Batman: Arkham Knight Minimum Requirements Updated
- Thread starter Adry9
- Start date
Is it? Off the top of my head it seems to be fairly typical for the current-gen only games.
Jeff Stephen
Member
Same here although I may have overestimated my AMD 5870. Up until now I just mostly played last gen ports on PC. I doubt I'll even get the menu running, I should've went PS4 here.Most of my rig is great, but for the GTX 660
"I've made a huge mistake."
Unknown Soldier
Member
People are reporting on Steam forums the new driver forgot the Batman SLI profile. This is looking like it's gonna be one broken game at release lol.
Dave_6
Member
From the previous page:
For the SLI people:
Just confirmed with Sean Pelletier (Senior Product Manager for GeForce SW) on twitter that the SLI profile will be pushed automatically via GeForce Experience before the game launches today.
https://twitter.com/PellyNV/status/613072762534375426
There is currently no SLI compatibility bit in the game profile, even with these drivers, but ^^
Feel the Swift
Member
I'm looking to upgrade my comp for this. Right now I have a Phenom II X4 955 and Radeon HD 5750 (been six years since I last messed with the specs). I was looking into the R9 270X, not sure about processor. Any recommendations? Want to spend like $100-200 on a card.
For the SLI people:
Just confirmed with Sean Pelletier (Senior Product Manager for GeForce SW) on twitter that the SLI profile will be pushed automatically via GeForce Experience before the game launches today.
https://twitter.com/PellyNV/status/613072762534375426
There is currently no SLI compatibility bit in the game profile, even with these drivers, but ^^
Thank god..
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
Not weird at all if you know what exactly I am comparing....
Do I look stupid to think so? I am not comparing these games as... well games in the same genre or anything, I am comparing optimization only and GTA V is clearly a winner here.
Gemüsepizza
Member
What I absolutely need is 60 fps and high resolution textures, I hope my R9 290 can do this. And I really hope the aliasing is not so bad that I have to enable FXAA. Some games look horrible without AA, for example Ryse *shudder*. And with the rain / architecture in Arkham Knight I imagine there could be lots of aliasing.
Teletraan1
Banned
Remember. Bad AMD drivers are a meme or something. We are reminded of this "Fact" in every AMD related thread. Yet here we are game after game with launch issues. I don't care if AMD cards were half the price I would never buy one again unless there is a paradigm change in how they work with game developers for launch games.
BlackNinja
Banned
Even that you can't compare when the games are doing different things entirely. Batman has several light sources and reflections everywhere. Plenty of shadows. Just can't be compared in any shape or form to any other game other than the previous Batman games.
Schweinehund
Member
I dunno, I really don't think highly of Nvidia after they lied to their customers face about 4gb VRAM on 970 and the proprietary devices/tech they're always pushing. It's not so much I think AMD is a great company just Nvidia is shady as hell. I wouldn't put it above them to do bribes, they certainly have the cashflow for it and AMD doesn't.
This is pretty crappy news, not so much that the minimum specs shifted but that the two cards that they're comparing for min spec aren't in the same league. After DX11 implementation in AC I'm a little wary, hopefully the team that did AO on PC had some input on AK's graphic systems.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Preach it brother.
Not really.
Krappadizzle
Member
Clearly, you are jumping to conclusions.
Dual Blade
Member
Does this mean my R9 285 (2GB) will not be up to snuff?
It can handle Medium 1080p/60fps for Witcher 3!
It can handle Medium 1080p/60fps for Witcher 3!
Schweinehund
Member
What games in particular? I remember RAGE being shit. DAI ran smooth on my 7950, as have BF4, BF3, Heavensward, Warlords of Draenor, Dark Souls 2, Dota 2 since Beta, Heroes of the Storm, Arkham Origins, Shadows of Mordor, Evil Within and a host of other games I played at launch. I'm not doubting you had issues I just haven't ran into any yet.
Project Cars is all I can think of lately. It took them a while to get drivers out for TW3 but it ran fine without them (and the drivers didn't really do anything except add CF support).
SoulUnison
Banned
Cool, now i'm even farther slightly below the minimum requirements.
I've got a Radeon HD 5800 1GB.
I guess I'll just pass on this game until I build a new computer.
I've got a Radeon HD 5800 1GB.
I guess I'll just pass on this game until I build a new computer.
Schweinehund
Member
Ah ok, I just figure most of the games with problems are off my radar. I didn't play TW3 yet but I did play TW2 and didn't have problems (didn't play at launch though).
thelastcrusader
Banned
Damn and I was contemplating building a new gaming PC to match my wife's but this is exactly why I got out of PC gaming...
