Personally I wouldn't take any of the reccomended specs serious up until they mention what soundcard you need. I wanna listen to my beeps and boops in the best quality.
I met the Battlefront 2 recommended specs pretty much exactly, and the game ran perfectly on ultra settings and went up to 95 fps. They kinda over exaggerated it imo
DangerIncFilms once your save game gets over 10mb, it basically dies. My old save file is like 11 and it literally runs at about one frame every five seconds. They really fucked up the optimization for that game. You don't need a great PC to run it though, you should try it on steam.
Cooper There were normal resolutions when those games came out though. Far cry 3/overwatch have 1080p while Saints Row 2, GTA IV were dealing with 1280 x 1024, 1440 x 900 and 1680 x 1050 (1920 x 1200 if you were running very high end). 640 x 480 would be vga/svga era from mid to late 90s. Was actually big step up from 320 x 240 256 colour especially if you were doing 480p at "true colour".
Steam now offers a new line on both Requirements and recommended in which the developer enter the resolution and frame rate expected. I saw on FF XV.. requirement is for 720p@30fps.. Recommended is for 1080p@60fps. So if you are going for 1440p or 2160p you need to be well above recommended and have to find out at your own.
I played gta back on the day at 1024x768 since is 2007 and CRTs are still a thing. People forget that little detail that "Hd gaming" meant 720p for a long time
KaiSoDaM People don’t forget anything, HD gaming was always 1080p unless you were mislead. 720p has never been full high definition and was never marketed as such.
My Shaggy is Moist Gta v on a asus 970 strix oc edition runs like ass... Even when I lower the grass quality and AA on 1080p, I would get massive frame dips especially in forest area. I also get random ass stutters in the pause menu, I'll see it thru steam fps overlay.
You gotta limit your frames or put your Graphics Card on high quality. (Nvidia in my case). My PC is not the best its an i5 but I overclocked it and got a good fan so my games run on 70fps on average
Notice how the recommended settings usually said AVAILABLE RAM 2gb... and not 2gb in the system total. This could have been one of the problems here as well.
Rn I'm temporary using an i7 920 (waiting for my x5650) and every game I've ran so far is running 50+fps on high or ultra while they ask for an i5 skylake or kabylake.
Flawlessly in your mind, not in ours, if you like drops in framerate and low graphic present thats your thing, most of us like steady 60+ on high very high ultra with fullhd+
Hello RandomGamingHD! been a subscriber for a long long time, thanks for making me sing the " Hello everyone and welcome to another video now " every time since you first said it!!
TheJaggs YT so true! Im playing gta 4 with 2gb of ram and my os is windows 10 but the game lagging every 1-6 sec. Even i dont doing anything, when im checking task manager the ram usage was at 60%! What the heck bill gates! Even my school computer 2gb of ram with windows 7 only uses like 20% of ram usage
I had no problems running gta iv or gta v on windows 7 but then on windows 10 with all updated drivers the game sometimes slowed down to around 10fps for a an second and got some graphical glitches when i had none on windows 7 and that's why i hate windows 10 it's new os and does not support older titles :(
I'm a budget gamer, here in Brazil the prices are ridiculously high and we need to improvise so I still use my 5 year old FX6100 and HD6970 with 8GB DDR3 1333. Still kicking asses, playing Dark Souls 3, Mortal Kombat XL and The Surge. Requirements depends on the user too.
@@SentientHoodii Not a remaster in the sense that the term is used in gaming, just a functional port and all the DLC. Indeed, it will be free to PC SR2 owners.
I have always considered the "recommended" specs to allow you to play the game the same way you would be able to on the consoles that also ran the game.
nah, minimum requirements ranged from 640x480 20 fps low to 1920x1080 60 fps low to medium, recommended were at least in a ball park. I feel as if the devs took their most powerful rig set, it the lowest settings, lock the frame rate and just guessed what is equivalent by looking at CPU and GPU usage numbers.
Gabriel Perianu Nope, recommended just means what they recommend you would need to have a good experience. It can mean 60fps high settings, it can mean 60fps medium settings, it's basically whatever the developer feels is right for a good experience.
I played Dying Light with under minimum settings achieved 25fps and finished the game Setup: FX 6100 (Minimum Dying Light FX 8100) GT 630 (UPGRADED LATER TO GTX 750 TI) PS "I'm a dummy" Sorry for misguiding ya... 8 GB RAM WIn 7 720p Display
Marcos This is an issue with the "Draw distance",even i5s and i7 struggle with this game when you have it maxed out. Don't talk with your ass. They even released a patch which fixed it.
