Resident Evil 5 PC Specs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Recommended
VRAM (512 or more)
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 series or better
ATI Radeon HD 4800 series or better


isn't thing thing running on 7800 series GPU on the console? did they forgot to optimize this thing?
 
The PC version will have more shadows/shaders and there for require more power to drive RE5.

also don't forget the 7800 doesnt support 3d Vision either.
 
theholylancer you know it's not optimized - even if they will claim that it's so. The will do the minimum they must to make the game technically playable on a PC, but that's it. As a side note, isn't anyone itching for a real Resident Evil game? The kind that they used to make? Old mansions, high-tech basements, zombies that can't talk...fog in cemeteries, stuff like that!
 
Recommended
Windows Vista (2 GB or more)

hmm... it's not a good idea to just run Vista with 2GB, let alone Vista plus a brand new game. LOL
 
ok, no one posted the Benchmark that Capcom released so here's a link:
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_re5_downloads.html

it mentions the 3d thing but just ignore that. I ran it with the following specs and got an average of 22FPS:

AMD X3 720
4GB DDR3
Nvidia 8600 GT


Then this weekend I upgraded to a ATI 3870 and now I'm averaging about 55 FPS. Oh and this is all on DX9. I haven't tested it on DX10 but I can if anyone is interested.
 
I find it both funny and pathetic that game developers seem to arbitrarily pull specs out of thin air. A GeForce 6800 and HD 2400 aren't remotely the same class of hardware. Sure the HD 2400 has DX10, but the 6800 series should vastly outclass it in speed. Basically the two pieces of hardware aren't comparable in either feature set or render power, yet are being suggested as equivalents for minimum requirements.
 
Average 120.5 FPS w/Vsync disabled at 1920x1200 DX10 Variable test, 4X AA, Framerate unlocked, Motion Blur on all others maxed. Looks very nice, better than the 360 version on a 720p/1080i HDTV.
 
Do they really have to list out compatiblity with the OS? Anyone running 95 that buys a game nowadays and expects to be able to play it run it deserves to have wasted their money.
 
SM3 huh? That kills old ATI cards, thats for sure...Thats why the HD2400 is the ATI minimum, because ATI took so long to support SM3.0 (Or even 2.0, but thats old news by now...)

Funny how the minimum is a Pentium D, yet they recommend a Quad...
 
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]SM3 huh? That kills old ATI cards, thats for sure...Thats why the HD2400 is the ATI minimum, because ATI took so long to support SM3.0 (Or even 2.0, but thats old news by now...)Funny how the minimum is a Pentium D, yet they recommend a Quad...[/citation]

Then why not use an X1800 or something from the X1xx0 series? Similar feature set to the 6800 series, same ballpark on speed as well...
 
I ran the benchmark on a core 2 quad 3.0ghz,8gb ddr800,2gb saphire 4870 ,1tb machine on windows vista x64.I ran with all the bells and whistles(including vsync)at 1440x900(19in lcd) . All scenes except the 2nd ran at 70-80fps.The 2nd scene which has alot of containers and a small backlot(real small) has issues i cant think of why that would chuck down to 40 and as low as 20 fps.Still on looking at the quality of all i saw im pretty sure my little AMD64x25600+,4gb ram, 1gb saphirre 4670 machine will die laughing as it tries to run this beast.I can definatly see where the specs are needed,not sure bout the 2gb though, youll prolly need 3-4.
 
Just ran it, my CPU is definitely the bottleneck.

Athlon 64 X2 5000+ @3.24 Brisbane | GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-DS4 | 2GB Mushkin DDR2 800 | Plextor 760A| 2x 3850 512M CF| WD 1TB Black| Fortron Blue Storm II 500W

I got 25.1fps both at 1280x720 and 1680x1050 so It looks like my dual 3850s can more than cope. Gonna have to go with that 955 next month once the 965 forces a price drop on it 😀.
 
Just tried benchmark on e6750 running at stock with a 4870 512mb. I did variable benchmark with max quality settings, vsync off, and 4x AA. In the first area (no actual game play) I averaged over 80 fps. In area 2 and 4 I averaged over 50 fps, with the minimum being around 45. It looked very playable. In the 3rd area fro some reason I averaged around 26 fps. I can't figure out why that area the fps dropped so drastically, but it still seemed playable for the most part.

The game looks pretty sharp. I was actually surprised. It seems like Capcom is taking PC games seriously. They've been porting over their games this last year and doing a pretty good job with them (especially if you have xbox 360 controller). Devil May Cry 4 was done really well.
 
I've ran the benchy a few times:
E8400 @ 3.8GHz
SLI 8800GT overclocked at 680mgz 990memory clock
Vista x64 with 4GB ram
normal 7200rpm HDD

DirectX10 made no FPS difference at all.

2560x1600: 39 FPS avg
1920x1200: 46 FPS avg
1680x1050: 46 FPS avg
800x600: 48 FPS avg

Obviously there is some kinda bottleneck since lowering resolution to the stone age did NOT affect the FPS worth hoot. CPU... maybe. Test were run with motion blur ON and all other crap maxed but no AA or AF.
 
I actually like using a controller for some games. Sometimes it's better for my wrist to use the gamepad. This games seems like it doesn't need the precision of a mouse too.

Also for people running the bench please state if you're using the fixed benchmark or variable.
 
[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]RecommendedXbox360 Controller for WindowsWhats up with that? A shooter on a PC and they recommend using a controller.[/citation]
Ya, that's dumb.

On a different note: I hope this game supports SLI...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom