CPU

A fast CPU is absolutely essential to Age of Conan. Single-core processors cannot run the game with high quality settings. These older CPUs fail to feed information to the other components in a timely manner. As a result, texture swaps occur at increasingly later points in the scene; sometimes they didn't happen at all until we stopped and waited for the game to catch up. It's like typing on a slow computer and waiting for the letters to appear onscreen seconds after you type them. You can get away with upgrading to a fast dual-core processor because the game doesn't seem to take advantage of quad-core processors at all. Clock speed is far more important than having an extra two cores in the game. If you have the means to overclock your CPU, we highly recommend doing so for Age of Conan. 

CPU Performance Tests

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

1600x1200, Medium Quality

Core2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.0GHz
42
Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
37
Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz
43
Core2 Duo E8200 @ 2.66GHz
37
Core2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13GHz
33
Phenom X4 9600 @ 2.3GHz, TLB fix disabled
29
Phenom X3 8750 @ 2.4GHz
28
Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 @ 2.4GHz
32
Athlon 64 4000+ @ 2.4GHz
21

System Setup: Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650, Intel Core2 Quad Q9450, Intel Core2 Duo E8400, Intel Core2 Duo E8200, Intel Core2 Duo E6420, eVGA 780i. AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX-60, AMD Athlon 64 4000+, AMD Phenom X3 8750, AMD Phenom X4 9600 Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H. 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit. Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 GT, beta Nvidia ForceWare 175.16.

Memory

Windows Vista barely runs with 1GB of RAM, so it comes as no surprise that the game chokes with only 1GB of RAM. We could fire up the game, but load times were atrocious and the poor frame rate performance made benchmarking pointless. Performance improved dramatically when we moved up to 2GB. We didn't see frame rate gains at 3GB, but load times improved and the perpetual hard drive churn seemed to decrease.  

RAM Performance Tests

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

1600x1200, High Quality, Bloom Enabled, Low Quality Character Shadows

3GB Corsair XMS
35
2GB Corsair XMS
35
1GB
0

System Setup: Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650, eVGA 780i, 3GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2 + 512MBx2), 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), Corsair XMS Memory 1GB, 1GB Corsair XMS Memory (512MBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit. Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 GT, Nvidia ForceWare 175.16.

128 Comments

  • deathmyster

    Posted Jun 10, 2009 6:13 pm GMT

    this is why they need to make games with prerendered shadows as a option.. it adds alot of depth to the graphics and a more realistic appearance... so what if my character doesn't have 2000 different tree branch shadows on him, the area still looks much better and makes up for the lack of definition in plants, buildings etc.

  • Pixy64

    Posted Feb 28, 2009 2:35 pm GMT

    I knew ATI can't be trusted

  • FBIoh3

    Posted Jan 5, 2009 4:11 pm GMT

    uh, Smugz, they were talking about a P4 which is a single core. You have a quad core and plenty of ram. In this case dont worry about your cpu speed, worry about your video card.

  • Smugz

    Posted Dec 1, 2008 10:53 am GMT

    I have a Gigabyte EP35C-DS3R motherboard, 4 gigs of DDR2 Ram, and a Q6600 Intel CPU running at 2.4 GHz. I saw that it said 3.0 GHZ for a P4 so I'm not sure. I'm thimking I can run it but I don't wanna buy it and find I can't. THIS is why demos are needed... or at lesat have some kind of tester that you can download from their site to see if you can run the game or not. That would be great. Gee... I believe I can OC my CPU to 2.6 GHz without anything going wrong but I'm not too sure. I only have the standard fans in my computer, those being the power fan on the case, the heat sync fan on the CPU... and I think there's another one in there somewhere but hm.

    This game looks cool but I can't commit to buying it right now. Is the download cheaper than the disc and stuff or no? I'd doubt it but never hurts to ask right?

