By: Sarju Shah - Posted on Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2007

World in Conflict relives the cold war in a very different way. Instead of closing the cold war with a gradual drawdown and anticlimactic whimper, Russia launches an all-out invasion of the United States. The developers went all out on the graphics to render the scope of these battles. Well-designed small towns and massive cities are common these days, but World in Conflict's skyline, smoke trails, and explosions will leave you breathless.

We used World in Conflict's built-in benchmark for our testing. The demo shows off numerous special effects that include the water, clouds, shadowing, and the now-infamous nuclear blast. We averaged the results of three separate runs to generate our final scores.

Game Settings
World in Conflict has a tremendous number of settings, so many that you'll have to enable or disable several of them to affect performance significantly. We toggle all of them to find out which settings will give you back the most performance.

Graphics
DirectX 10 support, a minimum requirement of Direct X9.0c, and deformable terrain all mean one thing: You're going to need a good video card. The minimum specs require at least a GeForce 6600 GT, but we'd recommend going a few notches higher. Check out the graphics section to find out how the game performs across a variety of video cards as well as in Windows Vista with DirectX 10.

CPU
World in Conflict loves CPU cores. If you're on an aging Pentium 4 or a single-core Athlon 64 you will really want to consider upgrading to a dual-core chip.

Memory
World in Conflict requires 512MB of memory in XP and 1GB of memory in Vista. We tested the game with 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, and 3GB of RAM to see how much memory the game really needs to function. The game barely loads with 512MB of system memory and actually automatically disables numerous graphics options.

Sample System Performance

We put together a few sample systems to show how the game performed using real-world computers. Our single-core Pentium 4 2.8GHz system with GeForce 6800 barely ran the game with low settings at 1024x768. The AMD Athlon 64 4000+ with Radeon X1650 XT put up decent performance at 1280x1024 with medium settings, although to get it playable we had to dial the resolution down to 1024x768. The dual-core Athlon 64 FX-60 paired with Radeon X1900 XT 256MB ran very well at 1280x1024 with medium settings. Both of our Intel Core 2 setups paired with GeForce 8800 series cards ran World in Conflict very well, but the GeForce 8800 GTX, 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 system tripled the frame rates of our GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB system.

System Level Performance Tests

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

1600x1200, Very High Quality

Intel Core 2 X6800, GeForce 8800 GTX 768, 2GB RAM, Windows Vista
36

1600x1200, High Quality

Intel Core 2 E6600, GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB, 2GB RAM, Windows Vista
24

1280x1024, Medium Quality

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60, Radeon X1900 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP
37
AMD Athlon 64 4000+, Radeon X1650 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP
18

1024x768, Low Quality

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, GeForce 6800 128MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP
29
System Setup: Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel Core 2 E6600, Intel 975XBX2, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GB x 2), 160GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista. Graphics Cards: GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB, XFX GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB XXX Edition, beta Nvidia ForceWare 163.44.
Athlon 64 FX-60, Athlon 64 4000+, Asus A8R32 MVP Deluxe, 1GB Corsair XMS Memory (512MB x 2), 160GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Cards: Radeon X1900 XT 256MB, Radeon X1650 XT 256MB, ATI Catalyst 7.9.
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, Asus P4C800, 1GB Corsair XMS Memory (512MB x 2), 160GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Card: GeForce 6800 128MB, beta Nvidia ForceWare 163.44.

254 Comments

  • Senaddd

    Posted Aug 13, 2008 5:50 am PT

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

  • JackHoleFace00

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 3:57 pm PT

    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.

  • asian_man

    Posted Jul 17, 2008 3:30 am PT

    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?

  • Pixy64

    Posted Jul 14, 2008 3:52 am PT

    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

  • pinkyfull

    Posted May 30, 2008 2:41 am PT

    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)

  • MgunHunter

    Posted May 23, 2008 8:52 pm PT

    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.

  • MajinBuXL

    Posted May 15, 2008 2:09 pm PT

    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.

  • harrygordon1000

    Posted May 6, 2008 3:58 pm PT

    @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.

