# S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Specs Min-Med-High



## mikey8684 (Mar 20, 2007)

For those of you interested or curious here are the official specs from the readme file while installing S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Microsoft® Windows® XP (Service Pack 2) / Microsoft® Windows® 2000 SP4
Processor type : Intel Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz / AMD XP 2200+
512 MB RAM
10 GB available hard drive space
128 MB DirectX® 8.0 compatible card / nVIDIA® GeForce™ 5700 / ATI Radeon® 9600
DirectX® 9.0 compatible sound card
LAN/Internet connection with low latency Cable/DSL speeds for multiplayer
Keyboard, Mouse

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Microsoft® Windows® XP (Service Pack 2) / Microsoft® Windows® 2000 SP4
Processor type : Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 / AMD 64 X2 4200+
1.5 GB RAM
10 GB available hard drive space
256 MB DirectX® 9.0c compatible card / nVIDIA® GeForce™ 7900 / ATI Radeon® X1950
DirectX® 9.0 compatible sound card
LAN/Internet connection with low latency Cable/DSL/T1+ speeds for multiplayer
Keyboard, Mouse

HIGH SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Microsoft® Windows® XP (Service Pack 2) / Microsoft® Windows® 2000 SP4
Processor type : Intel Core2 Duo E6700 / AMD 64 X2 5200+
2 GB RAM
10 GB available hard drive space
512 MB DirectX® 9.0c compatible card / nVIDIA® GeForce™ 8800 / ATI Radeon® X2800
DirectX® 9.0 compatible sound card
LAN/Internet connection with low latency Cable/DSL/T1+ speeds for multiplayer
Keyboard, Mouse

Note: recommended specifications provide optimal experience for single player and up to 4 player/medium size map multiplayer



I think its a nice addition to have the HIGH specs for those who want to max it out.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 20, 2007)

Ironic that CPU/GPU's were 1/10 of the power when the game engine was developed...

Is this still on for March 22 release?


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Mar 20, 2007)

Oh dear... recommended specs are very high. Sounds like the game code is inefficient. Hope it will be OK in practice. And those "high specs"... some of that stuff isn't even released yet. Hell, why not say "High Specs = Vista SP2, E9550 Hex Core Trio, GPU X3990 XTXXXXL, DX 11.1, 8GB RAM, installation directory Solid State Drive 16GB free required, installation media: Blu-ray"


----------



## mikey8684 (Mar 20, 2007)

Sasqui said:


> Ironic that CPU/GPU's were 1/10 of the power when the game engine was developed...
> 
> Is this still on for March 22 release?




Well I just finished playing after about 3hrs and I'm pretty impressed .... Think Oblivion styled but with guns lol .... but so much better ... 

The game is out on March 22nd but I got it earlier today thanks to where I work - EB Games - we got it early and it doesn't have a strict street date so we could start seeling it straight away  

BTW even though my system doesn't quite meet the High Rec Sepcs, I am running it at 1280 x 1024 with all the fruit turned on max and its silky smoothe  the only down side is my video card got to nearly 90*C toasty.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. kick A$$ .........  some one start a Multiplayer Sever


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 20, 2007)

the game sucks. dont bother with it. bad graphics. cant see a thing even with stuff on max. the story is lame and lots of needless running around.


----------



## Truth (Mar 26, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> the game sucks. dont bother with it. bad graphics. cant see a thing even with stuff on max. the story is lame and lots of needless running around.



Either you fail at sarcasm or you don't deserve an opinion.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 26, 2007)

the graphics are perfectly fine, in some radiation areas your vision goes fuzzy and its hard to see - but hey, its MEANT to be that way. Same with in dark areas, or with nightvision.

And to fill a few people in - my rig is in my specs, 8800GTX, E6600@3.4GHz, 2GB ram etc - it runs perfectly with all settings maxxed at 1680x1050, except when underground, i had to turn shadows and lighting down a notch each to get 30FPS in a few random areas.


The point is i guess, a developer was honest for once. if you want everything maxxed out at a high res, you DO need the high specs - unlike most games where teh reccomended lets you run at medium detail with 30FPS on average.

P.S: Rhino, its ok that you dont like the game - go play quake 4 or something if you dont like RPG/FPS combination games.


----------



## TLH (Mar 26, 2007)

I saw it at the weekend on my mates Athlon64 3000 (754) with a 7800gs and a gig o ram.He was playing it at 800x600 and while it wasn't visually impressive it did look and play OK.I think gameplay is more important than looks and if the game keeps you interested and involved then it makes up for not having alot of eye candy.I think I'm gonna buy it.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2007)

at 800x600 its gunna look poop for sure... he should be able to game a lot higher with that vidfeo card, i guess his CPU is letting him down.

But yes, i didnt like it so much the first time around, but i'll give it another shot - now i know how the game works, i wont make as many stupid mistakes.


----------



## laszlo (Mar 27, 2007)

Nice game ;is eating my sys 100%

I'm playing at 1024*768 ;i don't touch the settings ;i had to reinstall once because i asked too much and don't find what's the problem sett.

tip: stop all background aplication& processes (i observed ~5% improvement) and enlarge system cache to at least 2,5G (is eating 1,6G) btw i have min2,5 to max 4


----------



## mullered07 (Mar 27, 2007)

from what ive seen its not very good tbh, uses way too much resources for somewhat ok visuals, got outside played for 5 mins and thought im not gonna let my cpu get to 60c for this pos

i might give it another go but to me didnt seem to get me interested from the get go and the visuals dont live up to the hype


----------



## Pinchy (Mar 27, 2007)

My opinion, it looks pretty good, but no where near good enough for those specs.

Like look at CS:S and HL2. The graphics are pretty good, and it can play on an MX440 on medium/high settings.


----------



## mullered07 (Mar 27, 2007)

not that im saying your lying pinchy (probably over-exaggerating a tad  ) but medium/high on a mx440 i fail to see how this is possible with people unable to play it at those settings on a 7800gs, doesnt it require sm2 at least ?? 

as i said im going to give it another go when i have time (ie: can be bothered ) as not to be biased but first thoughts are its not too optimised imo if top end systems have trouble playing it at full settings. 

what the hell do we fork out on all our decent hardware for if game developers feel the need to kick us in the ass everytime a new game comes out, used to be you could buy a graphics card that would cope well with games for 2 years? now 6 months and your lucky if your so-called "high-end" machine can cope with the latest releases :shadedshu


----------



## Pinchy (Mar 27, 2007)

mullered07 said:


> not that im saying your lying pinchy (probably over-exaggerating a tad  ) but medium/high on a mx440 i fail to see how this is possible with people unable to play it at those settings on a 7800gs, doesnt it require sm2 at least ??



Nope, when i had my MX440, i played CS:S online with all setings on High (Fair enough, they are computer settings not graphics settings...P4 3Ghz and 1GB of PC3200), with no antilising and Trilinear Antistropic filtering. 

The only time it did start lagging was when i was in a 16 vs 16 player server, it would drop down to 10FPS. But generally, it stayed from 20-30 FPS.

A 7800GS not being able to play it on max? Thats a bit odd, my 9800 PRO playes it on near-max.

Trust me - the source engine has been coded very well


----------



## mullered07 (Mar 27, 2007)

my bad didnt see you mean cs:s and hl2  (even still on an mx440 its not going to be the best looking mmm blocky )damn skim reading at this time in the morning


----------



## Pinchy (Mar 27, 2007)

mullered07 said:


> my bad didnt see you mean cs:s and hl2  damn skim reading at this time in the morning



LOL i was a little lost with the whole 7800 thing not being able to play it on max


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2007)

mullered07 said:


> not that im saying your lying pinchy (probably over-exaggerating a tad  ) but medium/high on a mx440 i fail to see how this is possible with people unable to play it at those settings on a 7800gs, doesnt it require sm2 at least ??



