News Cyberpunk 2077 System Requirements: What Hardware Do You Need?

hotaru251

Honorable
Oct 30, 2014
459
47
10,890
40
What Hardware Do You Need?

if ppl wanna play a game they will run it on hardware that isnt optimal.

I have played quad core games using a dual core and used igpu when u needed dedicated gpu's.


Here's the hardware you'll need to make the game look its best
depending if game is more single than multi its either 9900k/10700 or the amd equivalent matched with a titan rtx.


"best" is not open for debate. its a static thing and u obviously have literally 1 answer (and thats the best cpu/gpu available)




more on topic: idk if I'd want ray tracing if it hurts performance too much.

ratehr run 140fps over have a tiny bit of detail improvement on a game liek this.
 

nimbulan

Reputable
Apr 12, 2016
11
0
4,510
0
Actually the rumors are for 4-5x the raytracing performance of Turing, and it seems quite likely to be true based on currently available information.
 
Cyberpunk 2077 System Requirements: What Hardware Do You Need?
Well, at least the title was asked as a question, considering the article contains no definitive answer and is just making guesses. >_> This is an article that probably shouldn't have been made at least until official system requirements are released. I guess the parts pointing out upcoming hardware might be worthwhile information, but at this point there's too much speculation to make any definitive recommendations.

And by all accounts, the game ran quite well, though ray tracing effects may not have been enabled.
Some accounts I saw floating around from members of the media suggested it was running at 1080p (upscaled from an even lower resolution using DLSS) on a 2080 Ti, and still couldn't maintain 60fps with raytracing enabled, despite raytraced reflections not being turned on. If one is building a new system or upgrading to higher-end hardware specifically for this game, chances are good that they would be better off waiting on any hardware upgrades for now. The game is still almost 5 months away from release, and closer to launch we should have a clearer idea of how it will perform, and should also have access to newer, better graphics cards that will probably make raytracing a lot more usable, and also likely provide better performance for the money.

You could get more cores for better multi-threaded performance with a Ryzen 9 3900X, but as we're mostly focusing on the gaming aspect here, Intel's new Core i7-10700K is arguably the best choice.
Alternately, if the game's performance is primarily graphics limited, which seems likely to be the case, it might be more ideal to go with something like a 3700X with the same number of cores and threads for around $275. Using either the stock Wraith Prism cooler or a less-expensive aftermarket cooler, that could easily save $200+ that could be put toward a better graphics card or other hardware. There will probably be Ryzen 4000 processors launching around that time as well though.
 
Jun 12, 2020
3
2
15
0
Let me just give you friendly reminder that game will also run on Xbox One and PS4. And unless game will set those two on fire, you will be able to run it with mid-range hardware just fine. I do think that major FPS hog will be raytracing anyway, so turn it off and go for about medium settings. Like Witcher 3 was still looking pretty good with lower settings. Though it was reason for me to upgrade graphic card.

Also I would strongly recommend you to wait for next gen graphic cards, you will get same performance as 2080 and likely better raytracing with next gen for cheaper. Also it will be game where graphic card will likely matter far more than CPU. I don't think you will need to push money for 8 cores and 16 threads.

I fully think those articles are overestimating requirements bit too much, sure ultra + raytracing will be hard to run. But with minor compromises it is highly unlikely to be issue. And I always like to say, ultra is for screenshots, high is for playing. Because once you need to stop and carefully look to see differences, it really isn't worth performance hit. Plus there will likely be setting optimization guides, for easy way to get good FPS increase for little to no loss in quality.
 
Reactions: ravewulf
Apr 6, 2020
6
0
10
0
"Okay, we know what you're thinking: Over $1,800 just to play Cyberpunk 2077 is ludicrous! Except, you wouldn't just be able to play Cyberpunk, and in fact you could do plenty of other PC work besides playing games."

Damn, i I guess us gamers didn't realise that. We're so dumb :-(
 
Mar 12, 2020
2
2
15
0
No, those system requirements are way overboard. This is a curren gen game that has to run on the original xbox one. Expect similar min specs to other titles such as Red Dead 2 or Flight Simulator. That min specs would make zero sense.

However, I could see that kind of specs as minimum requirements when games are build exclusively for the next consoles.

Actually the rumors are for 4-5x the raytracing performance of Turing, and it seems quite likely to be true based on currently available information.
I'm sorry but this rumor is... impossible and absolutely nothing supports that rumor. Turing's RT solution is limited by its shader performance, not so much so by its RT cores, so you couldn't tweak much there. Remember, only BVH traversal and intersection is done on the RT cores, the end result still has to be shaded by the shader cores.

