ON MovieTome: That 300 sequel finally gets details!
CNET Networks Entertainment:
GameSpot: TGS 2008
GameFAQs
SportsGamer
MP3.com
TV.com
Metacritic

Game Settings

World in Conflict has pages of tweakable settings. We found that most individual settings don't sap performance too much, but your frame rates will rapidly deteriorate once you start enabling all the settings. With settings like "windows on buildings," "flowers and bushes," and "grass," the game slices and dices your computer with the death of a thousand cuts. One setting here, another there, and suddenly those Russian tanks are approaching you in a slide show.

The game has a handful of grouped settings that automatically turn off five or more other settings when disabled. We have image-quality comparisons on the following pages that demonstrate how the game looks with the settings enabled and disabled.

The preset image quality settings vary quite a bit. The difference between medium and low is the most drastic and yields nearly triple the performance. You can easily free up some performance between very high quality and high quality by lowering the amount of antialiasing, because the very high quality setting has a preset of 4xAA.

Preset Quality Settings, 1280x1024

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Very Low Quality
127
Low Quality
96
Medium Quality
33
High Quality
18
Very High Quality
14

Settings Tests

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Resolution Tests - Medium Quality

800x600
48
1024x768
41
1280x1024
33
1600x1200
26
1920x1440
19

Pixel Shaders, 1280x1024

Pixel Shaders Low
42
Pixel Shaders High
21

Post Processing, 1280x1024

Post Processing Disabled
25
Post Processing Enabled
21

Clouds, 1280x1024

Clouds Disabled
25
Clouds Enabled
21

High Quality Terrain, 1280x1024

High Quality Terrain Disabled
25
High Quality Terrain Enabled
21

Bloom, 1280x1024

Bloom Disabled
23
Bloom Enabled
21

Z-Feather, 1280x1024

Z-Feather Disabled
23
Z-Feather Enabled
21

World Distance Detail, 1280x1024

Very Low
23
Very High
21

Shadows, 1280x1024

Shadows Disabled
23
Shadows Enabled
21

Texture Quality, 1280x1024

Low
23
High
21

System Setup: Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel 975XBX2, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 160GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Card: GeForce 8600 GTS, Nvidia ForceWare 163.44



254 Comments

  • Senaddd

    Posted Aug 13, 2008 5:50 am GMT

    2.2 GHz dual core 2 GB ddr2 800 mhz ram
    8800 gt 512 XP service pack 2 35 fps on very high

    • Login to rate this comment
  • JackHoleFace00

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 3:57 pm GMT

    Ha! I'm just glad I can get this game running at all! I have:
    -3.0 GHz Pentium 4
    -2.5 GB DDR 400 MHz RAM
    -256 MB GeForce 7600
    -Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 (wouldn't be able to play if I had Vista!)
    It's not the best, but certainly playable, so I'm happy. Basically runs around 30 fps most of the time, though it can get real choppy during things like nukes or tons of onscreen action (esp. on the map "Typhoon"). I probably would've upgraded by now, but with Windows Vista being such a disaster (including being a major memory hog), I'm waiting for Windows 7 to be released... which will hopefully be next year, though I'm not holding my breath.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • asian_man

    Posted Jul 17, 2008 3:30 am GMT

    Help? my computer can only do 24fps in this game with all the setting put on high at 1440 by 900

    I have a AMD phenom 2.2ghz quad, ATI 3870 512, 4GB and win vista ultimate, what do I do to get the frame rates up?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Pixy64

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 3:52 am GMT

    I think i need better CPU for great run
    AMD X2 5200+ is not very well with this game cause with GEFORCE 8800 GTX and 2GB Ram DDR800 and win vista x64 i still see low frame rate in some mission
    yeah unstable frame rate in this game with all PC

    • Login to rate this comment
  • pinkyfull

    Posted May 30, 2008 2:41 am GMT

    I must say that the next-gen cards and dual core zGPU's offer a great alternative to the old 8800's i recently upgraded form an 8800gt to a 9800 gtx and the performance (even though VRAM is the same) in almost all games is much better(ps3cooly21)

    • Login to rate this comment
  • MgunHunter

    Posted May 23, 2008 8:52 pm GMT

    Quote: "I'm getting more into PC gaming. But the high-ass costs of GPUs and bi-anual need to upgrade them keeps me with consoles." -nate1222
    Who the heck upgrades twice a year? Last upgrade I did was about a year ago, and that was just for RAM. I've been running my 7900GS for a long time now.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • MajinBuXL

