With no AA/v sync, I was hitting ~65-80 FPS during the gameplay, at 1080p with everything on high, but I could still do ~50-65 with it 2x AA and v sync.

This game really needs V-synch if the benchmark is any good indicator. Without it I was seeing a huge discrepancy in frame rates along with a fair amount of frame tearing.

E8400@3.9ghz/HD4870, 1920x1080, High, V-synch, 2xAA = 52.7 fps
E8400@3.9ghz/HD4870, 1920x1080, High, 2xAA = 62.2 fps
E8400@3.9ghz/HD4870, 1920x1080, High = 83.7 fps (103.8-64.9)

In particular, section 3 of the game play benchmark cut frame rates by almost half, even with V-synch on. Not sure if this is an Ati related issue.

I found that the third section really killed the frame rate as well.

Would a Pentium 4 work? Also, why don't they post a GHZ requirement?

It calls for a dual-core processor, so probably not.

Wow, my laptop would probably explode if it tried to run this game.

My laptop probably couldn't even handle the title screen.

I found out it's the DX10 flame effects that killed the frame rate on Ati cards in section 3 of the benchmark, particularly with AA enabled.

DX10, 1920x1080, high = 83.7 fps (64.9-103.8)

DX9, 1920x1080, high = 81 fps (74.1 - 88.3)

DX10, 1920x1080, high, 2xAA = 61.7 fps (35.1-95.7)

DX9, 1920x1080, high, 2xAA = 81.3 fps (75.3 - 88.4)

There was no significant frame rate drop on the Nvidia card in DX10 mode.

The lame thing about DX10 is that I wasn't even able to tell the difference/improvement. Unless I saw them side by side or knew specifically what to look for, I wouldn't have a clue which version I was running.

If I wanted to run the game as smoothly as possible, DX10 would probably be the first thing I'd drop on a lower end system.

Are you saying that DX9 runs more smoothly? If that's the case, then my slightly older alienware laptop could probably run this game, even though it's single core.

Wow, that needs some power.