Batman: Arkham Knight system requirements - PC Gamer

Ah ah ah no. At 8x MSAA even a pair of SLI 980 will drop below 30fps. 8x MSAA is EXTREMELY taxing. I use that in Crysis 3 at 1080p sometimes just for the heck of it and my fps still drops below 25. My rig is in my signature.

Edit: Turns out I greatly underestimated my rig. I actually get 60fps most of the time at 1080p 8x MSAA. Slight dips in the low to mid 50's some times.

Exactly this.

You are also assuming the the PS4 will match the recommended specs for the PC version,it's pretty fair to say it won't.

My laptop can handle this so I'm happy. Won't be playing on Ultra of course, but don't really care.

my mom said my computer is strong and the bestest and i like gaems and i play this game and be batmen but i cant look at boobs on computer my mom said but thats ok because i dont think betman has a boob in his game hes a hero

I endorse and agree with this comment.

ConanTheStoner, bringing sense and order to the world in 2015

You go champ :)

What's up with the required internet connection?

I guess I'll be able to get close to ultra.

If it even comes close to what was initially shown I'll be impressed regardless of my framerate lol

thnx i pee in my pants sometime wehn im to excited but its worth it and thats ok because im a special snow flake and my dad takes me bowling but i just think about batmen and pretend the bowling ball is the terror from the dark killing evil pins and stuff its cool im not worried thnx

---

On topic, I should be good. i7980x, 24gb ram, gtx970.. really wish I would have kept the 2nd 970, I might pick up another soon.

I meet the minimum requirements, I have a ps4.

Just upgraded to a 970 4 gig (after it dropped to $300), 16 gigs, 3.4 Ghz. Hooked up to my TV, just waiting for release. Don't know about Ultra, but it should be decent on very high at least.

@Elaisse: exactly, minimum.

I have some bad news for you.

What's that?

Eh, doesn't matter anyway. Card's in the mail, I can return it if needs be.

Only uses 3.5gb's blah blah. It's a solid card.

Woah, I can't believe a GTX 980 is required for ultra settings already. I really thought a 970 would max out settings for at least a while longer.

Is that for 1080p, though? They really should specify resolutions in system requirements at this point. I never understood why they don't.

@ProtossX: Except they already showed the PS4 version and it looked awesome you dumb troll.

It's a good card, and I know from personal experience, but if you intend to run new games beyond 1080p at max settings with some MSAA you're going to hit the 3.5 cap pretty easily. And really, you shouldn't support purchases of these cards now that the issue's come to light and Nvidia admitted they lied. I bought the card in November so I'm SOL either way but at least Mirko has the chance to return it and get, say, a 290x.

It's a shitty situation, but it's a decent card. Luckily, i'm gaming at 1080p for a little while, so I don't mind. I'm fine with supporting the purchase.

No I was aware of this issue at purchase, though not into the specifics of the controversy. Something like only 3.5 gigs are used yet they were advertising 4. Nvidia and GTX have always done me well. I'd have gotten the 980 but can't justify the extra $200 for what probably will be minimal differences.

@MirkoS77:

Yeah man, it's a great card. Plenty of bang for your buck.

Nvidia pulled some shady shit, but that's a whole other discussion and doesn't take away from the 970 being a great value. I'm thinking about buying another.

@ConanTheStoner: Yea I'm looking forward to it. Mostly for W3 and Batman, and I don't need these at Ultra. My resolution is limited and not really a factor because I'm playing on a pretty old HDTV. I just want all the other goodies.

Ya, I'll wait for others to report on performance considering arkham city still runs worse than crysis 3 depending on where I'm standing.

You should disable DX11 and tessellation and make sure physx is off as well. It does not play well with AMD gpus.

PC requirements are overkill. Both the 660 and i5 750 are faster than the consoles hardware (you'll be able to play it on less hardware if you don't mind mostly medium some low at 1080P).

The same thing happened on Shadows or Mordor (The minimum for Shadows was a first gen i5 or phenom x4 but people where playing it fine on low clocked i3s and FX series quad cores which are slower clock for clock then the phenoms).

Many have overblown the issue because they over estimated the gpu's power. Some are using resolutions and settings that require more then 4gb which any card with lack of vram would see issues along with overtaxing the gpu. Newer games have no issue using more then 3,5 gb on the 970 and you have no ill affects when you hit and pass the "3.5gb" mark. Ive ran multiple games to see the "3.5gb limit/issue". Farcry 4 with DSR with settings that used 3.9gb no issue, dragon age inquisition using 3.6gb and shadow of mordor used all 4gb etc.

