Skip to main content

Ubisoft Recommends Intel Core i7-3770, Nvidia GTX 780 For Assassin's Creed Unity

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

Assassin’s Creed Unity is slated to hit shelves on November 11, but before then, if you’re a PC gamer, you’ll probably want to know what kind of hardware you need to run this game. Unfortunately, the requirements for the new installment of Assassin’s Creed seem to be rather… high.

To begin with, you’ll need a system with a 64-bit operating system, because the game requires a minimum of 6 GB of RAM. Ubisoft also wants you to have at least an Intel Core i5-2500K or AMD Phenom II x4 940 processor, along with an Nvidia GTX 680 or an AMD Radeon HD 7970 graphics card.

However, if you want to live up to the recommended hardware you’ll need even more, of course. Ubisoft recommended an Intel Core i7-3770 or AMD FX-8350 CPU, 8 GB of RAM and an Nvidia GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X graphics card.

Naturally, you’ll also need DirectX 11 installed and a DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card. You’ll also need 50 GB of hard drive space and 64-bit Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, or Windows 8.1.

These minimum and recommended requirements are very steep – there’s no doubt about that. We would wonder whether this is some sort of practical joke, but this was posted on the official Ubisoft blog and it’s not the first of April.

Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

  • TechyInAZ
    No kidding, that's some expensive requirements. At least I don't play those types of games so i don't have to worry about my PC lol.
    Reply
  • IInuyasha74
    6GB of RAM and a 64-bit OS doesn't seem so bad but the CPU and GPU requirements are crazy, not to mention the HDD space needed. The AMD CPUs listed are out performed by the Intel CPUs they are listed with by a pretty good sized margin. I can't help they are trying to kill SSDs also since 50GB is way too much to put on a 256GB SSD, and most can't afford the 512GB SSDs they are crazy expensive for storage.
    Reply
  • Kevin2015
    http://i.imgur.com/YT7Di6B.png
    Reply
  • universal remonster
    If these requirements are due to the quality of the visuals truly needing that much power (and not because of bad coding), then I am absolutely happy. Lesser hardware always has the option of lowering the settings to a more usable level, but it is very rare that people that spend the money on the top end hardware get to see it used to its maximum potential. I have never understood why some get upset when companies make games that require higher than an average build spec.. The visuals for a given mid range card are going to look exactly the same whether they label the setting 'medium' or 'ultra' so why hold back those with the hardware capable of taking visuals further? I do have to agree with the SSD comments above. Just like visuals, I think the uncompressed audio that is taking so much space should have an option at install to choose compressed audio installs. It would make a huge difference once you start getting a few games like this.
    Reply
  • littleleo
    It seems like they have to make up with higher-end graphics for a poor story line and weak game play. I was unimpressed with the last offering and gave it to my son. He finished it in s few days, and felt let down.
    Reply
  • The same rcommended ones as Watch_dogs ultra... coincidence?
    Reply
  • drapacioli
    Ubisoft is out of their minds if they think a Phenom II X4 940 performs similarly to the 2500k, they aren't even remotely in the same class. Additionally, I don't see any recommended overclocking settings for the 2500K and they are most certainly NOT making use of the better IG performance in the K models, so why is the K version mandatory for the minimum requirements? Seems to me Ubisoft just doesn't want to deal with optimizing for anything less.

    For the record, a Phenom 940 is more likely closer to the old high-end Intel Core2 Quad and the current low-end i3's (assuming quad core isn't necessary, if not the i5 750). I think it's a safe bet the CPU requirements are either completely made up or ill-informed at the very least. As for the GPU, well to be honest I have no idea. It seems ridiculously high, but at the same time I've seen the lesser cards struggle on newer games more and more these days than they used to, probably because scaling options are slim compared to years ago.
    Reply
  • turkey3_scratch
    Boo
    Reply
  • iogbrideau
    These specs and they can't make it at more than 30fps? This is either BS or lazy programming. One more reason to never buy a Ubisoft game again.
    Reply
  • edwd2
    It always seems like whoever writes these requirements don't know about hardware, I keep seeing shit like: "you need a quad core CPU like the i7-2600K or FX-4170" when the game turns out to be largely single threaded (8350 > 2500K = X4 940 Really?). If the 680 is a minimum, I'd really expect the recommended to be a 680 SLI unless graphics quality can't be changed, the 780 ain't too far.
    Reply