Recommended
VRAM (512 or more)
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 series or better
ATI Radeon HD 4800 series or better


isn't thing thing running on 7800 series GPU on the console? did they forgot to optimize this thing?

wow i'm no Nvidia fan but doesn't it seem strange that 6800 can still run this game but you need an HD Series from ati?

The PC version will have more shadows/shaders and there for require more power to drive RE5.

also don't forget the 7800 doesnt support 3d Vision either.

theholylancer you know it's not optimized - even if they will claim that it's so. The will do the minimum they must to make the game technically playable on a PC, but that's it. As a side note, isn't anyone itching for a real Resident Evil game? The kind that they used to make? Old mansions, high-tech basements, zombies that can't talk...fog in cemeteries, stuff like that!

Wow... it recommends a quad core.. This is the FIRST game I have ever seen that wants it.

Recommended
Windows Vista (2 GB or more)

hmm... it's not a good idea to just run Vista with 2GB, let alone Vista plus a brand new game. LOL

ok, no one posted the Benchmark that Capcom released so here's a link:
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_re5_downloads.html

it mentions the 3d thing but just ignore that. I ran it with the following specs and got an average of 22FPS:

AMD X3 720
4GB DDR3
Nvidia 8600 GT


Then this weekend I upgraded to a ATI 3870 and now I'm averaging about 55 FPS. Oh and this is all on DX9. I haven't tested it on DX10 but I can if anyone is interested.

oh and thats on Windows XP. I got an average of 48FPS in Windows 7 with the new card and 21FPS with the old card.

my thoughts exactly , Re 4 and Re 5 both play more like action 3rd person games NOT survival horror games. give me the old movie style camera angles , give me big scares , and the tension building slower style game play that the orginals had. don't get me wrong Re 4 and 5 were great action games with fast thrills BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ORIGINAL RE GAMES WERE ABOUT !!!!!!!!!!!


perhaps some developing company will relise that capcom left a big hole in their genre line up by changing RE so much , and maybe some one will give us a REAL survival horror game again , preferably SOON

I find it both funny and pathetic that game developers seem to arbitrarily pull specs out of thin air. A GeForce 6800 and HD 2400 aren't remotely the same class of hardware. Sure the HD 2400 has DX10, but the 6800 series should vastly outclass it in speed. Basically the two pieces of hardware aren't comparable in either feature set or render power, yet are being suggested as equivalents for minimum requirements.

yep some times they pull this crap otuta thier bum holes , i reccently demoed a game (cant reember it's name ) they also reconmended a 9800 , welll , i happen to have a 9600 Gt , and it ran that game's demo perfect. unlike the comparitvely weaker 8600, which is a far cry from a 8800 , the 9600 is only 5 % slower than the 9800 so in most cases you can say this game really recomends a 9600 or higher, also of note the 8800 is the same card as 9800 , however the 9600 is a WORLD a part from it's 8600 cousin which is only half as powerful as the 9600.

Hopefully you can use mouse and keyboard with this game. Unlike 4 where you need a patch.

Average 120.5 FPS w/Vsync disabled at 1920x1200 DX10 Variable test, 4X AA, Framerate unlocked, Motion Blur on all others maxed. Looks very nice, better than the 360 version on a 720p/1080i HDTV.

Do they really have to list out compatiblity with the OS? Anyone running 95 that buys a game nowadays and expects to be able to play it run it deserves to have wasted their money.

SM3 huh? That kills old ATI cards, thats for sure...Thats why the HD2400 is the ATI minimum, because ATI took so long to support SM3.0 (Or even 2.0, but thats old news by now...)

Funny how the minimum is a Pentium D, yet they recommend a Quad...

Then why not use an X1800 or something from the X1xx0 series? Similar feature set to the 6800 series, same ballpark on speed as well...

Ahhh crap where's windowsmelover... I need to -1 him

But, seriously, why do they require a gamepad? Half the reason I use a PC is to stay away from controllers.

No love the the X1800 or 1900s it seems, though I assume it should run fine on a 1900. I'll have to download the demo and use fraps to see how my Athlon X2 and dual 3850s fare.

I ran the benchmark on a core 2 quad 3.0ghz,8gb ddr800,2gb saphire 4870 ,1tb machine on windows vista x64.I ran with all the bells and whistles(including vsync)at 1440x900(19in lcd) . All scenes except the 2nd ran at 70-80fps.The 2nd scene which has alot of containers and a small backlot(real small) has issues i cant think of why that would chuck down to 40 and as low as 20 fps.Still on looking at the quality of all i saw im pretty sure my little AMD64x25600+,4gb ram, 1gb saphirre 4670 machine will die laughing as it tries to run this beast.I can definatly see where the specs are needed,not sure bout the 2gb though, youll prolly need 3-4.

Looks like Farcry 2 with zombies and a dude you can see.

Just ran it, my CPU is definitely the bottleneck.

Athlon 64 X2 5000+ @3.24 Brisbane | GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-DS4 | 2GB Mushkin DDR2 800 | Plextor 760A| 2x 3850 512M CF| WD 1TB Black| Fortron Blue Storm II 500W

I got 25.1fps both at 1280x720 and 1680x1050 so It looks like my dual 3850s can more than cope. Gonna have to go with that 955 next month once the 965 forces a price drop on it .

It's hard to believe most of the comments here people talking about dx9 cards still. Dx11 cards will be announced in September from Ati and you should be considering a quad core upgrade real soon if you plan on playing the newest games at high settings, coming this fall and all next year!

Just tried benchmark on e6750 running at stock with a 4870 512mb. I did variable benchmark with max quality settings, vsync off, and 4x AA. In the first area (no actual game play) I averaged over 80 fps. In area 2 and 4 I averaged over 50 fps, with the minimum being around 45. It looked very playable. In the 3rd area fro some reason I averaged around 26 fps. I can't figure out why that area the fps dropped so drastically, but it still seemed playable for the most part.

The game looks pretty sharp. I was actually surprised. It seems like Capcom is taking PC games seriously. They've been porting over their games this last year and doing a pretty good job with them (especially if you have xbox 360 controller). Devil May Cry 4 was done really well.

I've beaten this for PS3. I don't plan on playing it again for PC.

I've ran the benchy a few times:
E8400 @ 3.8GHz
SLI 8800GT overclocked at 680mgz 990memory clock
Vista x64 with 4GB ram
normal 7200rpm HDD

DirectX10 made no FPS difference at all.

2560x1600: 39 FPS avg
1920x1200: 46 FPS avg
1680x1050: 46 FPS avg
800x600: 48 FPS avg

Obviously there is some kinda bottleneck since lowering resolution to the stone age did NOT affect the FPS worth hoot. CPU... maybe. Test were run with motion blur ON and all other crap maxed but no AA or AF.

Recommended
Xbox360 Controller for Windows

Whats up with that? A shooter on a PC and they recommend using a controller.

I actually like using a controller for some games. Sometimes it's better for my wrist to use the gamepad. This games seems like it doesn't need the precision of a mouse too.

Also for people running the bench please state if you're using the fixed benchmark or variable.

Ya, that's dumb.

On a different note: I hope this game supports SLI...

So, would this become a game for the benchmarks?

i dont think your AMD would have a problem if you didn't turn AA and Anisotropic all the way up. I have a Triple Core AMD with a 3870 with 4GB running in Win 7 at a res. of 1920 x 1200 and the framerate is above 30fps.

i can just see another article in gayme informer....."NASA RUNS RES. EVIL. 5 @ 25 FPS!"