TheFNEffecT
Member
Hope that Oculus Rift support is there day one!
Dying Light system requirements [Updated]
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Emperor_Uriel
Member
I have an AMD Radeon HD 5700 from like 2010 and it still runs everything from the past few months (Mordor on Medium-High, FC4 on High, TEW on High, DA:I on High) with no real issue.
I'm planning to upgrade soon, but recent specs have been so insanely inflated that there must be some co-marketing conspiracy going on for it to make any sense.
I'm planning to upgrade soon, but recent specs have been so insanely inflated that there must be some co-marketing conspiracy going on for it to make any sense.
Leafhopper
Banned
Some people have 32 and 64GBs of Ram in them.
Technical writers are such a mischievous lot. Clearly they're having a competition to slip into every list a single entry that positively strains credulity while nonetheless remaining semi-plausible on its face.
In this case, 16GB of DDR3 is a nice try, but it's no "Sound Blaster."
In this case, 16GB of DDR3 is a nice try, but it's no "Sound Blaster."
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
I thought everyone knew this and was just generally talking out their arse, thankfully your one of the few that do understand how a PC works, the people like you the these threads wont repeat the same theme of comments.
but 16gb is a lot.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I shut everything down when I'm playing. I want all the resources I can muster for the game.
SerTapTap
Member
I think he meant "for a single game to use" only time I've hit 16gb due to one thing was when win 7s chkdsk equivalent had a memory leak
SneakyStephan
Banned
10 bucks says the game doesn't use more than 2GB of system ram.
That 16GB recommendation makes me wonder how they got it working on current gen consoles. There must be a significant difference between those and the PC version (or the PC version really is an unoptimised mess).
ChoklitReign
Member
When will you people learn that system requirements are nothing but a marketing ploy to coax gamers into upgrading their hardware every 6 months? It's exactly the same as the smartphone business, except in that market your product should comfortably last you 2 years software-wise. If a game performs badly on a high-end PC at launch, it's because of drivers (or Ubisoft) more than optimization. If your PC is 1.5x more powerful than a PS4, it'll run everything released on it.
The minimum requirement is 8GB, which both PS4/One have. Besides, both consoles have a whole lot less background memory usage going on (like Qassim pointed out with) so it'll run just fine.
The game uses 6.5GB in that test and his PC requires 1.5GB for other shit since he is running lots of stuff in the background. I don't see the problem.
Those benchmarks are performed in optimal conditions with as little memory being eaten away by other stuff as possible.
Gormenghast
Member
Gormenghast
Member
Yes, the significant difference is the number of man-hours spent on PC versus consoles
And of course the 16Gb ram are now necessary, they need to account for bleeding edge memory leaks and all sort of new technologies to make PC ports go more slowly, like mining coins for the DRM company. (/sarcasm)
Gormenghast
Member
If one says "this game uses "x" amount of memory" then it means that it's the *process*. Not total system memory.
Of course if he runs the game while Photoshop and video editing is going on at the same time then it might be possible 8Gb is not enough.
I'm pretty sure Qassim was showing his total system memory usage in that screenshot.
The fact he was running Chrome in the background alone could make him skyrocket his total RAM usage if he opened enough tabs.
E: Oh, that 6.5GB is for DA:I and Windows by the way. With 'other shit' I meant all the services and programs he had open that aren't obligatory stuff.
Bishop Games
Neo Member
16Go of RAM is definitely crazy. Here I am with my 6Go of RAM on my PC...
Ran everything fine (most of the time High graphics too) until now.
Intriguing, to say the least.
Ran everything fine (most of the time High graphics too) until now.
Intriguing, to say the least.
Gormenghast
Member
I'm not arguing with that.
I'm arguing that thinking game requirements need to account for arbitrary programs some guy might be running while playing the game is extremely absurd.
Gormenghast
Member
Also, the canon of these things is:
Minimum req = the bare minimum that lets you boot the game.
Recommended = the minimum to reach console parity, maybe on 1080p as an extra.
In this case we have a "recommended" PC settings that are 3x or more the actual power of consoles.
Who wants to bet that minimum req on PC won't allow you to reach console quality?
Minimum req = the bare minimum that lets you boot the game.
Recommended = the minimum to reach console parity, maybe on 1080p as an extra.
In this case we have a "recommended" PC settings that are 3x or more the actual power of consoles.
Who wants to bet that minimum req on PC won't allow you to reach console quality?
