Dead Rising 3 Specs GTX 570 minimum !

That joke needs a GTX 570 minimum ? seriously ? like a GTX 860M minimum ? Are they serious ??

Minimum System Requirements:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit edition, Windows 8 64-bit edition
Processor: Intel Core i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz (or Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz) / AMD Phenom II X4 945 @ 3.00 GHz or higher
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Hard Drive: 30 GB free
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 / AMD Radeon 7870 or higher
DirectX: Version 11
Controller: Keyboard (international and standard), Mouse (up to 4 buttons), Xbox 360 PC compatible controller or compatible gamepad
Connection: Broadband internet connection and Steam account required
Recommended System Requirements:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit edition, Windows 8 64-bit edition
Processor: Intel Core i5-4570 CPU @ 3.20GHz or AMD equivalent
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Hard Drive: 30 GB free
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 2GB / AMD Radeon 7970 2GB
DirectX: Version 11.1 or greater

Source : link

 

I'm so pumped for this game its not even funny

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

i read that it run on xbox 720p/30fps?xbox eclusive launch game that run on 720p haha..and it was really laggy in some scenes(less than 15fps even)

 

It ran at 20-30 FPS at 720p on Xbox One so not surprised.

Check out this video:



Seems pretty mindless too. Yawn.

Also drops below 20 FPS a lot. Yuck. Did I just see 16 FPS (twice in the last 20 seconds)?

Guess the weak AMD Jaguar CPU can't handle all that zombie simulation LOL!

 

Wow another game coded like trash on the new consoles, whoop.

All that time neglecting to code properly on a pc like architecture is biting everyone in the now.

 

Next gen is here lel.

 

Just be happy you're not some poor console gamer. The guys playing on Xbox have to constantly deal with sub 30 fps at 720p, with no way to improve their experience. At least on PC you can throw more money at your rig haha

Seriously through, who optimized this game?

 

The Xbox one is a severely hobbled machine, it's not that the game is not optimized.

 

These games get boring quick but can be some good coop fun. Looks like yet another game coded like a$$.

 

That GTX570 is more than 3 years old, what did you expect? I doubt you wont be able to run it on slower GPU but it will have some slowdowns...

 

A four year old GPU is the minimum, and people are complaining? You guys can't be serious.

All this shows is how large the power disparity is between laptops and desktops. Desktop users look at this much more objectively. It isn't their fault a four year old card still matches everyone's shiny new girlfriend, the GTX 860M.

The Xbox One (~7790) could barely run the game at 720p, and PC system requirements are usually aiming for 1080p. These spec reqs make total sense.

 

This is a joke on the level of GTA IV... It should fail for having such fail coding..

 

couldn't get passed this on the xbox one so i ain't getting it on pc for sure!

 

So PC minimum specs are for 1080p ? good to know.. but what about the recommanded ? for 1440p ? triple screen ?
So mister 780M is saying that requiring a 570 is normal for a game that looks crappy as hell ?

edit : FIFA 15
Recommended Specifications:

OS: Windows Vista/7/8/8.1 -64-bit
CPU: Intel i5-2550K @ 3.4Ghz
RAM: 8GB
Hard Drive Space Required: 15.0 GB
Supported Video Cards: ATI Radeon HD 6870, NVIDIA GTX 460
DirectX: 11.0
Minimum Required Specifications:

OS: Windows 7/8/8.1 -64-bit
CPU: Intel Q6600 Core2 Quad @ 2.4Ghz
RAM: 4GB
Hard Drive Space Required: 15.0 GB
Minimum Supported Video Cards: ATI Radeon HD 5770, NVIDIA GTX 650
DirectX: 11.0

 

GTX570 is minimum for 30fps+ medium settings at 1080p so it shoud be playable at 720p you will be able to play with slower gpu.

Receommended are just maxed at 1080p.

 

A Radeon 5970 is a five-year-old GPU, so your point is invalid. Anyway, I don't care, the minspec for this game is still higher than:

Battlefield 4
Metro: Last Light
Tomb Raider
ARMA 3
Crysis 3
Witcher 2
Far Cry 3
Hitman: Absolution

And Dead Rising 3 doesn't have anything to justify the obscene system requirements as it pales in comparison to the above list.

Minspec hardware targets 720p30 Low. 1080p is for recommended hardware. So you're wrong again.

 

They simply haven't scaled down the graphics from the Xbox version. So lowest PC settings will be equivalent to the console visuals and therein lies the reason that the GTX 570 is the minimum requirement.

 

Except that the minspec hardware is about twice as fast as the XB1...

 

Pretty high requirements for "Recommended".
GTX 670 or 7970.
That means GTX 880M is the only GPU that will cut it

 

exact... 880M for that game.. come on Capcom you can do better than that..

 

I believe that's where the low-level optimisation of consoles comes into play. The faster we get DirectX 12 the better!

And overclocked 780M!

 

Not really. Min requirements are lowest settings usually. Maybe 1080p is the cutoff, but as we've seen with Titanfall and Watch Dogs, min requirements mean NOTHING. Recommended also aren't maxed at 1080p either; recommended usually does not include heavy AA or settings past "high" (if there's an "ultra" setting available). For example: Sleeping Dogs' "recommended" requirements are a GTX 560 or Radeon 6950. There is ZERO WAY IN HELL that either of those cards can max that game out at 1080p. Or even at 720p. If I max the game out with the high res texture pack and nvidia's LATEST drivers (it ran worse before 337.50, I can assure that) I would get 45-70 fps at 1080p with my rig. Imagine if I ran it back then?

The 870M should be able to cut it fairly close with an overclock, I think, but that still limits us to the 680M highly OC'd, 780M, 880M or any SLI/CrossfireX combination of the 7970M (and rebadges), 680M, 870M, 780M and 880M cards. I do agree it's probably fairly unoptimized, as are almost all the games that have come out since the Xbox 1/PS4 started handing out dev kits, but there's nothing we can really do about that.

The thing that saddens me the most about it all is the fact that PC games started to get very optimized by late 2012 to early 2013. Bioshock infinite, Borderlands 2, Sleeping Dogs, Black Ops 2, MoH Warfighter (yeah, that game too!)... there were lots of high profile games that ran really well on old hardware and still manage to look beautiful on new hardware. Every game now is all "oh we have power let's screw optimization". Also, while we're on the topic of unoptimization, I want to kick watch dogs once more while it's down. I checked Sleeping Dogs today. At 1080p, max settings (including the SSAA on high, making it render at 4k res & downscale), it only uses 1.2GB of vRAM. Still looks better than Watch Dogs. And runs better too. >_>. *glare*

 

I don't see anything special about Dead Rising that warrants those kinds of specs.

Oh I know. It's stupid. There's this sudden surge in requirements and storage space. It's absurd. Many games from Q1 2014 and earlier took up less than 15GB storage space and consumed less than 1.5GB vRAM and run on an a low end GPU. Now all of a sudden they require 50GB storage space and 4GB vRAM need a powerful GPU and don't look any better or look worse and don't offer anything else to justify it.

 

Exactly. It's as if developers no longer care about making the best of the hardware they've got, and are just interested with pushing the most out of everything, at the cost of resources. Then complaining that the systems can't do what they want. No poop, devs! It's your fault, no the poor consoles' fault!

 

I think you guys are judging this gen too early. The first year of games is always just the same old things, with better graphics. These PC aren't going to be very optimized, when the developers haven't even begun to learn the optimizations of the new consoles.

We've gone from a leading console which had 512MB DDR3 of total system/video RAM, to one with 8GB of GDDR5, and it's GPU is 10x more powerful than the PS3. If you didn't expect PC ports to quickly become significantly more taxing, your shortsightedness is on display.

As far as size goes, Playstation 3 exclusives were 25GB+ for the entirety of the last console generation. It's only natural that all games are now that size, with both consoles finally having Blu-ray drives. PC ports were so small during that period, because the 360 and it's 8.6GB limited DVD drive was lead platform, for everything.

 

double post

 

if new consoles are a 7790 or 7850 boost with 8 Gigs of RAM, what optimization (other than x86-like platform optimizations) they got to learn ?

 

What is there to learn this console generation? It's a PC-like architecture, x86 CPU's and GCN GPU's, not bespoke hardware like last generation. We're seeing devs hit the limits of the new-gen consoles this early because of how anemic the hardware is. It is what it is and there's nothing they can do about it at this point except optimize on the software and API side of things.

 

One more thing: Sleeping Dogs was optimized for AMD cards, but still runs better than Watch Dogs that is supposedly optimized for nVidia cards.