GTA 5 uses only 3.5 gb at 1440p with 2x MSAA on a Titan. Farcry 4 on ultra at 1440p uses under 3gb, So does BF Hardline. Only a few games actually use 4gb or more at 1080p or 1440p, and those games are not the best coded or are using uncompressed textures. The point is, most games that use 4GB, or use over 4GB and then having 3.5+0.5 or 4 GB doesn't really matter, the data will have to be swapped to RAM anyway causing issues on any card.

Recommending any direct x 11 based gpu is short sighted. Especially when AMD 300 series coming out soon. 970's performance at 1080p and 1440p is on par or better then the 290 series in DX11. The GTX 970 will mop the floor of the 290 series once DX12 kicks off. Even with the segmented memory.

So dont regret getting a GTX 970. Getting a native DX12 card is a better buy.

The only thread i could find on the steam forums about frame drops (since they apparently wiped them not too long ago) is with a gtx 770.

At any rate it's the dx11 (physx was already off). It usually happens when nothing is on screen too for whatever reason.

Edit: I also run most of my games @1440p, I think I heard the game possibly doesn't play well with higher resolutions.

How do you think Batman and The Witcher 3 are going to perform on a 970?

It isnt your resolution, GTX 260 could handle the game around 30 fps at 1600p

Just fine, The Witcher 3 wants a 980 for ultra at 1080p with 60 fps. So turning down AA or another setting will allow 970 to perform at 60. But keep in mind that 970's come in all flavors in pre overclocked models which can match or surpass stock 980's. Also the batman games have always been well coded, and I bet that the requirements are based on set resolutions. Ultra requirement being like 4k but definitely something above 1080.

As games improve, the minimum specs go up. That's perfectly normal. I have had an i7 3770k for over 2 years already, so a 2 year old CPU is not that bad for a recommended spec on a brand new game, and its the price to pay for true next gen games that push the graphical boundary.

You're right, usually the recommended specs are overkill.

Although if we're comparing to consoles it's really not hard to achieve 30 fps. They also generally have no aa and a mixture of med-high settings. Ridiculously easy to hit that.

@naz99: I would bet it does.

My point went completely over your head.. No where did I say that the requirements are too much.. But the fact that in the recommended and ultra settings involves a cpu that a I5 beats in 95% of all games out there soundly... In fact the I5 2500k, a processor released in 2011, surpasses the 3770k when overclocked for gaming.. It beats the crap out of the 8350 (which is already ahead the majority of benchmarks at stock to begin with).. The 2600k for crying out loud outperforms the 4770k stock when you overclock it to 4.5ghz.. These are non nonsensical requirements, that is my point.

Well, no ultra for me, then... my 780 is already dated.

My 2600K is still going strong.

Of course you would,it would kill you to admit otherwise, even if it was true ;)

@naz99: No, just basing it off PS4 footage. It didn't show any radical differences.

Yeah if you overclock your 2600k to 4.5ghz your going to have it surpassing the stock 4770k in performance.

PC hardware is in a very tempermental place right now as only now are new-gen games that take advantage of them actually coming out.

This. I pointed this out on Eurogamer and the PC apology force jumped all over me.

Is it that hard to just say "Yo, this is what you need for 1080/30 for 4xMSAA on High" or something similar? Yes, I'm sure many sites post-release will detail this, but if developers want to secure our pre-orders (and presumably they do by putting these specs sheets out this early) then they should go the extra-mile and provide us with information we can actually use.

I'm not asking for laser precise benchmarks here, just give me an idea of whatever "recommended" is supposed to mean for example. If you are already using that 980 why not tell me what kind of performance you got out of it in ballpark ranges?

At the moment I have no idea if the dev considers 30 the target experience or closer to 60. At the very least I think we can safely say this is at 1080p as almost no one games below that resolution these days. The only time I do is when a game UI doesn't scale well at higher resolutions.

I think my batch is capable of reaching 5GHz.

Goddamn this game is going to be tits

My graphics card is the only thing that falls short :(

I am ready to max this out at 4k......no AA and physx maybe..

Except for the fact you can hook the PC up to a large TV, get better performance than a console, and use literally any gamepad you want.