FAR CRY 4 requirements leaked...

[Fire&Blood]

Minimum System Requirements
Operating system: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1 (64bit versions only)
Processor: Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.6 GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz
Memory: 4GB
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD5850 (1GB VRAM)
Direct X: Version 11
Hard Drive: 30 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers


Recommended System Requirements
Operating system: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1 (64bit versions only)
Processor: Intel Core i5-2400S @ 2.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or better
Memory: 8GB
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon R9 280X or better (2GB VRAM)
Direct X: Version 11
Hard Drive: 30 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers

Nvidia leaked but pulled the specs in the meantime, however UBI employee confirmed: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/932076-FarCry4-PC-specs?p=10309324&viewfull=1#post10309324

 

[AdamantC]

Seems like the Far Cry section of Ubi Montreal is the only part of the studio that can code their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[futurefields]

its essentially a Far Cry 3 reskin so I would assume the req's would be same/similar

 

[Blanky]

How the hell are the reqs that demanding for MINIMUM given that this game is also coming out for the 360? They couldn't scale it better at all? I think those aren't accurate. I am guessing it will in fact run on a dual core, and definitely it will run on an i3.

Also it will run on a lower vid card than the GTX 460, and I don't mean at 800X600 and 20 FPS.

 

[werepossum]

Looks like my 1GB HD6950 has seen its day pass. Or would, if I could tear myself away from Fallout 3. I'm thinking either a 290X or a GTX 970.

 

[Fire&Blood]

FC3 was a kiiler for my PC, it run worse than Witcher 2 with ubersampling on:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performance-benchmark,3379-6.html

 

[Subyman]

How the hell are the reqs that demanding for MINIMUM given that this game is also coming out for the 360? They couldn't scale it better at all? I think those aren't accurate. I am guessing it will in fact run on a dual core, and definitely it will run on an i3.

Also it will run on a lower vid card than the GTX 460, and I don't mean at 800X600 and 20 FPS.

360 uses different API and framework. Its a different game under the hood on 360. Minimum pretty much means the lowest the studio supports for stable gameplay. It means that if you come complaining that the game stutters and you are running it on a 460, then they can simply say you do not meet the minimum. Its a balance of not pushing people away, but mitigating support issues. Take the requirements as a guideline, you are free to try on lower end gear.

 

[Pocatello]

How many radio towers do we get to climb this time?

 

[Rhezuss]

How many radio towers do we get to climb this time?

HAHAHAHAH!!!!

I just hope FC4 is not that redondant piece of boredom that FC3 was...

 

[escrow4]

How the hell are the reqs that demanding for MINIMUM given that this game is also coming out for the 360? They couldn't scale it better at all? I think those aren't accurate. I am guessing it will in fact run on a dual core, and definitely it will run on an i3.

Also it will run on a lower vid card than the GTX 460, and I don't mean at 800X600 and 20 FPS.

Its 2015 not 2005. Dual cores are dead for AAA gaming. Same with a 460; its primitive compared to modern GPUs. On 360 it will look like a late gen PS2 game compared to a specced up PC.

 

[Blanky]

Its 2015 not 2005. Dual cores are dead for AAA gaming. Same with a 460; its primitive compared to modern GPUs. On 360 it will look like a late gen PS2 game compared to a specced up PC.

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that there are tons of videos on youtube of people using dual core systems and GPUs along those lines playing the most recent AAA games at pretty good resolutions. I don't bother with multi anymore, but cod ghosts and MF4 ran fine on my G3220.

COD Advanced Warfare's minimum spec seems to be an i3, yet it plays fine on a dual core as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvonYEu5qFs
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perform...uty-advanced-warfare-pc-performance-analysis/

In order to find out whether this title can be played with constant 60fps on a variety of PC systems, we simulated a dual-core, a tri-core and a quad-core system. All of the aforementioned systems were able to push constant 60fps.

And there we have it, don't we.

 

[Grooveriding]

HAHAHAHAH!!!!

I just hope FC4 is not that redondant piece of boredom that FC3 was...

I enjoyed Far Cry 3! It had enough random elements you could wander off from the story to do and you could approach different fights and encampments in fun and different ways. Far Cry 2 was the real turd of the series IMO.

 

[Stringjam]

I loved FarCry2 and FarCry3.

Day 1 purchase for me on FarCry4.

 

[Bateluer]

I half expected to see SLI 770s as the minimum GPU requirement.

I loved FarCry2 and FarCry3.

Day 1 purchase for me on FarCry4.