    Posted May 15, 2008 2:09 pm GMT

    The bult-in benchmark really pushes your graphics card above and beyond what you'll need to actually play the game. I maxed everything out and got pretty bad framerates with my 8600GT, I was scared for a moment i couldn't play the game but i tried the campaign and finished it with those same settings and never went down on framerates, ran like a dream. The benchmark, i think, is really only for multiplayer. I think thats where all the mayhem is even though i havent tried that part of the game yet.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • harrygordon1000

    Posted May 6, 2008 3:58 pm GMT

    @ps3cooly21

    The fact that you are trying to judge the 8400GS on the amount of VRAM it has worries me. I suspect that WiC will chew the 8400GS up and spit it out. I've seen this game giving the 8600GT a damn good run for it's money (20FPS on reasonably high settings).

    IMHO, anything other than an 8800GT isn't worth having around - particularly given current price points.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • ps3cooly21

    Posted Apr 24, 2008 2:34 am GMT

    8400 gs i think that sould work too i hope cos its got 256mb which for most games is good or better

    • Login to rate this comment
  • 123456_1267

    Posted Apr 11, 2008 10:15 am GMT

    8800GT 512MB
    Pentium D820 2 X 2.8ghz
    2gig 800mhz ram
    (xp)

    runs on 1680 x 1050 on high at around 30-40fps
    great game well worth buying.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • jorgebm2

    Posted Apr 9, 2008 5:14 pm GMT

    Specs:

    AMD Athlon X2 6400+
    2GB Ram
    Nvidia 8600GT 512MB

    will it run on high settings not extreme

    • Login to rate this comment
  • gah468

    Posted Apr 5, 2008 6:51 am GMT

    im getting a new comp: 2.4 pentium core im think and an 8800 single sli card is it any good?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Ski_Spastic

    Posted Mar 31, 2008 12:41 pm GMT

    I don't understand this, I have an E 6600, 4 GB RAM, a 8800 GTS 512 MB card, and a 150GB WD Raptor X, and I'm averaging 8 FPS in 1600x1200 high settings, and 1280x1024 high...what gives?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • EdwardX2

    Posted Mar 18, 2008 9:59 am GMT

    lol guys... i got a pc thats 7 years old, 2 ghz processor, nvidia 6200 and 756 mb ram and still running WiC smoothly on very low (whatever) with 30-37 fps ;P

    • Login to rate this comment
  • nate1222

    Posted Mar 3, 2008 6:05 pm GMT

    I'm getting more into PC gaming. But the high-ass costs of GPUs and bi-anual need to upgrade them keeps me with consoles. I'm well aware that the best XBox360 games are often on PC. Hell, I own Oblivion on both platforms. I own Mass Effect on 360 and plan to buy the PC version in May. But I'm only buying PC games that have mucho replay value, as I CAN'T TRADE them in once they're finished. This also keeps me from investing too much in a GPU.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • gurkhafromcuba

    Posted Mar 1, 2008 2:10 pm GMT

    when i play the game shuts down in single player and multiplayer its only just started since i started using online and it comes up with world in conflict has stopped workin . it worked well all through single player an since playin multiplayer its keeps closin . anyone no y this might b

    • Login to rate this comment
  • ima_lemming

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 1:30 pm GMT

    how does it measure the graphics cars performance? is it in frames per second?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • beast____

    Posted Feb 25, 2008 2:20 pm GMT

    i'm running dual 8500gt 1gb cards. anybody know if i can run on high?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • kiddo1212

    Posted Feb 13, 2008 1:21 am GMT

    ShadeofChaoS, i have exactly the same results but 2gb of ram and e2140 2.3ghz(oc). Its true you can get max everything at 800x600 res at a fps of 25....If you add in the nuke it drops to about 11fps. I have 2 PCs by the way. My first is with a e2140,2gb ddr2 p5k pro and a 7600gt 512. My the other is a P5N 32 E Sli with q6600 oc to 3.0ghz, 2gb ram and a MSI NX8800Gt 512.... The second run all at max at 1440x900 max is 57fps and lowest is 19fps(nuke part)... I have a spares of 3 n6600 128gddr3 and 1 6800 ultra... Yes i am a PC freak...

