KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
UPDATE: These specifications have now been confirmed via an Ubisoft blog post. The AMD R9 290x recommended specification wasn't a mistake after all- suggesting that the game might have some optimization issues with AMD GPUs at launch.
Original story:
The Far Cry 4 PC system requirements have supposedly been spotted and unsurprisingly, they are fairly similar to that of Assassin's Creed Unity, which recommended that all players have at least an Nvidia GTX 680 graphics card or better. However, while GPU requirements remain fairly high, CPU requirements have been scaled back a bit.
To start off with, Far Cry 4 will take up 30GB of hard drive space, which is a bit less than the upcoming Assassin's Creed. A 64-bit OS is still required and the minimum specification requires that you have at least 4GB of RAM. The minimum CPU requirement includes an Intel Core i5-750 or an AMD Phenom II X4 995 and for graphics power you'll need at least a GTX 460 or an AMD Radeon HD5850.
The recommended requirements include 8GB of RAM, an Intel Core i5 2400S CPU or AMD's FX-8350. Just like with Assassin's Creed Unity, Ubisoft recommends at least a GTX 680 with 2GB of VRAM but the company doesn't seem to be spending much time testing AMD cards as the recommended Nvidia equivalent is the top of the line R9 290X, which is a much more powerful card.
It seems like the AMD GPU specification should be a mistake, hopefully Ubisoft provides an explanation some time before release.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Ubisoft has officially announced the system requirements now. Comparing a GTX 680 to an R9 290x seems a bit silly, hopefully this doesn't mean that the game will run poorly on AMD hardware upon release.
It’s interesting how that game (AC:Unity too) has much higher requirements just because it will run on different OS. After all, the difference between next-gen consoles and PC is only the operating systems but to play it on Windows you need GTX680 or R9 290X no matter that PS4 and XBONE has HD 7850 and HD 7790.
its not the OS, and you are oversimplifying the graphics chips in the PS4 and Xbone. The PC version will be un-gimped (or less-gimped) compared to the console versions. Consoles cant handle the stuff PC can, everything about console releases is gimped all to hell. They are not simply computers with a different OS.
ahh but the consoles wont be at 1080p or 60 FPS due to the Xbone not being able to handle it, and because of Ubi’s deal with Microsoft the PS4 version had to be nerfed to match the Xbone (this is on Unity btw).
You don’t really know anything about computers do you?
I’m not oversimplifying nothing – the graphics in next-gen consoles aren’t better than 7850/7870. Since bot PC and next-gen consoles are using x86 CPU, it’s only the OS which is different and the fact that PS4 is using GDDR5 for system and video memory. But Xbox One is using DDR3 for system and video memory which makes him 1:1 to PC. And as
grumpytrooper stated, the games are made to match the Xbox One no matter that PS4 has much more powerful GPU. Which means that the games should run perfectly on R7 260X. Ubi set high requirements for the PC so AMD and nVidia can sell their high-end GPUs.
I’m ready to hear the difference between PC and Xbox One. What’s so special about Xbox One? It’s just AMD APU and 8GB of shared memory.
this is not the way it works mate, sorry to pop that bubble. think
fiat panda vs (insert sports car here) both have engines… both have
windscreens ergo both perform the same? NARP
not sure where your info has been coming from but you should slap them, hard.
It’s interesting that you know what GPUs are in these consoles (not that you know what the numbers represent), yet in the same breath you’ve stated that PC and consoles are equal. Can a PC employ a significantly better GPU than a 7850? How does 7850 stack up against modern mid-high-end PC GPUs? For that matter, is 7850 a mid-end GPU as of 2014?
No, games on ps4 and xbone are heavily optimised for the two systems. This is because there is only one possible hardware setup for each console. On pc, the games are nowhere near as optimised simply because there are so many different hardware setups. This means that if the graphics were exactly the same quality on pc as they were on next gen, you would still need a more powerful graphics card than what you have in the consoles. Finally, the graphics on the pc version are always likely to be more hardware intensive simply because graphics on pc are usually better quality. This includes things such as 1080p rendering and many of the other graphics options you choose in the options menu.
Yes, your view is quite possibly correct that you could play the game on a lesser gpu than what is quoted in the minimum specs, however you would be rendering in 720p on low or medium settings, with maybe 30fps, which is not very good and not what many pc gamers want(many play on pc since this what many console games are rendered in).
My view is that pc games usually have better minimum specs than they need to simply because the developers don’t want to have to deal with complaints from people saying that performance isn’t good enough even though they have the minimum specs.
I’m still waiting for explanation. Fiat panda and every other car has engine. But PC and next-gen consoles has the same engines. AMD APU with x86 Jaguar cores which you can find in some netbooks and AM1 machines, and GCN graphics which you can find in HD 7000, 8000, R7 and R9. I’m seriously confused, someone, please, explain the situation.