One should never, ever, ever day 1 purchase an Ubi Soft game. Preorder it, and you deserve to be tar and feathered.

 

[Rhezuss]

I half expected to see SLI 770s as the minimum GPU requirement.




One should never, ever, ever day 1 purchase an Ubi Soft game. Preorder it, and you deserve to be tar and feathered.

Hahahah except when you get the game for free I hope?

 

[skipsneeky2]

If you can punish yourself with a lower then standard resolution,you could make something like a 6750 or something work with this game honestly. I am like the king of making something low end hardware wise run something high end game wise.

#1. BF4 on a hd4000 with a 960x540 reso when the game calls for a 8800gt.Small enough screen and this doesn't look much worst then a 360/ps3 really. Average over 45fps lol.

#2.BF3 on hd2000, 400x300 worked on my old 17'' 5:4 screen.Worked well enough for your CQB maps lol. Hit over 50fps i think on this. Game called for a 8800gt too lol.

I bet a resolution like 960x540/800x600 would work with a 5750/gts450 lol.Only for the desperate of heart

 

[chimaxi83]

If you can punish yourself with a lower then standard resolution,you could make something like a 6750 or something work with this game honestly. I am like the king of making something low end hardware wise run something high end game wise.

#1. BF4 on a hd4000 with a 960x540 reso when the game calls for a 8800gt.Small enough screen and this doesn't look much worst then a 360/ps3 really. Average over 45fps lol.

#2.BF3 on hd2000, 400x300 worked on my old 17'' 5:4 screen.Worked well enough for your CQB maps lol. Hit over 50fps i think on this. Game called for a 8800gt too lol.

I bet a resolution like 960x540/800x600 would work with a 5750/gts450 lol.Only for the desperate of heart

At that point, just load up YouTube and watch someone else play.

 

[DigDog]

FC3 was a really good game, i was positively surprised. FC2 was nice, and FC1 was good except that last mission in the volcano. i never got around finishing it, juts too hard.

 

[futurefields]

FC3 had a great map and story but the simplistic mechanics and progression dont offer much end game replay value.

hope they added more npc models this time in FC3 everone looked the same

 

[2is]

How the hell are the reqs that demanding for MINIMUM given that this game is also coming out for the 360? They couldn't scale it better at all? I think those aren't accurate. I am guessing it will in fact run on a dual core, and definitely it will run on an i3.

Also it will run on a lower vid card than the GTX 460, and I don't mean at 800X600 and 20 FPS.

Not sure why you're complaining. PC gamers have been begging for games that push our high end hardware and we are finally getting it. As long as the game measures up to it's system requirements I see nothing wrong with this. As long as your i3 can match the performance of the older i5's you'll be fine. If it can't, you won't.

 

[Fire&Blood]

So I was told the benches I posted don't reflect the patches and the wonder driver that was released after I was done with the game. Not sure if it ran at identical settings as the graphs from earlier:

 

[escrow4]

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that there are tons of videos on youtube of people using dual core systems and GPUs along those lines playing the most recent AAA games at pretty good resolutions. I don't bother with multi anymore, but cod ghosts and MF4 ran fine on my G3220.

COD Advanced Warfare's minimum spec seems to be an i3, yet it plays fine on a dual core as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvonYEu5qFs
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perform...uty-advanced-warfare-pc-performance-analysis/


And there we have it, don't we.

CoD is a creaky old PS2 engine that doesn't have anything modern compared to BF4 (which wants a quad or a hyperthreaded i3 if you must) and anything CryEngine really wants a quad, if not a hexa core. Next year the disparity will be bigger.

 

[Blanky]

FC3 was a really good game, i was positively surprised. FC2 was nice, and FC1 was good except that last mission in the volcano. i never got around finishing it, juts too hard.

I liked FC3 a lot. Its story was paper thin, its difficulty was at times way too weak (taking bases from afar was just too easy), there was little risk of ambushes, etc. tons of problems, but the open world knock out this area then that one so similar in many games is addictive.

 

[Stuka87]

Why are the CPU specs so much higher than FC3's? FC3 only required a middle of the road Core 2 Duo.

I am looking forward to the game, but those CPU specs are higher than BF4's?!

 

[escrow4]

Why are the CPU specs so much higher than FC3's? FC3 only required a middle of the road Core 2 Duo.

I am looking forward to the game, but those CPU specs are higher than BF4's?!

Welcome to next gen, even in cross gen games you will now need an i5 to keep those minimum's up or a Haswell i3 in a pinch.