-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mirror's Edge: Catalyst PC specs revealed (min:i3-3250/Win7 64bit/650 Ti/6GB Ram)
- Thread starter giant_frying_pan
- Start date
Irobot82
Member
7970 is the recommended AMD GPU so you're excellent.
You can't say that. There is no data point.
I pass the recommended specs on the CPU side, but no on the GPU one. Loke every AAA release recently, really. Will see how it works on the beta.
I have a 7950, so I might be able to play it at least in high then.
The 960 is not as fast as the 280x. And we have no idea how they test GPU's, or how they will perform in the final release.
NeoRaider
Member
It's Origin only, which sucks imo.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
It uses 6 gigs on min settings. People don't read. It uses more than 8 for higher settings. Thus why 16 is recommended.
You aren't going to buy 5-6 gb ram sticks
I don't know why 16 gb is laughable. Everyone should have at least 16 gb if you want to play new games.
It's not about architectures as much as it is that the PC SKUs just might have more going on like having by default significantly better LOD.
metareferential
Member
Ram is dirt cheap. Just get 16gb and get over it.
Even though we all know we probably don't need that much.
Even though we all know we probably don't need that much.
Azure Phoenix
Member
Hoo boy, I guess I'll be getting this on console then because I'm barely above the minimum. Couldn't even hit the recommended specs with a new build on my max possible budget.
it's pretty weird. the reverse of witcher 3, where GTX 770 and R9 290 were the recommended cards. R9 290 >> GTX 770
No word on DX12 for now.
Kayo Police
Member
Man my 780 is already feeling outdated.
I want to build my new PC now but waiting til Pascal.
I want to build my new PC now but waiting til Pascal.
I don't understand people with sweet Haswell/Skylake CPUs and 980s but 8GB RAM.
Sword Of Doom
Member
When I got my GTX 780, it was easily outperforming a 290. That obviously didn't last long. AMD cards have definitely demonstrated better longevity
Alot of PC gaf people were recommending 8gb ram and suggesting spending the money elsewhere
ViewtifulJC
Banned
16gb of RAM
rip
rip
dr_rus
Member
DX11+ more likely. Win7 is locked out of anything past DX11.1.
The 280X is a 7970 rebrand...
grosvenor_92
Member
Glad I upgraded to 16 gb of ram not to long ago and am I'm surprised my 660 meets the min
Confusion Illusion
Banned
I think my system will manage. Now, I just hope Dice delivers...
I don't understand games that need 16 GB right now...unless that's mandatory to max it!!!
GavinUK86
Member
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
Why would you want a 970 now? 390 outperforms it is many new games and both companies are releasing new gpus soon.
dr_rus
Member
Just like Battlefront. That also recommended 16gb and had a minimum requirement of 8gb.
Really don't understand why so many people bother with these specs. I do wonder why they put them so high when it isn't necessary at all.
With 6.5GB of consumption for the game alone 16GB are necessary as the next step down would be 8 and 1.5GB for OS is just not enough. It's also an open world game and chances are that it'll cache a lot into the memory, and while it'll still be possible to play with 6-8GB the stuttering and choppiness will be pretty severe probably. SWBF isn't the best example here.
Huh? Didn't you see the first graph? The game consumption is 3gb and total system consumption is 6.5gb.
Also 1.5gb is more than enough for an OS. These graphs even show it. On a 6gb you see 4.7gb of ram usage which means the OS is only using 1.7gb. My idle ram usage is less than 1gb. You're seriously overestimating the amount of RAM the OS requires or your system is bloated. Though with 16gb your idle ram usage is probably a bit higher.
Also do open worlds really need more ram and vram? Seriously this seems like a common belief and it seems logical but from my own experience this just doesn't seem to be the case. Now I don't play all AAA games but the last open world game I played was the W3 and it only used 3.5gb.
I used Battlefront because it just shows how wrong these specs are.
Langdon Alger
Banned
Whoa. Just...whoa.
Do we have any news on Ps4 performance? I would wait before any decision.
nkarafo
Member
It's funny how the RAM requirements get doubled. From 1 to 2, then 4, 8, 16, etc.
As if you can't have anything in between those numbers. And seriously, is the game even going to be close of using those 16GBs? I doubt it will use more than 10 max. So why not recommending, say, 12GB? You could have 2 sticks of 4GB and add one more, it's perfectly possible. You don't have to go double the amount (unless you really want dual channel).
As if you can't have anything in between those numbers. And seriously, is the game even going to be close of using those 16GBs? I doubt it will use more than 10 max. So why not recommending, say, 12GB? You could have 2 sticks of 4GB and add one more, it's perfectly possible. You don't have to go double the amount (unless you really want dual channel).
No you won't.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Almost seems like my Surfsce could run it. Cool.
dr_rus
Member
I have severe doubts about this being the total system memory consumption as it seems way too low. More likely that this is the RAM consumption with the same or even bigger amount of memory pages being in the pagefile.
I have 3.6GB committed right now on an 8GB machine running some Outlook, Firefox and a couple of utilities. I find it hard to believe that SWBF would consume only 3GBs more as most modern games I've seen tend to consume somewhere between 8 and 12 GBs by themselves, without the OS.
OS can "use" 0GB - means that it'll just swap constantly as it'll be using pagefile as "RAM".
nkarafo
Member
I have 16GB and my idle OS consumption on startup is 1.5GB.
Also, the requirements should not take into account that you are running other RAM intensive programs like Firefox or other browsers, that don't have anything to do with the game. At best, they could take into account programs like Afterburner and other utilities that aid the game. These don't take much RAM anyway.
Also, the requirements should not take into account that you are running other RAM intensive programs like Firefox or other browsers, that don't have anything to do with the game. At best, they could take into account programs like Afterburner and other utilities that aid the game. These don't take much RAM anyway.