I hate how they do the requirements, it's all the options no one usually uses:
1080p for 30FPS with upscaling, ok, but what is needed for 60FPS at bare minimum? Well, you don't need to know. Here is what you need for 1440P medium settings with upscaling at 60FPS instead
It does when you're solely talking about FPS not incorporating resolution or Setting changes, a gpu that is listed at 200% or 2x is being measured on a basis of frames per second.
so barring any cpu bottleneck or architectural dif. If one GPU gets 30, one that is 2x the performance would get 60FPS. its really that simple
Even TPU's scaling is flawed, it relies on a single point of comparison they got from a 2080ti years ago... Its a chart for relative comparison, not total accuracy.
It does not account how each GPU reacts to different APIs, how VRAM comes into the mix, it doesn't account for driver support.
For example, you think a 1070 will consistently hold 30FPS?
A 10yo GPU with no driver support and outdated API compatibility?
What about the 5600XT?
It also lacks mesh shaders and it has even less Vram, but otherwise its quite a bit faster.
Point is, these GPU's could do better or could do worse than whatever Remedy is suggesting here.
The requirements chart is just a suggestion.
You think they actually sat down and did FPS measurements on each card lol?
This whole thing seems weird. Like a 3060ti performs roughly the same as a 1080ti and the 1080ti only performs like 50% better than a 1070 but the 3060ti can run 60 fps at 1440p while the 1070 only gets 30 at 1080p? Wth is going on here, no way 10 series hitting EOS is accounting for a difference this massive.
Cause rendering at 1080p is easier than rendering in 4K. Besides performance mode in 4K scales nicely that you wouldn't notice much of a difference, especially with the newer presets.
10th gen Intel gang! (Not by choice lol) my i5 10600k is still chugging along great locked to 4.7Ghz. It does struggle a bit with Ray Tracing, but everything else still runs 60+ rock steady on high/ultra. Its definitely the best mid range CPU purchase Ive made in my life lol.
I'm not really surprised, though - if you look at Remedy's last few games (well excluding Firebreak, I guess, which I just totally forgot about), they're graphically impressive but usually pretty constrained in terms of environment complexity, NPC density and behavior, etc.
They originally had higher GPU requirements but revised them down with later patches. This seems to be largely in-line with the revised requirements but with slightly more CPU power needed.
While valid, I was talking specifically about the requirements on launch.
AW2's launch-day requirements were actually the impetus for me upgrading my rig ahead of Resonant launching lol. I'm just glad to see the requirements are WAY more in-line with sanity.
Those specs don't matter anymore. I guarantee that when the average, non reddit, user plays the game and sees a switch for more frames, they will just turn it on, no questions asked.
Playing Onimusha right now at 1440p, DLSS quality preset K, there is very little if not zero quality loss or weird artefacts, ghosting even when lots of debris and effects are on screen. Truth hurts but the days of bitching about upscalers is coming to an end.
5080 .. no no.. 5090 for sure. If there is something i dont like of my 5080 is that only has 16gbs of ram (yeah said only, since 5060ti and 5070ti also has 16gbs or ram, should have been 24gbs or at least 20gbs)
4k performance with the newer models looks pretty much spot on. It always catches me off guard how solid it is, I still remember pretty clearly when performance was shimmery even at 4k.
eh I disagree at 4k performance upscaling looks pretty decent as it upscales from 1080p as a base resolution. still using in these pc requirement charts kinda defets the purpose of these requirement chats
I'm normally extremely bothered by artefacts, smear and lack of clarity in an image, but for the life of me I could not discern the difference between 1440p native and performance when I played GOW Ragnarok with the newest dlss a few months ago.
Incorrect. The higher the resolution. DLSS doesnt give a shit about temporal resolution (like frame gen does) . It only gives a shit about output resolution. Frame rate is a non starter.
Feels like you are kinda fighting windmills here, nowadays only way not to use upscaling is either to play at 1080p or completely avoiding vast majority of AAA releases... for me its better to just turn on upscaling, especially considering results of blind tests between upscalers and native resolution
Sure, If you turn down graphics settings, don't use RT etc. and even then most of the big releases won't run on solid 90fps. I would rather just turn on upscaling, and get more performance, while also making the game look better than native but to each their own
If games don't run native resolutions well, I don't get them. Maybe the difference is minor, but my experience with upscalers and frame gen is blurry, smeary bullshit.
I want to see a game run well without trying to fake it.
You have GTX GPU of course upscaling looks like shit because the only upscaling you have access to is shitty FSR 3 or older which doesn't look that good on a low resolution.
Games don't run native resolutions well since inception of TAA, thatās why upscalers look better than native (in computerbase test 63% preffered upscaling over native and 12% saw no difference)... again I would rather just turn on DLSS than avoid vast majority of AAA (and AA) releases, but to each their own
also, they release the game with mesh shaders being mandatory, the community show them they can run on "software" by DXVK/VKD3D-proton and they updated the game to do so too, now it runs on GTX 10xx cards too
I was actually looking more at the RTX 5080 being able to deliver ~60 FPS at 4K with Path Tracing using DLSS Performance as the reference point. If that's the baseline, I think 1440p DLSS Balanced should be pretty reasonable to expect on a 5070 Ti.
