ON MovieTome: Guess who's the villain in IRON MAN 2?
GAMES:
GameSpot: Best of 2008
GameFAQs
MUSIC:
Last.fm
MP3.com
MOVIES:
Metacritic
Movietome
TV:
TV.com

Maxis games generally aren't as hardware-intensive as, say, a Crysis or Call of Duty 4. The company's previous blockbuster hits include such games as Sim City and The Sims--both run well on rudimentary computers, often functioning happily with onboard video adapters. Spore, Maxis' latest creation, is no exception. All the game really requires is a video card that's capable of Shader Model 2.0. To put things into perspective, we're up to Shader Model 4.0 in today's video cards. The first Shader Model 2.0-compatible cards, such as the GeForce FX and Radeon 9000 series, both came out five years ago. Intel's GMA950, an onboard video adapter found on many laptops, will work just fine with Spore (unless you have an older MacBook). But quite often, minimum specifications don't lead to ideal or even desirable results when it comes to games. We decided to put Spore through the gauntlet to figure out just how small you can go on the hardware and still have a great gaming experience.

We found it difficult to find an in-game test sequence that could represent the whole game because Spore has several mini-stages, which are quite different. The cell stage has no other counterpart visually, but the space stage is an even greater departure from the land-bound tribal and civilization stages. Zooming in and out of planet views incurs the biggest loading hiccups, but we didn't want to base our test on a single 2-second zoom. In the end, we found that the creature stage provided an accurate representation of the game, and it also seemed the most taxing overall, especially when we had several models onscreen. Our test consisted of spinning around the nesting area for 30 seconds.

Spore has a built-in frame limiter that automatically caps off at 30 frames per second. Excess power clearly won't come in handy here. There's a good chance that the game will stay at a solid 30 frames per second if you have a PC built in the past two years and you don't go crazy on the resolution settings. We found that having a consistent 20 to 25 frames per second was more than enough to have a good time.

Settings
Spore doesn't need much for hardware but if you're going to run the game on an older computer there's a few settings that you'll want to dial back.

Video Cards
Newer GPUs won't have any problem running Spore, but older cards might struggle. We tested 20 cards from the past and present to help you decide how much is enough.

CPU
We broke out our Intel Core 2s, AMD Phenoms, and Pentium 4s to see how the game scales on older processors. We found that Spore doesn't seem to care about processing power and could probably run off the computational power of a graphing calculator.

Memory
Spore is equally ambivalent about RAM--the game is happy with any amount. We tested the game with 1GB, 2GBs, and 3GBs of RAM. Even the 512MBs of RAM on our minimum spec machine ran Spore without a hitch.

Systems

Spore's minimum requirements are a paltry 2.0GHz Pentium 4, 512MBs of RAM, and a video card with 128MBs of RAM that supports Shader Model 2.0. For our video card, we chose the GeForce 6800 256MBs. That's the least powerful AGP card we had left in our hardware cabinet. The system ran the game quite well after we lowered the resolution and dropped down to medium quality. Our mid-range and high-end systems are simply overkill for Spore. Pretty much any computer with a marginally decent video card can run Spore quite well.

System Performance

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

1280x800, Medium Settings

Minimum System Requirements
20

2560x1600, High Quality

Mid-Range System
28
High-End System
30

System Setup:

High-End System: Intel Core2 QX9650, eVGA 780i, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit SP1. Graphics Card: GeForce 9800 GTX, beta Nvidia ForceWare 175.19.

Mid-Range System: Intel Core2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz, eVGA 680i, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit SP1. Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 GT, beta Nvidia ForceWare 175.19.

Minimum System: Intel Pentium 4 2.0GHz, Asus P4C800, 512MB Corsair XMS Memory, Seagate 160GB 7200.7 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Card: GeForce 6800, Nvidia Forceware 175.19.

131 Comments

  • pium

    Posted Dec 18, 2008 9:30 am PT

    @Nintendoguy325 Me the same thing

  • pium

    Posted Dec 18, 2008 9:22 am PT

    i have windows 95, and a monocromatic graphic card and runs well

  • AkroyVenslaka

    Posted Oct 27, 2008 7:46 pm PT

    Spore runs perfectly fine on my cheapo laptop, but of course it is much better on a nice desktop. Cell stage was amazingly different with good graphics. The translucent effects are done very well.

