Batman: Arkham Knight Ultra System Requirements

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
NVIDIA has posted Batman: Arkham Knight system requirements today. The only real difference between the "recommended" and "ultra" specs is the GPU. Operating system, CPU and RAM specs all stay the same.

Recommended System Requirements
  • OS: Win 7 SP1, Win 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
  • Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz | AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
  • Graphics Memory: 3 GB
  • DirectX®: 11
  • Network: Broadband Internet Connection Required
  • Hard Drive Space: 55 GB
ULTRA System Requirements
  • OS: Win 7 SP1, Win 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
  • Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz | AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
  • Graphics Memory: 4 GB
  • DirectX®: 11
  • Network: Broadband Internet Connection Required
  • Hard Drive Space: 55 GB
Click to expand...
 
Not bad. But, I'd love to see a game come out that can play on a Titan, but be slow. After each generation of upgrades, it goes faster. But, it looks absolutely amazing. Total War Attila has the Ultra setting like that. To go that high, you need the next generation of video card to play smooth.

Give me a reason to upgrade. Just go nuts on the graphics fidelity on Ultra. I don't care if I can't play it yet, when I do upgrade, guess what game would be the first to be launched? The one I couldn't play before on the highest graphics level.

Still, I'm disappointed in these requirements. Again, the CPU isn't that great. And you only need to upgrade the GPU for Ultra. My 2600K overclocked is still just fine. I REALLY want to upgrade. I'm just not doing it until I have a reason to.
 
No problemo for my system. I just have to play through the first few games first. By then, it will be on a Steam sale.
 
^ it's a marketing and perception balancing act that the developers face though. Every kid wants to run ULTRA EXTREEM 4KAY preset but if they make the requirements for that too high then kids start screaming "OMG SHIT UNOPTIMIZED CONSOLE PORT" - even here on [H] where games that bring a high end system to its knees used to be a badge of honor and something worthy of praise and admiration.
 
DPI said:
^ it's a marketing and perception balancing act that the developers face though. Every kid wants to run ULTRA EXTREEM 4KAY preset but if they make the requirements for that too high then kids start screaming "OMG SHIT UNOPTIMIZED CONSOLE PORT" - even here on [H] where games that bring a high end system to its knees used to be a badge of honor and something worthy of praise and admiration.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately lately most of them HAVE been poor optimized console ports but I completely agree with your sentiment. I have a moderately powerful system ([email protected], 16gb, m.2 sata, 970, etc) and I look forward to games that will rock it's solid foundation. The "will it play Crysis" meme aside, that game was a huge benchmark for the future when it came out. I am curious for when the next game that shatters our expectations for performance and fidelity will come out.

As to the system requirements the only one that stands out to me is the 2gb memory minimum. That means 500 series graphics cards are completely out despite the 570/580 both being as fast or faster than a 660 (which is the minimum). I wonder if you'll get an install dialog stating you don't meet the requirements or if it would install okay with those cards and run with lesser quality settings.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Not bad. But, I'd love to see a game come out that can play on a Titan, but be slow. After each generation of upgrades, it goes faster. But, it looks absolutely amazing. Total War Attila has the Ultra setting like that. To go that high, you need the next generation of video card to play smooth.

Give me a reason to upgrade. Just go nuts on the graphics fidelity on Ultra. I don't care if I can't play it yet, when I do upgrade, guess what game would be the first to be launched? The one I couldn't play before on the highest graphics level.

Still, I'm disappointed in these requirements. Again, the CPU isn't that great. And you only need to upgrade the GPU for Ultra. My 2600K overclocked is still just fine. I REALLY want to upgrade. I'm just not doing it until I have a reason to.
Click to expand...

You mean like Crysis 1?
 
refraxion said:
You mean like Crysis 1?
Click to expand...

Yes. I remember that (and Unreal and a few others) that you could come back to a year later after buying a new video card and CPU and crank up the settings and benchmark it. And see a huge improvement in visuals. I loved that. I used to crank things up just to see how it would look, even at 2 FPS (or in 3DMark at .5 FPS).
 
Ur_Mom said:
Not bad. But, I'd love to see a game come out that can play on a Titan, but be slow. After each generation of upgrades, it goes faster. But, it looks absolutely amazing. Total War Attila has the Ultra setting like that. To go that high, you need the next generation of video card to play smooth.

Give me a reason to upgrade. Just go nuts on the graphics fidelity on Ultra. I don't care if I can't play it yet, when I do upgrade, guess what game would be the first to be launched? The one I couldn't play before on the highest graphics level.

Still, I'm disappointed in these requirements. Again, the CPU isn't that great. And you only need to upgrade the GPU for Ultra. My 2600K overclocked is still just fine. I REALLY want to upgrade. I'm just not doing it until I have a reason to.
Click to expand...