There's also something to be said about making a game feel smooth even though it's not 60 FPS. I used to game with every setting cranked up to the max (including AA) in Sleeping Dogs, and while certain areas dipped 60 FPS, it sure didn't feel like it. I actually didn't even realize it was below 60 FPS until I put in an FPS counter, so yeah.

All that being said, I still find Watch Dogs very enjoyable to play. And the more I play Watch Dogs, the more I feel like I'm playing a futuristic version of Sleeping Dogs.

 

That's a poor excuse. It's "taxing" the system for no good reason at all. It isn't like there's some phenomenal new game design, architecture, or fantastic graphics or game mechanics. It's the same stuff, just requiring 2-3 times the storage, vRAM, and system performance. It's just pure laziness. These consoles are basically just a PC, so it's not like they're just trying to figure out how to program for new silicon.

 

FTFY

10char

 

Next-gen = pure laziness?

Does not compute.

 

"oh it's so taxing? yeah coz it's next gen, get over it"

 

This here is exactly it. PC ports getting demanding is all fine and dandy... IF there is a comparable improvement in graphics. I know sleeping dogs had significantly reduced polygon counts for the general street folk, but nobody looked bad in any way, and enemy-type characters had better character models. Watch Dogs looks worse, takes more from the system AND runs worse AT lower resolutions. There is flat out no excuse. You release a 2014 game on a more powerful engine which looks and runs worse than a 2012 game on a weaker engine? Nobody wins. The PS4 could run Sleeping Dogs at 1080p maxed out at 60fps (without SSAA, that is) and it'd be fine. And look as good as or better than Watch Dogs which is 900p 30fps.

You must understand, Kevin, we don't MIND graphically demanding games. We have a problem with unnecessarily demanding games. If a game wants to tax my system like Crysis 3, it better look like Crysis 3 or have something comparably draining, like 300 v 300 battles in 3rd person a-la a really big dynasty warriors battle or something. THEN I wouldn't mind a crysis 3-like system drain if your game looks like it should be on a xbox 360. But watch dogs does neither. I'm not saying it's a bad-looking game, don't get me wrong. I'm simply saying that with previous evidence available of games looking comparable to Watch Dogs in graphical fidelity (GTA 4, upcoming GTA 5 most likely, Sleeping Dogs, etc) using far FAR less resources than Watch Dogs, that Watch Dogs (and many other recent game releases since the launch of the new consoles) are unnecessarily eating up resources. That little bit needs to stop.

 

Current-gen

Spoiler

"Next-gen"

Spoiler

Watch Dogs has officially been curb stomped to death.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

just cos you said it has doesn't mean it has!

sure, sleeping dogs will run at 60fps no problems on a 780m but it's an older game with an older and different engine to that of watch dogs - both of which are using proprietary engines, so for me at least i find it hard to compare.

the water is better in watch dogs i think.

 

Who cares. Still downgraded and still not as fun as Sleeping Dogs and still runs at 1/2 to 1/3 the frame rate and still terrible art direction and still "meh" graphics.

Was there really a Watch Dogs graphics downgrade? • Eurogamer.net

If you want to bring age into the discussion, why does Watch Dogs in 2014 look and run worse than AAA titles released 2-3 years ago?

If only this were a boating game, maybe that would actually matter.

BTW it's got nothing on Crysis 2 tessellated water or Crysis 3 dynamic water caustics. And yep, you guessed it, both of those look and run better than Watch Dogs.

 

Newer engines should be more efficient with better visuals. If a newer engine is inferior to an older one, well then there was really no point in developing it.

Take TES games as an example: Skyrim runs better than Morrowind, yet it has better visuals, physics, AI, etc.

 

Exactly. Morrowind is single-threaded and frankly not very well-optimized at all (the norm for Bethesda games-Oblivion was Crysis before Crysis) so it really bogs down on modern hardware. Skyrim on the other hand is actually multi-threaded so it takes much better advantage of modern GPU's and multi-core CPU's while pumping out better visuals at higher frame rates.

Witcher vs. Witcher 2 is the same deal. Believe it or not, the second one generally runs better for me. It doesn't suffer from incessant hitching due to maxing out one CPU core and from drastic FPS drops during cutscenes due to an unoptimized DoF effect. And Witcher 2 looks 1000x times better.

