@mikemurphy80: Nonsense. Let's look at some benchmarks. Rise of the Tomb Raider:

4K -------- 1080p

A GTX 980ti is strong enough for keeping a 60fps lock on 1080p Ultra settings. On 4K you get less than 40 fps on medium, and less than 25 fps on ultra.

Concluding, you sir, don't have any clue what you are talking about. The ultra specs are for keeping 60fps on ultra 1080p. Definitely not for ultra 4K. And why would they be for medium 4k? What's ULTRA about medium huh??? Learn to think before posting.

@sgtslayer117: If you have a 2GB GTX 960 you're definitely gonna have to run at (strongly) reduced settings, with 6GB VRAM being required for ultra and 4GB being the recommended amount (for high). Maybe you can run medium settings with high textures with a 2GB GTX 960. 2GB cards shouldn't really be bought by anyone, it's just not enough VRAM for modern games.
At those reduced settings the game will run fine though. The graphics chip is fast enough. So it might even run at a solid 60fps on medium settings.
If you have a 4GB card it's a different story. That's enough VRAM for enabling a lot more bells and whistles. You could run high settings with that amount of VRAM, but probably at 30 fps or so.

@Fartman7998: The engine was built from the ground up for Direct X 12. Direct X 12 cannot be ported over to older Windows versions. Therefore you need Windows 10.

This is what I have been saying on every internet forum from the minute the recommended specs were released. That these were in fact the specs needed for ULTRA settings. Ultra settings nowadays are MUCH heavier to run than high settings. I always said the game would run just fine on 1080p high on a GTX 970.
Good thing the developers saw that not everyone understood this, and now updated the specs.

So no Assassin's Creed this year. But a few new IP's instead. I have to say, that might not be such a bad idea. We have plenty of Assassin's Creed titles from previous years to play. Time for something new and fresh.

@ishsgames: The Fury X will do just fine. But it doesn't have the recommended 6GB VRAM (only 4GB). Therefore I expect the 980ti to do better. I'm not sure the Fury X would have enough VRAM to run this game at ultra, 1440p. You'd probably have to lower a few settings.

@alanwest5682:Wrong, wrong, wrong. Look at THIS for example.

PC gaming is the biggest market. Smartphone + tablet combined is actually less than PC in terms of revenue.

And that PC gaming revenue comes from harcore games. Not browser games, yahoo games, not that sort of ****.

Today you learned: TOP GROSSING GAMES

The top grossing PC games are League of Legends, CrossFire, Dungeon Fighter Online, World of Warcraft, World of Tanks.

All hardcore games. Not yahoo games. Not typical internet chat lobby games. These are really big titles that make more money than any game released on consoles.

@agentmi6: The game requires Direct X 12 to run. The engine is built from the ground up for Direct X 12. Direct X 12 cannot be ported over to older Windows versions. As a result the game requires Windows 10.

@Myron117: The game will run fine at 1080p high settings 30 fps on a GTX 960. With a GTX 970 you'll get 1080p high settings 60 fps. A GTX 980ti is really only for the super-heavy ULTRA settings. Ultra settings these days can be vastly more demanding than high settings (while only looking slightly better).

Look at Assassin's Creed Syndicate for example. With a GTX 970 I can get a locked 60 fps on 1080p high settings. If I increase the settings to ultra, the fps is variable between 20 and 40 fps. Ultra these days is THAT much heavier than high.

@alanwest5682: The data does not support that line of thinking at all: http://www.gamesetwatch.com/nvidiagraph1.jpg

By far the most gaming these days is done on PC and mobile phones. Console gaming sales in 2015 were actually lower than in 2011. Whereas PC game sales and mobile phone game sales continue to increase every year.