TehPlayer14 if you are not going to overclock the fx 8100 you are going to have 2-3 fps more than with your 6100,but if you buy fx 8 core and overclock it close to 4.5 or above you will gain a pretty good boost
Personally, I think minimum requirements should be what it takes to run a game at a solid 30 fps at low, whereas recommended would be how much it should take to run a game at a solid 60 fps.
Exactly, minimum should be like regular 30fps on low settings 1080p since majority of screens use 1080p these days. And recommended should be like solid 60fps on highest or high setting at 1080p as well since that's still likely the most common monitor resolution on both low and higher budget builds.
Actually there are few exceptions to the rule: Far Cry 3 and GTA 5. Those games ran great on recommended requirements. Those games had pretty good optimization.
This was a cool little concept. I would like to see some more game tests with recommended (or even minimal) system requirements. Personally I never had much issues with running GTA IV acceptably even on lower systems. However it is complete opposite with Saint's Row 2 who never run well on anything I tried.
I was using E5300 at 2.6ghz stock 4GB ddr2 and asrock g41m-vs MB and it was prety crapy at low like 15-20fps but when i got r7 250x 2gb ddr5 i got it to max at 60+ fps.
Guy, congratulations for the video, only an exception, the recommended requirements are made to have a medium graphics configuration in the actually most popular resolution (Overwatch: 1080p) (GTA IV: 720p).
This actually is pretty bull ... my pc was built in 2009 and in the past 4 years I've tried this, I'm not supposed to be able to run anything .. it was totally wrong
Damn dude, I made a new account a little while ago and forgot about this channel. Now I came back and boom, 183k? Damn dude, it's like you had a couple hundred yesterday. Congratulations.
Anyone remember the Windows Experience Index score Microsoft tried to implement with Vista? Yeah that lasted didn't it? P.S: I know that it technically still exists in Windows 10 but it's only a command prompt function now, not the fully fledged GUI you had in Vista and 7.
You need to run this in an admin elevated command prompt (regular ol' command prompt won't work) winsat formal -v -xml c:\winstatresults.xml You won't see the tests you would normally see in Vista and 7 as this is a command prompt verbose only test, but once it's done go to C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore and you'll see a list of XML files that'll show your ratings for the various tests.
5.9 on primary disk? Did you have a 10,000rpm or something? My drives were 3.9 at best and they were 7,200rpm SATA II drives usually Seagate Barracuda or WD Blues. My worse actual hardware score was my then 550TIs which clocked in at 4.5.
In most cases its worth looking for benchmarks on youtube with your system or atleast something very close to your system to see a ballpark figure of what you''ll be getting. Even if it runs bad there's refunds nowadays on origin and steam so nothing to worry about if you have a poor immediate experience.
Indeed. For example, I habe a GTX 970 OC Turbo by Asus, and my CPU is quad-core i5 4570 (still going strong to this day,if it ain't broken-dont fix it). And, for example, you want to know how well your PC can handle, lets say, The Evil Within 2. Right. You open up youtube, and you type in "The Evil Within 2 gtx 970 oc i5 4570". You press enter. What comes up? Well, you gotta look what might probably/possibly/unfortunately look like the closest combination to your CPU and GPU. In my case, this seems like the closest one : ruclips.net/video/ql-_YbMylq4/видео.html And believe it or not, but yes, the performance is pretty similar as depicted in it (of course, I went an extra mile and i've applied .exe priority and active power profile tweaks on Bitsum Process Lasso, turned on my custom, perfect GPU overclock profile on my Asus GPU tweak application, launched the game thru Razer Cortex, I have crap-services disabled), and yea, my framerate varies from 60-70 FPS, sometimes drops down to 55-60 something. Whatever, the game runs great on max-ish graphics, nothing to worry about. Simple as that :)
Brilliant tests, cheers. GTA IV is so bonkers that I no doubt, even 'till this day, even Rockstar Games themselves can't run it at a minimum 60FPS 😆😂😝 That game is a right gem though. I love it, and always will. The depths of the characters and story are incredible, and the driving is so engaging to me that I'd often just completely enjoy driving around on it in various vehicles 🥰😊
I like it: No over the top intro No intro video screen No high pitched squealy voice No stupid adverts No overbearing personal life info It’s about exactly what the title of the video says it’s about. Just meat and potatoes no fucking carrots and bread sticks. Best of all no outro either, promoting himself, others, or begging for support. It’s a video clean and simple.