  • ps3cooly21

    Posted Apr 24, 2008 2:34 am PT

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

  • 123456_1267

    Posted Apr 11, 2008 10:15 am PT

    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.

  • jorgebm2

    Posted Apr 9, 2008 5:14 pm PT

    Specs:

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

    will it run on high settings not extreme

  • gah468

    Posted Apr 5, 2008 6:51 am PT

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

  • Ski_Spastic

    Posted Mar 31, 2008 12:41 pm PT

    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?

  • EdwardX2

    Posted Mar 18, 2008 9:59 am PT

    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

  • nate1222

    Posted Mar 3, 2008 6:05 pm PT

    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.

  • gurkhafromcuba

    Posted Mar 1, 2008 2:10 pm PT

    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

  • ima_lemming

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 1:30 pm PT

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

  • beast____

    Posted Feb 25, 2008 2:20 pm PT

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

  • kiddo1212

    Posted Feb 13, 2008 1:21 am PT

    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...

  • hassam7

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 9:31 am PT

    DirectX 10 is slightly better in detail and lighting.

  • ShadeofChaoS

    Posted Feb 6, 2008 10:33 am PT

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

  • pongley

    Posted Feb 5, 2008 1:04 pm PT

    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.

  • rathalos

    Posted Jan 30, 2008 10:31 am PT

    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 ?

  • i_exodus

    Posted Jan 20, 2008 10:23 am PT

    Forget about use intel video card to run game.

  • horsman123

    Posted Jan 18, 2008 11:57 am PT

    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!

  • APerryman

    Posted Jan 18, 2008 11:04 am PT

    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.

  • Vivian_the_slut

    Posted Jan 15, 2008 9:31 am PT

    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

  • User-

    Posted Jan 13, 2008 6:35 am PT

    thanks ..

  • intel-gamer

    Posted Jan 7, 2008 11:01 pm PT

    thanks.

  • rokkuman09

    Posted Jan 3, 2008 4:24 pm PT

    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.

  • intel-gamer

    Posted Jan 3, 2008 2:23 pm PT

    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.

  • belfador

    Posted Dec 30, 2007 5:10 pm PT

    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!

  • Sam_Fisher_932

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 10:41 pm PT

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

  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 9:44 am PT

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

  • Kerosine18

    Posted Dec 27, 2007 6:34 am PT

    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

  • Speedyme

    Posted Dec 25, 2007 4:06 pm PT

    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

  • Joe-Mamma-13

    Posted Dec 24, 2007 6:48 am PT

    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?

  • proplaya07

    Posted Dec 24, 2007 4:12 am PT

    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.

  • sure2not

    Posted Dec 23, 2007 4:16 pm PT

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

  • rokkuman09

    Posted Dec 23, 2007 11:58 am PT

    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).

  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 22, 2007 6:45 pm PT

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

  • BraveArc

    Posted Dec 22, 2007 1:01 am PT

    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

  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 21, 2007 9:49 pm PT

    Wut ever!

  • rx7neon

    Posted Dec 21, 2007 9:22 pm PT

    Umm, this isn't Crysis.

  • Iffy350

    Posted Dec 20, 2007 11:20 pm PT

    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

  • rokkuman09

    Posted Dec 16, 2007 5:47 pm PT

    Looks good even on low

  • haz13

    Posted Dec 15, 2007 4:05 pm PT

    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!

  • kd_kash

    Posted Dec 15, 2007 7:32 am PT

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

  • Colonel-sidewin

    Posted Dec 12, 2007 1:28 pm PT

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

advertisement
Click Here
World in Conflict Boxshot
World in Conflict

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    249 of 59,103
    (down by 19)
    PC Rank:
    85 of 11,450
    Tracking:
    12,687 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    5,883 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    2,248
  • Number of Players:

    1 Player, 16 Online Online Modes: Team Oriented

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. world in conflict
    2. rts
    3. conflict
    4. wic
    5. sierra entertainment
  • Teen Rating Description

    Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close

Tags

Games you may like…

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

See More Similar Games