Ubisoft's system requirements were absolutely accurate from what I can see. This game's minimum requirements are reflective of running the game at console-like settings imo.
It seems like many of these recent games are aiming their minimum system requirements at console settings with GPUs with similar power envelopes. It was inevitable that these requirements would increase because of the new consoles.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
I never thought I'd see the day I failed a minimum specs list. Sorry AMD Phenom.
That's not a memory leak, that's making good use of available resources. I wish more games would.Then there must be some huge memory leak:
it is techland, so I believe the specs. It still won't look that nice though.
Using console-equivalence as 'minimum requirements' is a pretty misleading and confusing message to send to potential customers.
Minimum requirements should literally mean the minimum requirements to play the game.
And no, Ubisoft's requirements have not been accurate so far. Intel i3's and 750Ti's have *proven* capable of console-equivalent performance in Unity, for instance. The requirements have been totally fucking balls in almost every next-gen game so far. Its a worrying trend as the fear mongering over required specs is undoubtedly costing them sales on the PC side. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I also cant imagine they are so fucking dumb to not see this. Its hard not to theorize certain ideas about why they are doing this.
Gormenghast
Member
It's not the image demonstrating the leak. I mentioned the leak because a guy said DAI would use more than 8Gb. It's not. It uses 7Gb if you have 32Gb of total memory. It uses 6.5Gb on 16Gb total.
Meaning that only a HUGE memory leak would make Dragon Age go at 8Gb or even over it.
I would personnally imagine hardware manufacturers are pressuring multiplats devs to inflate specs. Yes, I'm serious.
LMAO damn
Gormenghast
Member
The 750Ti is a new videocard released THIS year. Of course it overperforms compared to years-old technology, even if lower specs on paper.
The newest 970 have some lower specs than even a 770. Yet it performs 30% faster or better.
ClaptoVaughn
Member
That's not true, because my system is the minimum for that game: 680 gtx and 2500k.
However, I'm running the game on mostly high settings, 1080p, and it runs at 45-60 fps (mostly ~45). There is a rare issue where the game will load a save and hover in the 30's, but upon reloading it (same save, same place) goes right back to 45-60. These rare scenarios should be seen as a bug rather than representative of actual performance.
If I was willing to play the game at console fps, I could crank the settings even further.
Yes but to recommended 16GB for the PC version it has to be doing something significant. It's double that minimum!
Gormenghast
Member
Then you should teach AnandTech some tricks since to run ~45 they needed at least a 970.
Their test system is an i7 4770k overclocked at 4.1 Ghz.
Also: consoles in Unity runs some settings higher than "High" on PC.
Such as ?
High (as understood by Anand) = 2xMSAA.
Here is your answer, the poster you quoted was surely running FXAA.
I saw the game running at 1080p / ultra textures / high environment / high shadows / HBAO+ / FXAA at 30-60fps on a single 4gb 680.
The game was definitely very playable, certainly a notch above consoles.
Heh, at least it's not 16GB of video ram.
Gormenghast
Member
770: 128 texture mapping units - 134 Gflops DP
970: 104 texture mapping units - 109 Gflops DP
The second isn't really used, but the 970 should be more limited at stuff like DirectCompute, so on some effect that run on that kind of stuff.
Yet the 970 performs much better at compute than a 770 (or even a 780), there are some DCU benches as well and guess where does the 770 stack up.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/14
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/19332-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-och-gtx-970/16
Tflops numbers make sense when comparing similar architectures.
A 970 is rated at 3.4tflops yet does as well or outperform a 780 (4tflops).
Same goes for the 980 vs 780ti.
Gormenghast
Member
lyrick
Member
Don't compare theoreticals across different architectures, it just doesn't work.
Idk, I ran Unity at a steady 30 fps locked with my 290 @ 1920*1200. The only setting that isn't maxed are the shadows (one setting lower than PCSS). I even tried my luck @ 1440p and 1600p and had random drops to 25 fps at those resolutions. And all this on an Nvidia sponsored game (even though that really isn't relevant in the grand scheme of the game).
Gormenghast
Member
Maybe it's because DDR2 has low bandwidth compared to DDR3?
Okay then!
So you now need a 290x at *medium*. That's with FXAA.
AMD underperform in Unity. The 770 does terribly because of its 2gb.
I saw and played the game on a 4gb 680 and it ran really well at higher settings than this.