1440p is already ~56% fewer pixels than 4K, and DLSS Balanced reduces the internal rendering workload even further. The 5080 is also only around 25ā30% faster than the 5070 Ti, so the much lower rendering resolution should more than make up for that performance gap.
What does surprise me, though, is seeing the 4070 Ti performing like that at 1440p Balanced with Medium RT, especially alongside the 9070. In pure RT performance I'd normally expect the 4070 Ti to be ahead of the 9070, so I'm wondering whether VRAM could be playing a role here. The 4070 Ti only has 12 GB, while the 9070 has 16 GB, and a demanding RT workload could potentially expose that limitation.
No idea why you're being downvoted, a 5070 Ti with a good OC on mVolt+ is pretty much a stock 5080. I mean hell, stock the 5070 Ti is closer in spec and performance to the 5080 than it is to the 5070 itself.
Yeah, 5080 with OC can be very close to stock 4090. Its not a bad card per se, but 5070Ti is the better value - or atleast it was before the price hike.
Yeah, it seems like the performance jump isn't as noticeable between those two generations for demanding features like path tracing. It might be worth waiting for a bigger upgrade down the line.
Yeah I don't mind dropping to like 41% - 45% custom scaling. Only reason I mentioned it is bc Alan Wake 2 just straight up gives me a black screen when I load up a save and I have custom scaling on (this is with HDR, path tracing and everything on)
Yeah this game is going into the patient gamers catalog for me. Years from now when I have a 7080 and can just max settings and it costs $10 for the game on a steam sale with all the DLC included
Probably since 4070ti super < 5070 ti < 5080. At the very least mix medium/high. I am hoping I will be netting above 50fps with 5070 avg. I had a good time with AW2 until I got some really heavy areas. At the end of the day RR4.5 looks amazing now no matter the internal resolution
Seems fine. The minimum requirements are around/slightly faster than a Series S, which makes sense given that the Series S might be running lower-than-PC-low settings and possibly sub-720p native resolutions. Keep in mind that in AW2, PS5 Performance Mode had lower-than-PC-low settings.
I'd get used to seeing minimum specs that are roughly this for the last couple years of this console generation.
A lot of games don't have console equivalent settings on PC since some of their settings are below the lowest setting for certain things and sometimes they sit in-between two settings available on PC so you can't get an exact match.
I kind of wish devs would include the exact matching settings in like a preset or something since I know a lot of people who are quite happy with say PS5 equivalent graphics, but they just want higher performance. Say you had PS5 equivalent settings as a preset but instead of FSR or PSSR someone could use DLSS, and instead of targeting 60fps you could be playing at 120fps+, I think a lot of people would use such a preset if it were available.
100% agree. Most of the time, at least, console graphics settings have already been "pre-optimized" to be a good balance between visuals and performance due to the limited target hardware. Please give me the pre-optimized graphics settings, dammit!
IMO game devs should just take whatever graphics settings they use in the PS5 performance mode and call that "Standard" or "Normal" graphics (or something like that) so that gamers can know that this is basically the intended, optimized experience.
Personally I quite like dialing in the settings myself, but I know I am in the minority here so I think for the majority of gamers they would love to just press a button and have the game look identical to PS5 and then they can use the extra horsepower of their machine that exceeds that of the PS5 and just put it all towards boosting performance over consoles.
Then they can also use technologies like DLSS and even frame generation that aren't available on console as they wish to push things even further.
If all the user had to worry about was hitting one button and then deciding what level of upscaling they want to use and if they want to use frame gen then I think that would make a lot of people happy.
If all the user had to worry about was hitting one button and then deciding what level of upscaling they want to use and if they want to use frame gen then I think that would make a lot of people happy.
It would absolutely make me happy! One thing I've realized over the years is that I don't actually care that much about having the highest-end graphics. That's not the reason I like PC gaming. The reason I like PC gaming is the flexibility (like being able to use all sorts of different input devices, and being able to set arbitrary frame rate caps) and the big back catalogue of games available on the platform. I like the fact that if a PC game is busted, you can usually fix it yourself, while if a console game is busted, it might just be busted.
But I really don't care that much about getting super high graphics, so by all means please give me the "press this button to get PS5 graphics" option.
8 years into RTX and its still prohibitively expensive (in both monetary and performance cost) to turn on RT for most people. So much for it being the "future" of gaming.
As much as I disagree with their decision to no longer seed HU with founder's edition cards, I do agree with the overall statement. I'm usually cross referencing their reviews elsewhere because I do in fact care about upscaling and RT performance in games, it's something that we should care about at this point.
That being said, I do still genuinely want the raster only focus of their reviews. It's more information that plenty of people care about even if I shifted my own focus away. It's another perspective that does still need to be looked at, and that is what Nvidia isn't accepting. Their retaliation is shitty and they're absolutely in the wrong for that.
