'Just Cause 3' PC Specs Released, Sans Storage Requirements

[renz496]

Hmmm. Looks like either the studio received an "incentive" from nVidia, or they're letting their inner fanboy bias show when coding. Why would 3GB of VRAM be recommended for an nVidia GPU, but yet it's the minimum for the AMD GPU? I mean, if you're going to include a bias for 1 or the other in your game code, at least try to mask it by recommending GPUs with equal amounts of VRAM.

is there 7870 with 3GB VRAM?

 

[renz496]

Quit inflating the hardware requirements and making people flip, I thought Toms was reliable. lol

ehem. is that from official source?

 

[alidan]

Hmmm. Looks like either the studio received an "incentive" from nVidia, or they're letting their inner fanboy bias show when coding. Why would 3GB of VRAM be recommended for an nVidia GPU, but yet it's the minimum for the AMD GPU? I mean, if you're going to include a bias for 1 or the other in your game code, at least try to mask it by recommending GPUs with equal amounts of VRAM.

till gameworks is announced, i always assume the lower ram for nvidia buy higher for amd is because amd in the same price range typically had more ram than nvidia.

 

[spdragoo]

Hmmm. Looks like either the studio received an "incentive" from nVidia, or they're letting their inner fanboy bias show when coding. Why would 3GB of VRAM be recommended for an nVidia GPU, but yet it's the minimum for the AMD GPU? I mean, if you're going to include a bias for 1 or the other in your game code, at least try to mask it by recommending GPUs with equal amounts of VRAM.

is there 7870 with 3GB VRAM?

Not entirely sure, it might be a typo after all.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark,3148.html

Unless there's a custom model from a vendor, the 7870 should be listed as the 2 GB version (unless they mean the 7970).

 

[captaincharisma]

Hmmm. Looks like either the studio received an "incentive" from nVidia, or they're letting their inner fanboy bias show when coding. Why would 3GB of VRAM be recommended for an nVidia GPU, but yet it's the minimum for the AMD GPU? I mean, if you're going to include a bias for 1 or the other in your game code, at least try to mask it by recommending GPUs with equal amounts of VRAM.

is there 7870 with 3GB VRAM?

Not entirely sure, it might be a typo after all.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark,3148.html

Unless there's a custom model from a vendor, the 7870 should be listed as the 2 GB version (unless they mean the 7970).

hey, t might be companies assuming if you are going to need more clock speed from an AMD CPU versus an INTEL CPU then you must need more VRAM from a GPU from AMD too

 

[RedJaron]

The texture size has nothing to do with your monitor size, It's the size and quality layered in a 3D space. You can game on a 1080p monitor and appreciate 4k textures, they look better close up.

I didn't say anything about larger monitors, I was talking about higher-resolution displays. Yes, higher quality / resolution textures look nice on a 1080p display if you like the finer detail when viewing in-game objects up close. However, when you're playing older games that were designed to run 1280x960 on a 1920x1080 screen, or current games designed for 1080p on a 1440p or higher-res screen, the default textures will look poor even if the 3D is being rendered at the native resolution. And if you've got a GPU capable of rendering at 1440p or 4K, then it's likely strong enough to handle the better textures as well.

RedJaron, the way the devs of titanfall said it was one thing, the reality was they did not want to compress the audio on PC because it would mean more optimization to make it work correctly on all different hardware, so they were right about dual cores having problems with the game and audio, but didnt explain why that was the case.

I can't prove the Titanfall devs right or wrong on that one, only that their reasoning sounded fishy to me. They're saying the game would spend so many CPU cycles decoding audio that it would render dual-cores unusable for the game. Considering games have been decompressing audio for a while without much problem, the idea that they're suddenly using so much audio to overload a dual-core seems wrong. But the main complaint is that you didn't even get an option of how you wanted to install it. Those with four cores or more would have liked to save the HDD space since their machines could have handled it.

 

[ohyes247]

Quit inflating the hardware requirements and making people flip, I thought Toms was reliable. lol

ehem. is that from official source?

Cant be any less official than what they have posted here, not to mention it doesnt seem the least bit photoshopped, I doubt someone would print out a legit looking case cover and put fake specs on it just to get attention, Think logically.