CSS did indeed run on an MX440 at launch - severeal updates since then have killed performance big time, so those old owners are pretty screwed (thats why the 7800GS you mentioned has issues - the stupid performance killing updates)

The source engine was coded well... and totally F*cked in updates.


P.S- you guys got confused as to what games each other meant, but i do knwo people with steam games (CSS/DoD: S) with good rigs who get worse performance than slower rigs, its a problem with a november update to steam.


----------



## pbmaster (Mar 28, 2007)

With my system I get 40-50 FPS average running 1280 x 1024, first level of AA and whatever else it auto-selected. Not bad eh?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2007)

yeah thats totally unplayable, and i bet it looks like absolute poop! *sarcasm*

So how did you measure the FPS? fraps?

Edit: used fraps.

Main menu: 1100FPS (lol!)
In game:
Min 96FPS
Max 116FPS
Avg 96FPS

So... crap.. thats a lot faster than pre-patch was :S


----------



## wazzledoozle (Mar 28, 2007)

It runs very smoothly for me at high settings plus the first notch of AA (2x), and upped the AF a bit too. The setting that makes the biggest difference is the lighting, dynamic objects is nearly unplayable, while static is extremely smooth.

Doesnt help that the game sucks though.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2007)

lol wazzle.. i have dynamic objects on, just not full dynamic.


----------



## rafterman (Mar 29, 2007)

*what am i doing wrong*

hi all 

in the past week i have upgraded my spec to:

amd athlon 3800 dual core
windows xp home
1gb ddr2 memory
nvidia 7100 graphics

i bought stalker yesturday ran home and installed it.

trouble is when i play it i get awfull disturbance on the back ground the birds arent birds they are just trails same with the back ground. any ideas i have tried everything running every thing on low 800x600 but to no avail and i really would love to be able to play this game!!!!!


----------



## rafterman (Mar 29, 2007)

rafterman said:


> hi all
> 
> in the past week i have upgraded my spec to:
> 
> ...


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 29, 2007)

Ha I can run stalker at high settings, kind of a weird game btw


----------



## mikey8684 (Mar 29, 2007)

rafterman said:


> hi all
> 
> in the past week i have upgraded my spec to:
> 
> ...




Hey dude hope I can help....

Definately ya graphics card dude and maybe get another gig of ram(depending on which u have atm)...... but regardless of graphics card type or brand I recommend one with at least 256MB Memory & 256bit Memory Bus.  

Now if your card has "Turbocache Technology" you can make it go from 128mb to 512mb but you will use your system memory so another gig would be wise, but the other downer is it only has 64bit memory bus & if u look at the minimum specs the cards required both have 128bit (I think) which is why I think it is being a bitch 4 u .  

If I'm wrong   someone correct me and help this dude the right way lol......


----------



## pt (Mar 29, 2007)

7100....
that' the problem /\, you're lucky if you can play any game at all with it


----------



## FAXA (Mar 29, 2007)

Its most likely your GPU.

And also the way the game is coded it runs better on older cards in my experience.

I ran it on my older rig (Athlon XP 2400+, 2GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9800SE 128MB AGP) than it did on my current one (see avatar space) when playing on low settings.


----------



## rafterman (Mar 29, 2007)

*grrrrrrrr*

Thanks for that mikey 

i think your right the graphics card has 256 are you saying i can clock it to 512? if so then HOW THE HELL DO I DO THAT!!!!! lol

im now off to get anouther gig of ram

any other suggestions please let me know

cheers guys


----------



## Mussels (Mar 30, 2007)

rafterman said:


> Thanks for that mikey
> 
> i think your right the graphics card has 256 are you saying i can clock it to 512? if so then HOW THE HELL DO I DO THAT!!!!! lol
> 
> ...



you do not 'clock' it to 512 - IF its a turbocache model, its an option in the drivers.

For that card, you are 99% screwed - its performance is going to be far too low for stalker. Try updating the drivers to get things looking normal, at least.


----------



## rafterman (Mar 30, 2007)

*what would you suggest*

what graphics card would you suggest as i am on a budget but i want something good
and it needs to be pci express!!


