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

  • BorkaBonum

    Posted Dec 12, 2007 6:35 am PT

    2900XT 788/900, AMD Athlon X2 6000+ 3266mhz, 2GB CL4 800mhz kicking at a average 30FPS at high(est) with 2xAF and 2xAA.

  • taurian0205

    Posted Dec 11, 2007 6:30 am PT

    my pc run this game on very high setting, heres the specs
    AMD Athlon 6000+ 64x2 3.0ghz
    320gb WD SATAII HDD
    Gainward 8800GTX
    4GB Kingston RAM 800mhz
    Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 Motherboard
    750W PSU (forgot the manufactures name)

    what else do i need?

  • Vengence_SA

    Posted Dec 10, 2007 11:24 pm PT

    I Play this game on maximum in DX10, and it looks amazing. My friend plays it on low in DX9 and it still looks amazing, a great graphics engine that caters for everyone

  • sparky4550

    Posted Dec 10, 2007 6:42 pm PT

    Hey, I currently have 1 gb of ram ( 2 x 512) along with a pentium 4 2.8 processor. As for my video card, I already know I can't run it but do you think if I get an Nvidia 7600 GT I will be able to run this game at at least medium settings without any problems? If not, what would I need to get to be able to get the game to play nicely at that setting?

  • bushresbola

    Posted Dec 10, 2007 8:53 am PT

    laptops are not very good to play games, once u have a very good video card, but desktops are easier to costumize and powerful

  • Martinmrh1

    Posted Dec 4, 2007 7:29 pm PT

    Well guys i have just run the Demo of this game from fileplanet and I have a the following rig and i can run it at 1024*960 at high settings

    AMD 64 3000
    HIS Radeon X1950 Pro DDR3 512 mb (AGP)
    2GB Ram
    Windows Vista Ultimate alright i know the X1950 Pro really helps out the Processor here but it runs a dream on my PC, the Processor is 3 years old in January so just recently in October upgraded Graphincs card from X800 and by god what a card so if you have an old AGP system get the bove card about £100 and you are set runs all my Direct X 9 games but really struggles with Crysis Demo so miss that out.

  • quater_life

    Posted Dec 1, 2007 3:42 am PT

    im buy a hd2600xt card will that do the job

  • matt168

    Posted Nov 21, 2007 6:35 pm PT

    how would a 7300GT play this?

  • minister_o_loco

    Posted Oct 30, 2007 6:37 pm PT

    yeah, I can even place this on my GeForce 6150 LE (not a gamer computer, lol), albeit at low settings. Still great though.

  • astor47

    Posted Oct 29, 2007 2:25 pm PT

    I'm running the game very smooth getting from 20-30+ fps with a 8500GT, for those running low end DX10 video cards like me i dont recommend using DX10, setting distance view to the lowest and a modest resolution of 1024x768, max everything else and youll get very good frame rates. My othere specs: 2GB RAM DDR2 800, and an athlon x2 5200+

  • curtis194

    Posted Oct 28, 2007 1:52 pm PT

    can some one plz tell me if these specs can run world in conflict i have an 8300 gs(this card can run most things on quake wars max and this card has 256mb) and i have an intel Q6600 running at 2.4 GHz and i have 2 gigs of ram with windows vista. and if i can run this game what settings would it most prob be at???? plz help me.

  • aliengroups

    Posted Oct 26, 2007 4:07 pm PT

    lol mines good enough to play it well! (Nvidia 8600GT + a Quad Core CPU + 4 GB of ram, I think I'll be good for the game!)

  • TKOVG

    Posted Oct 26, 2007 12:32 pm PT

    World in Conflict = video card killer

  • LE_QUEBECOIS

    Posted Oct 21, 2007 10:39 am PT

    To yabringyeti: When you got a dual core, you don't double the clock speed. The pentium D 2.9 GHz you're talking about runs at 2.9 GHz with both cores (they both run together at 2.9 GHz.)