    • Login to rate this comment
  • hassam7

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 9:31 am GMT

    DirectX 10 is slightly better in detail and lighting.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • ShadeofChaoS

    Posted Feb 6, 2008 10:33 am GMT

    This game have bad rendering. Dunno why so many play it, probably cuz america have the " being-attacked " phobia.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • pongley

    Posted Feb 5, 2008 1:04 pm GMT

    See I don't get this, I've got a pentium 4 2.93Ghz, 512mb 7600GT and 1.5 GB ram, and the 1 gig stick of ram is faulty. But I can run WiC on DX9 all available settings (which is all of them minus DX10 and cloud shadows) and I'm getting FPS of 20-25.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • rathalos

    Posted Jan 30, 2008 10:31 am GMT

    My computer specs are:

    Windows XP SP2
    AMD athlon 64 X2 4200 dual core processor
    2GB RAM
    Nividia GeForce 8800GT 512MB

    What settings can I run in with screen resolution of 1024 X 768 ?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • i_exodus

    Posted Jan 20, 2008 10:23 am GMT

    Forget about use intel video card to run game.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • horsman123

    Posted Jan 18, 2008 11:57 am GMT

    to Vivian_the_slut (lol nice name btw)
    u seem to have an excellent graphics card as it ishowever you are still experiencing problems.
    the only answer which i can think of is that the game is not running well on your pc because you DO NOT have dedicated memory on your graphics cards which most modern games such as world in conflict require! hoped i helped with your problem!

    • Login to rate this comment
  • APerryman

    Posted Jan 18, 2008 11:04 am GMT

    Will this setup work with this game and Call Of Duty 4?
    Windows Vista, Direct X 10, 2048mb Ram, Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7500 @2.20 GHz and Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset Family. Its a upgraded Dell Inspiron 1520. Can you message me if it will.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Vivian_the_slut

    Posted Jan 15, 2008 9:31 am GMT

    can someone tell me why my computer doesn't seem to run that well, i have an amd 6000 3.02 ghz, 4gb of ram, a geforce 8800gts, directx 10, running vista home premium 64 bit, but i struggle getting it to run that fast even on low quality settings

    • Login to rate this comment
  • User-

    Posted Jan 13, 2008 6:35 am GMT

    thanks ..

    • Login to rate this comment
  • intel-gamer

    Posted Jan 7, 2008 11:01 pm GMT

    thanks.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • rokkuman09

    Posted Jan 3, 2008 4:24 pm GMT

    intel-gamer, you don't need to get a new processor, yours is quite fast. Most games show little benifet from having a quad over a dual core currently. I would suggest you go with the 8800GTS G92, it has about the same performance as a 8800 GTX and in some benchmarks I have seen actually beats it by a little. Although it is not much faster than the 8800GT it has a MUCH better cooler, the cooler on the GT is not the greatest. But don't get me wrong.. the GT is a great card, I just think you should spend a little extra and get the GTS G92.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • intel-gamer

    Posted Jan 3, 2008 2:23 pm GMT

    I have a Intel E6600 at 2.4 Ghz Oced to 3.0Ghz, 8800 GTS 320Mb, 2 GB ram, Xp and Vista dual boot, 7200 rpm 250GB hd. On XP, World in conflict at 16xAA,16xAF, 1400x900 res, everything else on Maximum, In the benchmark I got an Average of 27fps. On Vista, at 16xAA, 16xAF, 1400x900 res, everything else on max with DX10, I got an Average of 8 FPS. On Vista, at 16xAA, 16xAF, 1400x900 res, everthing on max without DX10, I got an Average of 11 FPS. When I Overclocked my 8800 GTS 320 MB, it increased The Average FPS on Vista and XP up by 2 FPS on all Configurations. PS. should i get a 8800GTX, 8800GT, 8800 GTS (G92 verson with 512MB), or upgrade my processer. Thanks.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • belfador

    Posted Dec 30, 2007 5:10 pm GMT

    QuadCore Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2400 MHz (9 x 267)
    Asus P5B
    2048 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB)
    Microsoft Windows XP Professional

    On very high at 1440x900 = 47fps+ great game!

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Sam_Fisher_932

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 10:41 pm GMT

    @proplaya07
    You say that you can run WiC on a Radeon 9250 on High Settings perfectly? I wonder what perfect is to you, lol.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 9:44 am GMT

    @Kerosine18 I run with a similar setup and the game runs on very high. Its an awesome game by the way.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Kerosine18

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 6:34 am GMT

    I play this game on:
    - AMD Athlon 5200+ Dual Core
    - Nvidia 8800GTS 320MB
    - 250GB Hard Disc
    - 2GB TakeMS RAM

    Runs very well, without glitches and High or Very High graphics, not sure which one exactly.

