Evil Within needs 4 GB of VRAM to look shiny

I was thinking about this.

Or about $350 for GTX970.

It looks like a bad port, I might consider actually getting that game on my PS4 instead.

it is the recommendation, not necessarily the requirement.

It will be interesting to see how the 780Ti performs with this game.

There are a lot of games that look worse on the last-gen consoles than the lowest settings on pc. Look at newer multiplats from the last 2 years, like crysis 3, watchdogs, tomb raider for example.
Poorer graphics isn't all that bad, it's much worse when games get dumbed down, which fortunately didn't happen often. And hopefully won't happen anytime soon this gen.

It could be overinflated but obviously the 8800gt/core 2 duo min req days are over.

And in what logical way could a pc game that requires a core 2 duo and an 8800 gt run well on the 360? Those specs have been common on last gen multiplats for a few years now.

edit: double post

Why is everyone claiming shitty port without even getting hands on with the game? Aside from the supposed 4gb Vram, those requirements aren't bad at all. We don't even know what resolution/settings the recommended specs are for.

From what I gather its using id tech 5's megatextures which as seen in Rage required lots of VRAM yet yielded very little visual quality in exchange.

Far Cry 3 for example on lowest settings looks worse than console yet it requires an e6700/4gb ram/512mb vram. The e6700 is about twice as fast as amd's $1000 cpu's that were available when the 360 launched.

Two 3gb graphics cards in sli/crossfire still only have 3 gb effective since vram doesn't stack

4gb vram is probably for 4k resolution so a 780ti will almost certainly have no problems whatsoever at 1080p/1440p

@monstersfa said:

@miiiiv said:

@monstersfa said:

@miiiiv said:

BF 3/4, and Crysis are the only games I know of that had smaller maps and/or less players.

What console games besides Witcher 2 go below pc's lowest settings?

There are a lot of games that look worse on the last-gen consoles than the lowest settings on pc. Look at newer multiplats from the last 2 years, like crysis 3, watchdogs, tomb raider for example.

Poorer graphics isn't all that bad, it's much worse when games get dumbed down, which fortunately didn't happen often. And hopefully won't happen anytime soon this gen.

Far Cry 3 for example on lowest settings looks worse than console yet it requires an e6700/4gb ram/512mb vram. The e6700 is about twice as fast as amd's $1000 cpu's that were available when the 360 launched.

Well that's debatable, more pop ins on the consoles and screen tearing.

@monstersfa: And both consoles suffered from FPS problems and screen tearing. This alone tells me that they don't even meet minimum requirements.

Yep, shit port. Game looks like shit, not Crysis 3. **** you for attempting to charge £29.99.

That's okay.

If they dropped the consoles to pc lowest settings then it would have run better.

Thank you Captain fucking obvious.

So many hostile hermits.

Pc min req for Far Cry 3 is a pc thats 2-3 times the power of the 360.

Here is a youtube video of a pc with a 8800gts (little slower than the 8800gt) which is about 2x more power than the 360 gpu and it runs the game quite well with a mix of settings (mostly high, very high and ultra) at 1400x900. The cpu is an old dualcore, core 2 duo at 3.16ghz and it's recording at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtI1V5a4p7Q

@

you mean "C2D E6700 at 2.6 gb of ram or better, or an amd athlon 64 x2 6000+ at 3 ghz? 4 gb of ram and any gpu with 512 megs of ram in dx 9" (which would be around the same image as the 360?) 2-3 times might be somewhat of an overblown number no?

Also worth remembering that the 360 version ran in what native resolution? reqs taken straight from the steam storespace btw.

@Maddie_Larkin: fyi dude apparently the ps3 version ran at 1274x702 (post-AA, black borders); xbox 360 1280x704 (post-AA, black border on bottom)

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

@CrownKingArthur:

well that kind of illustrates my points, we all know the OS of a PC does take up some of the overall power, but it pretty much Means that a relatively weak pc ran FC3 fairly well.