  • targetlkd

    Posted Aug 18, 2008 3:29 pm GMT

    this game is all about cpu speed. and right now if you want to get the absolute best out of the game right now with maxed AA and sliders with bloom on then you will need to get a dual core from intel that runs at 3.0 or higher and a mobo with the highest fsb (1333 i think). if you have the money get a quad thats at least 2.6 or higher (intel) as for video a single 8800GT will do for now but might not be enough when dx10 shaders are added. I'm running the game now with the best amd dual core I could find, stock is 3.0 and the L2 cache is 1mb, 4gigs DDR2, 9800GX2 and I noticed only an IQ difference between the cards, maybe 3-5fps. With the change from the 2.6 with 512mb L2 cache and the other cpu I gained 10-15fps in taratania and 20 or so outside. It helped with some stuttering as well.

  • newcherrys

    Posted Aug 16, 2008 11:24 am GMT

    i got 2.4 p 4/ 2 gb ram /nvdia 7600 gs 512mb / 2.4 p 4 is a prob or i can play with min graphs

  • Threatz_Pimp

    Posted Jul 10, 2008 12:18 am GMT

    Nah you guys are silly all you need is to invest 350-400 bucks go to www.tigerdirect.com or newegg.com grab XFX, or EVGA 680i SLi Mobo with Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz with G0 not G3 stepping you can make it a 3.2ghz CPU and get OCZ SLi DDR2 800mhz Ram and a 8800 GTS 512 The Mobo,CPU,Ram come as a combo for 399 and add the 8800 for 150$ you got a machine that will play crysis at 30fps i have benchmarks in 3dmark Advantage, and Crysis FPS Test results I was even able to use nibtor and flash the 8800GTS to a GTX Ultra clock speed very stable trust me solid system

  • ElianBG

    Posted Jul 1, 2008 10:46 pm GMT

    YO i have the game i 'kid of download it but im going to pay for and acc soo pls how do i make and acc

  • Nyku_Racer_88

    Posted Jun 29, 2008 10:41 am GMT

    This game requires to much!I mean I have 2 Gb of RAM, GeForce 6100 512 Mb, and a Processor AMD SEMPRON 2,4 Gh .And I don't know if I can play this game on my Computer!

  • o_Kanariya_o

    Posted Jun 28, 2008 6:01 pm GMT

    I really want this game - but my PC barely loads itself, so to expect this to work is absurd. Oh well there is still WOW T.T;

  • mattisgod01

    Posted Jun 28, 2008 12:16 pm GMT

    @thedreadmancer, AOC is REALLY poorly optimized, i have a Quad core Q9450 @2.66Ghz, 2x BFG 8800GTS (G92) in SLi, 4gig of DDR2 800Mhz and i can only get about 40-50FPS on max. it goes upto about 70 with shadows turned off.

  • thedreadmancer

    Posted Jun 27, 2008 6:04 am GMT

    Look, I don't mean to be rude, but...
    Are you guys high? I've got an AMD 3500+, 1GB of generic DDR 1 RAM, a 7800 GT and I run Conan on max with frames from 20 to about 45 (averages at about 30 - 35), I go down to 15 in towns just because there are so many different textures that need to load, but it is MORE than playable...

    My comp is a little better than minimum req but nowhere near recommended, I have a friend that doesn't even meet the min req for Conan and he's still able to play it smoothly, so I'm curious as to why you're min system testing got you such a bad result...

  • t400991

    Posted Jun 27, 2008 2:54 am GMT

    i hope my system can hanle this on high settings
    INTEL Quad-9450 2.66GHz
    BFG 9800 GTX OCX
    Asus P5N-T Deluxe 780i
    4gb Sli ready RAM 800Mhz
    Vista 64-Bit

    PLease comment and tell mi how well it will run AoC

  • mosberg

    Posted Jun 26, 2008 9:03 am GMT

    my system is a FALCON NORTHWEST TALON this machine is a few years old but has been a sturdy reliable fast gaming machine
    its amd 2.0 single core 2 gig ram and one of their BFG geforce 6800 videocards

    by all rights any normal computer wouldnt even get off the runway with a load like age of conan but this talon does! here are some sugestions for age of conan first start with the graphic default in HIGH mode their low mode is ineffecient.
    prefer the shader 2.0 over the higher ones
    drop your shadows to minimum
    drop water to minimum
    grop grass and folage
    use triliniar
    then start messing with your distance settings most done really need to be over 250m
    I cruise around 25-30fps

    oh and if your ever in the market for a new gaming machine check out falcon northwest basic looking case but top notch inside ive had 2 machines from them so far and I am very satisfied with them both and if im ever in a position to be in the market for a new system, FNW is the first place I will look.

