPS than console
Im sorry I dont now if this is a joke but its impossible
Destiny 2 is locked at 30 fps so it isn’t a fair comparison. Destiny 2 could probably have more frames on later xbox 1 models, but you can’t change the fps.
@@lolyee931 found the console kid
Time to build a pc 😂
lol yee in your dream kid
sorry im late to this, I can run Destiny 2 on high 1080p, 60-70 fps, with a phenom II 955 quad at stock speed.
I've actually been wondering about this alot lately. It's like you read my mind.
I remember playng NFS Carbon with 256 MB of RAM instead of 512 MB as the game asked...sure it took everytime 5 minutes to load instead of 10 seconds like it would on my friend's pc with 512 mb of ram, sometimes it would sthutter but I finished it multiple time... then I played the first first race in NFS Prostreet like a frame every 2 seconds... and deemed the game unplayable after doing like a lap or two like that.
Usually you can mitigate RAM bottlenecking issues by increasing the size of the Pagefile. It'll force more writes to the disk, but if you're on a 7200RPM platter drive or better, you'll see not many issues. Of course in those days, the paging file was a bit more obscure to find.
SpeedDaemon3 I played Dota 2 on a core 2 duo cornroe. 3gb of ram , geforce gs 7300 256 mb .Had no problems
SpeedDaemon3 being that those games don't require a lot of resources in 2017, imagine games like most wanted, carbon, and the underground series on a modern handheld device. The nintendo switch could certainly handle those games
When everyone is playing new games and I or you are still playing cod 1 or 2 :( :( :(
best cods
I love cod2
Ill always have cod 1 installed on my pc, was my very first addiction video game as a young dude lol even though its completely dead:(1.3 & 1.5 multiplayer boy here 🤟🏾
Cod games overrated and poo
Some games the recommended can’t even hit 60fps
Maybe you should do it for AC:Origins.. Since AC:III there not a single game was a "nice performer" on medium to low end builds. So it would be nice to see if Ubisoft improved on that note, since it has pretty low end minimum and recommended specs. :)
Yeah, I had to upgrade my 560Ti to a 970 when Unity came out, because I was getting 10fps tops on that 560Ti. Incredible optimisation that was (insert sarcasm quotes here), given that there's more graphics power in that Fermi card than there is in any of the consoles ACU was available for...
Robert Faber Yeah, likewise mate. I had GTX460 for a very long time, then I jumped to 280X. Still it was barely enough back then. Then Unity happened hah.
The GPU in consoles is about HD7700 in PS4 and s bit weaker in XBOne. Tho Pro and XBX have much stronger GPUs, they still have some iteration of Jaguar CPU, that's why it's marketed from both M$ and Sony as "4K ready" console, cause CPU would struggle to keep 1080p60 most of the time.
Sorry, went of topic lol :)
A.c. black flag was good I got 50 fps o n a 760on medium settings
The Ps4 has a 7850 and AC played a 1600x900p.I'd imagine AC origins will use the temporal filtering and on PC as well like Watchdogs 2/rainbow six siege did which gives a 30% performance increase with it on, because it's rendering the game at a much lower resolution but outputting to the monitor that looks like 1080p or whatever resolution you're using, but it has a softer image and some people don't like it but I don't mind. I ran Watchdogs 2 at a custom resolution on 3200x1800p @ 60 fps.
AC3 was not a good performer even on high end builds, what are you talking about?
RandomGaminginHD has done a few videos like this. It's really interesting to see what developers think is the "minimum" for their game.
been subbed to him for a long time
Mastrhix
devs usually not ALWAYS think mdeium settings 1080p 60 fps is the minimum gamers will accept to play at.
Mastrhix destiny 2 is pretty close to proper minimum specs. I don't know how much more you can drop it before it feels bad to most people
Im glad im not the only one tht thought of him when i saw this video.
I'm seeing this two years plus after this was uploaded. I can tell you, you CAN game on BELOW spec machines. It won't look amazing, but it WILL work. I know because I was able to play Ghost Recon Breakpoint on my 7 year old scratch built system. I ran an AMD FX-8350 octo-core 4.0 Ghz CPU, without overclocking it. That was on an ASUS M5A99FX Pro R2.0 MoBo with 16gb of Patriot DDR2(?) 1866/2166 (unsure of which it was) RAM, and an EVGA GeForce GTX 950 VGA. It ran perfectly well for me. My CPU and VGA usage was at 90-100% with around 45 fps, but it ran.
