The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
People need to stop with the denial. Your friends who do all this stuff with computers obviously aren't thinking what happens in terms of performance in crowded hub areas when your rig is called upon to render potentially dozens of character models in addition to vast, sprawling landscapes, spell effects, weather effects, etc. It's not hard to figure out and if you are having a hard time, you just have to read what has been written about it since the benchmark came out. SE told us a year ago it would be extremely demanding. Accept it.
I think people are misunderstanding the OP. It didn't seem to me that he was complaining (or at least was, initially) about the minimum spec being too high; it seemed more to me like he couldn't believe the minimum spec was that LOW for how poorly the benchmark runs on his system.
I on the other hand think the stated minimum requirement might actually be too high, but not in the sense that many other people seem to mean it. Yes, my minimum-spec CPU and below-minimum GPU (Radeon HD 4350) only get about 550 on the benchmark (which according to the guide they posted puts it in the "don't even try to play this game on that hunk of junk" category), but the frame rate in the benchmark was playable, and if it is possible in the release version to disable the more computationally- or fill-rate-expensive effects (like weather, depth-of-field, SE's almost trademark but visually unconvincing motion blur, and especially the shadows), it would run fairly well.
Wishful thinking maybe, but on the other hand, my PC also ran the APB beta pretty well, and my comp's below spec for that game too. (Except on a different front; my comp is below spec on CPU, not GPU, for that game.) Though I do have to say, it looks like SE still has some things to learn on the PC optimization front - like they still haven't learned "lots of small files = bad; a handful of large files with internal virtual file systems = good"...