  • xMADxDOGx

    Posted Jun 25, 2008 1:08 pm GMT

    I'm realy sad that Arnold Shwartzneger is not the main scharacter

  • MN

    Posted Jun 25, 2008 11:17 am GMT

    Vista 32bit has RAM limitations. Some how I made my system see all 4 GB for system use. But that is the max you can see in a 32 bit environment. Google "Vista Ram Limitations" & you can read up on all the reasons why. Sorry for the vagueness as to how I got mine past the 3.3GB I was initially seeing, I'm a Systems Integration Engineer & something I loaded (which I do as a hobby after a hard days work -LOL) now has my system using all 4GB & the 512MB from my graphics card used as such. This was accidental so I never noticed what corrected it. Previously mine was working just as smitherean described. It may have been some tweak with System Mechanic. It's my home computer so I don't really care to figure out after doing this type stuff all day for a living. As long as I can play games I'm fine with it!!

  • Julio_Brutal

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 9:04 pm GMT

    Draco is right! don't misjudge his information! 32 bits systems only detects 3.3/3.50, it has nothing to do with the video card!!

  • smitherean

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 6:58 pm GMT

    Vista detects 4gb of memory - but that includes video memory, so if you're running a 8800 GTS 640, that leaves 3.3gb for the RAM.

  • iamslow123

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 6:10 pm GMT

    Draconuskahn i directly disagree with you and all of your family members. i am running Vista sp1 32 bit. i have 4gb dual channel ram i had to do some editing work on BSOD of vista but it is working perfectly vista is seeing and Using all of the 4 gigs.

    so please shut the f*** up giving wrong information to ppl

  • Draconuskahn

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 3:26 pm GMT

    I want to back up everyone that is saying 32bit OS's can only see and use 3.3 gigs of ram (just about). I had a long talk with a family member who has been in the buisiness of building and repairing PC's for years. He assures me that Vista32 will not see or use 4 gigs.. it sees 3.3, therefore it will only use that much. The rest is just sitting there.

    Also, it seems to me the best thing to do is overclock the recommended PC for the game for best price vs. performance peak. But we all know to overclock any rig to get the most out of our money spent right? Otherwise we might as well get a console system with 3yr old parts that is overclocked and optimized for us. Either is fine with me actually. My system is obsolete and I'm broke anyway, so I will see what it is like on Xbox360 later this year or next... Have fun tweaking the settings lol

  • legolas506

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 2:42 pm GMT

    I have a AMD dual core 2.5, 4GBs of RAM DDR2 800, and 8800 GTS 640MB. I get about 70-90 FPS and in a bigger city I get about 20-50 but I never get below 20. Running Windows XP for now but will be getting Vista for directx10

    I custom built my computer from newegg! If your not getting your parts from newegg... your lame!! newegg rocks!! there are other good websites but i just stick with newegg

    Also, just because you have 4gigs of ram doesnt mean it will perform better. Get a faster speed. 2GB of DDR2 800 on newegg is like 50 bucks now and I got mine for 160 at the time grrr >

  • xatman911

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 1:14 pm GMT

    Over clocking recommended... I see. I have to admit the graphics look very good. Especially on the Nvidia cards: "The was games meant to be played!"

