Support NeoGAF

[childplease]

Something tells me these first batch of next gen tittles were being made with high specs in mind thinking next gen consoles would be powerful.

Then Sony and MS pulled a fast one on them with netbook cpus and low to low medium end gpus.

Thankfully they kept the pc version demanding could be a demonstration of what next gen could have been.

 

[BloodMoney]

64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...

 

[slapnuts]

You can't compare clocks across architectures like that, even if they are both x86/64 based.



Sexy.

I'm waiting for that OLED 1440p before I upgrade. Kind of is embarrassing that my smart phone has the same resolution as my monitor.

lol i can't believe i was actually looking at the LG 55 inch OLED's for consideration at 9 grand...those sexy curved screens are pretty gnarly but man....i'll hold off until OLED matures a bit more.

 

[Piggus]

Woo. My 7970 is ready.

Not too worried about "only" having an i5 2500k. It's clocked at 4.8 ghz and I find it hard to believe hyper threading on the i7s will make a massive difference.

64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...

It's 2013. There probably isn't a single 32 bit CPU on the market that would be able to run this. If your PC can handle a game like this then there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't have a 64 bit OS. Using a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit CPU with more than 3 gbs of RAM is a huge waste of resources.

 

[poisonelf]

You wouldn't want Jaguar in a desktop. At that power envelope you are much better off with a Piledriver in AMD land. Or any desktop Intel CPU of course.

There is one out already but it's not worth considering, Jaguar is pretty low end stuff.

Thanks.

So to truly be future proof for at least high settings CPU wise we have to wait for either Haswell-E or Steamroller on AMD's side, right?

If it were only about being able to play console ports I'd guess even a current i-7 would be more than OK.
But PC gaming with NVIDIA deals like the one with Ubisoft, and Valve getting in the game with steam machines, seems to be set for really high end graphics throughout this coming generation, and not about to be stuck in a while again.

Exciting and infuriating at the same time.

 

[Durante]

One thing to consider is that the game is targeting 30 FPS and maybe-not-quite 1080p on next-gen consoles. Since "Ultra" on PC would definitely assume 60 FPS and 1080p as a target the CPU specs do make some sense. You need something more than twice as fast to pull that off, without even taking into account PC-exclusive effects or higher settings.

64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...

Over 71% of all systems in the latest steam hardware survey run a 64 bit OS. Out of those qualifying for this game, it's probably 95%.

 

[solarus]

64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...

If you're serious about gaming on PCs, especially next gen games, then a 64 bit OS should be a pre-requisite come on.

 

[TouchMyBox]

I'm waiting for that OLED 1440p before I upgrade. Kind of is embarrassing that my smart phone has the same resolution as my monitor.

It's much more important that we get 120Hz 1440p monitors first.

I guess OLED could provide much better pixel response, but I have my doubts about OLED image quality.

 

[jet1911]

Woo. My 7970 is ready.

Not too worried about "only" having an i5 2500k. It's clocked at 4.8 ghz and I find it hard to believe hyper threading on the i7s will make a massive difference.

Damn, what kind of cooling solution do you have for your CPU? I overclocked mine at 4GHz yesterday and it went up to 85c while playing BF4 lol

 

[Hrothgar]

64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...

If you are still on 32 bit, I guess yeah.

Both Windows 7 version cost the same, so I went with the 64 bit version when I bought my current PC 3+ years ago in anticipation of the 64 bit future (and a RAM upgrade to 8GB).

 

[Perkel]

One thing to consider is that the game is targeting 30 FPS and maybe-not-quite 1080p on next-gen consoles. Since "Ultra" on PC would definitely assume 60 FPS and 1080p as a target the CPU specs do make some sense. You need something more than twice as fast to pull that off, without even taking into account PC-exclusive effects or higher settings.

Over 71% of all systems in the latest steam hardware survey run a 64 bit OS. Out of those qualifying for this game, it's probably 95%.

Considering you need at minimum 4 core i am sure it is not 95% but 100%. I don't think there is any 4 core that is only 32bit

 

[kharma45]

Thanks.

So to truly be future proof for at least high settings CPU wise we have to wait for either Haswell-E or Steamroller on AMD's side, right?

If it were only about being able to play console ports I'd guess even a current i-7 would be more than OK.
But PC gaming with NVIDIA deals like the one with Ubisoft, and Valve getting in the game with steam machines, seems to be set for really high end graphics throughout this coming generation, and not about to be stuck in a while again.

Exciting and infuriating at the same time.

An 8 core Haswell-E is going to cost you at least $600 for the processor alone, it's out of the realms of feasibility for most people.

I'd still be confident with an i5 and I'd take a 3570K/4670K all day long over any of AMD's 8 'core' offerings like the 8350. Most games are still made to rely on one or two strong threads, somewhere Intel excels and AMD falls short my quite a margin.