This is exactly why I pirate before I buy it. I'm not going to purchase a broken product and I have every right to ensure that I receive a working product. If the game is riddled with bugs or un-optimised, I will find it out before I give anyone a penny. IF it works fine and its enjoyable in the way it's supposed to then I'll purchase it. Since developers have this attitude that once you've paid for something they can abandon it and take your money. Don't think so and until they respect consumer rights they ain't going to be able to do shit about piracy
Most devs aren't the type to abandon a game after launch btw, and most games come out working fine. You can just buy and refund if it doesn't work to your standards...and I hope your standards aren't "I have to max out every game and get locked 60fps on my $200 GPU" because that's utter ridiculousness.
30fps is not enough for racing games. You just cant say what games need what framerates. It depends on person. If they want to play they wont mind 30 fps in any game. And racing game are fast paced game so 60 is more likely to be fps youre aiming for
Unless you need a standard frame time (ie. Fighting game), the higher the better for anything (barring glitches or screen tearing). What's "playable" though is really really vague and up to person.
Also V-Sync is causing the GPU not to work very good. I play Team Fortress 2 maxed out with 8x MSAA at 1080p at 100-200 FPS in game and almost 300 FPS in the main menu with my GTX 750 Ti with V-Sync off, but when I turn it on, the framerate is not 60 FPS on my 60 Hz monitor, but only 50 FPS in game and even under 30 FPS in the main menu. Like come on.
Developers should be legally required to adjust spec requirements whenever they release an update to the game. I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, glad to see a video that supports the thought as well. It almost always seems like the spec requirements stay the same from launch, even after 5 years of content and graphical updates to all games. 5 years after release, the minimum definitely changes for a lot of games anyway
I've worked at a studio that made some PC games. While I can't say how we determined recommended specs, min specs are usually determined by just taking the low end PC specs from a few years before the game gets released. While I can't speak for all PC ports, since our game was released on XBox 360 and PS3, many older computers with weaker hardware than the minimum specs were able to play the game without any issues. It mostly came down to how much hardware we want to officially support, since it takes too much time and money to ensure every PC configuration worked without issues.
omg i'm so much addicted to your videos 😭 i'm watching all videos recommended and it's so much interesting that i felt back to this video of the 17/08/2017
Dude, already 1mio views, I watched the video when it just released. If u make more of this kind of videos, LTT is not far away. Keep up the amazing work
Ark is just a piece of unoptimised piece of garbage, developers should have released it in 2018 when they where actually finished with the game instead of releasing it pre-alpha bare minimum game.
Clorox Bleach Even an older i7 can run GTA V at constant 60fps. GTA V is only demanding in single threaded performance which is why all AM3 CPUs suck at running it (learned the hard way).
I borrowed my GTX to a friend for 3 days to test it. Potential converting console peasant xD So I put in a old skool low end HD5450. Man, it became like minecraft, but worse. Even mincreaft it self looked better then Rocket League. Went from 200fps to 39fps. it was horrible!
Another issue is that there is no standardised specification for a games graphical detail settings on PC. Whilst the terms 'Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High, Ultra, Hyper' etc. are all used to some extent, these are just arbitrary expressions that vary from game to game and year to year.
I think the purpose of these recommended specifications is for you to get the original intended experience on the game that you would see on a console. That is why like you said the results differ from game to game such as on a game like Overwatch which was intended to run at 60fps and a game like gta 5 or far cry 3 which both run at 30fps on console are differing from each other. I don't think optimisation has a lot to do. I mean it does in general, of course, but the hardware on the recommended specifications list is what the developers have tested to receive the intended performance and graphical settings as you would see on a console running the game which is the intended recommended experience. So if you cover the recommended specs for let's say Fifa then you should expect around 60+fps like we see in Overwatch here which was intended for this framerate, but if you cover for gta then expect an overall 30fps epxerience as that game was intended for such a framerate target on consoles, however on consoles they do lock the framerate for a consistent experience so on PC you may see around 25-45fps with it being unlocked. All of this of course should be the results of the games running on the pc equivalent graphical settings or close to those of a console.
I think it's common practise that minimum requirements means playable at 720p minimum settings and recommended is high/ultra settings at 1080p. Some publishers might do it differently.
I like the idea of this video! Do more minimum/recommended hardware videos! Speaking of which, RE7 seems to have the right idea on their PC requirements and recommendation PC.
I love the recent Digital Foundry vid, where they try out Destiny 2 on integrated graphics. Finally splurged on a powerful custom gaming rig this year but I really enjoy this type of video.