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Not really, it being the minimum probably hinges more on it having 2GB VRAM than the processing power of the GPU though the 660 is around the PS4 level. It'll probably work on weaker GPUs as long as they have enough VRAM.
Irobot82
Member
Dick Justice
Banned
I gotta upgrade. Currently using a 2GB 770, probably going to get a 980 G1 at some point later in the year. The 980ti's out of my price range.
GameWorks game that performs more poorly on AMD HW than on Nvidia HW? Color me shocked.
I think it's quite nice of Rocksteady at least to say it out loud that GameWorks game may and do run worse on AMD cards than on Nvidia. After all GameWorks is all about catering to Nvidia's ecosystem and [future] consumers.
If you are interested to see how AMD GPU's perform in games that utilize blackbox GameWorks code/features then you just need read benchmarks, at least 1 GW game in there usually.
How many games anymore use PhysX's GPU bound features? Also should we really celebrate the fact that things like improved physics engines are developed as proprietary tech by companies like Nvidia instead of as open source by game developers themselves?
Why anyone would compare 390X and 980Ti? Those aren't even comparable cards in price or performance, 390X isn't positioned against 980Ti. Anyone looking at benches should realize that.
HairWorks in Witcher 3 uses 64x tesselation factor and 8x MSAA for hair, which cripples performance on AMD and delivers rather hard blow on NV performance too. Then AMD user forces tesselation to e.g. 19x through drivers, gains significant performance increase while next to none visual quality downgrade.
How forcing such insane tesselation factors into the game and/or effect of the game isn't intentionally sabotaging performance of GPU's when image quality gain just isn't there to justify it?
Also to note; CDPR can't and isn't even allowed to touch HairWorks code and settings because it's blackbox GameWorks code. Only Nvidia is allowed to tweak it.
Nvidia providing devs with blackbox GameWorks code/features and then engineers to help implementing it into the game while improving games performance on NV cards isn't happening for free and out of NV's good will. In exchange NV gets to use game, in this case latest Batman, to market their latest HW, to create HW + game bundles and just do "Best on Nvidia!" brand marketing. Nvidia doesn't need to transfer 10 000 000USD to WB's/Rocksteady's bank account or other way around, there is other ways of "payment".
Also I would argue that AMD isn't capable of doing same thing as their similar techs are open source and not proprietary and blackboxed like NV's techs. One could argue that maybe AMD then should start doing same stuff as NV, but would it do any good for them or to consumers? I don't think it would.
Edit:
Why AMD sucks? Because they have to work with code they can't see and still have to optimise for it?
I think it's quite nice of Rocksteady at least to say it out loud that GameWorks game may and do run worse on AMD cards than on Nvidia. After all GameWorks is all about catering to Nvidia's ecosystem and [future] consumers.
If you are interested to see how AMD GPU's perform in games that utilize blackbox GameWorks code/features then you just need read benchmarks, at least 1 GW game in there usually.
How many games anymore use PhysX's GPU bound features? Also should we really celebrate the fact that things like improved physics engines are developed as proprietary tech by companies like Nvidia instead of as open source by game developers themselves?
Why anyone would compare 390X and 980Ti? Those aren't even comparable cards in price or performance, 390X isn't positioned against 980Ti. Anyone looking at benches should realize that.
HairWorks in Witcher 3 uses 64x tesselation factor and 8x MSAA for hair, which cripples performance on AMD and delivers rather hard blow on NV performance too. Then AMD user forces tesselation to e.g. 19x through drivers, gains significant performance increase while next to none visual quality downgrade.
How forcing such insane tesselation factors into the game and/or effect of the game isn't intentionally sabotaging performance of GPU's when image quality gain just isn't there to justify it?
Also to note; CDPR can't and isn't even allowed to touch HairWorks code and settings because it's blackbox GameWorks code. Only Nvidia is allowed to tweak it.
Nvidia providing devs with blackbox GameWorks code/features and then engineers to help implementing it into the game while improving games performance on NV cards isn't happening for free and out of NV's good will. In exchange NV gets to use game, in this case latest Batman, to market their latest HW, to create HW + game bundles and just do "Best on Nvidia!" brand marketing. Nvidia doesn't need to transfer 10 000 000USD to WB's/Rocksteady's bank account or other way around, there is other ways of "payment".
Also I would argue that AMD isn't capable of doing same thing as their similar techs are open source and not proprietary and blackboxed like NV's techs. One could argue that maybe AMD then should start doing same stuff as NV, but would it do any good for them or to consumers? I don't think it would.
