Skip to main content

Resident Evil Village System Requirements: Ray Traced Vampires and Werewolves

Resident Evil Village
(Image credit: Capcom)

Capcom has revealed the Resident Evil Village system requirements for the PC version on Steam. The sequel follows the saga of Ethan Winters, this time with some apparently very large vampire ladies. Based on what we've seen, you'll benefit from having one of the best graphics cards along with something from our list of the best CPUs for gaming when the game arrives on May 7.

The eighth entry in the series (VIII from Village), this will be the first Resident Evil to feature ray tracing technology. The developers have tapped AMD to help with the ray tracing implementation, however, so it's not clear whether it will run on Nvidia's RTX cards at launch, or if it will require a patch — and it's unlikely to get DLSS support, though it could make for a stunning showcase for AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution if AMD can pull some strings.

We've got about a month to wait before the official launch. In the meantime, here are the official system requirements.

Minimum System Requirements for Resident Evil Village

  • Processor: Intel Core i5-7500 / AMD Ryzen 3 1200
  • Memory: 8GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti / AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB
  • API: DirectX 12, DirectX Raytracing (DXR) optional
  • OS: Windows 10 (64-bit)
  • Processor: Intel Core i7-8700 / AMD Ryzen 5 3600
  • Memory: 16GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX 5700
  • API: DirectX 12, DirectX Raytracing (DXR) optional
  • OS: Windows 10 (64-bit)

Capcom notes that in either case, the game targets 1080p at 60 fps, though the framerate "might drop in graphics-intensive scenes." While the minimum requirements specify using the "Prioritize Performance" setting, it's not clear what settings are used for the recommended system.

The Resident Evil Village minimum system requirements are also for running the game without ray tracing, with a minimum requirement of an RTX 2060 (and likely future AMD GPUs like Navi 23), and a recommendation of at least an RTX 2070 or RX 6700 XT if you want to enable ray tracing. There's no mention of installation size yet, so we'll have to wait and see just how much of our SSD the game wants to soak up.

The CPU specs are pretty tame, and it's very likely you can use lower spec processors. For example, the Ryzen 3 1200 is the absolute bottom of the entire Ryzen family stack, with a 4-core/4-thread configuration running at up to 3.4GHz. The Core i5-7500 also has a 4-core/4-thread configuration, but runs at up to 3.8GHz, and it's generally higher in IPC than first generation Ryzen. 

You should be able to run the game on even older/slower CPUs, though perhaps not at 60 fps. The recommended settings are a decent step up in performance potential, moving to 6-core/12-thread CPUs for both AMD and Intel, which are fairly comparable processors.

The graphics card will almost certainly play a bigger role in performance than the CPU, and while the baseline GTX 1050 Ti and RX 560 4GB are relatively attainable (the game apparently requires, maybe, 4GB or more VRAM), we wouldn't be surprised if that's with some form of dynamic resolution scaling enabled. Crank up the settings and the GTX 1070 and RX 5700 are still pretty modest cards, though the AMD card is significantly faster — not that you can find either in stock at acceptable prices these days, as we show in our GPU pricing index. But if you want to run the full-fat version of Resident Evil Village, with all the DXR bells and whistles at 1440p or 4K, you're almost certainly going to need something far more potent.

Full size images: RE Village RT On / RE Village RT Off

AMD showed a preview of the game running with and without ray tracing during its Where Gaming Begins, Episode 3 presentation in early March. The pertinent section of the video starts at the 9:43 mark, though we've snipped the comparison images above for reference. The improved lighting and reflections are clearly visible in the RT enabled version, but critically we don't know how well the game runs with RT enabled.

We're looking forward to testing Resident Evil Village on a variety of GPUs and CPUs next month when it launches on PC, Xbox, and PlayStation. Based on what we've seen from other RT-enabled games promoted by AMD (e.g. Dirt 5), we expect frame rates will take a significant hit.

But like we said, this may also be the debut title for FidelityFX Super Resolution, and if so, that's certainly something we're eager to test. What we'd really like to see is a game that supports both FidelityFX Super Resolution and DLSS, just so we could do some apples-to-apples comparisons, but it may be a while before such a game appears. 

  • ezst036
    No Linux version?
    Reply
  • Rakanyshu
    is it me or raytrace on looks a bit blurry?
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    Rakanyshu said:
    is it me or raytrace on looks a bit blurry?
    It's likely using AMD's answer to DLSS, considering it says "+ Fidelity FX." Also the images are JPEG so...
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    Rakanyshu said:
    is it me or raytrace on looks a bit blurry?
    It's impossible to tell much about sharpness from screencaps of that video. The maximum resolution that the video is available at is 1080p, and Youtube performs relatively high levels of compression on their videos, making 1080p look more like 720p. On top of that, Tom's hardware's screencaps of the video are Jpegs compressed down to 70 quality level, adding even more compression artifacts. So, everything ends up a blurry mess, in both the "on" and "off" comparisons.

    Now, there are certainly some details more visible in the raytracing off image, but that appears to be down to the harsher lighting on those surfaces, since they are not being subject to the bounced lighting that comes with raytracing, and in turn illuminates them more evenly. For example, with the molding on the back wall, the pillar in the foreground, and the stonework supporting the upper floor, certain ridges are more in shadow than they probably should be given the lighting in the room. The grotto containing the statue left of the central door also appears much more in shadow using the raytraced lighting model, causing less detail to be visible, especially once Youtube's heavy compression has its way with any lower-contrast details. There are some areas where the opposite can also be seen though, such as on the square pedestal to the left of the pillar, where the raytraced version shows greater contrast and in turn detail on those surfaces. As far as pixel-level details are concerned though, they are totally lost due to the video compression.

