The WTF (semi)official hardware reqs for Gears of War remaster on PC

What. The. Actual. F***

Minimum:

• OS: 64 bit Windows 10 – version 1511
• Processor: Intel Core i5 @ 2.7Ghz or AMD FX 6-core
• Memory: 8 GB RAM (2 GB VRAM)
• Graphics: Geforce GTX 650 Ti or Radeon R7 260x
• Hard Drive: 60 GB available space
• DirectX 12

Recommended:

• OS: 64 bit Windows 10 - version 1511
• Processor: Intel Core i5 @3.5GHz+ or AMD FX 8-core
• Memory: 16 GB RAM (4 GB VRAM)
• Graphics: GeForce GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290X
• Hard Drive: 60 GB available space
• DirectX 12

Recommended for 4K:

• OS: 64 bit Windows 10 - version 1511
• Processor: Intel Core i7 @ 4Ghz or AMD FX 8-core
• Memory: 16 GB RAM (6+ GB VRAM)
• Graphics: Geforce GTX 980 Ti or Radeon R9 390X
• Hard Drive: SSD + 60 GB available space
• DirectX 12

Link,

16 gigs of RAM? GTX 970? For Recommended? Is this a freaking joke?

Thoughts?

980 ti for 4k LOL

Well 970 is a 1080p card and I would assume recommended equals quite high settings, tho 4gb vram? 970 effectively only has 3.5

16gb ram is rather surprising as there are surprisingly many pc gamers with quite high end rigs and only sporting 8gb ram for some reason

Guess it boils down to how much exactly are they "remastering" or is it just badly optimized turd

Hmmm I'm on a way and see stance.

But I really want to see what benefits DX12 bring if QB and Gears of War have insane requirements and don't deliver on the visual front...

Considering 980ti isn't even nearly enough to run any new title on 4k that isn't too surprising

and by that I mean max settings and ~60fps

lolyeahokay

not exactly a new title, is my point.

LoL!

Bloated af !

I seriously hope this isn't final. If so, I would need to spend do a pretty big penny for upgrades.

Anyone get the feeling developers are trying to drive the hardware market?

Most PC games are coming out with over egged recommended specs these days. Yet when put to the test, after launch, they run on higher settings on weaker hardware than the recommendations insinuate. The only reason I can think is their trying convince people to buy more modern hardware. Maybe it's an effort to push DX12 into main stream and allow them to drop older versions. Or maybe it's just lazy developers.

Windows 10 requirement is just the MS app store, nothing surprising there.

Even though it doesn't need it, let's just force windows 10 regardless.

Never fucking change.

The minimum requirements aren't that that high. It's 2016 and it's requiring only 8 gbs of ram and a processor line that has been out for 5 years. The Remaster is on the Unreal 4 engine, uses far better rendering than Gear of War did, and features far higher fidelity textures and geometries. It's not unreasonable to believe the graphics are going to be more difficult to render.

970 and 16GBs of RAM for running something at 1080p60 at high rendering is not out of the ordinary either. The card came out in 2014. 16 GBs of RAM may mean they are caching quite a bit more from the harddrive since they are streaming a lot of assets. Who knows.

I think a lot of people simply overestimate how powerful their hardware is. Rasterisation has a lot of elements that requires exponential increases in performance to achieve slightly more realistic rendering. It's not a situation where you throw 2x more powerful hardware at something and you get 2x the image quality.

@Wasdie: Granted, but the issue is that we haven't seen any screenshot or video from the PC version of the game.

The specs for these Windows store gamed are super inflated. The devs remember games for Windows live and figure why bother with these. I can run it but why would I? I rather just stick to the original PC version.

@IgGy621985: Given the Xbox One version, I'm going to assume it'll look really nice.

60GB? Must be some high detailed textures on PC.

@Wasdie: its still on unreal engine 3. gears of war 4 is unreal engine 4

I wonder if the recommended specs only run it on X1-level visuals? Either way, what a joke.

Windows App Store-only?

No buy, if so.

That would make it run even worse and could explain a bunch.

I don't see the problem spec wise? Windows store is kinda yuck though.

Good to go.

wasn't the 390x just a rebadge of the 290x with more ram?

@GoldenElementXL: They are exaggerated as always. 970 will run the game at above 60fps at 1080p me thinks. I bet a 7850 will run it at high settings and 30fps.

16GB of ram for an Xbox 360 game ROFL.

I get that feeling every time I see pc requirements. It's been like you've described for many years.