  • Mystoksor

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 11:01 am GMT

    I have a q6600 (2.4GHz quad, though I hear it doesn't perform like a true quadcore) single 8800 GT, 2.8GB RAM, 680 SLI and it runs awesome. I have the video settings almost completely maxed out. My FPS can go anywhere between 26 and 73, though I honestly can't tell between the two extremes

  • rtssam

    Posted Jun 24, 2008 12:16 am GMT

    some of the lag from cities is just the internet same with wow

  • GHOSTRyDr

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 4:41 pm GMT

    "I Have a super rig and yet still get slowdown and low Fps in Cities?? 8800Ultra SLI - QX6700 3.2ghz - 4gig Corsair Ram i Get like 17-20fps around Taranita Docks."

    Your problem is that the game doesn't take advantage of a lot of the tech you are using. The game doesn't utilize SLI very well, so your basically using 1 video card; The game doesn't utilize quad cores, it's only using 2 of the 4; Finally, anything over 2GB of ram isn't going to make any difference.

    "we have to buy 1500 $ sys to play a game ? ....i'm out of this rat race"

    Apparently you've never heard of newegg, aiia.

  • GHOSTRyDr

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 4:36 pm GMT

    I would have liked to see a performance / image quality comparison on the "awesome machine" between using Vista and XP. I've heard mixed reviews between Vista being worse or better.

  • ItalyCanadian9

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 4:12 pm GMT

    Agreed!

  • athenian29

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 1:55 pm GMT

    No, Masoud03, you got the PC benefits wrong. Both consoles and PC are expensive, and both can browse the web nowadays, so no need to bring those up.

    In all actuality, the PC benefits are: upgrade at your own pace, rather than needing to do it all-at-once, better control with FPS games, new features and better graphics before consoles, and not having to share with your stupid, nosy in-laws who think it's called a Wii-63 (unlike consoles, they can't do squat without putting in the password first, so your investment is safe and sound.

  • yearofshorty

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 1:53 pm GMT

    anything over 3.2GB of RAM is overkill.

    Since most games and especially when running only 32bit windows.

    64bit..it's nice but you need double the RAM just for the game to run.

  • cheatcommando

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 1:43 pm GMT

    My 8800 GT and 2.4 GB of RAM run AoC fine. From what I've heard... more RAM doesn't do much anyway.

  • Masoud03

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 12:33 pm GMT

    console benefit: no need for "Hardware Performance Guide". every thing runs smooth on any TV.
    PC benefit: its expensive , and you can brows the web

  • Hekynn

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 11:27 am GMT

    I got 2gb of ram and I run AoC just fine along with a Q9300 and a 8800GT

  • ofakar

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 9:30 am GMT

    That's the exact same I've got, except 4GB RAM.. Which apparently doesn't matter.

  • benx009

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 9:23 am GMT

    anyone know how this game would perform on a laptop with the following specs:

    intel T7250
    2GB RAM
    8600MGT TIA

  • jerectoff

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 8:05 am GMT

    I'm running it on a Dell M1710 XPS, Vista, 4GB Ram, C2D 2.16ghtz, GeForce 7950GTX and it runs on High (Shader Model 2.0) with no problems, with shadows off and Shader on 3.0 its also pretty good. I'm happy with it and it only cost £850.

  • urza2k4

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 6:59 am GMT

    Is this a Hit piece I am running AMD 64 duil core 3800 thats only 1.8 GHz Folks Winxp64 SLI 8600 GT x2 with 2 gb memory On High with a resolusion of a whopping 1360x765 with 30 -40 FPS Please do not lisen to any one that says you need 4 gig of ram thats just plain dumb Also i shut down shadowing some time to get a 20% boost in FPS while in large mob fighting and it still looks amazing. Retaile value is less than $400 if you cant afford that just wait for the 360 release, So go back to WOW player haters,This game is all GPU.... Gamespot dont belive me ping me later ill let you go all over my system

  • runstalker

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 6:40 am GMT

    Looks a lot better with shadows enabled. Turning off shadows is like stripping a big next-gen layer off the game. I can't do it. My system manages fine, a 2.8 GHz dual core, 8800 GTX (768mb) and 3.5 gb RAM. Still... time to upgrade.