Damn, what kind of cooling solution do you have for your CPU? I overclocked mine at 4GHz yesterday and it went up to 85c while playing BF4 lol

You could do that on a Hyper 212, all depends on the silicon lottery. What cooler are you using? Temps seem pretty poor for that clock speed.

 

[elelunicy]

I'd laugh so hard if an i3 does well/ok for this game. Really a Pentium should have done fine considering it is more powerful than the next gen consoles' CPUs. Pentium = dual core while i3 = dual core with hyper threading. Both do ok in modern games because they have (as Haswell ones) slightly better cores than the 1000$ Intel CPU

Just like how i3s do in Battlefield 4, which is optimized for 8 cores.

 

[Ty4on]

Just like how i3s do in Battlefield 4, which is optimized for 8 cores.

I don't think i3+Titan is a common combo

 

[Durante]

An 8 core Haswell-E is going to cost you at least $600 for the processor alone, it's out of the realms of feasibility for most people.

My assumption/hope is that the 6 core Haswell-E will slot in roughly where the 4 core Ivy Bridge-E slots in now in terms of pricing. That would be a nice sweet spot, for me at least.

 

[Piggus]

Damn, what kind of cooling solution do you have for your CPU? I overclocked mine at 4GHz yesterday and it went up to 85c while playing BF4 lol

Antec Kuhler 620.

Works really well. 65C at 4.8 ghz is about the max temp I see while gaming. Could probably get to 5 ghz but I've hit a voltage wall and it requires too much voltage to be stable at 5 ghz. The silicon lottery is a bitch.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

My Phenom II X6 1055T and my 660Ti are kinda ready... I hope.

yeah baby!

oh right, still with a GTX460... and 4 GB ram. MINIMUM SPECS, BABY!

I do feel that these specs are surprisingly high for a game that will also be released on current consoles, and looking at some gameplay videos I don't see where these requirements come from exactly. Unless the PC version is some kind of godly upgrade, that is.

Particularly the CPU demands, since AMD is what, still in the six core max phase?
*checks*
Oh, eight. Goody. So basically "da best" can run this game. Ok, good to know. See ya in three years.

edit: I should probably point out that I have no interest in this game whatsoever. Also: yay for 64-bit OS only, because that 32 / 64 bit nonsense needs to fuck off and die anyway. There should not even be a 32-bit version of modern OS's for the consumer market.

 

[TheD]

I would not worry at all about an quad core 2500K and up doing well in this game, remember that they can realistically overclock a fair amount.

64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...

Or you could not stick with an OS running in a processor mode that has been superseded for many years?

 

[Gbraga]

I wonder if my 3570k will be enough for next gen.

 

[Grief.exe]

Is there a Jaguar CPU, desktop PCs edition, on the way? Any links or known dates?

You have to ask yourself, why would you want this?

 

[kharma45]

I wonder if my 3570k will be enough for next gen.

It will be, especially when overclocked.

 

[poisonelf]

An 8 core Haswell-E is going to cost you at least $600 for the processor alone, it's out of the realms of feasibility for most people.

I'd still be confident with an i5 and I'd take a 3570K/4670K all day long over any of AMD's 8 'core' offerings like the 8350. Most games are still made to rely on one or two strong threads, somewhere Intel excels and AMD falls short my quite a margin.



You could do that on a Hyper 212, all depends on the silicon lottery. What cooler are you using? Temps seem pretty poor for that clock speed.

I agree for current game engines 100%, but since development for next-gen will be centered around 8 physical cores, even though they're weak, I'm concerned that in a year or so we'll be seeing games that actually require 6-8 cores to properly run.

If we are to believe Ubisoft's requirements we're seeing one already.

Wouldn't that be logical, or are current quad cores just so much more powerful that they'd be able to just brute force everything, even if taking into account the PC version's greater resolution and more effects?

And if you also take into account that PC gaming might not just get ports this time with Valve and NVIDIA getting active about making the difference with consoles more obvious, current setups may be soon obsolete.
Then again it's not like NVIDIA would push for CPU dependent optimizations.

I really can't wait to see benchmark wars in the next months.

 

[Gbraga]

It will be, especially when overclocked.

What do you think will be demanding enough to ask for a i7 in this game, for example? If it's just a few missing effects I can deal with that.

I guess I should start looking into overclocking, still running it stock.

 

[Trogdor1123]

oh ... well my computer will play it but just barely

 

[LiquidMetal14]

... Hmm.

Yup, probably better to wait a year post-next gen launch before doing serious computer updates.

When it comes to CPU's I think any i7 in the 3xxx line and up is going to hold you this generation. AMD has some decent 8 core CPU's but Haswel-E is coming sometime and I intent to keep an eye out for that since I have the motherboard that supports it.