Anyways to the Evil within topic of the TC, well we will see why soon, it might be due to different reasons, so the specs did get me kind of curious. I should be good at the recommended. But if it is a rushjob or it is from a dev team that is not used to working on pc archetecture might be the reason (which in turn might mean problems for the ps4 and x1 versions aswell.

All empty guesses untill it is out, and we can look over the Work.

Imo Far Cry 3 only looks good at the ultra settings.

Ok so a pc that's twice as powerful as a top of the line pc from 2005 when the 360 came out runs far cry 3. Not sure what your point is.

Its running at a much higher res than what the 360 runs it at.

You said the the pc min req for Far Cry 3 is a pc that's 2-3x the power of the 360. Which can be interpreted as you are saying that the 360 matches a pc with that power.

Therefore I showed that a pc with about twice the power of the 360 runs the game at 40% higher resolution, with much better graphics, more rendering effects and less pop ins and at higher frame rate.

Res settings weren't shown in the video.

First off the video never shows the actual res in game.

That gpu alone has more ram than the 360 has total ram.

Would it be ownage for a gpu with 10 gb ram to be able to run a game at 40% higher res than the PS 4?

They were in the description.....

@SakusEnvoy: Console gaming should give you confidence that you will never get the top quality experience, though.

Anything could be in the description.

Are you being difficult on purpose or are you normally this stupid?

40% higher res with better textures, more rendering effects, less pop ins and higher frame rate.

Here another Far Cry 3 example, a really slow dual core and an 8600gts (about the same power as the 360 gpu) with 256 mb vram, running the game at 1360x768 on low settings, keep in mind it's recording with a slow cpu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASWuxS8LpwQ

It says in the description that the frame rate is max 29 fps, average 23 fps and minimum 17 fps when not recording and it's running at higher res with less pop ins than the 360 version, which drops to 20 fps frequently.
Sure somethings might be better in the 360 version than the pc version on low but a couple of things are definitely worse so it evens out.

wtf were they smoking? 4gb for 1080p? get outta mah face with that

Recommended is usually around high settings, one step away from max.

Then again we are yet to see one of this System Requirements from "next gen" games to hit the mark.

Sure, but it's enough for me if developers just optimize a game for whatever hardware I do have. But personally I've lost my drive to constantly upgrade my computer just to keep up with overinflated recommended specs and unnecessary 4k resolutions. I hope developers start separating recommended specs for 1080p, which most of us plan to play on, and 4k, because right now we're left speculating what resolution they're talking about when they don't.

My GTX 770 has 4Gb and I game at 1080p or lower (sometimes at 1440x900 of my secondary monitor). I guess I'm okay.

i7's may be 4 years old but i7 from 4 years ago are slower then i5 from 2-3 years ago. And to the fact that i7's tend to be $300+

GTX 670 performance wise outclasses the console gpu's.

No, X1 and PS4 only have 5gb or less memory to use. And the system/games store data the same way as pc's do so you are looking at 2-3 gb for game assets and 2-3gb for VRAM typical usage.

These consoles are still the bottleneck for games because of the lack of processing power... but are a still a massive leap over 360/PS3.

But the problem is ID tech 5 engine, however as well seen too many over estimated requirements for games this year.

The 4gb vram and 4gb system ram doesn't make sense. Think about it....
With 4gb of ram, I was having a problem with games that actually used all or near all of the 2gb vram on my card. (I was using a single card at the time, CF disabled) The problem I was having wasn't vram, it was actually the ram on my computer, I was going over the 4GB mark.

Its ether one of two things, over/incorrect requirements, or its just awfully coded game using the ID tech 5 engine needing to have uncompressed audio taking up nearly half the space requirement.

@kitty: yeah its peculiar. quite, quite peculiar.

Who the **** has 4 gigs of VRAM? Most people these days only have 1-2.

I got my 4Gb MSI GTX 770 for cheap (only $20 more than a 2Gb GTX 770) during the last Memorial Day sale at newegg.com. Also got Watch Dogs bundled.

A lot of AMD users.

The Evil Within doesn't look that impressive to justify that VRAM . It looks OK at best .