 

[RedJaron]

Cant be any less official than what they have posted here, not to mention it doesnt seem the least bit photoshopped, I doubt someone would print out a legit looking case cover and put fake specs on it just to get attention, Think logically.

So you're saying you don't even know where that image comes from, but you want to claim it as official just because it doesn't look Photoshopped? And you're doubling down on your claim that Tom's is intentionally spreading misinformation and FUD. Oy vey. That's not "thinking logically."

Let me teach you what a little investigation can do. Right-click that image and view source/info. Hmmm, it's hosted at Eurogamer and looks to be attached to an article run in 2013 that was about a "system spec leak." Wait, 2013? Yeah, let's base our guess today on info that was supposedly leaked two years ago. I'm sure that's a good idea.

But let's not stop there. Head over to Euro gamer and search for an article with the string "Just Cause 3 leak" and you find this article. Huh, looks like it was from 2015, not 2013, but sure enough it's using the same image. Now, read through it and you'll see Eurogamer attributes Reddit as the source of this info. And if something is on Reddit, there's no way it can be wrong, right?

But look even closer and you'll see that Eurogamer has updated their posting, saying Avalanche has now released official specs that don't match up to what was originally "leaked."

I ask you to follow your own advice and "think logically." What purpose could Tom's possibly have to intentionally post wrong specs for the game? Why do you think they haven't received an official list from Avalanche? Why not try some of your own fact checking? It was stated clearly in the article that Avalanche released the official specs over Twitter. A quick 20 second search revealed this. And it matches exactly what Tom's has here ( except the typo about a 3GB 7870 ).

Lesson to learn, calling someone a liar on the forum isn't something to do lightly. Calling those who write the articles a liar is even worse. If you choose to do so, you best have your bases covered and ready to defend your accusation.

 

[joshyboy82]

I was replying to Nintendork. For some reason the quote didn't get copied into my post.

 

[renz496]

I first saw that picture at WCCFTECH. Some said it has been photoshop especially those gameworks logo. But dame dev post their official requrement for the games on steam not long after these 'leak' comes out. So i would take official statement from the game developer themselves before believing any kind of leak.

I don't know it the game will use gameworks or not but it the picture really was photoshoped then someone probably do it on purpose to create controversy.

 

[ohyes247]

Cant be any less official than what they have posted here, not to mention it doesnt seem the least bit photoshopped, I doubt someone would print out a legit looking case cover and put fake specs on it just to get attention, Think logically.

So you're saying you don't even know where that image comes from, but you want to claim it as official just because it doesn't look Photoshopped? And you're doubling down on your claim that Tom's is intentionally spreading misinformation and FUD. Oy vey. That's not "thinking logically."

Let me teach you what a little investigation can do. Right-click that image and view source/info. Hmmm, it's hosted at Eurogamer and looks to be attached to an article run in 2013 that was about a "system spec leak." Wait, 2013? Yeah, let's base our guess today on info that was supposedly leaked two years ago. I'm sure that's a good idea.

But let's not stop there. Head over to Euro gamer and search for an article with the string "Just Cause 3 leak" and you find this article. Huh, looks like it was from 2015, not 2013, but sure enough it's using the same image. Now, read through it and you'll see Eurogamer attributes Reddit as the source of this info. And if something is on Reddit, there's no way it can be wrong, right?

But look even closer and you'll see that Eurogamer has updated their posting, saying Avalanche has now released official specs that don't match up to what was originally "leaked."

I ask you to follow your own advice and "think logically." What purpose could Tom's possibly have to intentionally post wrong specs for the game? Why do you think they haven't received an official list from Avalanche? Why not try some of your own fact checking? It was stated clearly in the article that Avalanche released the official specs over Twitter. A quick 20 second search revealed this. And it matches exactly what Tom's has here ( except the typo about a 3GB 7870 ).

Lesson to learn, calling someone a liar on the forum isn't something to do lightly. Calling those who write the articles a liar is even worse. If you choose to do so, you best have your bases covered and ready to defend your accusation.

No one said anyone was a liar, Simply said it couldnt be any less fake/real than whats on here. A quick 20 second re read of what i said would show that. +1