  • TXTRILL

    Posted Oct 17, 2007 6:46 pm PT

    played the WIC demo on high settings at 1280x1024 and it ran great

    specs: Intel (Quad)6600 2GB RAM,8800GTS(320MB) i really wanna buy this game now

  • uchitha

    Posted Oct 15, 2007 12:34 pm PT

    heard graphics are optimized well ... therefore even a computer with very low hardware resources can also play the game .... thats pretty neat work i guess .... anyway yet to play the game see ....

  • yetiHUNTER001

    Posted Oct 15, 2007 7:29 am PT

    sorry for the english
    it's not my main language

  • yetiHUNTER001

    Posted Oct 15, 2007 7:28 am PT

    it has 0.090 nm architecture and mine is overclocked from 2.66 GHZ it's a it hot 52° when i'm playing and I think the dual core is much better i'm planing to buy a core 2 duo E6850 wil I see a big performance improuvment ?

  • yaberingyeti

    Posted Oct 15, 2007 7:06 am PT

    No the Pentium D 2.9 isnt junk at all. Incase you didnt know its dual core, so 5.8ghz from both cores - overhead. Its no core 2, but its certainly not junk.

  • commando611

    Posted Oct 15, 2007 6:22 am PT

    btw..will this game take 256MB NVidia GeForce 8600 GTS?

  • commando611

    Posted Oct 15, 2007 6:09 am PT

    it cost's £1000 to even get a Game computer. £1500 to even get the recommended Game Computer. i really want to try this game.

  • yetiHUNTER001

    Posted Oct 14, 2007 12:07 pm PT

    the pentium D is a 2 core processor i play on 1152x 864 ever thing on high 4xaa 4xaf

  • HaRiZ420

    Posted Oct 14, 2007 2:28 am PT

    I played the demo, cant wait to try the game out!
    8800GTX FTW!

  • bangell99

    Posted Oct 14, 2007 2:25 am PT

    i dont speak computer jargon

  • DRS10

    Posted Oct 13, 2007 8:09 pm PT

    Your processor is a piece of junk; very outdated. Upgrade your processor and you will run this game maxed with high performance.

  • DRS10

    Posted Oct 13, 2007 7:51 pm PT

    something doesn't sound right when you have a top tier graphics card, great ram and get 12 frames. What settings are you playing WIC on?

  • yetiHUNTER001

    Posted Oct 13, 2007 1:09 pm PT

    thats just not enough

  • yetiHUNTER001

    Posted Oct 13, 2007 1:08 pm PT

    I have a 8800 GTS 2 gb ram Intel pentium D @ 2.9 GHZ and i get 12 frames avrerage

  • Kaldoran

    Posted Oct 12, 2007 3:09 am PT

    I run full everything, widescreen 1680x1050 on......
    Vista, E6600, 2GB, GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB(FO), and smooth as a babies bottem.

  • megabrad

    Posted Oct 10, 2007 7:07 pm PT

    Got a core 2 duo 2.13 ghz, 2 gig ram, geforce 7900gs, on xp. This game plays totally awesome. No problems.

  • DTF

    Posted Oct 10, 2007 3:11 pm PT

    countwingo: Unfortunately, your card is very, very lacking when it comes to games from the last maybe 4 years. You should seriously consider upgrading if you want to play this or any more recent games for that matter.

  • cameron06

    Posted Oct 10, 2007 1:19 am PT

    sokunthy: you should but a 22INCH monitor then high the resolution way above 1440x900 and the game will run faster due to the ram in the video card.

  • countwingo

    Posted Oct 9, 2007 11:58 pm PT

    i have a geforce 7300LE and my game is lagging horribly, is the graphics card the problem?

  • cookie_the_shed

    Posted Oct 8, 2007 1:24 pm PT

    i ran the demo on a laptop with vista, 1GB ram, 1.83ghz core 2 duo and ati x1400 at settings: 1440x900, medium-lowish detail, but it still looked great and playeed well. the benchmark on WiC is not a good example, as it show loads of things happening at once and its not a true reflection of what youll really be seeing all the time in the game.

