Settings

Like most other games, dropping the resolution is the easiest way to increase frame rates. However, we'd recommend getting rid of shadows first. You'll get back a decent amount of performance, and the image quality will suffer negligibly. Next up is draw distance. Even at half draw distance, you'll have a solid view of the world around you. Feel free to give grass the boot as well for a few extra frames. Outside of those settings, our test couldn't stress the other settings enough to make us recommend a path of action. We're guessing that effect and animation quality would come more into play when larger groups are duking it out.

We couldn't test the lighting and specular settings as the game does not allow them to be disabled. Later builds of the game might allow for the option. The graphics cache size setting seemed to destroy performance to the point of unplayability if changed. Don't touch it for the time being.

Warhammer Performance tests

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Resolution Test

1280x768
41
1680x1050
31
1920x1200
27
2560x1600
15

Preset Quality, 1680x1050

High Quality
31
Balanced
40
Fastest Framerate
50

Draw Distance Test, 1680x1050, High Quality

Full
31
Three-Quarters
32
Half
34
One-Quarter
37
None
41

Settings Test, All Other Settings at High, 1680x1050

Shadows Disabled
36
Animation Disabled
31
Effects System Detail Disabled
32
Play Ability Effects Disabled
32
Grass Disabled
34

System Setup: Intel Core 2 X6800, Intel Core 2 Duo X6800, eVGA 680i, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GB x 2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista SP1. Graphics Card: GeForce 7600 GT, Nvidia ForceWare 177.92.

120 Comments

  • dndslayer69

    Posted Nov 2, 2009 4:06 pm PT

    For all of you that are not sure if your system can run a game like this, if you get a chance check out www.systemrequirementslab.com. This site will automatically test your system for you and tell you if you can run certain games or not.

  • Splurge74

    Posted Aug 9, 2009 12:52 pm PT

    Need more imput

  • Chronikas

    Posted May 1, 2009 12:56 pm PT

    Do yourselves all a favor...Don't take Gamespot's advice on hardware. They're not thorough, they're not impartial, and they don't really know what they are doing anyway. I recommend guru3d.com; those guys eat, sleep, and breath hardware.

  • BIGJAB

    Posted Apr 15, 2009 2:02 am PT

    Game Plays Excellent on acer amd athlon 64x2 1.9ghz laptop with integrated ati 1250 grahics and 4gb ram. Definitely dont need an expensive system to play this game.

  • Azurewrathhal

    Posted Dec 26, 2008 12:04 pm PT

    I really don't understand why this game has such high demands on systems, the graphics are roughly comparable to ten year old single player games. WoW and LOTRO both have better graphics in my opinion, and are far more optimized. I'm not speaking out of preference for either of them, it's just that this game should NOT need all the resources it does. Running smoother on more systems only nets you more paying customers after all.

    Leave it to EA to rush something out the gate before it was finished.

  • Aleyp

    Posted Dec 20, 2008 10:47 am PT

    Hey guys, i was wondering, my spec are fine, exept i don't know if my video card is up to standard, its a Nvidia GeForce 9400 gt, will it work with it?

  • Tsunami_pt

    Posted Nov 1, 2008 4:40 pm PT

    I quited War because of the bugs and very annoying stuttering. Did everything I could, but it was too bad for me to enjoy the game. I'll be back later, after some patched may fix it. I have a 8800 GT, so I'm very disapointed with the game.

    And a tip if you wanna talk on Warhammer forums: do NOT mention WoW, unless u wanna bash it. War's fans are very sensitive about it.

  • andyp_m

    Posted Oct 14, 2008 9:42 pm PT

    "Is a 7300GS (laptop version) more powerful than a 6600GT (desktop version)?"

    No.. You can checkout Tom's Hardware video card rankings (Best video cards for the money monthly feature) to see how your card stack's up to others.

  • PandaBear86

    Posted Oct 13, 2008 6:35 pm PT

    Is a 7300GS (laptop version) more powerful than a 6600GT (desktop version)?

  • Rakou

    Posted Oct 12, 2008 12:36 pm PT

    OK... i got a capeble PC, but i don't know if my internet connection could handle such a cool game
    My connetcion is a 512k wdsl

  • Thefrogcatcher

    Posted Oct 10, 2008 10:03 pm PT

    4quarters said:
    "I'm running original WOW on an 8 year old computer that was only$500 then and only with 528memory!. It's a tad slow but very playable."

    Horrible, horrible lies. All of it.

  • bradleybradley

    Posted Oct 10, 2008 3:16 am PT

    You guys really should have included a higher Ghz AMD x2 processor and higher Ghz Core 2 duo like the 8400/8500/8600 and the Q6600. the graph gives the illusion that extreme processors offer substantially better performance when in reality all of the none extreme processors are budget processors(excluding the P4 which is just really really old). But I suppose that's the reason Intel only gives you guys the most expensive processors possible for review purposes knowing that you won't spend the money to offer a fair comparison.

