Batman: Arkham Knight Minimum Requirements Updated
- Thread starter Adry9
- Start date
Krappadizzle
Member
You really expected to run W3 @ 60fps maxed out? Or did you forget to put /s at the end of that sentence?
Not max per say, but close. It's been like that for the last year or so. Able to usually lower AA a touch(or get rid of it) to get 60 fps in pretty much every game. Witcher 3 being the first that it wasn't really possible. The 780 is still a beast of a card. Just not the beast I need right now.
Burgess_101
Member
I hope my 780 lives for a few more years. It was a bargain at £350 when it first came out (£500 everywhere else). Recently since the whole Nvidia 'conspiracy' and reduced performance of the card in games before I was getting 60fps/1440p upwards and all of a sudden these games weren't running as they were before. I'm kind of done with AAA PC gaming in general.
I don't live at home anymore and I can't afford to be buying a new GPU as often as I used to. I just don't see any GPU as worth the money they want for them anymore.
Happy with my i7 2700k though what a fantastic investment that was at £200.
As for Batman, thank goodness for Steam refunds, if this game runs like shit on my PC I don't think I'll be buying many games anymore apart from the niche games I enjoy.
I don't live at home anymore and I can't afford to be buying a new GPU as often as I used to. I just don't see any GPU as worth the money they want for them anymore.
Happy with my i7 2700k though what a fantastic investment that was at £200.
As for Batman, thank goodness for Steam refunds, if this game runs like shit on my PC I don't think I'll be buying many games anymore apart from the niche games I enjoy.
jim2point0
Banned
People confuse "demanding" with "unoptimized" a lot. And the Witcher 3 is a demanding game. The amount of foliage that game throws on screen is insane.
I play with hairworks off though because it just doesn't seem to be worth the performance hit. It's fantastic though.
So true; it can be quite misleading. Sometimes it almost seems like intimidating min requirements scare people towards buying console versions when, regardless of the required specs, a 750 ti + i3 or above will offer a similar or better experience to the console one.
Hopefully AMD gets the issues ironed out quickly.
Krappadizzle
Member
Say whaaa??? Arkham City ran very well at launch on PC. Do you mean DX11 mode?
Price usually. They have traditionally offered cheaper cards with comparable performance to Nvidia. Problem is, is that they don't offer the same things that Nvidia does. Gameworks/Shadowplay being huge additions to Nvidia's arsenal(imo) that AMD hasn't really been able to match yet. Nvidia, seems to have better power effecintey too, which may not be a big deal to most, but it directly influences how hot a card will be, and depending on your case, how hot your room will be if you happen to live in a warmer climate.
You get what you pay for. Cheaper card, cheaper software. It's pretty telling, when AMD's brand new card uses nearly twice the power to match or exceed Nvidia's 980 Ti. Of course it'll have better benches, it's got a ton of power in there brute forcing the shit out of things. I'm really hoping the Fury X and Nano really turn things around for AMD, they've been slumping along for a while now.
In my humble opinion. If you really want the bells and whistles go Nvidia. If you want to save some money and are okay with not having some really cool Nvidia effects(which usually add nothing to game-play) go AMD. I can say in the last 8 years or so that I've been PC gaming though, I've not been disappointed in Nvidia's cards.
I don't think it's a coincidence this is another Gameworks game.
Essentially it's the price to power ratio.
But Nvidia putting the 980ti at $650 is making me seriously reconsider.
jim2point0
Banned
Nice edit. The original post was definitely going to rustle some jimmies....
It would be interesting if somebody compiled a list of gameworks vs non-gameworks titles where the developer issues warnings of poor performance on AMD cards.
Can't think of any in recent history. Anybody willing to chime in?
Yeah, Gameworks is getting out of hand and people are flocking to supptort it.
Should have bought this for PS4. Fucking hell.
This happens so frequently with AMD, I'm never buying another card from them. Should have ponied up the cash for a 970 during the promotion with The Witcher 3.
With the updated VRAM requirements I probably won't even be able to play my non-refundable pre-purchase.
Tight.
This happens so frequently with AMD, I'm never buying another card from them. Should have ponied up the cash for a 970 during the promotion with The Witcher 3.
With the updated VRAM requirements I probably won't even be able to play my non-refundable pre-purchase.
Tight.
zephervack
Member
Price and in some cases a killer feature you cant live without, less so this days but still.
I simply cant use nVidia because they dont support mixed resolution monitors in triple screen setups, the day they do, Im green.
Super niche so probably very low on their priority list.
funkystudent
Member
I found in theory you get a lot for bang for your buck with AMD. Cars are significantly cheaper then the equivalent Nvidia ones.
But in reality its been offset by poor AMD optimisation / Nvidia partnerships that cripple games on AMD.
I agree, it really is ridiculous. But I still think these "requirements" don't say too much. Like, are these requirements for low settings or high settings? Or ultra (lol)? I think the industry should move away from these "minimum/recommended" settings and just state stuff like "For 1080p/30fps, you would need a minimum of yadda yadda. 60fps yadda yadda, 4K yadda yadda".
I hope AMD gets on it quick for optimisations. Lord knows we're going to need it.
Because Nvidia purposely working to sabotage AMD cards is a recent phenomenon , though one that is clearly working if the reactions in this thread are an indication.
There is no reason at all that the game should need a 7950 to get comparable performance to a 660.
Alec
Member
Hah, I felt that I needed to clarify. The difference a few words can make.
I was under the impression that it came down to getting more power for less money...but when stuff like this happens over and over again, I just don't understand. Am I missing something, do I still not see the whole picture?