“On pc, the games are nowhere near as optimised simply because there are so many different hardware setups. This means that if the graphics were exactly the same quality on pc as they were on next gen, you would still need a more powerful graphics card than what you have in the consoles.”
This is nonsense perpetuated by know-nothing console gamers. PC GPUs receive frequent driver updates that increase efficiency, often before a game’s release (often, they’re targeted at a certain new game).
All, refuse to buy this game on PC until Ubisoft confirms that it isn’t hard-locked at 30 fps and/or 1080p to create false parity. It’s your money, and they simply refuse to confirm this information. Why?
I understand PC needs more power to play the games on 1080p. I also agree that the games are optimized for consoles. But both consoles are using GCN graphics which means the games should be optimized for AMD GPUs but you still see games that need 7970 as minimum requirement. Why you would need 7970 to play a game on 720p at 30FPS?
xbox and ps4 only have the one option regarding hardware so they have to settle for what i would consider average performance, PC is capable of much higher performance parts since they are pretty much hot swappable so they are capable of running a game with better resolution/fps and all that stuff
xbox and ps4 i dont think are playing true 1080p and not at 60fps, these are needed for a smoother performance. go and grab some youtube videos of side by side performance of either xbox or ps4 and a high spec PC and you will see the difference.
probably made a mistake or 2 here but meh, im tired, sue me lol
You’re quite confused; above, you’ve argued that PC isn’t superior to consoles, because of “OS differences.” Here, you’re asking someone to tell you why One is superior to PC. I think you should simply leave.
Yes gpu’s get driver updates either before or after games are released to try and optimize them for the game. However, the games on consoles are specifically designed by the developers to work with the exact cpu, gpu and ram that the consoles have. On pc the gpu still has to work with the cpu and the game is obviously going to use the ram. The developers simply cannot design their games to run as efficiently on pc and the drivers are not optimised for specific combinations of gpu and cup, they are simply optimised for the game.
No, it does not need “more power.” Stop spreading misinformation without sources or validity.
It’s because of developers’ dishonesty that you believe that a console is “optimized.” They build games on PC, my friend. They then pare them down for consoles. When you play a game on a console, you are in fact playing a game developed on, and for, PC, 99% of the time.
No, I’m saying that PS4 and Xbone are PCs with another OS.
“After all, the difference between next-gen consoles and PC is only the operating systems “
Of course they are developed on pc. What else is there to develop on :). However, they are developed for consoles. It’s simple economics. They’re obviously going to get more sales on consoles. Why do you think many pc games that are also available on console have so many performance problems on pc – it’s because they are poor console ports. The majority of games from the major series (cod, battlefield, gta, far cry, assassins creed etc.) are clearly console ports becuase of the poor performance and bugs, as well as control options which inferior to games developed for pc.
I said the same thing – consoles are less powerful than PC but they still use the same architecture (in other words – next gen consoles are PC which can’t be upgraded). Which means that if you want to play a game made for next-gen console you don’t need GTX 680 as MINIMUM requirement.
Yes, you have x86 CPU and DDR3 memory. I didn’t said anything about performance. Of course there’s more powerful PCs than next-gen consoles, only a moron can think otherwise.
Effectively that is true, but it is the os and years of console development that makes all of the difference. The manufacturers have time to optimize their os for gaming.
Your console *is* a PC. Is this not clear? Console hardware isn’t magical. It’s just a cheap APU; in other words, a low-power CPU and GPU on the same chip. All a developer typically does, these days (as PC gaming increases in popularity), is *pare down* “settings” until the game is playable at a target resolution and frame rate (unless the game is to be equal on PC, as is Far Cry 4). In *this* case, developing “for consoles” is accurate, using the superior hardware of PS4 as the target, and paring down for XBOX One, as needed.
Battlefield 3 and 4 were both developed *for PC*. Not consoles. Far Cry 1 is (or was, anyway) a PC-only game. Far Cry 2 and 3 were developed for PC, then scaled down (drastically) for consoles. Assassin’s Creed: who cares? (However,I will tell you that AC3 on PC *far* surpasses the console versions; they made tremendous improvements/modifications for the PC version, and it blows the console versions away. Still a boring game, unfortunately.)
However, you remain convinced that “console optimization” is real. What percentage efficiency gains (be specific) are you seeing thanks to this optimization (please provide links to a published article from a major publication confirming said number)? Let’s say it’s 20%, at best (it isn’t). Is that somehow supposed to compete with a GPU that is 500% more powerful?
You don’t know. You’re simply regurgitating what you’ve been told. 🙂
You may want to amend your first comment, in that case, because that’s precisely what you appear to be.
They’re PCs with far weaker hardware.
Fin
What I wanted to say is that you don’t need GTX 680 to play games made for next-gen consoles, since the GPUs of next-gen consoles are less powerful. And If we have to consider 7850 as mid-range GPU, it will be at the lowest end of the mid-range.