Edit:
Why AMD sucks? Because they have to work with code they can't see and still have to optimise for it?
tbh now I'm even more interested in seeing how this game performs, either they updated the requirements because they didn't have access to/knowledge of these latest drivers... or the game still performs like crap on AMD cards for some reason. Will be interesting to see...
Irobot82
Member
Sorry I was being sarcastic. You had Rocksteady change the reqs then AMD drops a driver update making them look bad thinking AMD wouldn't be ready. My 7950 has rocked all three Arkham games at 60fps on near very high settings. I look forward to tweaking this game and having fun in it.
Edit: In fact I used to DS from 1440p on City and Origins and still rock 60fps.
No, it would be horrible for the PC industry to be segmented basically as consoles. Yet Gameworks is pushing us towards a possible future where we have Nvidia only games. This is really against everything PC gaming stands for. Some people do want AMD to walk this path too. But for whatever reason, maybe not enough money or confidence in their market share, AMD fully embraces open source. Nvidia is the complete opposite. I don't know why, but in a way it is a battle of proprietary vs open source and the proprietary is winning handsomely.
AMD does not stop Nvidia from supporting Free Sync, Nvidia does. AMD does not stop Nvidia from supporting Mantle, Nvidia does. AMD has TressFX open source; Nvidia forbids developers by EULA from sharing Hairworks optimization with AMD or Intel. AMD worked on developing GDDR5 and HBM and Nvidia benefits; Nvidia will not allow AMD to use Physx - they even stopped AMD primary and Nvidia secondary Physx card from working. All Nvidia or go home. Embrace the brand or GTFO. And it's working, people are loving GeForce and swearing off the shrinking competition as Nvidia locks them in.
I'm not saying AMD is a paragon of goodness - as I said there could be a number of reasons why they are doing this. But their stance is better for the consumer; undeniably. How could you argue otherwise? Yet the proprietary king wears his crown oh-so fashionably as market share continues to expand and margins are higher than ever. A lot of it has to do with other AMD problems right now, but few seem to care about the path Nvidia is walking.
Yeah, what Nvidia does is business smart. But you probably don't own Nvidia stock. Do you, a consumer who wants competition since it enable lower prices and ingenuity, want the Nvidia proprietary lock or open source? Don't be willfully unaware of this. Just because someone owns the brand, doesn't mean they have to defend what they see happening. Although I feel some people do this out of a emotional connection and a need to justify their decision to choose one brand over another. If anything Gameworks and games like this should serve as a warning of what happens when one company starts to have a lot more muscle and can use it to constrain the competition.
Ah, my sarcasm detector must be broken then
I would love to hear from Rocksteady in detail why they at last possible minute changed system requirements and why change only affects AMD users.It's easy to blame NV and their GameWorks program as games with GW has been troublesome for AMD in past, but actual facts from Rocksteady would be nice. It just looks like another case of GW atm.
Personally I think proprietary graphics tech programs like GameWorks shouldn't exist in PC gaming space as it can be abused by owner of blackbox tech in order to make competition look bad, make own old HW look bad etc. Also if more and more gamers jump to Nvidia cards because "AMD sucks so much [in GameWorks games]" we are handing monopoly status to NV on silver platter.
If that happens only winner is NV and we gamers will suffer for it.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
My guess is that AMD didn't have access to the game code due to vendor lockout and had to scramble at the last minute to create new drivers.
Big Chungus
Member
lol, people posting their super pc specs and they're scared it wont run the game...
From performance thread;
Game has almost as many GameWorks feature settings as it has general graphics settings. Worst options menu for graphics that I have seen in quite some time, very little actual customization can be done through game itself.
.ini configs and driver optimisation may be a key.
Found this on the other thread. Options look pretty barebones :/
Game has almost as many GameWorks feature settings as it has general graphics settings. Worst options menu for graphics that I have seen in quite some time, very little actual customization can be done through game itself.
.ini configs and driver optimisation may be a key.
Adry9
Member
Fixed it for you
Angry Fork
Member
I felt this way also and ended up switching to nvidia a while back. I always liked AMD's value both for GPU and CPU but when games run better with nvidia/intel that cheaper price ends up being pointless since you get lesser performance.
I've noticed this too, it's an annoying stealth brag.
didn't know about this. i really don't pay much attention to required specs because i still haven't run into a game that doesn't run decently on my card.
The AMD performance issues still bum me out and I probably will wait a few months to get it