  • Ohaidere

    Posted Oct 9, 2008 2:31 pm PT

    "I like the look of this game but I won;t be buying it as I don;t believe in paying over and over for one game when I could just buy another game for a one off price."

    /eyeroll

  • Antaeus1991 posted Oct 8, 2008 2:42 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Antaeus1991

    Posted Oct 8, 2008 2:42 am PT (hide)

    I like the look of this game but I won;t be buying it as I don;t believe in paying over and over for one game when I could just buy another game for a one off price.

  • 4quarters

    Posted Oct 7, 2008 12:30 pm PT

    I'm running original WOW on an 8 year old computer that was only$500 then and only with 528memory!. It's a tad slow but very playable.

  • Specimen2501

    Posted Oct 5, 2008 11:17 pm PT

    MMO = Goodbye social life

  • Azuki

    Posted Oct 4, 2008 5:30 am PT

    Mmo fees are for server maintenance costs, game stability costs, customer support costs and not to mention costs associated with the many many patches that often include new content. Mmos of war and wows caliber are the most expensive, time consuming type of game to produce. All you whiners going on about having to pay to play have no idea how stupid your logic is. If the games didn't have fees they couldn't exist.

  • supertank310

    Posted Oct 2, 2008 9:30 am PT

    Wow, didn't realise how outdated my system was. Then again I've had this hunk-a-junk for over 4 years so I guess it would be. Could do with upgrading.

  • GSgirl posted Oct 2, 2008 7:22 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    GSgirl

    Posted Oct 2, 2008 7:22 am PT (hide)

    Im not paying any more for this kind of game when there is a lots of MMO games that are free download and free to play on the net. Try 2moons or else

  • oritonio

    Posted Oct 1, 2008 1:26 pm PT

    My system is similiar to the Mid-range specs and I do GREAT on my XP machine, but when i switch to my Vista HDD... literally 2 seperate HDD i plug from one to the Other when i feel like opening my case.... anyways when i switch to vista the game runs great full screen, but in windowed mode it runs like crap... I like to multitask and i do it just fine with EQ2 and AoC on medium to high setting... but multitasking with warhammer running is nearly impossible.

    Not a big deal.. it's not meant to run while doing 5 other things... i am just saying if i can do it with a game like AoC.... WAR should not be a problem.

  • KonZ3Nl34l3Y

    Posted Oct 1, 2008 6:40 am PT

    WoW's not free either. And it's as the same format as the other mmo's that been before in the industry. Some WoW fanboy huh. lol

  • markt63 posted Sep 30, 2008 11:53 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    markt63

    Posted Sep 30, 2008 11:53 pm PT (hide)

    not paying £8 a month to play same format as wow , this is so boring and why the need for a subscription if the game is good enough the sales will increase based on that subscription means we are frightened that we wont sell many or they just gready either way the best online games are free c&c ,cod4, cs source ect ect

  • Rhipz

    Posted Sep 30, 2008 9:07 am PT

    Well looks like Ill be maxing out this game.
    Intel Q6600 @ 2.4ghz
    HD 4850 PCS+ OC'd
    2gb ram


    Very surprised at gtx 280 sli'd beat by single hd 4850. Very impressive!

  • eldargod

    Posted Sep 30, 2008 8:55 am PT

    this is a hardeware guide so surely i am with in reason to ask about how my rig would run the game

  • eldargod

    Posted Sep 30, 2008 8:28 am PT

    sithgamer i really dont care wht u think if u aint gonna help or answer my question dont say anything at me ok

  • Zennious

    Posted Sep 30, 2008 8:21 am PT

    yea saying that sithgamer is worse than saying what your system has.

  • sithgamer posted Sep 30, 2008 8:10 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    sithgamer

    Posted Sep 30, 2008 8:10 am PT (hide)

    i'm not saying my stats, even though they are awesome, i'm not gonna be like the losers who just repeat what's in their rig over and over.

  • Opalance

    Posted Sep 29, 2008 3:48 pm PT

    eledargod, seriously, do your own homework and google some stuff yourself, stop being so lazy and demanding.

  • eldargod

    Posted Sep 29, 2008 8:55 am PT

    so wht u think about my specs and your opinion on how it would run

  • homegrownvandal

    Posted Sep 29, 2008 7:50 am PT

    well i'm running a q6600 with 4gb ram and a 512 mb nvidia geforce 8800gt on windows xp x64, so i actually get all 4 gigs, highest settings with no lag in pvp battles so far.

  • eldargod

    Posted Sep 28, 2008 8:22 am PT

    my laptop specs are:
    intel core 2 duo 2.2ghz
    2gb of ram
    and a nividia geforce go 7950gtx 512mb
    could some one give me a idea of wht settings i would be able to run the game on thanx

  • doctorj11111

    Posted Sep 28, 2008 6:07 am PT

    I have SLI, but for some reason Warhammer does not appear on my program list under nvidia control panal and it also does not appear in nhancer? Does anyone else have this problem?

  • Connor24

    Posted Sep 28, 2008 2:06 am PT

    i already run war on balanced setting with minimal frame rate issues. all i need now is a stronger cpu(got a 2.0ghz dual), and a newer video card(x1300 radeon is the current).

  • cointerm

    Posted Sep 27, 2008 6:05 pm PT

    You set AA and AF from your video card control panels. Change advanced settings from "program controlled" to "override", and set it at the desired level. WAR looks 10 times better with AF on.

  • fash

    Posted Sep 27, 2008 5:53 pm PT

    Well... I'm running a Core Duo e8400 with a 9800 gtx... and i can't see any sort of AA or AF settings..

    What gives?

  • doctorj11111

    Posted Sep 27, 2008 9:05 am PT

    I don't agree with the comment below as warhammer feeling like an alpha version. I think the game is very polished. Yes, there are some features I am sure they will still add with patches overtime, but don't forget WOW did the same thing. The game is only going to get better, and the game is very good as it stands.

  • plazus

    Posted Sep 27, 2008 9:03 am PT

    Where do you set AA and AF?, can't see it on the options. I'm running on a geforce 9600 GT.

  • xguild posted Sep 27, 2008 2:17 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    xguild

    Posted Sep 27, 2008 2:17 am PT (hide)

    While I'm a huge fan of Warhammer, Warhammer Online so far has been a complete disgrace to gaming. Not only is the release version barely BETA (plays more like AlPHA) version, they honestly believe people are going to stand by and accept their distancing themselves from public opinion and discussion by not having a forum and claiming that 'EA Games' is responsible for customer support. I mean Mythic developed it, they need to answer for it.

    This game is complete crap at the moment ladies and gentlemen, be weary of buying it with anything less then an absolute god (quad core) machine. The minimum requirements are a complete joke, in fact the 'suggested requirements' are only enough to run the game at minimum settings. Considering the graphics are 10 years old this whole thing just boils down to an inexperianced developer making a game.

    Total disapointment.

  • iceveiled

    Posted Sep 26, 2008 11:25 am PT

    Where are you able to set AA and AF in the in-game graphics settings? Am I just blind or are they not even in there?

  • KonZ3Nl34l3Y

    Posted Sep 25, 2008 8:05 pm PT

    512mb system memory? I think the minimum is 1gb. Have a quick check here in this link http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

  • Rakou

    Posted Sep 25, 2008 12:58 pm PT

    OK...
    i have a 2006 spec pc :\ but i can run wow with 60fps on mid settings.
    i dont mind on the graphics only gameplay. (weird me)
    i want to know if i could play this game on lowest settings and get bearable perfomance. by-the-way this is my specs (that i know about).

    System memory: 512mb
    CPU type: unknown, 3066mhz
    Processor: Intel Pentium 4 cpu 3.06mhz
    Graphics card: NVIDIA Geforce 6600 GT 128mb

    no $.$ to upgrade

  • luke2721

    Posted Sep 24, 2008 12:41 pm PT

    ok this is a laptop like 4 years old someone who knows something please help me. i can play WoW so i wasn;t sure if i could run this.

    AMD Athlon 64 processor
    3800+
    2.39GHz 2Gigs of ram

  • BikerPunk

    Posted Sep 24, 2008 8:37 am PT

    i have a P4 Core2 Duo (3.16ghz)
    4gig DDR3 Ram (10k)
    a 500 gig Sata
    Gforce 8800 GT 512 PICe 2.0

    and in heavy battles (60+ players) the frame rate is still bareable. I am still able to cast/heal players without any adverses effects from the mass maount of players on my screen. If i get 100+ people on my screen, it can get hairy.

  • jimmyhoyerocks

    Posted Sep 23, 2008 7:37 pm PT

    i have 5 gigs of ram and nvidia 9300 GE can i play this?

    my real question is on the videocard can i play it with this card

  • Mehfuz

    Posted Sep 23, 2008 4:37 pm PT

    i played the beta using x1600, 1 GB ram and sempron 1.8 GHz, 1074x768 - i got ok fps - not smooth but certainly playable - i even did rVr battle couple of times

  • kargion

    Posted Sep 23, 2008 11:18 am PT

    If you do not have at least any type of Duel Core CPU and at least a nvidia 8 series or ati equiv, and 2 gb of ram your going to jug along with bad fps

  • buzzguy

    Posted Sep 23, 2008 10:52 am PT

    I have a similar rig to you, Nenad. My video card is an x850, but everything else is pretty much the same. I'm still on the fence with this one.

advertisement
Click Here
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning Boxshot
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    694 of 76,528
    (down by 16)
    PC Rank:
    247 of 12,535
    Highest Rank:
    1 in 2008
    Tracking:
    7,488 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    3,930 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    658
  • Number of Players:

    Massively Multiplayer Online Modes: Competitive, Cooperative, Team Oriented

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. warhammer
    2. warhammer online
    3. age of reckoning
    4. mmorpg
    5. online
  • 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
Also on

Tags

Games you may like…

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

See More Similar Games