EDIT: The RAM was DDR3 at 1866Mhz
"Let's build a system for the minimum specs"
on every part "I dont have something that low, I'll just aim higher" :D
We can't expect you to watch every tech video on youtube, but you might want to look into the h500p thermals
Ummm... How were you planning on overclocking the locked g4560? Is this possible now? I'd also like to see you go below the minimum spec to find where a game bottoms out. One could argue that down to the 30fps is still playable if you really want the game. Or if you're used to ARMA...
Bclk overclock works up to 103, so he could have pushed the g4560 an extra 100 mhz. Although I think he might presumed the g4560 wasn't multipler locked.
Oh Arma.. How we love that fickle bitch.
In my ARMA unit's ops I get between 15 and 25. Up to 45 on a good day. I'm so used to low frame rates, that low FPS isn't as noticeable for me anymore. I still love it somehow.
I'd buy ARMA 4 if it was the same game but with good FPS.
after the Greek government arrested their employees i feel like they are done with ARMA for a while
Before upgrading my PC to be more capable and run games at recommended specs, I use to constantly play games at minimum specs. I never had any problems. Just dial down some of the graphics settings and the game plays smoothly without any issues. It really is impressive.
This is only a case of when the developer gives you a minimum requirement to play the game, in a playable state. I don't know how common it is, but sometimes the minimum requirements are just to boot the game, but not necessarily play the game.
Minecraft 1.14.3
Celeron G1610
No dedicated GPU
60fps
NAILED IT
I'd be interested to see how it runs with something like a GT 1030 & 4gb of DRAM. Based on some of the cheap PC's I've slapped together for ppl on a budget, it's amazing how many games run fine, even with specs below minimum requirements.
Many times, you can get away with buying an off the shelf PC at Walmart for $250, slapping in a 1060 or rx570 or some other cheap videocard, and you will have a decent minimum spec gaming computer for less than $500.
Andrew Hunt You mean slapping on a RX560 or a 1050Ti.
Edit : an to a
Pretty sure that's why he said "or some other cheap video card."
Anyway, My original point was that a lot of times dev's overstate min req's. It's interesting to see how low you can limbo below that line, and still have a playable game.
the 1030 is stupid. Just $10 more will get you a 40% bump in performance.
a 750ti, rx460, 1050, 760 and 670 are all much better and much more commonly cheaper
Those GT 1030's overclock VERY well. You can get pretty close to GTX 660/Radeon 6950 performance with one if you have active cooling.
Someone should zip tie a case fan to one of the passively cooled models to see just how far a 1030 will go.
would be interesting to find the real "min specs", not the useless ones, written on the package
Minimum as in playable or minimum as in 0.5 fps on lowest possible resolution
Been playing with an FX6300 for years. I would buy a AAA game when on sale and hope it would play. Most of the time it does but in very low FPS, like under 30s. Upgraded to a GTX 1050 and everything looks smooth. Been replaying games just to see how everyone else plays. Now with AMD 3rd gen out will be looking out for sales to upgrade to a Ryzen 5 2600 or something.
You can always turn Anisotropic on 16x with any x60 series card, at least from 260 onwards. FXAA doesn't use much GPU or cost any frames. HDAO/SSAO should be turned off with lower specs as that does cost a lot of frames generally.
Love your reviews and your great attitude, you're a breath of fresh air
What caught my interest most about this video was the explanation of boot drives being moved between systems. I would love to see a video comparing fresh windows 10 installs vs Moved OS drives. Also compatibility between intel and amd!!! Please!!
If you name the hardware please put down some subtitles on the hardware hard to follow the numbers
What are you, in third grade? :D
@@nikolabv783 exactly
@@nikolabv783 The world don't speak english as native language, you now that?
Can you? Yes, for the last 5 years i've been gaming on minimum settings. Works fine.
Specs. Not settings
Harry McGilligan To be fair, he probably had to so he could run at an acceptable framerate
Why not just buy a console instead of gaming on trash hardware and low FPS. Atleast a ps4 would give you 60 FPS in nearly all games
@@Anthony.462 because gaming on something you already have costs less than literally anything else unless you somehow get it for free
Red Stoner you can literally buy a PS4 for less than €200 if you have a job you could definitely afford it lol
Welcome to my life. I have to play most games on minimum specs. And when that's not enough I turn down the resolution. Remember 720p. I'm still living it. I'm sad.
Me: generations below minimum specs
gotta love refreshing your subscriptions and see a video from 8 seconds ago
You should see how low you can go in specs before it is unplayable due to FPS being too low.