    ----

    Also ran, albeit with MUCH LOWER graphics on my cousin's computer with merely a GeForce FX5200 (Pre-dates the GeForce 6 Series)..So, if you have a very low spec graphics card but you have an FX-Series GeForce you might be able to run the game at 800x600 at acceptable Frame Rates - but don't expect anything like the above pics

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Speedyme

    Posted Dec 25, 2007 4:06 pm GMT

    To all that are wondering wether their system could hold up World in Conflict i suggest they check www.nzone.com. its a nividia website that checks your system and tells you wether you make the minimum requirements as well as the recommended requirements. It also has the choices of other games such as crysis, supreme commander, ect. Besides that gamespot always offers demo's for the games that it can. check the downloads tab and youll see a demo for this game.

    i was about to buy a new videocard to play world in conflict until i saw that i met the requirements. =D saved me 100 dollars

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Joe-Mamma-13

    Posted Dec 24, 2007 6:48 am GMT

    Processor type AMD Turionâ„¢ 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-58
    • , Level 2 cache 512 KB + 512 KB, Up to 1600 MHz system bus running at AC/DC mode 35 Watt
    Operating system installed Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium 32-bit
    Standard memory 2048 MB
    Maximum memory Supports up to 2 GB DDR2 memory
    Memory layout (2 x 1024 MB)
    Internal drives
    Internal hard disk drive 160 GB
    Hard disk controller SATA Hard Disk Drive
    Hard disk drive speed 5400 rpm
    Optical drive type Lightscribe Super Multi DVD Writer (+/-R +/-RW) with Double Layer support
    Video adapter NVIDIA® GeForce™ 7150M
    Video RAM Up to 559 MB total available graphics memory
    Remote control HP Mobile Remote Control
    Internal audio 3D Sound Blaster Pro compatible sound 16 bit integrated
    Do you think is hould buy WiC for this laptop?
    Will it work?

    • Login to rate this comment
  • proplaya07

    Posted Dec 24, 2007 4:12 am GMT

    I've got an ATI radeon 9250 and it runs perfect on the high settings, but these tips like turn the shadowing off and turn the long distance detail off make a big difference to people with older graphics cards like my-self.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • sure2not

    Posted Dec 23, 2007 4:16 pm GMT

    i have this game on low specs, but its still awesome, you guys need to get this game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Login to rate this comment
  • rokkuman09

    Posted Dec 23, 2007 11:58 am GMT

    Iffy350 is it a 320MB or 640MB GTS, or is it the new G92 based 512MB ones? Anyway I think you should be able to play it with most settings on high (But some on low so it stays smooth in battles and everything).

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 22, 2007 6:45 pm GMT

    I wanna be a ruskie and nook some neocons! Regan Smash!

    • Login to rate this comment
  • BraveArc

    Posted Dec 22, 2007 1:01 am GMT

    I get a pretty good but simetimes sluggish framerate.My comp. specs:
    Penium 4 3.4Ghz
    ATi radeon x550 256MB
    2GB ram
    Vista business 32-bit

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 21, 2007 9:49 pm GMT

    Wut ever!

    • Login to rate this comment
  • rx7neon

    Posted Dec 21, 2007 9:22 pm GMT

    Umm, this isn't Crysis.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 20, 2007 11:20 pm GMT

    I have an AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 Dual Core and one Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTS! How well would this set up run Crisis? Also: 2.61 GHz and 2.95 GB of RAM + 500 Gig HD

    • Login to rate this comment
  • rokkuman09

    Posted Dec 16, 2007 5:47 pm GMT

    Looks good even on low

    • Login to rate this comment
  • haz13

    Posted Dec 15, 2007 4:05 pm GMT

    I run this on medium/high at 1024x768 with:

    Pentium 4 (3GHz)

    1GB DDR RAM

    7950 GT 512mb

    Getting an extra 2GB of RAM soon!

    • Login to rate this comment
  • kd_kash

    Posted Dec 15, 2007 7:32 am GMT

    vista 64-bit 8gb ram 2x 8800 ultra Intel Q6600.Runs with all setting on and very high setting with 1600 x 1050 res.

    • Login to rate this comment
  • Colonel-sidewin

    Posted Dec 12, 2007 1:28 pm GMT

    7600GT xxx. AMD athlon X2 4200+ 2GB 600.mhz. Runns great at 1440x900 (HD 16:10).
    Without the Antialiasing on,

    • Login to rate this comment
advertisement
Click Here