ja es kaut ko nejaucu, tad riitdien (kaut kur to izlasiiju, bet shobriid varu atrast tikai Holidays 2005 un, imo, tas driizaak tomeer vareetu buut tipa ZS) vajadzeetu paraadiities Elderscrolls 4: Oblivion, kas, protams, ir tikai apsveicami :-)
krietni mazaak patiikamas ir prasiibas dzelzhiem, taa nu turpinu likt naudu cuucinjaa un samierinaaties ar Morrowind :-)

upd.

Supplementary Post

First, if you want to post here, it's generally a GOOD IDEA to find out as much information as you can about your system. A good way to do this would be to install and run a free analysis program like Lavalys Everest. You can find it here: http://www.lavalys.hu/products/overview.php?pid=1〈=en. Take a look at what the program gives you once you run it, especially information on your CPU, (processor) RAM, motherboard, and video card.

Here is the standard set of specs used in what appears to be the "standard" dev machine, according to the German magazine GameStar:
AMD AthlonXP 2500+ or 2600+ (Barton Core, 333MHz FSB)
1024MB (1GB) RAM
ATi Radeon 9800pro, AGP with 256MB video RAM
The above settings would likely run the game at a fairly decent clip, and more importantly, if such machines are in use for development, they obviously run the games with all the settings "turned on."

Note that there are MANY different types of PC in use at the BethSoft HQ. From what I understand, the PC used to render that mind-blowing trailer used a pair of GeForce 6800 (GT or ultra) cards in SLi-mode. Also, the machines have varried processors; a dev (Steve Meister, a.k.a. MSFD, if I remember correctly) noted that Dell is the company's main supplier of PCs.

Additionally, here are my own specs. I know I can't really brag about these online, but they are fairly acceptable nonetheless, and pretty good for a college student's budget:
AMD Athlon64 2800+
1024MB (1GB) PC3200 400MHz DDR RAM
ATi Radeon X800XT, AGP with 256MB video RAM
I would suspect that my machine will run Oblivion excelently.

Additionally, when it comes to the question of video cards, I think we could take a look at a poll made by Pete Hines, director of PR and marketting, (Link to the poll) you can see that he refers to a card such as the Radeon 9800pro as "mid level" while calling a card like the Radeon X800XT or GeForce 6800GT as "the latest."

Anyway, for the convenience of those that DO think, or find out, that they need to upgrade, I have thrown together a list of "reccomended" video cards for AGP. I also have one for PCI-express cards, but it's quite outdated at the moment, and will likely need an hour or two to fix it, which means it'll come later.
For now:

$119US: Radeon 9800pro, AGP with 128MB video RAM - This card is quite possibly the best performance per dollar you can get. However, it may fall slightly below what you'll want for upcomming years.

$139US: GeForce 6600GT, AGP with 128MB video RAM - This card is considered the current "sweet spot" card. Slightly more powerful than the 9800pro, it also supports shader model 3.0; this will help ease some "laggy" shader- and lighting-intensive scenes in games. (think flashlight in foggy corridors)

$162US: GeForce 6800, AGP with 128MB video RAM - This is also a fairly decent price/power ratio, though at this level, you may want a 256MB card; they're all more expensive than this, though.

$164US: Radeon 9800pro, AGP with 256MB video RAM - This is the LEAST card with 256MB that I would reccomend getting at all. Any less, and you're wasting money on going from 128MB to 256MB, as the card will be too weak to handle games that can use that memory anyways.

$189US: GeForce 6600GT, AGP with 256MB video RAM - This might be a way to get the best of both worlds for a mid-range card; the 6600GT IS the best performing mid-range card, and this is one of the few 256MB versions, and it's actually reasonably priced here. At this level, though, you may simply want to jump to a high-end card, like the Radeon X800 listed below.

$208US: Radeon X800, AGP with 256MB video RAM - This could be considered slightly more powerful than the GeForce 6800, and it also has 256MB VRAM instead of 128MB.

$225US: Radeon X800pro, AGP with 256MB video RAM - This card is perhaps a better buy than the ordinary X800, and is quite powerful enough to at least be in league with most top-of-the-line cards today, though it only sports 12 instead of 16 pipelines.

$255US: Radeon X800XL, AGP with 256MB video RAM - This card is quite possibly the best deal there is, the best "bang for your buck," so to speak. Although it doesn't support shader model 3.0, it does out-perform all of nVidia's offerings save for the 6800Ultra and 7800 series. This will last a long time, and better cards are actually worse "deals."

$291US: GeForce 6800GT, AGP with 256MB video RAM - Oddly enough, this is now a worse price:performance ratio than the Radeon X800XL. However, it still has an advantage of supporting shader model 3.0. Pick this if you wwant shader model 3.0, otherwise go with the X800XL.