 

[JohngPR]

I feel nervous about how my Phenom X4 955 Black Edition OC'd to 3.8ghz will fare.

My HD 7970 will hopefully make up for it.

Would it be worth upgrading to a AMD FX-9370, or is the difference not THAT big?

 

[kharma45]

I agree for current game engines 100%, but since development for next-gen will be centered around 8 physical cores, even though they're weak, I'm concerned that in a year or so we'll be seeing games that actually require 6-8 cores to properly run.

If we are to believe Ubisoft's requirements we're seeing one already.

Wouldn't that be logical, or are current quad cores just so much more powerful that they'd be able to just brute force everything, even if taking into account the PC version's greater resolution and more effects?

And if you also take into account that PC gaming might not just get ports this time with Valve and NVIDIA getting active about making the difference with consoles more obvious, current setups may be soon obsolete.
Then again it's not like NVIDIA would push for CPU dependent optimizations.

I really can't wait to see benchmark wars in the next months.

We've had multicore consoles for years, albeit on a totally different CPU architecture, and that didn't lead to games on PC becoming highly threaded.

I'd be impressed if we even get to using all 4 cores of an i5 within the next couple of years, it'd be good progress.

I feel nervous about how my Phenom X4 955 Black Edition OC'd to 3.8ghz will fare.

My HD 7970 will hopefully make up for it.

Would it be worth upgrading to a AMD FX-9370, or is the difference not THAT big?

AMD FX-9xxx line is terrible, stick to Intel if you want to upgrade.

 

[Grief.exe]

I wonder if my 3570k will be enough for next gen.

Are you joking?

I agree for current game engines 100%, but since development for next-gen will be centered around 8 physical cores, even though they're weak, I'm concerned that in a year or so we'll be seeing games that actually require 6-8 cores to properly run.

If we are to believe Ubisoft's requirements we're seeing one already.

Wouldn't that be logical, or are current quad cores just so much more powerful that they'd be able to just brute force everything, even if taking into account the PC version's greater resolution and more effects?

And if you also take into account that PC gaming might not just get ports this time with Valve and NVIDIA getting active about making the difference with consoles more obvious, current setups may be soon obsolete.
Then again it's not like NVIDIA would push for CPU dependent optimizations.

I really can't wait to see benchmark wars in the next months.

The applications will be multi-threaded, which means you will be fine with just about any CPU that fits that bill. Including those with physical cores or Hyper-Threading in Intel's case.

These specs don't literally mean that you need more cores, but AMD has been going with a 'more cores, lower power per core' model for a little while now.

What do you think will be demanding enough to ask for a i7 in this game, for example? If it's just a few missing effects I can deal with that.

I guess I should start looking into overclocking, still running it stock.

You won't be missing anything with an i7 of that caliber. It has Hyper-Threading, so you will be able to simulate more cores if the application is truly multi-threaded.

 

[Akai__]

Can't wait to see Benchmarks for this game, because I don't believe, that there will be a difference between 4 core and 8 core CPU's.

We shall see.

 

[Ryaaan14]

Wow I can get ultra on my 670? God damns. Might not have to rush out to get the next Nvidia card then.

 

[Gbraga]

Are you joking?

Well, not as in "I don't think it'll run games at all", but I wonder if I'll end up replacing it before my GTX 680. I was sure I'd feel like I need a new GPU before my CPU performance bothered me.

 

[poisonelf]

You have to ask yourself, why would you want this?

Well, by desktop edition I meant something along the lines of 8 physical cores like the console editions, but much higher clocked. I guess what I was describing is the upcoming Steamroller about which I just read.

The reason I'd want that is because I want to relatively 'future-proof' and I'm concerned that the only way to do so is with at least 6, if not 8, cores, since game engines will be developed for that.

The applications will be multi-threaded, which means you will be fine with just about any CPU that fits that bill. Including those with physical cores or Hyper-Threading in Intel's case.

These specs don't literally mean that you need more cores, but AMD has been going with a 'more cores, lower power per core' model for a little while now.

So there is essentially no real difference between 8 physical cores, and 8 threads from 4 cores? At least for gaming.

 

[kharma45]

When it comes to CPU's I think any i7 in the 3xxx line and up is going to hold you this generation. AMD has some decent 8 core CPU's but Haswel-E is coming sometime and I intent to keep an eye out for that since I have the motherboard that supports it.

Haswell-E will be on LGA 2011-3, they've changed the socket slightly. You'll need a new mobo, plus it'll be using DDR4 as well which again means a new mobo.

What do you think will be demanding enough to ask for a i7 in this game, for example? If it's just a few missing effects I can deal with that.

I guess I should start looking into overclocking, still running it stock.

I can't see the i5 holding you back at all.