OK. Now you’re talking sense. I agree.
Happy now?
i need a beer
edit: read the story again the minimum is a 460. the 680 is the recommended.
How do I know all of this? I was running 360 “ports” at 1080/60 in 2008 (98% of titles, anyway), with just over 3x the GPU of Xenos (360’s GPU). 720/30 to 1080/60 requires just over 3x more GPU power to produce, all settings equal (incidentally, they were probably higher on my PC). Thus, my PC games were largely more “optimized” than the console versions.
Was I unhappy? I was simply pointing out that your comments were contradictory. That affects your happiness, not mine.
My mistake. GTX 460 sounds better, I hope those are not requirements for 1024×768 and settings at low.
because it’s not doing the same thing the PC is, and also because Ubisoft sucks at optimization
but the devs optimize the game for console harder than they do for PC, look at ubisoft for example, they don’t give a fuck and we get AC4 that runs at 30fps maxed and looks like garbage.
AC2 in my opinion had better graphics than AC3 in max settings 1080p, and yea it’s a hella boring game.
There’s a very large difference between minimum and recommended, I get the feeling that you don’t understand that. Also, that’s the most fucking bullshit comment you’ve made so far. One, when did you define that recommended settings means 720p 30fps? Two, the 7970 fucking destroys any console and I have no idea why you think that it can only run 720p at 30fps, you should seriously look up some benchmarks unless you are actually retarded.
in situations such as this i would absolutely not recommend going to the pirate bay, and i would not suggest downloading the game to see if you like it before you buy it, and i absolutely would not mention anything along the lines of you’re welcome
Well, that would be the definition of ‘minimum’ now wouldn’t it
youre lying, GTAIV did not run well on 2008 hardware lol
Games developed for consoles are in fact optimized for them. All consoles are the same to each owner, it is not the case for PCs, they have to build a game that will have a wide appeal.
Notice Crysis was made to look amazing on PC and required better hardware then what was available at the time. You cant do this if you want to sell a lot of copies and it simply makes no sense on a console. So typically a PC game is released optimized for somewhat midranged hardware but will play well at higher resolutions than a console can offer, especially on highend hardware. It looks better than a console game but not drastically, at least not to most people.
True PC showcases like Crysis and Metro are the only glaringly obvious examples of PC games being of much higher fidelity. You also have to consider the cost of a rig to run a beautiful game maxed out above 1080p. Its FAR more, like 10x more then what a XBONE+1080p monitor costs.
yes you do lmao, I had a GTX 680 + 3770k setup and it could not perform considerably better than what an xbone can do. PC req are always harsh its what you get for having cutting edge, BLEEDING EDGE tech. Nothing is optimized for it so you use way better gear to get marginally better results. Itll always be this way
hi is can run with 32 bit system
hi is can run with 32 bit system
This game is free with GTX 9xx series ;).
This game is free with GTX 9xx series ;).
Consoles run ‘closer to the metal’. They do not have all the background overheads that PCs do, and don’t have to support any additional configurations other than the one you are running. They don’t have to keep Windows update, defender, your IM app and internet explorer running in case you run your game in windowed mode. They are built to perform one job at a time, whereas PC’s are built to perform hundreds. As a result, developers ‘hack’ through the OS to directly manipulate the hardware a lot and squeeze out more performance. On a PC this behaviour might only work on a single GPU and you would crash any other computer, so devs do things the way they are supposed to.
As a result, even if you simply overclocked your console GPU, it would break a lot of games as the amount of time it takes to do each and every action may be the only thing that keeps things in sync and stops it from crashing. The truth is that console copies are simply not robust enough to run the same on a PC. New tech wouldn’t work etc, but as a result, you only get one set of settings and no upgrades.
Consoles run ‘closer to the metal’. They do not have all the background overheads that PCs do, and don’t have to support any additional configurations other than the one you are running. They don’t have to keep Windows update, defender, your IM app and internet explorer running in case you run your game in windowed mode. They are built to perform one job at a time, whereas PC’s are built to perform hundreds. As a result, developers ‘hack’ through the OS to directly manipulate the hardware a lot and squeeze out more performance. On a PC this behaviour might only work on a single GPU and you would crash any other computer, so devs do things the way they are supposed to.
As a result, even if you simply overclocked your console GPU, it would break a lot of games as the amount of time it takes to do each and every action may be the only thing that keeps things in sync and stops it from crashing. The truth is that console copies are simply not robust enough to run the same on a PC. New tech wouldn’t work etc, but as a result, you only get one set of settings and no upgrades.
Well, those are the real specs http://woobox.com/6risec
Well, those are the real specs http://woobox.com/6risec
Well, those are the real specs http://woobox.com/6risec
Sometimes I wish GPU’s didn’t cost more than some second hand vehicles.. 🙁
there is absolutely no way to make it work on 32 bit ?
so it is impossible to run far cry 4 in 32 bit?