Ahh, makes sense. My personal experiences with AMD's drivers have been bad for years (which is the reason I eventually switched to NVIDIA for good).
Best price-performance ratio. They do get a little loud in my experience and they use a little more power, but I think it's worth the difference in cash.
Dictator93
Member
Quick reminder not to freak out until game benches and user experience (frame variance and pacing) are well known.
How often have we learned that minimum and recommended specs are ridiculously unclear and opaque?
How often have we learned that minimum and recommended specs are ridiculously unclear and opaque?
Irobot82
Member
Even still, when I bought my 7950 the "equivalent" was a 660ti. That was hot garbage with its 198bit bus and had and uneven memory controller. Once AA was applied that card would just crash and burn. The 670 was more expensive and within a year the 7950 was on par/ beating the 670.
jim2point0
Banned
I understand what you mean.
So many games nowadays come with nvidia gameworks features. Developers love them. Ubisoft in particular, but these Batman games have always been the same way. And of course of course, they always perform a bit more poorly on AMD cards. I just... don't think I could ever make the switch back to AMD.
That is.... fishy.
Orthogonal
Member
Upgraded from my 6850 just in time. It was feeling a bit long in the tooth anyway.
GTX970 has been a dream so far.
GTX970 has been a dream so far.
Nvidia is waaay too much overpriced in my region.
AMD has much better price/performance ratio, and they work great... except in rare situations like this. [Nvidia can also fumble from time to time].
OldAsUrSock
Banned
Current specs requirements are too ambiguous instead of being transparent.
Valve doesn't see so much as a single cent from retail keys.
Yeah, I'd have to agree. Some people a making too big a deal about this. If I recall Dying Light had minimum settings above consoles, people made a big fuss there too.
LurkerPrime
Member
While you'd normally be right, developers normally don't change the minimum requirements a day before release. Something is clearly up with Arkham Knight.
Leatherface
Member
45 GB available space
wow..
wow..
PumpkinSpice
Banned
The last time I bought a card the equivalent nvidia card cost 50% more than the AMD one I was looking at.
Krappadizzle
Member
Have you ever used PhysX in an Arkham game? It's incredibly bad ass and I hope to see more uses in games in the future. It's the only thing around that seems to be doing something new on the PC.
I can understand people being unhappy with PhysX features(and they absolutely should be optional) but they are really awesome and make every game I've used it in, much better for being there.
That we can agree on. It would be so much easier to have a pre-set variable and then say what you need to have to run it on that setting.
Unfortunate for us AMD users but not that uncommon. Anytime Nvidia's "Gameworks" gets tossed in to a game it automatically favors team green's video cards. As with The Witcher 3 situation AMD generally gets it worked out within a few weeks of launch but you still have that awkward initial phase where your shiny new game is running far worse than it should be.
Luckily the PS4 version is sounding very very good and if you have some patience the PC version on AMD hardware should end up being a fairly equivalent experience eventually. Thankfully, I am a patient person (who may end up playing this on a PS4 anyway).
Luckily the PS4 version is sounding very very good and if you have some patience the PC version on AMD hardware should end up being a fairly equivalent experience eventually. Thankfully, I am a patient person (who may end up playing this on a PS4 anyway).
So you laugh at the idea and then admit it happened?
It is one thing that there are extra features. It is quite another when baseline features in the game don't work properly or aren't tested properly.
I'm not entirely certain it applies to the Witcher 3. That game ran circles around 7xx users and I was using a 290. Hairworks ran better on Maxwell cards but still it hit too hard to be practical for most people.
BlackNinja
Banned
These system requirements are only going to go up as this generation continues.
I haven't bought into AMD in years. It wasn't the hardware that was the problem.. always the software/drivers that steered me away from AMD.
I haven't bought into AMD in years. It wasn't the hardware that was the problem.. always the software/drivers that steered me away from AMD.
Having large amounts of tessellation, a method used in tons of games now-a-days, is sabotage?
EDIT: Are you talking about offering money to help develop for a specific platform? Happens all the time for console gaming, so why exactly is it decried here?
Krappadizzle
Member
You can just accept the fact that, them's the breaks when it comes to PC gaming. By the nature of it not being a closed platform, there will always, always always always be something better on the horizon. You can be pissed about the fact that your card won't be the best forever the day you buy it, or you can enjoy the games that do run well on it and save up for a better card if you aren't getting the performance you want.
I bought a 980 for Witcher 3 when, after a week with my 780, I found I couldn't lower performance any more to keep 60fps and get the visual fidelity I wanted. I wasn't upset about that, I've been saving money for the better part of a year for exactly this reason. I know I'm not getting the absolute max performance with my 780, but I'm not gonna be upset at that as even when I bought the card I knew I would eventually be vram limited if I wanted to play VR at reasonable settings and planned accordingly. I now have a 980 Ti(via step-up) on the way, that'll be here Tuesday in time for Batman. I planned for this and am glad I did.
GavinUK86
Member
What's changed though? Only the AMD card has, no?
Eh, I'd still rather have the PC version with my 280x, I'm sure it'll look and run better than the PS4 version even with this news.
Rodney McKay
Member
High five!
I've been very happy with my 660ti.
Might not run everything full settings and 60fps,but I usually bump down settings I don't like (motion blur, bloom, and a few others) put on light AA (2x usually) and 1080p and I'm more than happy with the performance of everything I've thrown at it.
Need to get the Witcher 3 though, that might be my first "next gen" test for it.