Yeah , 970 will easily max it out at 1080p with 60fps. After all, it's a remaster.

The Witcher 3 can run at 1080p and 60fps with Foliage Visible Range set to Medium/High and everything else on Ultra on a 970.

Gears of War is a remaster. Not even a remake. There's no reason for a game from 10 years ago to be as demanding as TW3. None at all.

Also "Recommended" is so damn vague.

Games have been recommending just 8Gb of RAM forever. Most PC gamers should have it too. Nothing with 16Gb RAM requirements. We're long over due for games to take advantage of that memory.

Considering The Witcher 3 looks butt ugly and looks more often like a PS3/360 game than not - I'm surprised TW3 is as demanding as it is. Definitely not surprised by a GoW remake having higher rec's.

How is it Dark Souls 3 managed more reasonable system requirements than a 10 year old remake game?

@KHAndAnime: What in the actual ****?

That's not even true for The Witcher 2 on PC :D let alone TW3 which is easily one of the best looking games.

People in this thread are morons...... The new consoles are more power so of course your PC is going to require more hardware power to run games.

Long gone are the days of running ancient PS3/360 ports at 100000000fps at 4K

Isn't that exactly what this game is?

If you really think this..

.

is one of the best looking game you've seen, you should try playing any PC game from the last 5 years. Hell - ever heard of Crysis? At least that game (from 2007) it has foliage that isn't completely flat sprites. TW3 is graphically flat, ugly textures and assets, and sports absolutely zero impressive graphical features to speak of. Ever notice that all the water in TW3 is dead flat? You don't think that's abysmal in terms of graphics in this day and age? Where have the standards gone?

It's pretty easy to imagine why a remastered 360 title could look better and require more horsepower than TW3.

I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this but oh well...

This is exactly why I like console gaming. Sure you don't get the top-notch graphics of PC, but so much less hassle. No worry about specs and if my rig has enough ram etc etc. Just play!

i can't believe i'm having this conversation, proving TW3 being one of the best games graphics wise.

Yeah i've played all Crysis games. Now back to the topic , take a look at these shots and tell me what you think :

Seriously, you're dead wrong about The Witcher 3's graphics.. This is the first time i'm hearing such a flat out wrong statement about this game.

And c'mon comparing a remastered 360 game to a 2015 PC game? !

Wake up :D i know you from Off-topic and i highly respect you , i have no idea why you think like that ...hope you reconsider.

Nice cherrypicking there.

This is the most a troll like you will get from me.

@hrt_rulz01: We're not worried about anything tbh , a decent PC can run anything....it's just that this false information can scare many ppl off or make them buy new hardware since not all ppl are like us into such stuff.

This list will look quaint in 6 months. Glad I'm not on the PC hardware treadmill.

A 2nd gen sandy bridge i5/i7 combined with 580gtx is still able to run every game up to this date and at better settings than either ps4 or xbox one, while being older than both consoles.

If you have a PC stronger than what the new gen consoles are, you will be able to run any new game, that's just how it is, how much you want to tweak options is up to you..

This same old story that "can I run this on my??? better just get on console" is so outdated and full of it

There's something that worries me about games from the MS Store. Someone said you can't choose where the games save. If gamers can't choose the HDD to save to, MS has a problem, because no one is wasting the storage space on their SSDs for large games.

I keep all of the games I currently play on SSD, the install times with my connection are fast enough to make it a non issue. The main negs with MS store for me are forced vsync, bad modding prospects

I keep all my games on a 2TB WD Black HDD. It's under half full. But it performs very well for games.

I think the other stuff should get dealt with in time, MS has been trying with the PC community, it would be a shame for them to fail here because they didn't listen on the small things. But I don't want to put games on my SSD, it's 250GBs on purpose, it's just the OS and programs.

Oh but comon, he has one zoomed in screenshot of a bad looking texture, surely the game looks like sh1t and can't look good in any other aspects ?

Clearly all the screenshots you posted are bullshots by the developers of a build that does not exist.

Wait are people going to buy that turd? And did I really see someone comparing this bland awful piece of shit to Witcher 3?

60 GB disk space ? What's taking up so much space ?

The Witcher 3 with Hearts of Stone takes only around 30 GB despite it's massive world size and thousands upon thousands of lines of dialogue.

@KHAndAnime: Tesselated water looks flat??

I guess we at that point a few years in to a gen when pc gamers start bitchin. About my rig should run every game at max if not wtf