• 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

coughlanio

Member
Man, this game must be a looker.

When people with 7950 can run Witcher 3 at 1080p with a mix of high/ultra settings and maintain a 30fps lock at 95% of the game i imagine what batman is doing that this card is the bare minimum.....

I'd say 7950 will do high-ish settings at 1080p30. They're probably just putting this out there pre-emptively so that they're not inundated with emails about poor performance on AMD.
 
You get what you pay for. Cheaper card, cheaper software. It's pretty telling, when AMD's brand new card uses nearly twice the power to match or exceed Nvidia's 980 Ti. Of course it'll have better benches, it's got a ton of power in there brute forcing the shit out of things. I'm really hoping the Fury X and Nano really turn things around for AMD, they've been slumping along for a while now.

? TDP is nearly the same for both.

Fury X is 275W vs 980 Ti 250W.
 

jett

D-Member
Unfortunate for us AMD users but not that uncommon. Anytime Nvidia's "Gameworks" gets tossed in to a game it automatically favors team green's video cards. As with The Witcher 3 situation AMD generally gets it worked out within a few weeks of launch but you still have that awkward initial phase where your shiny new game is running far worse than it should be.

Luckily the PS4 version is sounding very very good and if you have some patience the PC version on AMD hardware should end up being a fairly equivalent experience eventually. Thankfully, I am a patient person (who may end up playing this on a PS4 anyway).

Nothing got worked out on The Witcher's side. I didn't gain a single fucking frame with AMD's new drivers.
 

Lulubop

Member
Man, this game must be a looker.

When people with 7950 can run Witcher 3 at 1080p with a mix of high/ultra settings and maintain a 30fps lock at 95% of the game i imagine what batman is doing that this card is the bare minimum.....

I mean this game looks like it's gonna take the graphical crown on Ultra.
 

Agent_4Seven

Tears of Nintendo
I've already said everything I wanted to say about this shitty announcement. so I will just quote myself:

6 GB RAM and HD 7950 is in the min specs? This is just unbelievable! Do you guys even know how to optimize PC games or after the situation with Arkham City's DX 11 features you have learned nothing at all? Just so you know, HD 7950 can easily handle GTA V with 95% max settings in 1080p 50-55 FPS avrg, so don't try to tell us that we need this GPU to be able to run the game at all (not to mention 6 GB of RAM), this is just ridiculous))))))))))

Hire better programmers or something cuz this is just unacceptable at this day and age. Damn, I am very disappointed.

My specs just in case:

CPU : AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core 4.0GHz
GPU : GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280X 1000Mhz 3GB VRAM 6000Mhz 384 bit REV 2.0 (GA-R928XO3)
RAM : 2x4GB DDRIII 1333 MHz
 

Robcat

Banned
Still got my I5 2500k and gtx 690 and I'm waiting for a reason to upgrade. I should have no problem with this I hope.
 

GavinUK86

Member
I've already said everything I wanted to say about this shitty announcement. so I will just quote myself:

6 GB RAM and HD 7950 is in the min specs? This is just unbelievable! Do you guys even know how to optimize PC games or after the situation with Arkham City's DX 11 features you have learned nothing at all? Just so you know, HD 7950 can easily handle GTA V with 95% max settings in 1080p 50-55 FPS avrg, so don't try to tell us that we need this GPU to be able to run the game at all (not to mention 6 GB of RAM), this is just ridiculous))))))))))

Hire better programmers or something cuz this is just unacceptable at this day and age. Damn, I am very disappointed.

My specs just in case:

CPU : AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core 4.0GHz
GPU : GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280X 1000Mhz 3GB VRAM 6000Mhz 384 bit REV 2.0 (GA-R928XO3)
RAM : 2x4GB DDRIII 1333 MHz

There's a difference between demanding and unoptimised. 6GB is nothing nowadays and if you expect to max out games then you'll need a better GPU than that, regardless of what other games need.
 

b0bbyJ03

Member
The question on my mind is why a card that is superior to the ones on consoles and a 660 is only going to provide a minimum recommended performance? Since we won't get any official answers the community will just make one ( the usual "nvidia moneyhat" "AMD drivers r shit"). I already see people jumping to conclusions. I won't personally be affected by this but it still upsets me because a younger version of myself would not be able to afford the equipment I own now and would be dealing with this kind of shit.
 

Qassim

Member
Discussions about PC requirements are always full of huge exaggerations and overreaction. This thread is no exception.
 
? TDP is nearly the same for both.

Fury X is 275W vs 980 Ti 250W.

I'm talking about the 390x they just refreshed. The Fury X looks great and hopefully will beat the 980 Ti. Maybe the 390x isn't the card that AMD want's to compare to the 980 Ti, but it's what's available and people will make the comparisons.
 

Eusis

Member
But if you go console, wouldn't that mean you have enough bread to upgrade your PC. At minimum you'd need 350 plus an extra 200 for any games and controllers, online fee you get.

Or you probably don't have a gaming PC yet I assume?
Well, I have a 560ti in my PC, but at launch it was either get a bit further ahead than what I had without opening the window for more games (immediately), or get a console that's just marginally better GPU-wise than my PC and open the door for a lot more games, such as Bloodborne. I think that was the right call at the period of launch, though a year later with the 970 out it would be more about either getting WAY better PC graphics or console exclusives.

Still, there's that fundamental truth that as you wait on computer upgrades they can get way, way better whereas consoles MAY get cheaper, but possibly not as fast as they could. And as much as I'd like a matte HDD cover that really doesn't compare to what the same wait on GPUs gets you. Never mind that to get what I'd REALLY want out of PC I'd also need a new, 144hz monitor.
 

Agent_4Seven

Tears of Nintendo
There's a difference between demanding and unoptimised.
Just like there is a difference between optimized game (GTA V) and not optimized game (AK - this is so very clear right now after the announcement).

and if you expect to max out games
Not looking for this at all, especially in the case with AK. But HD 7950 in min specs is just nonsense. Heh, why even bother to optimise the game for old GPUs if you can just live the game unoptimised for them to help in selling new ones which btw just got released (I'm sure this is just a "coincidence") - PC gaming in the nutshell.
 
Where do you guys think I'll realistically be sitting at with my rig? Here's the specs:

i7 920 overclocked to 3.9 GHz
12 GB RAM
GTX 770 w/ 2GB

I would love to be able to run this at 60 fps like I have been for the entire Arkham series (in 3D no less), but I'm trying to set my expectations down to 1080p/locked 30 fps at a mix of medium and high settings with no 3D. If I can manage that or better, I'll be satisfied grabbing it on my PC instead of my PS4, but I hope I don't regret the gambit.
 
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.

Has there been any PC game were a 7870 or 7950 didn't produce superior visuals and performance to the PS4 version?

no there has not
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Which is why once again I upgraded my GPU to a nVidia GTX 970 rather then a AMD variant.
It's just not worth it for me buying AMD with the issues that come with it.
 

Shane86

Member
I wouldn't trust these at all, just Nvidia trying to pressure you into upgrading.

Minimum requirement for Witcher 3 was a GTX660 too.

I have a GTX660i and had most of the graphics settings on ultra and post processing options turned on and the framerate was always smooth
 
People do realize that Nvidia isn't really throwing literal money at devs to write better code for them, right? What they do is share their knowledge base and provide engineering assistance to the devs. AMD is just as capable of doing the same thing. Let's face it, at minspec, this is not a Gameworks issue.
 
Where do you guys think I'll realistically be sitting at with my rig? Here's the specs:

i7 920 overclocked to 3.9 GHz
12 GB RAM
GTX 770 w/ 2GB

I would love to be able to run this at 60 fps like I have been for the entire Arkham series (in 3D no less), but I'm trying to set my expectations down to 1080p/locked 30 fps at a mix of medium and high settings with no 3D. If I can manage that or better, I'll be satisfied grabbing it on my PC instead of my PS4, but I hope I don't regret the gambit.

If anything you're CPU limited, but the 920 is an amazing CPU(so saying your CPU limited is a bit misleading) that you obviously overclocked a bit. You'll be fine. I'm playing with very similiar set up(minus CPU) i74770k@4Ghz/GTX 770 combo and I imagine we'll get at a minimum 30 fps with most settings high/max. I hesitate to say 60 fps though.
 

Eusis

Member
I wouldn't trust these at all, just Nvidia trying to pressure you into upgrading.

Minimum requirement for Witcher 3 was a GTX660 too.

I have a GTX660i and had most of the graphics settings on ultra and post processing options turned on and the framerate was always smooth
This is true. It can also be argued as "minimum" for "that PC experience." IE you can do just fine on a 560ti, it'll just be hovering around 30 fps and be near identical to PS4. Which admittedly isn't what many want out of PC gaming, but does mean that until they start being really lame with support you could rock that computer to the end of a generation. Kinda pessimistic there though, but it's nice we may have entered an area where minimum ISN'T "well it'll start up" and more "this is to run on high at mostly 60 fps."
 