 

Pretty pointless arguing favorite ice cream flavors don't you think?
Watchdogs is one unoptomized and inefficient trainwreck (less so because of Octiceps actually) , but it sure gets alot of things right.
I've played a fair wack of both. Visually they are arguably similar if you squint right- close but, far from close.
But the physics engine in Watchdogs, animations, and general detail rips Sleeping Dogs a gaping new hole.

The models, assets, post processing effects, and so on have most definitely been downgraded since the 2012 demo. For this, I may boycott Ubisoft. Unacceptable.
This game could have been truly outstanding and undebatebly set a new standard. Instead is just a great game. Sadly but rightly so, the downgrades have made alot of people look past what is still a fantastic game.

 

Still, you can't deny that Watch Dogs was massively overhyped and underdelivered on those promises. It was billed as a truly "next-gen" open-world action-adventure game, but compared to the last one we had on PC (Sleeping Dogs), where is that generational leap? It simply isn't there.

And the poor frame rate performance and hitching is very disproportionate to the downgraded visual presentation. I mean, even simple stuff like car headlights and tail lights being reflected in the rain on the streets was removed in the final game. Sleeping Dogs in 2012 had no problem rendering tons of that.

And you talk about Watch Dogs having a higher level of general detail, which I once again fail to see. The texture work is pretty damn low-res, especially since most everyone is starved for VRAM and have to use medium textures or else suffer awful stuttering while driving. The daytime lighting is just awful, and nighttime, despite being the best showcase of Watch Dogs' fidelity, is nothing special either, certainly when compared to the E3 2012 demo. And the world and object density has been downgraded at least twice since then. First in the PS4 trailer earlier this year, and now in the retail version.

 

There can't be a generational leap, when a game is also developed for the last-gen consoles.

I pray Mass Effect 4 doesn;t suffer the same fate

 

Why not? It's not unusual for publishers to have two separate devs for the same game but on different platforms.

 

Well, yes, separate teams work on them, but they have to set the game's scale to what is capable of running on the weaker console.

Thus, ambition is limited from day one.

 

This is true. Very very true. The minute somebody says a game is coming out for the last-gen consoles and not only current-gen/PC, I instantly know it's going to be watered down. It's how it works. There's SO MUCH that games do these days to save on memory for the old consoles. Like removing hair in games on soldiers and instead adding helmets. Or not showing the feet of characters in FPS games, only rendering the arms and the weapon? HUGE memory save. It's not a want, it's a need, otherwise the game won't run. PC can never look truly better, because otherwise...

Otherwise you get a different game entirely, like how Medal of Honor Pacific Assault etc were on PS2. Or CoD World at War on PS2 was. The game had to be entirely different because the old gen wasn't capable of it... but consumers right now don't care. They don't want to hear "I have to get a different, watered down experience and game because I don't want to stop using my 8 year old hardware yet." And that's the downside to everything. That still, however, does not excuse the lack of performance optimization in Assassin's Creed 4 or Watch Dogs, or Far Cry 3.

Like I said. I don't care if devs wanna make their game run at 480p 24fps, call it a movie simulator and say that's their intention. Just don't tell me I'm getting a 1440p 60fps smooth as butter supreme moocow of all moocows game with mind-blowing visuals and sound and then when you can't do it because you need to go back to school and learn to code tell me that "well you don't really *need* this... or that... and lower fps doesn't make the game bad... etc etc". You make a big deal about something, you better deliver. If YOU tell me I'm getting game X with features A, B, C, D, E, F, G and Z, then don't tell me how "game X doesn't really need features B, F, G and Z to be good, and we're changing the res and the framerate and lowering the graphics and stuff... but you didn't need all that that you were losing, don't worry," because then Game X has then turned into Game Y. And while game Y isn't necessarily a bad game by any stretch of the imagination, game Y is not game X which is what you tried to sell me, so stop trying to convince me that gamy Y is game X. Just tell me upfront that I'm getting game Y and I'll see if I want it. Then I will have nothing bad to say about you. Let someone else make game X.

I really need to stop writing books.

 

+1 rep just for this

 

But this doesn't make sense then considering the high vRAM, RAM, CPU, storage space usage.

 

Yeah I agree with a lot this. I disagree that the textures look bad though - they are pretty decent in my opinion.
Yes, if Sleeping Dogs used the same kind of resources as Watchdogs it would blow Watchdogs out the water.

 

This is why you never spend big on a PC around the launch of new consoles.

 

nor a laptop with soldiered GPU