  • Bellytops123

    Posted Oct 8, 2007 10:27 am PT

    i had this running on a toshiba p100 laptop notebook with 1256mb of memory and a 1.83 ghz dual core centrino and a nvidia Geforce go 7600 card, and i could have 1280x1024 resolution (no AA) at mostly medium settings, some of them on high with heat haze and bloom lighting at an average of 30fps. Any laptop users with a similar setup don't be afraid to buy this game.

  • PizzaHutMaster

    Posted Oct 7, 2007 12:14 pm PT

    I have a Nvidia Geoforce 7300, 2 GB of RAM and and Intel dual core processor 6400 @ 2.13 GHz each. Is that good enough? I'm not so good with computer stuff

  • sokunthy

    Posted Oct 3, 2007 1:19 am PT

    Get fraps if you wish to monitor your game frame rate.

    Here are my rig specifications: E6420 2.13ghz core 2 due, 2gb PC6400 @ 800mhz, XFX Nvidia Geforce 8800GTX, 200GB hard drive

    Runs very smooth with everything maxed out @ 1440x900 resolution. average of 30+ fps

    >>>*** ALL HELL THE MIGHTY NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800GTX ***

  • SP33doh

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 9:00 pm PT

    bleh, gamespot, you need to fix your benches.
    the way you do these is very cool, the whole comprehensive guide about a specific game, I like it, but...

    I understand that in in respect to the time it takes you to make these you don't want to test every card on every resolution/settings, but the current selections are very weak, you could be doing a MUCH more comprehensive job.
    for example, look at the high quality 1280x1024 gpu benches. the highest avg. framerate of all the GPUs tested is 25. ick. I wouldn't be playing a game getting a 25fps average, I'd lower the settings, but yet that's the highest you show? why is the best a measly 7900gs!
    I wanna know how my 8800gts will do on a 1280x1024 monitor!

  • LawMan87

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 12:26 pm PT

    im running a Pentium R 3.00 GHZ with 2.00 gb of ram and a Radeon X1650 how will my comp hold up??

  • Murdo-mcd

    Posted Oct 2, 2007 9:41 am PT

    oh yes, my computer ownes this. It's gonna be nice.

  • themc_7

    Posted Oct 1, 2007 8:00 pm PT

    lol my computer won't support that

  • CookiesCream

    Posted Sep 30, 2007 6:22 pm PT

    that's handy. Thanks

  • lop890

    Posted Sep 29, 2007 5:38 pm PT

    well i follow the steps and my computer overload now i cant download anything

  • lostn

    Posted Sep 28, 2007 1:06 pm PT

    "I laugh when I hear people say what's the advantage of higher resolution with respect to strategy/RTS games. My answer - an arseload of difference. If you only saw two pixels in front of Mario you'd have a hard time jumping those koopas."

    That's because there isn't one. In 3D games, increasing the resolution does not increase your field of view. That's what zooming is for. A 2D rts will, but not a game like WiC, and nor will your Mario games, unless it's a pre-N64 game. In practical terms, increasing your resolution may shrink your HUD and make it less cluttered, but you're not going to see more things on the screen than anyone else.

  • Revolt26

    Posted Sep 28, 2007 11:54 am PT

    i played the **** outta this demo all night and most of this morning on a sony laptop vgn-n27oe. the best game i ever played and the first rts that makes sense to me i plan on picking up the game later today

  • ZolgaR

    Posted Sep 28, 2007 2:04 am PT

    Loved this game, nothing special but i played this game for something like 5 hours and finished it.

  • skabbobler

    Posted Sep 27, 2007 1:57 pm PT

    has anyone run this on a laptop? I have an 8600M GT.

  • aquila_silver

    Posted Sep 27, 2007 10:23 am PT

    I have a E6400 on 2,5 Ghz oc 2 gb ram and a 8800GTX it runs very wel

  • RK-Mara

    Posted Sep 27, 2007 4:53 am PT

    Really worth buying.

  • Fire_Ants

    Posted Sep 26, 2007 1:50 pm PT

    Hmm, i think i may buy this...

advertisement
World in Conflict Boxshot
World in Conflict

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    241 of 78,855
    (up by 12)
    PC Rank:
    82 of 12,641
    Tracking:
    12,529 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    5,866 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    2,239
  • 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