What, you want an unoptimized mess that can't properly utilize modern CPUs? :confused: Games still aren't using multiple cores that well. You don't see nearly the benefit that you do in other types of programs. I'd rather have an optimized game than one that doesn't run so you can brag about how it runs at 15 frame rates. Games are meant to be played, not to juggle around hardware with.
 
What I'm really looking forward to is the rumor about DirectX 12 support...I guess it's going to come as a late-summer patch, but I<m really looking forward to have an actual game to benchmark DirectX 11 vs DirectX 12...and real-world benchmarks that will show us how much you can crank the eye-candies options under each system.
 
Those are pretty high CPU requirements compared to other action oriented games on the market.
I don't mind if I can't run a game on high with my 280x at 1080 as long as the game looks great. I take issue with a game that demands more power but doesn't look as good as other games I can run fine. If the game is so demanding it should still look good on lower settings.
 
MacLeod said:
Anybody else think that's just a tad excessive? I mean, damn.
Click to expand...

It is, but developers don't seem to like compressing their games anymore. Started with Max Payne 3. Take a look at Far Cry 3. About 10 GB when installed. Far Cry 4, while looking a good bit better, weighs in at 34GB. Now there might be more content and the graphics do look better, but I don't see it jumping ~ 24GB in size for it.

And while I haven't played Dragon Age Inquisition, it apparently comes in at around 26GB which is reasonable. Battlefield 3 + all DLC came to 34GB, where as BF4 + all DLC is around 56.3 GB. Yet graphically (and content wise) they are very similar.
 
Flogger23m said:
What, you want an unoptimized mess that can't properly utilize modern CPUs? :confused: Games still aren't using multiple cores that well. You don't see nearly the benefit that you do in other types of programs. I'd rather have an optimized game than one that doesn't run so you can brag about how it runs at 15 frame rates. Games are meant to be played, not to juggle around hardware with.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be unoptimized to use more CPU performance. It could be a well optimized engine, but also able to do extra stuff such as realistic physics simulation or advance AI.

Another way to look at it would be that, what's unoptimized is the performance available to us today. Despite the growing performance of CPU over the past years, physics and AI still remained more or less the same. We still see plenty of dumb NPC or static objects in video games.
 
Oh, and I am sure that means I cannot play on my R9 290x at Ultra settings? :rolleyes: Bascially, these "specs" make it look like an AMD video card will not even work. Hopefully, it will not be a NVidia "tweaking" to make the AMD card not play right sort of thing. (Yes, it has happened before.) This reminds me, I have not finished the other Batman games I own yet either and they do look great. :D
 
ManofGod said:
Oh, and I am sure that means I cannot play on my R9 290x at Ultra settings? :rolleyes: Bascially, these "specs" make it look like an AMD video card will not even work. Hopefully, it will not be a NVidia "tweaking" to make the AMD card not play right sort of thing. (Yes, it has happened before.) This reminds me, I have not finished the other Batman games I own yet either and they do look great. :D
Click to expand...

It clearly says "NVIDIA has posted"

Why are you surprised?
 
ManofGod said:
Oh, and I am sure that means I cannot play on my R9 290x at Ultra settings? :rolleyes: Bascially, these "specs" make it look like an AMD video card will not even work. Hopefully, it will not be a NVidia "tweaking" to make the AMD card not play right sort of thing. (Yes, it has happened before.) This reminds me, I have not finished the other Batman games I own yet either and they do look great. :D
Click to expand...
You should really finish the Batman games. They are some of the best to have come out recently.
 
Flogger23m said:
What, you want an unoptimized mess that can't properly utilize modern CPUs? :confused: Games still aren't using multiple cores that well. You don't see nearly the benefit that you do in other types of programs. I'd rather have an optimized game than one that doesn't run so you can brag about how it runs at 15 frame rates. Games are meant to be played, not to juggle around hardware with.
Click to expand...

No, I want them to take full advantage of the new CPU's. I want to be able to crank up the physics and graphics and make the CPU sweat. So, if I were to overclock, I'd see a difference. Or if I were to buy a new CPU it's make a difference.

Play on high with a decent frame rate. You want Ultra? You might want to upgrade, because it's actually going to use every last drop of performance from your hardware.
 
Ur_Mom said:
No, I want them to take full advantage of the new CPU's. I want to be able to crank up the physics and graphics and make the CPU sweat. So, if I were to overclock, I'd see a difference. Or if I were to buy a new CPU it's make a difference.

Play on high with a decent frame rate. You want Ultra? You might want to upgrade, because it's actually going to use every last drop of performance from your hardware.
Click to expand...

Did you read what he said? Are you saying this game is going to utilize near-100% of every core on a quad-core CPU? There is a difference between un-optimized garbage stressing PC hardware to its limits and optimized software *effectively* and *efficiently* pushing the boundaries of PC technology. If this game does the later with those Ultra specifications, then fantastic! But if it ends up doing the former, it should be called out as un-optimized garbage with unnecessary hardware requirements resulting from an incompetent, lazy, or cheap/greedy studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top