I disagree, gta IV is OK. I bought in the Steam Berserk and the Band of the Hawk and oh, what the... PS2 level graphics, textures like in the 2003 game, the environment on the same level, everything lags, FPS sags, the gameplay is degeratous ugliness. For 60 dollars) Enjoy! I made a refund 😅. And yes, I like berserk, but even for a fan, it's a piece of shit!
uwot? F4 port is quite good, i got constant 30fps on surface and 20-30 in vaults and interiors on my laptop (630m which is a rebranded 540m, 6 gigs of ram and i7 3610qm). if that is a bad port then i don't know what is a good port
Nowadays, with hardware specs finally catching up to GTA IV, it turns out the terrible optimisation of the game now has a nasty sting in its tail: It won’t run properly if your computer _is too fast._ In the final mission, there’s a section where Niko has to jump off a ramp with a bike and grab hold of a helicopter’s landing gear, then mash a button command to get in. If your processor is reasonably new (I.e. an i7 or newer) and has more than two cores, you will never be able to pull Niko into the cabin; the camera just flails around wildly and Niko eventually falls off. The only thing you can do to solve this problem is disable the game’s access to any excess cores, and run it on either one or two of them.
Just want to say, this is possibly the one thing EA does amazingly. In origin it shows you what to use more or less for 720p30 and 1080p60 respectively, and its so great :D
Back in my early PC gaming days I saw "Minimum system requirements" as a challenge more than a recommendation as I'd always try playing games my PC was waaaay underpowered for.
I personally think that devs should tell you what their definition of minimum and recommended is (i.e, these specs will run our game at low settings 720p 30fps with resolution scaling at 25% or our recommended settings mean max settings 8K with resolution scaling at 200%)
Quick Tip 2Gb “Available Memory” Does not mean “2Gb RAM” it means 2Gb plus whatever your idle OS requires so you have to add the windows recommended ram and the games recommended together to get the actual amount you should use :)
I don't think that developers had 1080p in mind for most of those games. At the time of the release people weren't using such monitors, so probably the recommended requirements were targeting a nice experience at a lower resolution. For example, CNET reviewed a Samsung SyncMaster T220 back in 2008 when GTA IV was released and its native resolution was 1,680x1,050 which is lower than 1080p. And even though I didn't read the whole review, I guess that was quite high-end at the time, so requirements were targeting lower resolutions.
This cuts both ways. Sometimes the minimum/recommended specs are too high and it'll run perfectly fine on a lower end system. Of course it can also depend on what exactly they mean by "recommended". As a recent example, swery's newest game "The Missing" recommends a GTX 1070, which seems way overkill for a 2D puzzle platformer (for reference, Shadow of the Tomb Raider recommends a 1060). I haven't played it yet, so it could be really badly optimised, but you get the point. I sometimes feel like the recommended specs are pretty arbitrary.
Games these days are notorious for overstated minimum requirements, but developers are trying to make sure gamers get a good experience as long as you stick to what they mention. Titanfall 2 was one of these, as they were considering 60 FPS like gameplay. It's just funny when a quad core is "required" but really the game just needs 4 threads, since on the consoles, they have to be highly multithreaded to make efficient use of their many low IPC cores. You can combine and shove all those console threads through a dual core i3 no problem most of the time.
I've used the minimum and recondmended requirements many times before to judge if I can run the game, it's hard to judge from them unless you're buying the extract same parts they suggest, I've had games where I thought I met the requirements but it turns out I don't. That's why I was so happy when I finally invested in my fx 8350 as that made all those pains disappear.
I used to be ok with 30 fps minimums as I'd gotten used to it with my old phenom II 955 system, but since upgrading to Ryzen 5 I've been able to run games high/ultra settings at well above 60fps minimum and it is glorious.
Personally I wouldn't take any of the reccomended specs serious up until they mention what soundcard you need. I wanna listen to my beeps and boops in the best quality.
Hence why I got an external DAC hooked up to the amplifier. Need the high quality pacman noises.
Budget-Builds Official or the blue screen of death poping with awful ears piercing soun
I met the Battlefront 2 recommended specs pretty much exactly, and the game ran perfectly on ultra settings and went up to 95 fps. They kinda over exaggerated it imo
INSERT SPONGE BOB COVER MUSIC/BENCHMARK MUSIC
Ha ha lol
Me: *Opens laptop and turns on Fallout New Vegas with 175 mods*
Fallout New Vegas: *runs at 19fps*
Me: "ahh, I see you are being generous today."
Praise the divines 19fps 🥴
Lucky you. My PS3 only runs New Vegas at 19fps if I make a ritual sacrifice to Molag Baal every Tuesday at 2:13 AM.