  • popgea

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 6:38 am GMT

    Interesting about the game being CPU locked. Glad I just bought the 280GTX to replace my 8800GTX... LOL. I havent been in a town lately but I do see the same results. The only thing I did not see here is considerations for automatic settings done by the game to maintain performance. Even though my frame rates are the same for the 280, I seem to see things far far away being rendered (including npcs and spell effects).

  • sadikovic

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 6:07 am GMT

    Hmm... thats a bit a wierd Im running the game on high at 1280*1024 and get around 60-40fps average and sometimes dips to low 20's.
    My specs:
    - Core 2 Duo E4400 overclocked - 2.67Ghz
    - BFG 8800GTS overclocked edition (320MB)
    - 2GB OCZ 6400 RAM overclocked - 501mhz x 2 (1Ghz)
    - XP pro (sp2)

  • jcrums

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 5:49 am GMT

    I Have a super rig and yet still get slowdown and low Fps in Cities?? 8800Ultra SLI - QX6700 3.2ghz - 4gig Corsair Ram i Get like 17-20fps around Taranita Docks.

  • FallenAngelXBL

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 4:00 am GMT

    iv found the easiest way to get the FPS up without a HUGE hit on looks is to take off anti aliasing and shadows. It does wonders. I dont have to do that now, but before i had this monster it worked pretty well.

  • aiia

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 3:39 am GMT

    we have to buy 1500 $ sys to play a game ? ....i'm out of this rat race

  • path_of_hope

    Posted Jun 23, 2008 2:34 am GMT

    my laptop has the same spec as efrench9 (but a 1680 by 1050 screen) and i can max out most game settings, crysis doesn't count

  • efrench9

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 9:10 pm GMT

    My rig does this" awesome game" (typef you ninkumpoop) justice, 4 gigs of corsair XMS, 8800GTX, 2.6 core 2 duo for the holy trinity. running on a Dell 24" 1900x1200

  • typef posted Jun 22, 2008 7:54 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    typef

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 7:54 pm GMT (hide)

    this game sucks why even bother?

  • Black_Tribi

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 7:23 pm GMT

    Nice test.....if it only would be sooner...actualy I tried to run this game on a laptop with integrated graphics (I know it sucks)....and akhem...i had 1-3 fps lol (dual core,2gb ram) - conclusion,graphics cards make such a big difference (yeah I also know that but I was desperate to try if this game will run without it)! Wasted only 40 pounds ...heh

  • d3f1anc3

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 7:01 pm GMT

    Draw Distance and Shadows... forget it. Turn those settings off/lowest as possible if they don't mean anything to you and you will see an astronomical performance boost in this game.

  • PiNwOrM

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 6:11 pm GMT

    To the people pointing out how Nvidia dominated ATI in this : it's the games fault. Go to the AOC forums. Right now, for some reason, ATI GPUs are only getting used to a maximum of 40%, usually around 20%. It's a bug that's hopefully fixed soon (although I'm a Nvidia user, luckily in this case)

  • shadystxxx

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 5:38 pm GMT

    Game runs fine on max settings for me, granted i only have a res of 1280x1024 because i use a 42" lg hdtv(i dont have a monitor) which can do 1920x1080 but for some reason i cannot get that for pc games.

    Windows visra ultimate 64
    Q6600 quad core oc @ 3.0Ghz
    2x sli bfg 8800gt's OC versions
    Seagate barracude 32mb/500gb
    Hiper type-r 630w PSW
    7.1 creative sound card
    And so on.

    Game runs fine although i know what gamespot means about entering cities, using the fps meter from the game i notice framerates anyway from 60-90 at all times outside big cities then it tends to dip below 60fps, sometimes even to 30fps but never lower than that.
    Im fine with it, have not been playing it for nearly 2 weeks as metal gear came out. hope DX10 comes soon
    4GB OCZ platinum DDR2

  • DavidFry1

    Posted Jun 22, 2008 3:57 pm GMT

    Does the game have to run at 1600 x 1200 to be playable. If you would run it at lower resoliution a single core processor might be able to get playable framerates.

advertisement
Click Here
Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures Boxshot
Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures

Game Stats

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Tags

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games