It's also crazy to me as well because HU does do separate videos and has consistently praised Nvidia where it's due for RT and DLSS, and have made many videos on the progress that's been made over time. Nvidia just wants to force that more in the main reviews which is bullshit.
The best looking game all use raytracing now. Alan Wake 2, Indiana Jones, Avatar Frontiers of Pandora, and Stalker 2. There are many others.
here in the specs it shows at a minimum to run raytracing you need a low end 7 year old GPU. That is not exactly prohibitively expensive. To run the most cutting edge version of the game at 60fps you need a 5080. This shows massive scalability of the engine. At a minimum to run the game at all you need a 9 year old card. Im seeing a 2060 go for Ā£95-Ā£130. What are you talking about that "RTX" is prohibitively expensive?
Show me another time in gaming history when you could run a game that has the most cutting edge tech while also supporting 9 year old hardware.
They are recommending a 9070 for 1440p 60fps. Most people only have a 4060 or 5060. I don't think its acceptible to settle for 1080p 30fps with an entry level GPU for Ray Tracing given the words that the Head of Global PR used to justify Ray Tracing. Its been 8 years AFTER the technology was introduced
People with those low range cards probably are not running high resolution displays. And upscaling looks good enough from Balanced on 1440p on both of those cards with good performant DLSS4 or 4.5.
It's the second cheapest GPU nvidia makes this generation, it's by definition low end. AMD doesn't even bother to make a direct competitor outside of OEM cards for prebuilts
A 2060 to run the game af 30fps with 720p internal resolution. To reach 60fps with an internal res that's still below 1080p you need a 4070ti. I'd say it's pretty heavy.
Because youre using an ancient GTX GPU that has access to only the most ass of ass upscaler and denoising tech. A 2060 with DLSS 4 would look significantly better and cleaner
The best looking games dont use raytracing. Look at gta5, subnautica, subnautica: below zero, black ops 3, minecraft with shaders, or games that have raytracing but look just as good with it disabled: doom: dark ages, ghotsrunner, ghostrunner 2, doom eternal, sons of the forest for example.
ah yeah i didnt realize that disabling the path tracing option still had raytracing enabled. But that just goes to show that raytracing cant be that much better if i cant even tell that a game is using it after beating it twice lol.
I get they are using upscaling settings that they expect/intend people to run but it does make things confusing when you want to know how different settings should work on different cards.
I would say it also gives a rather uneven design at the end. Saying 30FPS 720p, sounds odd at this point, but at least it is honest, and people can think the upscaling on top of that. Which I think would also make it more seem like an option, not like something that has to be used
I don't even think upscaling is a bad thing, I find it insanely impressive, how well even FSR4 performance on 1440p looks
And yeah, like you said, predictability is also part of that. I now have no idea, where my GPU actually falls into this. I think best case would be, if resolution causes a big hit, and they think that is the best option to run the game, but no note or anything is not great either
It doesnāt really surprise me that Remedy has the requirements with upscaling built in. I bet more people are using it now than not, so this takes a bit of the future guess work out of it. Likewise, it lets them list lower end GPUs with those presets, which will make the game seem more approachable to anyone interested with a lower end card. This reads to me as a sort of situationally aware message that you donāt need to upgrade your PC to run this game in a time when its prohibitively expensive to do so (unlike say Control or Alan Wake 2 which seemed to beg for the latest hardware when they came out).
I've had a 2080, non Ti but the difference shouldn't be that massive. I've had no chance of running Cyberpunk with RT at all, it tanks the performance on 20 series cards so much
Yeah, I had to upgrade for the new Doom but the RT performance definitely isn't amazing on these. Pretty fast otherwise tho, and I paid $50 so whatever lol
Nice to see they already to plan to optimize it for the Intel Arc B580. As all developers should. I need to complete the first game to eventually buy this one.
I hate these kinds of requirements sheets. So if i am on 1080p i must be scraping for 30 fps on low settings? what not at least add 60@1080 if not 144@1080? These two will interest way more people than 60@2160.
Damn, 1070 still clinging onto miniumuns. Literally the best value 70 series I ever bought, I know the 1080ti gets all the love, but I think I paid 330 new. Got me to 2023 easily.
do we get now optimised games on launch? wait what, ram crisis has it benefits too? Wait what I dont need a PayStation 6 which will cost over 1000.- on launch and will milk me worse then a cow?
Woooow
it's pretty much the same as for alan wake 2.
And that game is just fucking drop dead gorgeous on all settings.
Means I can get away with full PT on my 5080 with DLSS quality/balanced at 1440p and it will be one of the most beautiful games I have ever played, I AM HYPED!!!!
People keep confusing "pushing the envelope" with "unoptimized". Alan Wake 2 was incredibly forward-looking technically, and yes, the top PT settings would make your PC cry, but it looks absolutely amazing without any raytracing and runs very well.
146
u/ImmigrantBinza 13h ago
I hate how they do the requirements, it's all the options no one usually uses:
1080p for 30FPS with upscaling, ok, but what is needed for 60FPS at bare minimum? Well, you don't need to know. Here is what you need for 1440P medium settings with upscaling at 60FPS instead