 

[diehard]

AMD FX-9xxx line is terrible, stick to Intel if you want to upgrade.

Vishera is not terrible.. i wouldn't recommend it to a big gamer but it isnt terrible.

Oh right, the 9xxx line.. they are not good for the money at all.

 

[Grief.exe]

Well, not as in "I don't think it'll run games at all", but I wonder if I'll end up replacing it before my GTX 680. I was sure I'd feel like I need a new GPU before my CPU performance bothered me.

You won't have to replace either this entire generation unless you are one of the insane few who have to max every game out.

You don't strike me as one of those individuals.

Well, by desktop edition I meant something along the lines of 8 physical cores like the console editions, but much higher clocked. I guess what I was describing is the upcoming Steamroller about which I just read.

The reason I'd want that is because I want to relatively 'future-proof' and I'm concerned that the only way to do so is with at least 6, if not 8, cores, since game engines will be developed for that.

People get hung up on having 8 physical cores.

Intel has hyper-threading, which simulates cores on certain models, but you shouldn't need that.

Application is multi-threaded, which means you are going to use multiple cores. Just stacking more cores onto something isn't going to add more performance, unless the architecture is set up for that (see: AMD).

So there is essentially no real difference between 8 physical cores, and 8 threads from 4 cores? At least for gaming.

Depends on the architecture and many other constraints, but you are getting the idea.

 

[TheD]

AMD FX-9xxx line is terrible, stick to Intel if you want to upgrade.

Yeah, they are just higher clocked versions of the FX-8350, they have horrible power usage, no overclocking headroom and don't bench well at all for the heat and power.

 

[Adry9]

HD 7950 Boost with an 3570K here and aiming for Ultra settings.

 

[SteveO409]

I cant believe my Sandy bridge i7 3.4 ghz will already be obsolete soon..i thought that and a 7950 will last me for the PS4/Xbox one ports but doesnt seems like it if its already starting off like this

 

[kharma45]

Vishera is not terrible.. i wouldn't recommend it to a big gamer but it isnt terrible.

The 9000 ones are. They were launched at 3930K prices iirc and didn't come anywhere close to them in terms of performance. They were just a dick waving exercise from AMD to say they had a 5GHz processor, which they didn't really as that was the turbo speed.

As for the rest they're still poor next to Intel's offerings. I have moderate hopes for Kaveri mind.

 

[diaspora]

Vishera is not terrible.. i wouldn't recommend it to a big gamer but it isnt terrible.

Oh right, the 9xxx line.. they are not good for the money at all.

Spending $200 to upgrade to the 8350 is certainly better than $400+ for the equivalent intel plus mobo.

 

[140.85]

I meet all the Ultra requirements except my CPU is 6-core. Guess I'm screwed.

 

[diehard]

The 9000 ones are. They were launched at 3930K prices iirc and didn't come anywhere close to them in terms of performance. They were just a dick waving exercise from AMD to say they had a 5GHz processor, which they didn't really as that was the turbo speed.

As for the rest they're still poor next to Intel's offerings. I have moderate hopes for Kaveri mind.

yeah i corrected my post

 

[def sim]

everything is still hunky dory

 

[Cow Mengde]

All the hype on this game, I still don't know why I want to play it. All I hear about is how great the graphics are, but nothing on how amazing the gameplay is going to be. What's this game about?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I wonder if my 3570k will be enough for next gen.

Given the CPU's in the PS4/Xb1 I don't see why not. Just crank it up to 4.0-4.4ghz and she'll be right for at least another few years.

 

[kharma45]

I cant believe my Sandy bridge i7 3.4 ghz will already be obsolete soon..i thought that and a 7950 will last me for the PS4/Xbox one ports but doesnt seems like it if its already starting off like this

It won't be, it's still a beat of a CPU. Just overclock it and it'll last years and years yet.

 

[Gbraga]

You won't have to replace either this entire generation unless you are one of the insane few who has to max every game out.

You don't strike me as one of those individuals.

I'm sure I will, but it's good to know I won't have to

I don't need to max everything out, you're right. I'm crazy about frame rate, need my 60fps, but other than that I'm good.

Given the CPU's in the PS4/Xb1 I don't see why not. Just crank it up to 4.0-4.4ghz and she'll be right for at least another few years.

I'll look into that, thanks.

 

[cackhyena]

Am I left in the dust in the next few years with a 3570k slightly overclocked and a GTX 670?

 

[kharma45]

Am I left in the dust in the next few years with a 3570k slightly overclocked and a GTX 670?

No.

 

[Sp33Demon]

So glad I stopped putting off my new build. My E6850 and 8800GT had great times together but we haven't had fun in a while. Just built a 4770K / GTX 770 ACX rig so I am good to go. Still deciding if I'm buying this on PC or PS4 though.