Batman: Arkham Knight Minimum Requirements Updated

Adry9

Adry9

Member
The minimum specs for Batman: Arkham Knight for PC have been adjusted and are listed below.

We also want to note that there are some known issues with the performance of Batman: Arkham Knight for PC owners using AMD graphics cards. We are working closely with AMD to rectify these issues as quickly as possible and will provide updates here as they become available. We thank you for your patience in this matter.

MINIMUM:
OS: Win 7 SP1, Win 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
Processor: Intel Core i5-750, 2.67 GHz | AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4 GHz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (2 GB Memory Minimum) | AMD Radeon HD 7950 (3 GB Memory Minimum)
DirectX: Version 11
Network: Broadband Internet connection required
Hard Drive: 45 GB available space
Click to expand...

http://steamcommunity.com/games/208650/announcements/detail/207511695916345923


(Lock if old)
 
Sigh, feels bad to literally be the minimum spec for almost every big game coming out this year. And I can't afford to upgrade for another 2 years :/
 
We also want to note that there are some known issues with the performance of Batman: Arkham Knight for PC owners using AMD graphics cards.

ugh.
 
This thing seems to happen quite often lately. This kind of holds me from taking into consideration an AMD card for my upcoming upgrade.
 
Yeaah, it's messed up to release this a day before release when those AMD users already bought the game.

That said, I don't think I'll upgrade to an AMD card :/
 
that there are some known issues with the performance of Batman: Arkham Knight for PC owners using AMD graphics cards
Click to expand...

Shit.

Well, here's hoping for the best with my 4670K + 280X

coffee-sylvester-cat.gif
 
Always weird to see cards and processors more powerful than whats in either console show up in the "minimum" requirements for PC games.
 
I wasn't planning on buying this anyway, but I miss the days when a sub-$200 mid-low-end AMD card would run anything on the market at decent framerates.
 
This matches my old build before I upgraded a few months ago. Just this weekend I upgraded from the 7950 to the 980ti.
 
Them some high specs. My 670 just above minimum huh? Mind you we've seen some ridiculous specs previously and the games ended up running ok.

Come on 670, hold out, gotta wait for the next round of video cards. Hell if the consoles can do it, you should be fine. I hope.
 
So glad I upgraded to the 970 when I did because I was running on a 6950 2GB before that. I would have been in really rough shape with this one.
 
georly said:
Sigh, feels bad to literally be the minimum spec for almost every big game coming out this year. And I can't afford to upgrade for another 2 years :/
Click to expand...
It's why I wanted to go console, to have that stable baseline when a computer technically ahead of the XB1 won't cut it anyway. :/

And that inevitably you'd get something that creams consoles for cheap at the point you mentioned, never mind now.
 
Jesus, I have a HD 7870. Not sure if I should get this game on PC now.

Maybe it's better if I just wait for the GOTY Edition (like I did with the other Batman games).
 
Man, this game must be a looker.

When people with 7950 can run Witcher 3 at 1080p with a mix of high/ultra settings and maintain a 30fps lock at 95% of the game i imagine what batman is doing that this card is the bare minimum.....
 
And this is why I buy Nvidia, yet another game this year to flop out of the gate on AMD. What is the excuse this time?
 
Teeth said:
You could make a game that wouldn't run on SLI TITAN Xs on Unreal Engine 3. The engine doesn't dictate the upper limit.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct... But UE3 runs insanely well on PC as it's a mature, well understood engine. My point was, what is Rocksteady doing in particular that's caused this?
 
Eusis said:
It's why I wanted to go console, to have that stable baseline when a computer technically ahead of the XB1 won't cut it anyway. :/

And that inevitably you'd get something that creams consoles for cheap at the point you mentioned, never mind now.
Click to expand...

But if you go console, wouldn't that mean you have enough bread to upgrade your PC. At minimum you'd need 350 plus an extra 200 for any games and controllers, online fee you get.

Or you probably don't have a gaming PC yet I assume?
 
Yurikerr said:
Man, this game must be a looker.

When people with 7950 can run Witcher 3 at 1080p with a mix of high/ultra settings and maintain a 30fps lock at 95% of the game i imagine what batman is doing that this card is the bare minimum.....
Click to expand...

It's the same thing that happens every generation. Developers look at what the newer spec card adoption is like and stop even trying to optimize their games around older cards since it costs time/money to do so.
 
Kysen said:
And this is why I buy Nvidia, yet another game this year to flop out of the gate on AMD. What is the excuse this time?
Click to expand...

To quote myself from the other thread:

I don't think this is an AMD issue. The drivers didn't change. Rocksteady knew their dev target for months. They just did not care about AMD optimisation because they got paid by nvidia.
Click to expand...

Of course this doesn't help us AMD owners.
 
Yurikerr said:
Man, this game must be a looker.

When people with 7950 can run Witcher 3 at 1080p with a mix of high/ultra settings and maintain a 30fps lock at 95% of the game i imagine what batman is doing that this card is the bare minimum.....
Click to expand...

Its probably poor optimization or the system requirements are way exaggerated, as usual. Most likely a little bit of both.
 
Is there a list of how graphics cards rank so you can compare your own with the benchmarks?
 
Decision to go with NVIDIA this time justified again. AMD really needs to get their shit together. I don't know what their issue is, but optimization for AMD graphics cards has been horrible lately, to the point where their price advantage over NVIDIA cards is diminished since "worse" NVIDIA graphics cards run the game on par with them and the graphics cards they actually want to compete with run circles around them.

I was very satisfied with my HD4850 at the time, but if this continues I won't even consider AMD for my next purchase.
 
Yikes. I'm running min spec now? :(

Hoping my AMD will be able to run this. 7950 here :/

Might have to finally jump ship to Nvidia after all these years...
 
dangerdays15 said:
Anybody know if the minimum will be on par or better than PS4's graphics?
Click to expand...

With recent games with similar min specs, you can run them 1080p 30fps and somewhat better looking than PS4. On paper yes. Last Rocksteady game was a mess on PC at launch though, we'll have to see. Low/medium these days don't scale down much from high or above...
 
Team Intel + Nvidia 4 life, yo!

Seriously though, glad i just purchased a 980 Strix to go with my trusty I7-2600K. Been using a shitty 660, mainly because i've been playing multiplats on PS4. Still..i'm gonna go with Arkham Knight on the PS4, but at least now i'll have an excuse to use choose PC more for the multiplatform titles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Batman Arkham Shadow on Quest 3 is the best batman game ever made!
2 3
126
7K
Romulus replied
Over 1 Million People Have Now Played Batman: Arkham Shadow
News 
33
1K
BlackTron replied
Batman: Arkham Shadow | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
56
4K
Romulus replied
Batman: Arkham Shadow impressions videos:
4 5 6 7 8
379
16K
cyberheater replied
Batman Arkham Shadow had me in one of the most intensive boss fights ever! (Spoilers)
1
547
FoxMcChief replied
Top Bottom