----------



## rafterman (Mar 30, 2007)

*is this one good????*

Product - Inno3D Geforce 7600 GT
Chipset Geforce - 7600 GT
Memory - 256MB GDDR3
Core Frequency - 560MHz
Memory Frequency - 1400MHz
RAMDAC - 400MHZ
Interface - PCI-Express
Pixel Per Clock - 12
Memory Bus - 128-bit
Max. Resolution - 2560 x 1600
SLI Ready - Yes
Output - Dual-Link DVI, TVO

if not what would you suggest


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Mar 30, 2007)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Oh dear... recommended specs are very high. Sounds like the game code is inefficient. Hope it will be OK in practice. And those "high specs"... some of that stuff isn't even released yet. Hell, why not say "High Specs = Vista SP2, E9550 Hex Core Trio, GPU X3990 XTXXXXL, DX 11.1, 8GB RAM, installation directory Solid State Drive 16GB free required, installation media: Blu-ray"



Man you are a crack up...  maybe you should bookmark this forum and come back to it in 5 years and see how close you actually are....  heeheeee


----------



## mikey8684 (Mar 30, 2007)

rafterman said:


> Product - Inno3D Geforce 7600 GT
> Chipset Geforce - 7600 GT
> Memory - 256MB GDDR3
> Core Frequency - 560MHz
> ...



I think its an ok card, my mate just bought one http://www.gainward.net/products/product.php?products_id=80 ..... and he had a 9600XT before hand so hes very happy  . 

This is just a review I found quickly on the card (different to my mates but same card  )

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2006/03/23/NVIDIA-7600-GT-vs-ATI-X1800-GTO/p1 

Really it depends on your budget but atm this card goes for around  -100 pounds - $200 US - $250 AUS   which isn't too bad I guess

good luck anyway


----------



## KillZone (Mar 30, 2007)

rafterman said:


> Product - Inno3D Geforce 7600 GT
> Chipset Geforce - 7600 GT
> Memory - 256MB GDDR3
> Core Frequency - 560MHz
> ...



1950GT is pretty good, under $200 in Canada. Not sure what your budget is.


----------



## Behemoko (Mar 30, 2007)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Oh dear... recommended specs are very high. Sounds like the game code is inefficient. Hope it will be OK in practice. And those "high specs"... some of that stuff isn't even released yet. Hell, why not say "High Specs = Vista SP2, E9550 Hex Core Trio, GPU X3990 XTXXXXL, DX 11.1, 8GB RAM, installation directory Solid State Drive 16GB free required, installation media: Blu-ray"



That would be freakin' awsome, lol.  That's my computer in 3 years! (close enough, lol)


----------



## Ketxxx (Apr 5, 2007)

mikey8684 said:


> For those of you interested or curious here are the official specs from the readme file while installing S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
> 
> SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
> 
> ...



Those specs are wildly inaccurate. In reality you can play STALKER on the following quite comfortably

LOW:

CPU: 2.5GHz P4 or 2.0GHz Athlon
RAM: 2x512MB, preferably low latency PC3200
Graphics: 128\256MB 9600\9800 Radeon or GF6800NU (FX series really sucked)

MEDIUM:

CPU: 3.2GHz P4 or 2.5GHz Athlon
RAM: 2x512MB PC4000, running @ PC4000, preferably in sync with the FSB
Graphics: 256MB Radeon 9800Pro\XT or GF6800NU

HIGH:

CPU: 3.8GHz P4 or 2.8GHz Athlon
RAM: 2x1GB PC4000 or better
Graphics: X1800 series or GF6800 Ultra or better 

For the record, I'm running 2x1GB, 2.85GHz A64 and a X1950Pro @ 621\1.5GHz, ALL eyecandy maxed, 2xAA 16xAF 1280*1024 resolution, smooth as a babys bum. I would run 4xAA, but theres no need on a 17" monitor. I suppose if anyone is interested I could use fraps and compare FPS.


----------

