Question Atomic Heart Recommended Specs seem way too high.

box o rocks

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2012
759
14
18,985
I'm playing it @1080p/"Atomic" quality with an FX-8350 (4.7GHz), and an old RX-590. It plays smooth as silk. I can't say what the fps is, but it looks and feels just as smooth as on my other PC (5600X/RTX 2070 @1440p) at same settings except for rez. I realize that RT isn't implemented yet, so that will probably change everything if used.
 
I'm playing it @1080p/"Atomic" quality with an FX-8350 (4.7GHz), and an old RX-590. It plays smooth as silk. I can't say what the fps is, but it looks and feels just as smooth as on my other PC (5600X/RTX 2070 @1440p) at same settings except for rez. I realize that RT isn't implemented yet, so that will probably change everything if used.

By any chance have you just started the game and not ventured very far yet, are you still indoors? I ask because you WILL encounter areas eventually where you get swarmed by lots of bots firing at you with lots of visual effects onscreen. If you can get through that without noticeable problems, then I can believe it.

I have to say though, when you say you don't even know what the FPS is, as if you're not familiar with the common tools to monitor such things while gaming, it makes it look a lot like you are used to gaming at very low FPS. So I can't take this claim too seriously.

Nobody serious about playing current gen games is still playing on a AMD FX processor, one that is really only single core, and uses their crap "floating module" design to feign using more cores, and poorly at that. Games these days tend to require a lot of cores.
 
Last edited:

box o rocks

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2012
759
14
18,985
By any chance have you just started the game and not ventured very far yet, are you still indoors? I ask because you WILL encounter areas eventually where you get swarmed by lots of bots firing at you with lots of visual effects onscreen. If you can get through that without noticeable problems, then I can believe it.

I have to say though, when you say you don't even know what the FPS is, as if you're not familiar with the common tools to monitor such things while gaming, it makes it look a lot like you are used to gaming at very low FPS. So I can't take this claim too seriously.

Nobody serious about playing current gen games is still playing on a AMD FX processor, one that is really only single core, and uses their crap "floating module" design to feign using more cores, and poorly at that. Games these days tend to require a lot of cores.
I didn't know the fps, simply because I didn't bother to do that. It was just a spur of the moment idea to try my old FX-8300/RX-590 on the game to see how badly it performed. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it played, is all. If you re-read my OP, I stated what my normal gaming PC is. This was just a curiosity move on my part.
And yes, I'm still in the early stage of the game.
 

box o rocks

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2012
759
14
18,985
I'm under the impression that game developers only put hardware that the manufacturer actually supports, rather than what's technically capable of running the game. If someone has a problem with the game and it is an issue with the hardware, then they can't really ask the manufacturer for help.
Interesting point. I've noticed this in other games as well. I guess they know what they're doing, although I'd want to not scare off too many low end PC customers if I was promoting my product.