Expect Raytracing performance of Ampere to be raster improvement + 10-20% with RT games.
 
Nov 27, 2019
45
7
35
0
For Australians, those parts are almost $3700. Just to play a game? That's insane.
I can't find the Adata XPG Gammix drive, but 1TB seems to be around A$250 -A $350 depending on brand
1TB is not much storage unless the only thing you plan to run is this game and a couple of others.
maybe you should add in A$550 - A$600 for a 10TB HDD drive?
What I found interesting though is that the parts list didn't include a monitor, mouse or Keyboard. Probably want to allow at least another A$600 - A$1200 depending on monitor size and resolution
Hmmm... Really want to throw that much at one game?
I think I'll pass.
 
Reactions: artk2219

mrv_co

Reputable
Jan 18, 2016
15
4
4,515
0
Consideirng all the hardware announcements on the horizon, I'd say there is no rush to do anything at this point for an already twice delayed game 'scheduled' for release in November.
 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
910
2
18,985
0
The high-end recommended hardware requirements make no reference to AMD CPUs. This implies that no matter which AMD CPU is chosen, it can't meet the maximum recommended requirements. To any self-respecting reviewer, this should throw a red flag and damage the credibility of the so-called "recommended specs" before running a single benchmark.
 

JarredWaltonGPU

Senior GPU Editor
Editor
Feb 21, 2020
285
247
560
0
The high-end recommended hardware requirements make no reference to AMD CPUs. This implies that no matter which AMD CPU is chosen, it can't meet the maximum recommended requirements. To any self-respecting reviewer, this should throw a red flag and damage the credibility of the so-called "recommended specs" before running a single benchmark.
Try reading the text: "This is a high-end PC that handles anything you might want to throw at it. You could get more cores for better multi-threaded performance with a Ryzen 9 3900X, but as we're mostly focusing on the gaming aspect here, Intel's new Core i7-10700K is arguably the best choice." The 'minimum' PC for ray tracing lists a Ryzen 5 3600 as well, based off what we've seen in previous CDPR games (ie, The Witcher 3). Further down, in the CPU discussion, Zen 3 is mentioned as well.
 

artk2219

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2010
407
18
18,865
28
The high-end recommended hardware requirements make no reference to AMD CPUs. This implies that no matter which AMD CPU is chosen, it can't meet the maximum recommended requirements. To any self-respecting reviewer, this should throw a red flag and damage the credibility of the so-called "recommended specs" before running a single benchmark.
While it is an annoyance its not the end of the world, the 10700K recommendation comes from them wanting to have the best gaming CPU available for the job, realistically anything above the Ryzen 5 3600 is just icing on the cake as currently few games show a drastic benefit on going up from 6 cores \ 12 threads. If i were to spend 10700k money though, id rather have an Ryzen 9 3900 as i'm the type to do more than just play games, and id rather have the extra cores and threads for less. Or if i wanted a similar core count and likely similar enough performance id go for a Ryzen 7 3700x and put the saved cash towards the gpu or storage (Assuming you didn't cheap out on the PSU, motherboard, or cooling, which you shouldn't, unless you love magic smoke and want the potential for an "early upgrade").
 
Last edited:

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
While it is an annoyance its not the end of the world, the 10700K recommendation comes from them wanting to have the best gaming CPU available for the job, realistically anything above the Ryzen 5 3600 is just icing on the cake as currently few games show a drastic benefit on going up from 6 cores \ 12 threads. If i were to spend 10700k money though, id rather have an Ryzen 9 3900 as i'm the type to do more than just play games, and id rather have the extra cores and threads for less. Or if i wanted a similar core count and likely similar enough performance id go for a Ryzen 7 3700x and put the saved cash towards the gpu or storage (Assuming you didn't cheap out on the PSU, motherboard, or cooling, which you shouldn't, unless you love magic smoke and want the potential for an "early upgrade").
Yeah for AMD gaming right now I wouldn't recommend anything less than a 3700X, but a 3900X for high end games would be preferable. I'm sure that the 3950X would be the best, but not everyone wants / needs a $700 CPU with 16 cores.
 
Reactions: artk2219
Jun 25, 2020
4
0
10
0
Yeah for AMD gaming right now I wouldn't recommend anything less than a 3700X, but a 3900X for high end games would be preferable. I'm sure that the 3950X would be the best, but not everyone wants / needs a $700 CPU with 16 cores.
3900x would be overkill for just gaming alone. No game is going to make use of a 12 core cpu - even Cyberpunk. 3700x would probably be the choice, as it's the one or most similar to the one in the next gen consoles. I have a 2700x and most games come nowhere near to throttling it...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS