Let's talk recommended specs, they need to be changed

(watsyurdeal) #1

Why? Well let’s get right to it.

First of all, recommended and minimum. These two things to me, mean that I can run the game at 60 frames per second consistently, on 1080p, that’s the standard imo. So minimum means that on low settings, I should be able to run it fine, for recommended, that means I can max the game out and have no problems running it.

So, I’ve been playing on two rigs this month, my old rig, and the one I just recently built. Here are the specs

Old Rig - Gateway FX 4710

CPU: Intel Q9300 Core 2 Duo 2.5 Ghz
Memory: Kingston 21 gb and 22 gb sets, ddr2 667
Video Card: EVGA 750 Ti

Average fps: 34-69 on low

New Rig - Custom Built

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5 GHz
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer 8GB, ddr3 1866
Video Card: EVGA 750 Ti

Average fps: 59-87 on max

So…what’s going on here exactly? Seems like to me that the processing speed makes huge difference. RAM speed should not affect performance as much as the CPU speed and architecture.

I think the specs need to be updated for a minimum of an i3 processor, because older architectures seem to be struggling to keep up with this game.

(genuineScion) #2

Surely minimum means it will run, and recommended means it will run smoothly, even if a graphical compromise is required? 1080p 60 is well above minimum - it’s roughly what I aim for, but I would consider that a target for ‘recommended’ specs, not minimum ones. A recommended computer does not have to be able to max out graphics, it has to provide an even footing with most of your competition (in terms of frame-rate etc.). There should probably be a separate specification for reaching maximum potential, but it isn’t recommended. Just my opinion.