Why such an so extreme Hardware claim ??? (aka "will it run on my pc?")

I run on 7 years old system (intel quad core i6600), only graphics card is a bit newer (ati 4870) and on low details it runs prezty smoothly. But its time to do some changes now, to get something better.
Which graphics card do you suggest?

 

@Mitja Bonca you would probably be fine with like a GTX 660 Ti or anything above that. Wouldn't waste too much money as that i6600 will still bottleneck your system.

 

For reference, I am on C2Q 6600 3.0GHz (OC), 8GB DDR3, NV 560GTX 1GB, single display 1920x1200 and can't complain on AC performance at all. Default settings (minus HDR, minus Blur, minus driver hands): 90-140FPS. Same with AA and AF maxed ingame: 70-90FPS. Very enjoyable experience overal.

Didn't like the tone, attitude and argumentation of thread starter. What's wrong with you people? Reminded me of this:

 

Spoiled brats be spoiled. Meanwhile, I run the game perfectly fine on an old Phenom II X4 with an HD4870. It really is a silly argument to somehow insinuate that a person is less qualified than another for their subjective opinion of what next gen graphics should be. If the physics FFB, and gameplay are there, only someone dullard enough to compare a sim with simcade stuff like Forza and GranTurismo would lack the imagination or driving skill to appreciate it.

Look at the old Gmotor2 stuff and it's incredible life span and realize with hard core sim racers that graphics are just icing on the cake.

Sure, the Simbin Race series and GTR series are ugly. They're ugly by 2006 standards. I still play them nearly every day. Stop being an eye candy elitist. It's version 0.1.2 at the time of this writing. Calm your tits.

 

Funny video tomas .

For people complaining about current hardware and AC performances, please consider that it's better to have some features and options to make the game use future hardware capabilities than a game completely frozen with only what today technology can achieve. I think of Doom 3 which include on its time a high-res tex options which can't be used when it was released (geforce2/4 era !!).

Sadely, today people want everything too fast right now without paying the price nor doing any effort to get it :|.

Last thought: Kunos team mystake was a big lack of communication, with the result of the "tidal wave" of posts on these forums, after a long "calm before the storm" time.

 

I agree with you Simon. My system is the same spec and with every slider maxed out, I'm still getting 100Fps Avg.

I think that the game is yet to be fully optimized as it is still in Early Access, and the graphics will only get better in terms of GPU usage.

 

With a sim I like to achieve 120fps

I keep reducing details until my PC does this, reduce resolution also,

AC still looks darn good on lower settings

No AA. ( I run in 3d vision so AA not important )
AF x8
No HDR

 

Just posting my specs and results for reference.
specs:
3750k
670 2gb @ 331.65
8gb
no OC

max settings, vsync on steady 60 no stuttering.

 

By the way, yesterday while looking into the "...\Assetto Corsa\cfg\video.ini", I noticed this section:

[ASSETTOCORSA]
HIDE_ARMS=0
LOCK_STEER=0
WORLD_DETAIL=5 ; 0 to 5

So I changed the WORLD_DETAIL from 5 to 0 to see if anything would happen, turns out it did, I didn't notice any major different in the track details other than the lack of 3D grass, what I did notice is how much faster the game became for me.

 

Forza as Standard
Sound - bad
Graphic - well not that good compared to pCars
Physics - more arcadish

Be realistic, still an beta.

 

Not to mention Forza doesn't need as much resources to produce it's less complex physics so the system has more resources for bells and whistles.

 

Get the Fastest GFX card you can afford.

Who cares about cpu bottleneck.!!
Absolutely no point in getting that 660 Ti, because when you upgrade your cpu/mobo/ram(which i assume you will be doing)...
that 660 is gonna be the bottleneck in the system and again, you're gonna' need to start over from scratch.

Upgrading one component at a time with highest spec you can afford will keep you in good stead.

 

This was the most stupid commentary i've read around so far... so GTX 680 is a bad GPU right? Lol, amazing how people talk about something they don't know anything about...

I can only tell you, with GTX 680 you should be able to run the game smoothly at 100/120 FPS with AI and all other things to come, AFAIK the reccommended GPU is a 660 Ti so i guess it should run without problems on MAX on a GTX 680...

Let's wait, i trust Kunos and for sure they're working on it...

 

Recommended is GTX 660 (not Ti)

 

Thank you K3lt, GTX 660...

 

I wonder what it takes (Mobo / CPU / RAM / GPU ) to be able to have absolute everything at max in Assetto Corsa @ 1920X1080 ?

With one car my system runs just fine with my current settings but with more cars AI and MP ? ? ?

 

I do think it looks nice, but far from exceptional, and I do hope for some optimisations because for the quality of visuals you get, the framerate isn't as high as I'd hoped. And this is all with one car on track. Who's to say how demanding other cars plus clouds of dust and debris will be. None of which would be such an issue if AC didn't have this input lag problem at otherwise sensible framerates. It should not be a major problem to drop to 40-50fps for a short time, you shouldn't lose steering performance, but unfortunately with AC it seems that unless they can somehow stop other cars affecting your framerate, people running at 70-80fps stable with one car are going to have problems.

 

Im running quite an old system now probably mediocre at best 1st gen i7 920 rest can see in sig anyway, i am quite limited by my 2x 560Ti's vram 1GB but im running an avg of 103FPS did a bench at Imola with the BMW GT2.

Im sure optimizations will be done as the sim gets closer to v1.0 but at the moment i am quite happy with how its playing for me in 1920x1080 with the settings i am using

 

Running triple on an i7 with GTX 670 4G and I am very pleased with the performance already. I comparison to other WIP projects as rFactor 2 and certainly Pcars, the overall performance is pretty much on target.

 

If you don't mind me saying so, I understand where you coming from since I just installed the game today and it took me a while to customize the graphics on my rig, just to get one car running smoothly at over 70fpm!
However there were times during the replay where the frame rates didn't actually drop, but the footage became staggered, which pretty much suggests to me that it's a issues in relation to graphic anomalies, caused by the coding of graphic textures in the beta version.

I'm not a programmer but I have worked in IT for over 20 years and have worked close with programmers, and I had been told in the past that developing console games are not developed in the way PC games are coded.

I would assume that on the existing consoles, the low amount of anti aliasing and the fact that the textures are smaller in size (bytes), and the fact that when coding console games, they also use a common technique to improve performance where they blur a lot of the graphics further away in the foreground and background, which makes a considerable difference in achieving higher frame rates.

On PC's, games are usually made with further drawing distances without blurring the foreground and backgrounds, even though in the settings of a lot of PC games you can adjust the drawing distances, this is only one of many features that you need to tweak if you wish to play at the highest resolutions, best texture settings, anti aliasing on the highest setting etc... that are limited on the console versions of games.