$355US: Radeon X850XT Platinum Edition, AGP with 256MB video RAM - This is unquestionably the best card availible for AGP. Until recently, it seemed like this would be the most powerful card that AGP would EVER be able to use; it would be PCI-express ONLY past this. However, some claim nVidia has reversed their previous claims, so you might see an AGP version of the GeForce 7800GTX, but I wouldn't expect to see them befroe the holiday season, perhaps even later. (such turnaround decisions take a while to implement) At any rate, I have NOT been able to verify this; anyone with a link should post here or PM me with the link.

Lastly, for those that're really curious as to how good their video card is, I have sketched out a ROUGH outline of how just about any video card in use today stacks up against each other. It's VERY rough, and not gaurunteed to be accurate. It also ignores, for the most part the suffix (ultra, XT, GT, pro, LE, SE, etc.) that follows the model number. In this case, I'm just ranking the series as a whole; If i measured things for every single differing model in existance, this list would be FAR too long. Also, keep in mind that the ammount of video RAM on the board has NO real impact on performance in and of itself; it merely comes into play in determining how well the card will do on certain detail levels. As a general rule, the lower on the list the card comes, the more powerful it is; all cards in one lower list section ARE more powerful than those of the section above it, and generally, the card at the bottomg of any given section will be the most powerful, and the least powerful at the top of the section. (this comparison was done fairly loosly after looking at enough benchmarks to make one's eyes hurt, and aren't perfect, obviously)

Anyway:

Rock Bottom (these cards do NOT support pixel shaders, and as such, won't run Oblivion)

Radeon 7000 (Radeon VE)
GeForce 256
GeForce 2 MX
Radeon 7200 (ATi Radeon)
GeForce 2 GTS
Radeon 7500
GeForce 4 MX

Outdated (these cards support shader model 1.x, which at the very least won't enable HDR in Oblivion, or may only allow diminished features, or may not even run the game)

GeForce 3
Radeon 8500
Radeon 9000
Radeon 9100
GeForce 3 Ti
GeForce FX 5200 (in theory, supports shader model 2.0, though this cannot be fully proven)
Radeon 9200
Radeon 9250
GeForce 4 Ti

Low-end (these cards support shader model 2.0, but are fairly old now)

Intel GMA 900 Integrated graphics (chipset 915) (much better than the "Intel Extreme," but still somewhat below a GeForce FX 5200, and perform more like the "outdated" group)
GeForce FX 5200 (in theory, supports shader model 2.0, though this cannot be fully proven)
GeForce PCX 5300
GeForce FX 5500
GeForce FX 5600
GeForce FX 5700
GeForce PCX 5750
Radeon 9550
Radeon Xpress 200 (integrated graphics)
Radeon X300
GeForce 6200
Radeon 9500
Radeon 9600
Radeon X600
Radeon 9500pro

Mid-Range (these cards were/could've been considered top-end a few years ago, and are fairly powerful, using 8 pixel pipelines and support for at least shader model 2.0)

GeForce FX 5800
Radeon 9700
GeForce FX 5900XT
GeForce FX 5900
GeForce FX 5800ultra (this rare card was a mistake that makes tons of noise)
GeForce PCX 5900
Radeon 9800
Radeon 9700pro (world's first shader model 2.0 card)
GeForce 6600
GeForce 5900ultra
GeForce 5950ultra
Radeon 9800pro
Radeon X700pro
GeForce 6800 (PCI-express version)
Radeon X800GT
GeForce 6600GT
Radeon 9800XT

High-End (some of these cards may be "outdated," but just about any given one is OVERKILL for almost any game out there)

GeForce 6800 (AGP version)
Radeon X800
Radeon X800pro
GeForce 6800GT
Radeon X800XL
GeForce 6800ultra
Radeon X800XT
Radeon X850XT
Radeon X800XT Platinum Edition
Radeon X850XT Platinum Edition
GeForce 7800GT
GeForce 7800GTX

Anyway, if your card is on the "rock bottom" list, please, for the love of Akatosh, upgrade it; those cards don't support shaders at all, and don't even run Morrowind at it's fullest!

For those who have cards in the "outdated" list, start praying. The cards likely won't be enough, given that the game seems to rely on shader model 2.0, whereas these cards only support 1.1.

If your card is in the "low end" list, I can just about assure you Oblivion WILL run on your system; it's just a matter of what your going to wind up sacrificing, be it a part of quality, resolution, or performance.

If you find your card listed as "mid range," don't sweat it. Things will run FINE, and you'll get plenty enough eye candy to satsify you. For those that need to upgrade, I'd reccomend looking at some of these cards first. These ones will last for at least a short while.

If your card makes it to the lofty heights of the "high-end" list, rejoice! You have monstrous gaming power that will certainly eat up Oblivion quite greedily. Just remember to keep your drool bucket handy.