    There are also more-accurate reflections of some objects visible on the floor in the raytraced version. However, one thing I did notice is that direct reflections of light sources seem to inexplicably disappear with raytracing enabled, at least in that example. The specular reflections of the flames and candles don't appear entirely accurate with raytracing disabled, but they disappear entirely with it enabled. The game was still at least a couple months away from launch at the time they posted that video though, so perhaps that's something that will be addressed by the time it launches.

    Also, the game does seem to look quite nice without raytracing. It wouldn't surprise me if they spent a lot more time on the standard lighting that most people will be playing the game with before tacking on the raytraced lighting toward the end of development. So, I imagine there will be some scenes where the lighting arguably looks better without raytracing, even if the raytraced lighting is technically more accurate.
    Reply
  • sam buddy
    Rakanyshu said:
    is it me or raytrace on looks a bit blurry?
    It's the vampires. Why would anyone apply ray tracing to creatures that are known to have no reflection or, sometimes, do not even cast a shadow... :)
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    cryoburner said:
    It's impossible to tell much about sharpness from screencaps of that video. The maximum resolution that the video is available at is 1080p, and Youtube performs relatively high levels of compression on their videos, making 1080p look more like 720p. On top of that, Tom's hardware's screencaps of the video are Jpegs compressed down to 70 quality level, adding even more compression artifacts. So, everything ends up a blurry mess, in both the "on" and "off" comparisons.

    Now, there are certainly some details more visible in the raytracing off image, but that appears to be down to the harsher lighting on those surfaces, since they are not being subject to the bounced lighting that comes with raytracing, and in turn illuminates them more evenly. For example, with the molding on the back wall, the pillar in the foreground, and the stonework supporting the upper floor, certain ridges are more in shadow than they probably should be given the lighting in the room. The grotto containing the statue left of the central door also appears much more in shadow using the raytraced lighting model, causing less detail to be visible, especially once Youtube's heavy compression has its way with any lower-contrast details. There are some areas where the opposite can also be seen though, such as on the square pedestal to the left of the pillar, where the raytraced version shows greater contrast and in turn detail on those surfaces. As far as pixel-level details are concerned though, they are totally lost due to the video compression.

    There are also more-accurate reflections of some objects visible on the floor in the raytraced version. However, one thing I did notice is that direct reflections of light sources seem to inexplicably disappear with raytracing enabled, at least in that example. The specular reflections of the flames and candles don't appear entirely accurate with raytracing disabled, but they disappear entirely with it enabled. The game was still at least a couple months away from launch at the time they posted that video though, so perhaps that's something that will be addressed by the time it launches.

    Also, the game does seem to look quite nice without raytracing. It wouldn't surprise me if they spent a lot more time on the standard lighting that most people will be playing the game with before tacking on the raytraced lighting toward the end of development. So, I imagine there will be some scenes where the lighting arguably looks better without raytracing, even if the raytraced lighting is technically more accurate.
    Using JPGs at 70 quality isn't likely the problem -- the source material (video screengrabs from YouTube) is a different matter. FidelityFX Super Resolution may also account for some blurriness, if it's being used. But if you focus on the general ambience -- changes to the lighting and reflections -- rather than trying to spot tiny details, it will suffice. Looking at the on/off results, I'm not convinced (again) that the RT effects are really that great. They look fine, but if they end up cutting performance by 30-50%, not worth it.
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Looking at the on/off results, I'm not convinced (again) that the RT effects are really that great. They look fine, but if they end up cutting performance by 30-50%, not worth it.
    For general lighting I find raster based lighting sufficient most of the time. But then there are edge cases that stand out to me. Like in the comparison images, the pedestal with the bust on the left side is lit up unrealistically in the non-RT version. While I'm not super bothered by this, I do occasionally stop when I see a glaring lighting oddity like that.

    The first time I stopped and went ".. wait a minute" was in Skyrim. I noticed there was one of those shallow canal things in Whiterun reflecting the sun, while the sun was behind a building and the canal was in shade.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Using JPGs at 70 quality isn't likely the problem -- the source material (video screengrabs from YouTube) is a different matter.
    Well yeah, the Jpeg compression undoubtedly isn't nearly as bad as the Youtube compression, but it doesn't exactly help either. That would be more a concern for impacting the sharpness of uncompressed screenshots. My point was just that with all these layers of compression applied, it's not really possible to distinguish any upscaling that might be going on, and any differences in perceived sharpness of the scene appear to be down to harsher shadows in some areas resulting from the different lighting models.

    As for the overall look, it's kind of hard to tell from this one comparison shot how much of an effect the raytracing might have. In this scene, the raytraced lighting does look more cohesive, however, I get the impression that the rasterized lighting might be more in line with what the level artists intended when they were populating the room with light sources. The raytracing brightens up some parts of the scene, making the shadows less distinct, and I'm not sure that's necessarily an improvement for a shadowy horror game. And the missing light-source reflections on the floor don't help either. Overall, it seems like less care may have been put into the raytraced lighting, though it might improve further before the game comes out, and I imagine there will be some scenes that look noticeably better with it enabled. Whether it can be considered worth the performance hit remains to be seen though.
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    cryoburner said:
    In this scene, the raytraced lighting does look more cohesive, however, I get the impression that the rasterized lighting might be more in line with what the level artists intended when they were populating the room with light sources.
    I suppose when an artist is trying to go for a certain theme, they'll do anything to achieve it, physics be damned.

    Like the way things were in games during the mid 2000s to early 2010s
    Reply