  • DamageIncM

    Posted Sep 29, 2008 1:35 am PT

    Hm, I don't see the point of a Performance Guide for Spore, as it's overall a fairly light game.
    Most people, even the more "casual" and kids would probably have a computer that can run it.
    OK, sure some people have older computers that still carry an older videocard which can cause some performance-issues.
    But apart from that it shouldn't be too hard to get it to play.

    Also, as they said in the guide, it's not like you couldn't play with a bit lower framerate, it's not like in a shooter or anything like that.
    Besides, as said, the framerate is limited to 30fps anyway.
    Which by the way I find majorly annoying in Spore.
    They probably do it to get this slight dramatic or perhaps "movie" effect.
    As the line between the smooth and "slow"-like is right around 35-40 fps, while some games can already be quite smooth at 30 or slightly more.
    But I think it's really unnecessary in Spore and even ugly, it REALLY makes it feel like a slow game.
    A free framerate or maybe up to 35-40-50 or 100 would have been much nicer.

  • ace62394

    Posted Sep 24, 2008 6:23 pm PT

    @longcatnap: Laptops aren't usually a good choice for gaming, as I found out...

  • longcatnap

    Posted Sep 24, 2008 5:39 pm PT

    my laptop is an hp Go 7600 and it will not play the game. very disappointing! don't trust the article if you own an hp laptop.

  • marcosa73

    Posted Sep 24, 2008 3:42 am PT

    well, interesting article, I am running a P4 1.8g processor, with a 6600 GT, 1gig ram, not many new releases I can actually consider, good to see I should be able to run Spore on Med settings and it run good.
    If you say I need an upgrade well, I just did lol, swapped my 6200 for a 6600 GT, what a difference! My P4 is about 7 years old and still kicking.

  • markopolo1970

    Posted Sep 24, 2008 12:16 am PT

    UNfortuneately there are some bugs in the game that affect some peoples graphics loading times and overall performance. Go check out the offical site forums and you will hear of people waiting between 3 - 15 minutes for creature graphics to load on planets in space mode. This seems to have got slightly worse after the recent official patch too.

  • sgtdrog

    Posted Sep 18, 2008 9:44 pm PT

    You can add 1 gb of ram and a video card for under $150. I Put a 6600 (256Mb) and a gig of ram in my mom's old comp for about $90 (shipped) and my little bro plays Spore with no hiccups. (think he is using low res and medium settings) as far as macs go... they weren't made to game, they were made to look pretty and do "light task", but that's true of most laptops. My Asus Eee runs Spore, but not great. (For those who don't know Eee is a "ultra portable" laptop [8.9″ x 6.5″ x 0.82″]. specs are 900 mhz CPU, 2gb ddr2 ram, 20gb SS hard drive, and integrated Intel graphics with 128 mb dedicated)If THAT can run it then there is no excuse to have a comp that can't run spore effectively. O_o

  • karloss99

    Posted Sep 18, 2008 8:48 am PT

    Well, I got GF6200 and only bad thing about performance is in space stage, when it takes some time to fully load colonies (hellish-time on homeworlds). And yes I AM running on full min. Other is 512 RAM, 3.06 GHz Intel Pentium 4 and HUGE (donno if it helps) page file.

  • dragoncamo

    Posted Sep 18, 2008 8:19 am PT

    will a 2.5 ghz processor 512 ram and 5500 geforce ddr with 256 ram run spore?

  • Thom_D

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 10:10 am PT

    I am running the game on an AMD Duron 1.2 Ghz, nVidia GeForce 7300 GT 512 MB video card, ALS4000 sound card, 2 GB Ram, 350 GB HD. Shadows are set at medium, all other settings are set at high. In Creature Stage it runs very smoothly. There are some gitters when an Epic is on screen with a lot of other creatures, but other than that it runs fine.

  • sal_gado

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 4:43 am PT

    I don't think a performance guide about Core 2's or Phenoms or 8-series GeForces is helpfull, since this is such a light game. A guide about the GF6200 or a Celeron/Sempron would be much more useful, since these are the components that strugle to play it. I'm actually playing it on an Athlon 64 3000 and a GF6150 onboard just fine! Please, if possible, make this guide more lower spec (most computers out there are low-spec anyway).

  • Starsunderchs

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 3:26 am PT

    :

    We broke out our Intel Core 2s, AMD Phenoms, and Pentium 4s to see how the game scales on older processors. We found that Spore doesn't seem to care about processing power and could probably run off the computational power of a graphing calculator.