RIP CADYE
May he rest in our hard drives
Of course you can game with minimum specs, console gamers do it all the time.
Got em
How original.
😁
Cmon, can we stop roasting consoles gamer in pc gaming channel like this? It's useless cause they don't even watch videos like this.
PC Gamer That’s the point lmao.
Same disk working and ~adjusting to a different system is something somewhat "recent", back in the windows 95-XP days it was almost guaranteed to get a looping BSOD on boot, you had to reinstall Windows for a different PC.
When I transferred HDD's and SSD's from one build to another, I've almost always found the system performs better as a whole with a fresh install. I've tested this across mostly Intel builds (6700k build > 6900k build > 7700k build > Ryzen 1700 build). Fresh install helped each iteration, but helped most on the 7700k switch to Ryzen. Perhaps it had to do with the sheer amount of misc programs I like to have installed. I noticed that the fresh installs helped when I would install a larger amount of programs. So I was fresh installing Windows every few months to not lose too much gaming performance and having longer boot times. I solved that issue with Samsung Magician's Overprovisioning tool. I opted for 30GB of my 250GB 960 Evo to be specifically reserved for aiding long term performance, and my boot times and overall performance has maintained what would almost be a 3rd fresh install by now..!
Q. Code this is kind of unrelated but Im very annoyed with the current prices of SSDs, back in 2016, I bought a 1TB 960 Evo for £200 and now the price is around £400, so I cant buy another SSD... NVME prices are far worse though, although the Crosshair VI Hero does have a slot for them so I might look at a small one, still... The prices are insane.
Q. Code Thats a long ass comment
And yet here I am, running the game on an rtx 2070 super at 4k with everything cranked up and complaining about my fps dropping below 60 at times.
Good video though. I never tried turning the settings down that low, but am impressed with how well it still looks.
"16 bare minimum"
No, 8gb *Bare minimum* . 16gb is *recommended*
4 gang
i5 2500k @ 5.1ghz 16gb 2133mhz ram, rx 480 8gb 1475/2200 1080p monitor, plays every fucking thing I throw at it.
burnstudios nice rig, I myself got a 7700K @4.8 with 3200 CL16 with 16GB, GTX 1080 Ti @2050Mhz (both CPU and GPU is in a Custom waterloop with EKWB components)
i5-2400.. only able to push it to 3.4 ghz and it's showing it's age now. It's not even allowing my 1050 ti to be used more than 75%.. the i5-2500k is an amaze-balls chip!
burnstudios haha
i have a i7 920 2.6Ghz @ 3.6Ghz stock cooler with 10GB 1333Mhz DDR3, EVGA 1060 6GB FTW2+ with iCX technology with updated 9GBps GDDR5 memory. 1080p monitor etc. 8 year old gaming pc i got back when I was in high school, and is still kicking ass (minus my old 9600 GT 512MB video card that it had) CyberPowerPC.
burnstudios same my i5-7600 locked, 16gb ddr4 2400mhz, gtx 1060 6gb asus strix. I can maxed out almost all modern games @ 1080p
Why tear the systems down when you can give it to me. C:
gwen saunders C:!!!!!!!!!!
Leave likes at 69 pls
he reuses parts for other builds, thats why. If you want a pc ask your mom or get a job
me too
I have 6 years experience working on site helpdesk tech support at a university, 8 years building my own PCs, and a couple years messing with cameras, capture, and editing. Hire me pls. I could use a lucky break and I love your channel.
Ay nice TF2 shirt, it's rare to see people appreciate the game since 2015
I have i7 870 and a r9 270x and still love my setup and can play destiny 2.
FLUFF time to upgrade
Nope
FLUFF i love that fluffy Pomeranian!
I wish I had waited and I'd be sitting on the same boat as you... why did I not see the amount of Vram on my purchase...
destiny 2 has absolutely shit graphics, i mean Battlefield 4 looked better than title came out in 2013
Since steam has a library of graphics cards on their hardware survey section they really should consider making a users recommend section on requirements
I think what they mean by "Locked to the motherboard" is that if you take that drive and throw it in all new hardware, you will need to register windows again. Usually, that means buying a new product key.
wait these are the minimum specs? a g4560 and a 1050 2G? thats exactly what i was playing d2 with and i had no idea lmfao
player unknown's battlegrounds next please
even 1080ti has issues with pubg its really a every man for themself type issue with pubg
Oricadia Every 1080Ti? Are you sure? I'm asking cause I've got one and its working fine
Hannes Nolte No not all. PUBG has very crappy optimization so once they fix it is when he should do minimum requirements and recommended requirements
Oricadia thats crazy im running gtx 1070 ftw 16 gb ram ddr3 and an i7 4790k highest setting 60-70fps
Corey Faehrmann yeah man Idk wtf is wrong with pubg nowadays like my friend has a 1070 and he struggles on medium
Try this with Wolfenstein 2. I would love to see how good the optimization is.
If the Switch can play it, I'm sure you can play it on your pc.
I'm really impressed with Bungie's ability to make the game look gorgeous on budget hardware. I built my girlfriend a system from spare parts, and we started playing this game. Ryzen 3 1200 (OC'd), RX560-4GB, 8GB DDR4 and this game runs flawlessly.
"Minimum" and "Recommended" specs, are basically "the oldest/newest hardware the dev team has access to".
H500P "high airflow"? More like, bye bye airflow.
Rainbro Dashie i just love these paid lies in front of so many tech channels videos
Cavey Manta CAVEH IT U
I get frustrated when even Jay, of all people, says in his sponsored ads that the H500P has "ample airflow". I have yet to check out his review about it (if he has), however.
Edit: He didn't do a review on the case (that I know of) and he's advertising the H500P with the paid sponsorship? I don't even...
There is only one game that runs like shit but is super popular and we really would love to see tested. PUBG! Please try the game's minimum specs Jay! im sure the game wont even boot! You can even try it with destiny's 2 recommended system, even though it is visually a more impressive game than PUBG i bet you wont even hit 60 constantly on very low settings.
TheMalakasss no need, bad optimization on a game that's not even officially released is pointless.
TheMalakasss I've been upgrading my pc throughout playing pubg the last months. upgrading my RAM from 8 to 16, put a 250 SSD over a 1 tb mechanical, and put a GTX1060 6gb and my game has been running like butter and 100x more fun.
u mean a 1060?
The publisher even says that this game hasn't been optimized. I mean it's still in early access.
The game runs like shit and it is shit.
This game is only popular because there was a big band wagon(When people see others doing one thing, they do it too) and that resorted to youtubers play it, which just fueled it more but overall;Bad game.
Oh, a JayzTwoCents video recommended, let's see
"Destiny 2 just launched"
:/ youtube is the new history channel
I think the bottom line on the weird specs is that code runs differently on different machines, duh, but that doesn't always mean that newer hardware will work better, as the code may be better optimized (intentionally or not) on certain architectures
1600x recommend? LMAO. What next? Minimum 1950x? Ridiculous, especially given that destiny 2 doesn't even use SMT or more than 4 cores. A 1200 at 3.8GHz is more than sufficient for recommend specs.
Yeah the 1600x is enough to play with almost max settings and around 140fps with the right graphics card.
You would get more views if you made a video about minimum specs of pubg
oh no
Xhale to right n that you need
Into core i9 9999XK
3 GTX Titans
5400GHz 32GB ddr4 RAM
Omega Henry are you dumb pal?
+Squidwardo if was a joke bro
Squidwardo oh yeh dude sorry my bad. I mean intel core i18 1818XK
A four way test would work well. The given minimum and recommended and your own take on minimum and recommended. My fx6300 is below many given minimum source in 2023, but it plays many games pretty well, even without overclocking.
I have played one game below minimum specs with highest graphics and was pretty playable.. and now onto testing second (dont know if that'll run cuz its heaviest game ever)
Turns out the GTX970 is still kicking ass in 1080p
It truly is it's better then a gtx 1060 3gb but 5-10% slower then the 1060 6gb. I have a gtx 970 and I play almost all my games 2560×1080 high setting 60fps
1080p is easy to run.
Try 2160p or 4320p ultra
@@xpodx you mean 1440p and 4k.
@@nijooo5480 he said its kicking ass still. It does good at 1080p. Yea 1440p I guess. I was saying try 4k and 8k. Pretty much it's a budget starter card
@@xpodx oh ok. I would be impressed if that thing does 8k.
Of course the minimum specs vary from company to company. It seems like some companies just pull the specs out of thin air. GTX 970 is a pretty good card though. The 970 is what I put in the PC I made for my friend and he plays ARK: Survival Evolved on high settings with no problems.
big fan of the subtitles saying “What’s up guys Jay’s $0.02 here”
9:34 - That reminds me so much of Halo 2's first level.
Do Assassin's Creed Origins. Minimum and Recommended settings
Gino Trinidad
Have you seen how that game runs?
