Considering I need to close almost every single program I'm running in order to get either FO3 or New Vegas to run for more then 10 minutes without crashing and even then I still occasionally get jerky animation at times, and my system is way past the recommended requirements, I'm going to say that YMMV with regards to requirements on any game whatsoever. It depends who choses the requirements, I guess. Some may define "minimum" as the lowest possible specification for the executable to run at all, with no regards to the actual playability (say hello to 640x480 on the lowest detail settings in some scenarios with that one). Truth be told, I never bother with system requirements at all. I've had games whose minimum requirements almost double my PCs requirements run full speed with no problems with detail turned up, and I've had games whose recommended requirements are essentially half what I have in every respect run as slow as molasses. My method is to install the game and try to play it. too slow? reduce resolution/detail extra graphics and other effects as necessary until it does. Of course my machine can usually run even the very newest games just fine, so perhaps I'm more jaded against requirements since I never have to look at them.
Thank you both for your input. I thought the AMD was better than the 2Core Duo but I guess it matters on the version as well. He can't keep up!!
Thing is, your original post was Vague- you asked if an AMD Athlon would do the job. The original AMD Athlon was released in 1999, and no doubt has no hope of getting anywhere near any requirements for semi-modern or modern games. Basically, only the newer Athlons would do the job, and since you haven't supplied any details as to the actual Athlon in question here it's impossible to say wether it meets the listed minimum or recommended requirements.