    LOL!

  • Vandlyn

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 2:23 am PT

    I am loving this game! Thanks for the Performance Guide, Sarju.
    I hope there will be an EP in a few months, one that expands on each section of the game. I found myself at the end of the cell stage, being prompted to evolve, and I really just wanted to keep playing that stage. As far as the space stage goes, it's rather annoying to keep being called back to the home planet just as soon as you start a mission somewhere else. These events are simply occurring far too frequently. I also look forward to more types of grasper's, feet, and split hooves! I can't believe they forgot the llama hooves! LOL

  • frankok

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 1:08 am PT

    I love your design and layout on this site, but if I could suggest something: please provide a link back to the actual game. In this case; Spore. I can't find a link to the game in question ANYWHERE(!!).

  • awakendjay

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 12:27 am PT

    to quote jason19 "i got that games now dort in play in more so was good went get lest part off games suck now why dort paly in more and way good games kids so keed i get keid may like it tell you lest part see why isay sucki can build better use all comment fors on plands notinto do in spce lvl so in you have to do missson to bouw up it i thnks havd done im sad ruis games fast now i thnks went me to bay games work more that come been games put more work on spce lvl"

    ...... I think I just found out the secrets of the universe after reading the above....and that is to, stay far far away from drugs

  • jason19

    Posted Sep 16, 2008 11:14 pm PT

    i got that games now dort in play in more so was good went get lest part off games suck now why dort paly in more and way good games kids so keed i get keid may like it tell you lest part see why isay sucki can build better use all comment fors on plands notinto do in spce lvl so in you have to do missson to bouw up it i thnks havd done im sad ruis games fast now i thnks went me to bay games work more that come been games put more work on spce lvl

  • akafresh

    Posted Sep 16, 2008 8:23 pm PT

    @ videogamr49 well if you like the os just buy a pc for a couple $1000 less with the same parts in it that the mac has and install leopard. and it doesnt have to be dell just build it your self and make it look have ever you want. hell make it look like an apple pc. all it will do is save you money. but i guess its your choice.

  • mharley1226

    Posted Sep 16, 2008 7:38 am PT

    every time i go to new planets my spies gets attcked try balonga wars very fun game

  • TinGoose

    Posted Sep 16, 2008 1:45 am PT

    I've tried this game but didn't like but.....it runs smoothly on my old AMD XP2000+ with a 6800 Nvidia Ultra!

    No biggy ;-)

  • videogamr49

    Posted Sep 15, 2008 11:59 pm PT

    @akafresh: The MacBook only uses an integrated video chipset, of course it isn't going to run at ultra high settings. First off, the person might have set everything at medium and everything at high both times and realized that it doesn't run. If certain things were set on low, certain things set on medium, and turn down the resolution, I'm sure the game would look fairly well and run smoothly; however, I don't own a Macbook and I can't test out what will and will not work.

    Second, a MacBook isn't branded as a gaming machine so I wouldn't expect Spore to run too well on it than compared with a high-end gaming computer.

    Third, you can't base your conclusion with only one input from each side.

    Finally, Macs are very well capable machines. Sure they might be slightly overpriced, but you are paying for the brand. I would much rather have an Apple brand computer versus a Dell brand at the same Tech specs. I don't care if I pay more for an Apple computer, I'd much rather use the Mac OS than use Windows.

  • Atomic1977

    Posted Sep 15, 2008 7:34 pm PT

    The game runs pretty well on my new computer and all I have is on board ati Radeon 3200hd graphics. I have my settings as low as the game takes and it still looks good.

  • akafresh

    Posted Sep 15, 2008 4:21 pm PT

    You people with your Mac's. If you knew anything about computers you would see that Mac's are WAY over priced for what you get inside. For example: read user review: king-kill33

    Posted Sep 12, 2008 4:57 am GMT

    ive got the latest model macbook, 2.4ghz, 2gb ram etc... and spore cant run on high settings or even medium, the game looks downright ugly, and if i turn the graphical effects up above low it lags like hell =[

    vs. mysteriousminds

    Posted Sep 12, 2008 9:47 am GMT

    @ friedweasel

    the computer i'm on now has an amd athlon xp 2.0 Ghz, 256 mb DDR 400 ram, and a 5200FX on windows xp.

    it runs spore at around 20+ frames most of the time at a low resolution ( actually good cause you can put it in a window and multitask) on medium settings. although sometimes it can be unresponsive for a minute or so, and it takes easily over two minutes at the best of times to fully paint a creature.

    but overall for a system that is below most the minimum requirements for even this game, i'd say it runs extremely well considering.

    there you go brand new mac vs. comp with parts from 2001 and the comp plays it better. I do hear macs are good for video editing tho, but i dont see how.