SkyfoxPlays is it good or bad?
ante030
Bad, very bad. Got a gtx 1070 and it still struggles to keep 60 alot, not to mention, lowering the settings basically decreases my fps and there's a lot of screen tearing. Though the screen tearing isn't necessarily a game problem.
SkyfoxPlays aw that sucks, im on a i3 6100 and a 2gb 960 i run need for speed payback on ultra tho im under the minimum requirements and i really wanted to try origins out.
AC origins is a typical ubisoft game where recommendation doesn't matter much.
Ghost Recon Wild Lands. Seems to run like crap regardless what you throw at it.
heartlessdeathx It's Ubisoft. If you've ever played any game you know they don't know how to optimize.
Six seige isnt very demanding though
To be fair that's more of an outlier for Ubisoft (lately). Siege, Origins, Syndicate, For Honor (specs-wise), Far Cry Primal, FC 5 all run well. I know your comment was 9 months ago.
@@beefstrokinoff That's more dependent on engine afaik. The dunia engine of farcry is one of the best optimized one imo
Agreed,awesome game in co-op with really bad optimisation!!
ive been stuck with my 560ti with i7-2600, 16gb of ram for 8 years... And im finally upgrading to a 1050ti 4g oc 1455mhz sticking with the same cpu till i find something cheap but better...
Is it just me... or is he shooting hamsters with guns and shiny hulkbuster suits?
Cant unsee this... lol
Does that cameraman not know what head room is? It's really annoying to watch someone talk and have a tiny bit of their head cut off.
FinnishArmy ?
FinnishArmy i feel ur pain
bullclaws you don't understand
Head room, xD. ge it. no. okay. i. do.
I'm a better camera operator and I don't have this one's experience... quiet sad, really.
Fallout 4, yea its old but not very optimized
Probably won't get anymore optimizations either. Shame, it's still fun to play.
really? i thought fallout 4 was well optimized
Fallout 4 is a great game, but had/has a shitload of little glitches. Most of the game optimizations for it have come from individual modders. Bethesda did a poor job of supporting it, IMO.
How is fallout4 not optimized? It runs smoothly on a $72usd duel core pentium G3258 and gtx750ti? Sure max settings require a good rig, but its playable to almost anyone with gaming PC or recent console.
I7 920, 16 GB DDR3 Ram, GTX 750 TI... ran about 50fps stable with custom settings and ini tweaks. I have an I7 3770 now and 32 GB ram, same video card and stable 60 fps. Setting texture quality maxed out, blur of all kind is shut off completely both in the ini and through a mod because shutting blur off in the ini doesn't completely do it. godrays ofcourse shut off because that kicks the 750 ti in the nuts. That should be playable with the G3258 but you will need to tweak your settings to your build and check for performance mods.
The only issue I had with the I7 920 was in settlements with 30+ settlers either guarding or sandboxing(mod that adds a lunch pail that produces 100 food so I didn't need to make a huge farm lol). Sometimes all the sandbox settlers would just stand in one spot not doing anything and some of the guards may have stopped between guard posts. Not really a big deal and still happens sometimes with this CPU, the rest of the game... perfectly playable.
You have to be super careful with online games. The minimum specs are often written for the version of the game that launched years ago.
though at the same time, many online games will also purposely try to maintain that minimum because they want a very wide possible audience of players, and running on low spec machines is a very good way to do that.
Few years later and buying a minimum spec pc is not so strange when you think about getting into VR.
good to have someone on the other end of the spectrum to LTT.
Can't wait for the next one.
waiting for the Scrapyard Wars episode 3
yupp
Pennywise I pay the $2.99 monthly for floatplane and it's totally worth it imho, I got to see the Vast monitor review a week before it hit UA-cam so I ordered mine before it hit a huge amount of orders meaning I'll more than likely receive mine on the first shipment
I get scrapyard wars with no ads, and all the FP exclusives
Me too
At the end of scrapyard 2 video they told that scrapyard wars 3 would release on some site. Sorry i cant recall the name of that site!
Jay and Luke win
Man it was painful before I got the new rig sorted. Was playing on an old Toshiba satellite could just about play most of my games on the lowest settings games looked worse than Nintendo 64.
Yoo I was playing a Toshiba Satellite as well. Could game on 1080p at low with 30fps. Always had it hooked up to a tv though because my screen was fucked lmao
Holy shit J, I watched your last video, and then this one. Hot shit you’ve been making some progress with that weight loss, well done