- Mar 21, 2014
- 3,025
- 0
- 7,960
I'm beginning to suspect console devs are trying to make the PS4 and X1 look better than they really are, or are trying to artificially brag up their games' graphics, by inflating the recommended system requirements for PC ports. I'm not talking about optimization or how the games perform - I'm talking purely about the "recommended systems specifications" that they release to the media.
For example, Watch Dogs recommends an i7 or 8-core AMD CPU, yet the game runs on ultra above 60 fps on an i3-4130 or a slightly overclocked FX-6300 (probably a stock FX-6300 as well, though I haven't seen benchmarks with one at stock), provided the video card is strong enough to keep up.
Similarly, the Thief remake also recommends an i7 or FX-8000 CPU, yet it runs far better on even the low-clocked Ivy Bridge i5s, such as the i5-3470, than it does on the FX-8350, and in fact the game is mostly optimized for 2 cores. It runs above 50 fps on ultra on the old Ivy Bridge i3-3220.
And now Ryse Son of Rome has had its recommended system specs released, and not surprisingly, it's recommending a GTX 690 and a "quad-core or hexa-core CPU". First, I'll eat my shirt if it requires anything stronger than an R9 270 to put it at ultra settings, because it's on a well optimized engine and it doesn't look very impressive. Second, there are a great many quad-cores stronger than hexa-cores, and there are hexa-cores weaker than dual cores. Their vague CPU recommendation is going to severely disappoint Phenom II 1030T owners, though Pentium G3258 owners may be pleasantly surprised.
The Phenom II 940, by the way, is similar in strength to the PS4 and X1 CPUs. Terrible core-per-core, and only passable when all cores are being used. Even then, it's outstripped by any random modern CPU, even the bargain bin ones. Treating the recommended system specs right now as anything short of fodder for jokes would be a mistake.
I'm getting very tired of these bloated recommended system specs. They're assigned seemingly at random and only make less informed PC gamers build their systems inefficiently.
For example, Watch Dogs recommends an i7 or 8-core AMD CPU, yet the game runs on ultra above 60 fps on an i3-4130 or a slightly overclocked FX-6300 (probably a stock FX-6300 as well, though I haven't seen benchmarks with one at stock), provided the video card is strong enough to keep up.
Similarly, the Thief remake also recommends an i7 or FX-8000 CPU, yet it runs far better on even the low-clocked Ivy Bridge i5s, such as the i5-3470, than it does on the FX-8350, and in fact the game is mostly optimized for 2 cores. It runs above 50 fps on ultra on the old Ivy Bridge i3-3220.
And now Ryse Son of Rome has had its recommended system specs released, and not surprisingly, it's recommending a GTX 690 and a "quad-core or hexa-core CPU". First, I'll eat my shirt if it requires anything stronger than an R9 270 to put it at ultra settings, because it's on a well optimized engine and it doesn't look very impressive. Second, there are a great many quad-cores stronger than hexa-cores, and there are hexa-cores weaker than dual cores. Their vague CPU recommendation is going to severely disappoint Phenom II 1030T owners, though Pentium G3258 owners may be pleasantly surprised.
The Phenom II 940, by the way, is similar in strength to the PS4 and X1 CPUs. Terrible core-per-core, and only passable when all cores are being used. Even then, it's outstripped by any random modern CPU, even the bargain bin ones. Treating the recommended system specs right now as anything short of fodder for jokes would be a mistake.
I'm getting very tired of these bloated recommended system specs. They're assigned seemingly at random and only make less informed PC gamers build their systems inefficiently.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram