Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Resident Evil 5 PC Specs

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 39 comments

Capcom released the minimum and recommended system requirements for the upcoming PC version of Resident Evil 5

A few weeks ago, Capcom announced that the PC version of Resident Evil 5 will hit retail shelves on September 15 in North America, and September 18 in Europe. The new version will include a new and improved mercenaries mode with "three times as many" enemies, new costumes, and Nvidia's GeForce 3D Vision technology (wireless 3D Vision glasses sold separately). To promote the game's 3D goodness, Nvidia uploaded a stereo 3D tech demo (with benchmark) right here.

Today, however, CVG managed to gain access to the system requirements, listed below, showing both minimum and recommended:

OS
Windows 95: Not Supported
Windows 98: Not Supported
Windows Me: Not Supported
Windows NT: Not Supported
Windows 2000: Not Supported
Windows XP: Required
Windows Vista: Recommended

CPU
Minimum Requirement
Intel Pentium D Processor
AMD Athlon64 X2

Recommended
Intel Core 2 Quad Processor or better
AMD Phenom X4 or better

RAM
Minimum Requirement
Windows Vista (1 GB)
Windows XP (512 MB)

Recommended
Windows Vista (2 GB or more)
Windows XP (1 GB or more)

HDD
8.0 GB or more

Monitor
Minimum Requirement
800×600

Recommended
1280×720 or larger

Disc Drive
DVD9 compatible drive

Graphics Card
Minimum Requirement
VRAM (256 MB)
DirectX 9.0c / Shader 3.0
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 series
ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro

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

Sound Card
DirectSound Compatible (DirectX 9.0c or higher)

Interface
Required
Mouse & Keyboard
Gamepad

Recommended
Xbox360 Controller for Windows
Internet Broadband Connection

Display 39 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    theholylancer , July 27, 2009 5:42 PM
    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?
  • -3 Hide
    konenavi , July 27, 2009 5:44 PM
    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?
  • 4 Hide
    gsxrme22 , July 27, 2009 5:51 PM
    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.
  • 7 Hide
    omnimodis78 , July 27, 2009 5:53 PM
    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!
  • 0 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , July 27, 2009 5:57 PM
    Wow... it recommends a quad core.. This is the FIRST game I have ever seen that wants it.
  • 0 Hide
    gumber , July 27, 2009 6:01 PM
    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
  • 5 Hide
    jp182 , July 27, 2009 6:10 PM
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    jp182 , July 27, 2009 6:12 PM
    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.
  • 2 Hide
    MrCommunistGen , July 27, 2009 6:42 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , July 27, 2009 7:40 PM
    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.
  • 1 Hide
    tenor77 , July 27, 2009 7:46 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    gamerk316 , July 27, 2009 7:56 PM
    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...
  • 0 Hide
    MrCommunistGen , July 27, 2009 8:33 PM
    gamerk316SM3 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...
  • 1 Hide
    ckthecerealkiller , July 27, 2009 8:42 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    megamanx00 , July 27, 2009 8:54 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    koss64 , July 27, 2009 9:08 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    warezme , July 27, 2009 9:41 PM
    Looks like Farcry 2 with zombies and a dude you can see.
  • 0 Hide
    megamanx00 , July 27, 2009 9:57 PM
    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 :D .
  • 1 Hide
    San Pedro , July 27, 2009 11:04 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    theguy82 , July 27, 2009 11:34 PM
    I've beaten this for PS3. I don't plan on playing it again for PC.
Display more comments