  • tokay411

    Posted Sep 15, 2008 12:55 pm PT

    yeah i got my Macbook May 2007, and Spore wont run.

  • HellsAngel2c

    Posted Sep 15, 2008 8:46 am PT

    mine works fine up to the civilisation stage. The it starts chugging away and making groaning noises. I really gotta clean up my disk space... O_o

  • klugenbeel

    Posted Sep 15, 2008 6:50 am PT

    Spore runs very well on my iMac on full settings.

  • JMC987

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 2:46 pm PT

    The game runs flawlessly on my computer, but good read none the less.

  • Ahiru-San

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 11:52 am PT

    The fact the creature creator runs well doesn't mean the full game will run - in my computer it (the creature creator, and the in-game creator/cell level) runs smoothly with max settings. But in the creature/tribal phase it simply can't run with the shader settings on med/high. The only thing that keeps the frame rate low in my computer is the lightning effects (using ati X1600 256mb, core 2 duo 2.33, 2gb ram).

  • kingmickey2

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 10:12 am PT

    My sad, sad 6200. Too bad its a PCI.

  • Nintendoguy325

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 9:00 am PT

    Stupid pixel shader. It's the only thing stopping me from playing

  • cupcake12

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 7:55 am PT

    I think i need to get a new video card or something, it keeps freezing when i go to new planets

  • iamtheanger

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 7:31 am PT

    if your're not sure about your computer's abillity to run spore than download the free creature creator trial and see if it will run.
    mine ran ok so next weekend and pooping down to the shops to get it

  • iamtheanger

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 7:31 am PT

    if your're not sure about your computer's abillity to run spore than download the free creature creator trial and see if it will run.
    mine ran ok so next weekend and pooping down to the shops to get it

  • km1498

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 5:16 am PT

    Cool to see this game can run on low end pc's like mine, I may actually get this now.

  • Marka1700

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 4:47 am PT

    I should be able to run it with my 7800GS then. Just my AMD 3500+ the will hold things back probably.

  • abr_alex

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 2:20 am PT

    GeForce 6200 sucks hard

  • brian_13un

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 1:18 am PT

    Nice I can run this game

  • randomperson2k3

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 1:07 am PT

    Well I must be living in the early 90s, because I bought a brand new HP laptop this summer and I seriously doubt it could run Spore. Yes, very depressing...

  • typeRseries

    Posted Sep 14, 2008 12:58 am PT

    if u cant run this game then ur pretty much still living in the early 90s

  • XxxSakamotoxxX

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 11:33 pm PT

    I need to improve my Video card xD

    plus fro those of you hate spore...well if you hate it you hate it, none of us really care on your opinion

  • BPE-Groovy

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 8:25 pm PT

    I played and beat this game yesterday (it's too short for the price...), it's funny with a good system. I tried it on my brothers PC, and it was really boring with low settings (you don't see even your enemies sometimes -.-)

  • real-guitarhero

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 6:33 pm PT

    hm...
    like the graphics and everything but i dont think the game itself is that great

  • johneese

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 5:36 pm PT

    spore is so effin awesome.

    i can run everything maxed out on a P4, 1 gig ram and a nvidia 8600 gt. @ 1440 x 900

  • killertrumpet92

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 4:52 pm PT

    Game looks great going to get it in a couple days, Realy hope my year old laptop can handle it

  • DarkFadi

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 3:04 pm PT

    its a good game

  • DukeBriggs

    Posted Sep 13, 2008 1:24 pm PT

    @ Mehfuz:

    i'd have to say for the most part that 1024/768, 1280/1024, and 1600/1200 are no longer the most common resolutions... with widescreen monitors and HDTVs being so vastly popular, i'd put my money on the fact that 1360x768 for 720p/i or 1920x1080 for 1080p are the new most common resolutions. but otherwise i agree for the most part that this is a very half-assed article. they could have summed it all up by saying "Yes, Spore can run on an half-decent old computer".



    Posted Sep 12, 2008 12:40 pm PT

    most pointless article posted on GS. and why show result from these resolution - i mean the more widely used res are