-
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.
Batman: Arkham Knight Minimum Requirements Updated
- Thread starter Adry9
- Start date
Larogue
Member
My 3 years old 680GTX should handle this as its still rocking every single new game this year at pretty high fps/graphic levels. I'm really amazed how this beast just won't disappoint me. I want to upgrade but I still didn't face a game that I can't run high at 1080p with 30-60fps.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
That's the whole deal with Gameworks...
zephervack
Member
Man, AMD ..... sigh.
This means I wont be able to play Wolfenstein New Order and Batman Knight at the same time.
I just had to downgrade my drivers from the latest to 14.5 (May 2014) in order to get Wolfenstein stable. Its a stuttery mess with latest.
I guess every time I want to play each one of these games I will have install a diiferent driver.
AMD Gaming Evolved.
This means I wont be able to play Wolfenstein New Order and Batman Knight at the same time.
I just had to downgrade my drivers from the latest to 14.5 (May 2014) in order to get Wolfenstein stable. Its a stuttery mess with latest.
I guess every time I want to play each one of these games I will have install a diiferent driver.
AMD Gaming Evolved.
Krappadizzle
Member
Yup. My wife's old 770 I have in my case now feels like a relic. I was sad when my old 680 couldn't Max Witcher 3 @60fps.
We don't know, and we won't know until we get comparison analysis from the likes of DF.
Historically, multiplatform games have been a mix of BELOW low, low, medium and high on PS4 vs the PC version, heavily weighted to the medium and high settings. So usually one setting at lower than lowest on PC, one or two settings at low, several settings at medium, several settings at high, maybe one setting at very high (usually texture quality).
j0hnny_385
Member
You really expected to run W3 @ 60fps maxed out? Or did you forget to put /s at the end of that sentence?
Gemüsepizza
Member
Well something must have happened. The facts:
- AMD drivers are out there for month. It is a stable dev target.
- Consoles have AMD GPUs. Even the APIs are similar (Xbox One).
So what is the problem here?
My Titan X struggles to hit 1440/60 at max on that game...
shiftplusone
Member
This.
I get it. I'm glad theres an underdog at least TRYING but it seems like every big release, theres some sort of performance issues that make the AMD route seem like a losing proposition.
I don't care for the reasons, I can not justify buying an objectively worse product for some sense of supporting the "good guy"
Corpsepyre
Banned
AMD getting the shaft yet again. Can't wait to see how this runs on my R9 280.
I would guess a whole lot of triangles, high resolution textures, and a ton of effects. Along with the bespoke lighting changes they've made.
It's a beautiful game, especially for open world.
Its difficult to say due to drivers and those min GPUs getting old-ish. The 660 seems to be above the 750 ti in terms of performance, so that should offer at least PS4-level performance/graphics (assuming Kepler isn't seemingly gimped like in some recent games).
I don't know how what to think about this type of news...
Is it AMD faulty? They aren't helping developers in achieving the best possible performance and the result is AMD gamers having to brute force to gain a acceptable experience?
Or is it developers not willing to spend the time necessary to guarantee that a minority of market have a good performance on the games?
I don't think we can deduce anything at this point, but the problem is that this only contributes to create a monopoly of the dominant brand.
I'm not implying that Nvidia is sabotaging AMD, but just that is evident that less and less developers are choosing to spend time optimizing for a smaller percentage of the market.
Just check the posters in this very thread that said they are going Nvidia next time.
Is it AMD faulty? They aren't helping developers in achieving the best possible performance and the result is AMD gamers having to brute force to gain a acceptable experience?
Or is it developers not willing to spend the time necessary to guarantee that a minority of market have a good performance on the games?
I don't think we can deduce anything at this point, but the problem is that this only contributes to create a monopoly of the dominant brand.
I'm not implying that Nvidia is sabotaging AMD, but just that is evident that less and less developers are choosing to spend time optimizing for a smaller percentage of the market.
Just check the posters in this very thread that said they are going Nvidia next time.
Yeah that's what I'm running. I think I'll just grab this on PS4 if AMD is getting royally screwed on this.
Lockjaw333
Member
I feel like most of the time we are looking at the ps4 version being close to the medium preset on PC, with textures usually at high/ultra. The setting we've seen at low or lower-than-low is usually the view distance or draw distance sliders.
Honestly if I had an AMD card, I would opt for the game on ps4 unless I had a more current card, like an r9 280 or 290 series. The way amd cards have been handling new releases is shit, and I'm sure the blame can be spread around, some of it to amd, some to nvidia, and some to the game devs. Shitty situation if you are an amd owner.
Corpsepyre
Banned
It'll hopefully still run better than the PS4 build. I doubt we'll be be forced to lock on 30 fps for this. Time will tell. Will wait this out and see the performance analysis videos and write-ups before purchasing.
Pay no mind to the VRAM discrepancy. The 7950 is what Rocksteady has determined is the equivalent card in terms of performance and it's only available in 3GB.
Man, I'm barely above this shit with my 280X.
Why didn't you "rectify" these issues during the 4 fucking years this shit has been development, Rocksteady?
I know that feel. I was pretty confident I could do well, a mix of Medium/High-ish around 30-40fps didn't seem too ambitious. I'm getting ~45fps with a mix of High/Ultra on Witcher 3 and that's supposed to be a Nvidia title as well.
But now, I'm rather anxious that we're just a little above the minimum...
Shit.
Well, here's hoping for the best with my 4670K + 280X
I have the same cpu+gpu combo. It's fucking pathetic that we have "to hope for the best" with these goddamn console ports when we should be destroying them in performance.
Feel the Swift
Member
Yikes, I'm long overdue to upgrade my Phenom II X4 955 and Radeon HD5750...
alexandros
Banned
They seem fine to me.
Modest Mauser
Member
The older Arkham games had great optimization for PC, didn't they?
Ergh, I was hoping to achieve 60 fps at good settings on this title, but with these requirements it might not happen. I can't believe I'm already wanting a GPU upgrade.
Ergh, I was hoping to achieve 60 fps at good settings on this title, but with these requirements it might not happen. I can't believe I'm already wanting a GPU upgrade.
Lionel Mandrake
Member
I have a Radeon 7970.
Yeesh.
Yeesh.
The Handsome Llama
Banned
Does this also apply to games bought from GMG?
Nope, Steam purchases only. Gotta check how your key seller handles this on your own.
Most won't refund the game after sending you the key.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Given what mentioned and all, I don't think someone should hope for the better. Right now PS4 version is a sure bet for AMD owners, min reqs is a wild card.
The Handsome Llama
Banned
Welp. Hopefully my GTX 680 can handle this on high settings at least!
Another NVIDIA branded game that launches with performance issues on AMD graphics cards? SHOCKING.
NVIDIA: Mission Accomplished
I agree with you, but i think that's a problem the publishers created. When i see something marked as minimum i assume that if i don't match this criteria my experience will be poor.
The worst part is that we don't even know what they consider minimum and recommended... They should just give a more explicit information (like resolution and fps used as baseline)