RetroMG

Member
Just realized I bought this assuming that I could run it. Just checked, and thankfully I can meet the minimum, if not the recommended.

I need to upgrade my CPU, it seems.
 
Heavy amounts of tessellation in this game perhaps?

To those that are saying that NVIDIA sabotaged AMD, I laugh at you. AMD can offer money to companies the exact same as NVIDIA.

They can't afford it when their valuation is over 5x less than Nvidia's.
 
Wow, seriously? A day before launch? My brother pre-ordered the game a while ago and he has a 2gb 7950. Now you're saying it's not enough? Well, that's just great.
 

Akronis

Member
They can't afford it when their valuation is over 5x less than Nvidia's.

So how did they afford things like Tomb Raider?

And yes, their valuation is much lower. They should probably focus more on R&D and getting their cards up to snuff as well as their drivers. It's not like AMD is some wounded underdog. It's a business, just like NVIDIA. Do you people really think that NVIDIA would be the only company using money to better their own products if the funds were available?
 
I've already said everything I wanted to say about this shitty announcement. so I will just quote myself:

Just so you know, HD 7950 can easily handle GTA V with 95% max settings in 1080p 50-55 FPS avrg,

Why do people think all games are created equal? That's a weird comparison to GTA V. Do you really think AK is doing the same stuff as GTA V?
 

Akronis

Member
I guess they can afford maybe a couples of games. :p

It just baffles me that people think that AMD is some kind of underdog video card Jesus that is coming to bring open source and free everything because they think it's them being super generous.

They do it because it's good and free PR. NVIDIA doesn't need to do it because they know their cards are better than the competitions (at least until we see Fury benchmarks).
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I have a i5-3570K @ 4Ghz, 8Gig mem and a GTX970. I hope I can max this game out.
 

Barakov

Gold Member
that there are some known issues with the performance of Batman: Arkham Knight for PC owners using AMD graphics cards

Yeesh. I'm glad I jumped to team green. You'd think, given this is a console port, that this game would at least run well on AMD stuff.

Upping the minimum specs a day before launch is a real crap thing to do.
 
It just baffles me that people think that AMD is some kind of underdog video card Jesus that is coming to bring open source and free everything because they think it's them being super generous.

They do it because it's good and free PR. NVIDIA doesn't need to do it because they know their cards are better than the competitions (at least until we see Fury benchmarks).

They are the underdog and not because of their hardware. It's because:

1) They can't afford to pay for support of games (you admitted that)

-and-

2) Their software team isn't nearly as robust as Nvidia's. You *might* see some driver updates 2-3 weeks after this game hits tomorrow. The latest drivers for OpenGL *might* work in the latest Maya 2016, etc.. etc..

Some people can't afford the software hit/miss cycles of AMD and would rather just pay more for the tried-n-true Nvidia driver/software support. Nvidia is hardly ever late on releasing drivers for most AAA games, have great drivers for other O/S like Linux, and usually works with multiple vendors (i..e Autodesk, etc..) to make sure their cards work with mainstream applications.
 

Akronis

Member
They are the underdog and not because of their hardware. It's because:

1) They can't afford to pay for support of games (you admitted that)

-and-

2) Their software team isn't nearly as robust as Nvidia's. You *might* see some driver updates 2-3 weeks after this game hits tomorrow. The latest drivers for OpenGL *might* work in the latest Maya 2016, etc.. etc..

Some people can't afford the software hit/miss cycles of AMD and would rather just pay more for the tried-n-true Nvidia support.

They are the underdog, but they shouldn't be treated as though they legit care more about the consumer than NVIDIA, that's more what I was getting at, sorry for not making it clear.

It's a business like NVIDIA, with the exact same objective. That is all I'm trying to say.
 

Vardhan

Member
I am interested in seeing how an Alienware Alpha is able to handle this game. If anyone has both the game and console, can you please look into this? Thanks!
 
The new Nvidia drivers released today have like 6 or 7 "known issues" with Batman. These drivers were specifically released for the game. I'm scared it's shipping buggy as hell, at least I didn't pay for it, it was free with my 980 Ti.
 

Qassim

Member
For the SLI people:

Just confirmed with Sean Pelletier (Senior Product Manager for GeForce SW) on twitter that the SLI profile will be pushed automatically via GeForce Experience before the game launches today.

wfwJLsv.png


https://twitter.com/PellyNV/status/613072762534375426

You sure?
There is currently no SLI compatibility bit in the game profile, even with these drivers, but ^^
 
Top Bottom