Actually,new vegas isnt that monster you say
@@DangerIncFilms lol
DangerIncFilms once your save game gets over 10mb, it basically dies. My old save file is like 11 and it literally runs at about one frame every five seconds. They really fucked up the optimization for that game. You don't need a great PC to run it though, you should try it on steam.
OK but notice that requirements never mention resolution.. Maybe we're supposed to play with 60 fps very high 640x480? Who knows..
Cooper There were normal resolutions when those games came out though. Far cry 3/overwatch have 1080p while Saints Row 2, GTA IV were dealing with 1280 x 1024, 1440 x 900 and 1680 x 1050 (1920 x 1200 if you were running very high end). 640 x 480 would be vga/svga era from mid to late 90s. Was actually big step up from 320 x 240 256 colour especially if you were doing 480p at "true colour".
Steam now offers a new line on both Requirements and recommended in which the developer enter the resolution and frame rate expected.
I saw on FF XV.. requirement is for 720p@30fps.. Recommended is for 1080p@60fps. So if you are going for 1440p or 2160p you need to be well above recommended and have to find out at your own.
I just wanna say, your profile icon is annoying
I played gta back on the day at 1024x768 since is 2007 and CRTs are still a thing. People forget that little detail that "Hd gaming" meant 720p for a long time
KaiSoDaM People don’t forget anything, HD gaming was always 1080p unless you were mislead. 720p has never been full high definition and was never marketed as such.
*Laughs nervously in recommended rdr2 requirements*
KEKW
i bought it because my pc met the recommended requirements, and its's extremely choppy even on lowest settings and a hotfix from rockstar.
**Laughs evilishly in above recommended CoD: MW (2019) Recommended Specifications**
It's only i7 4770K or FX 9590 and GTX 1060 or RX 580
Paradoxilicious the only good recommenced setting are Minecraft’s😂
I can run GTA V better than I can run GTA IV. Game's fucked.
GTA 4's optimization is non-existant. Rockstar tends to make these bad ports from console, though they did a good job on GTA 5.
My Shaggy is Moist Gta v on a asus 970 strix oc edition runs like ass... Even when I lower the grass quality and AA on 1080p, I would get massive frame dips especially in forest area. I also get random ass stutters in the pause menu, I'll see it thru steam fps overlay.
You gotta limit your frames or put your Graphics Card on high quality. (Nvidia in my case). My PC is not the best its an i5 but I overclocked it and got a good fan so my games run on 70fps on average
My Shaggy is Moist i5s aren't that bad
Yeah I used it in a wrong way, I meant to say (bad specs) AND i5 sorry if I was misleading.
Me: "Is 20 FPS a lot?"
Watch_Dogs: "Depends on the context. GeForce Graphics? No. IntelHD Graphics? Yes."
RDR2, hold my beer.
gta 4 req: keyboard, mouse
Also most like I've ever gotten thanks♥️
Commandline also
@@gollywoo1423 have you updated the game to 1.0.7.0 or 1.0.9.0?
@@ImCeatra wait 1.0.9.0 exists?
@@nahrafe came out last year I think.... Crazy right?
@@nahrafe support.rockstargames.com/articles/235650888/Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-Patch-8-Title-Update-Notes-PC-Only
Notice how the recommended settings usually said AVAILABLE RAM 2gb... and not 2gb in the system total. This could have been one of the problems here as well.
"Available" isn't an acronym
Do a Red Dead Redemption 2 minimum and recommended pc before the patches comes out.
smcs yes pleasee
Нормально она оптимизирована, просто люди запускают её на вёдрах, а потом жалуются. Учитывая, что это практически некстген проэкт
Funny how I've ran many games flawlessly with lower performance than the lowest requirements.
You 're not the only one. I continue using an i3 with all new games that demand i5's and FX-83XX's.
My PC does not meet minimum requirements for Battlefield 1 yet im running it on medium graphics 60+ fps
Rn I'm temporary using an i7 920 (waiting for my x5650) and every game I've ran so far is running 50+fps on high or ultra while they ask for an i5 skylake or kabylake.
Run For Honor and assassin's Creed on e8400 and gtx 550ti
Flawlessly in your mind, not in ours, if you like drops in framerate and low graphic present thats your thing, most of us like steady 60+ on high very high ultra with fullhd+
Hello RandomGamingHD! been a subscriber for a long long time, thanks for making me sing the
" Hello everyone and welcome to another video now " every time since you first said it!!
When u test those game with 2 GB Ram requirement, are u using windows 10 or 7 ? because im pretty sure they were meant to be played on WIN XP
TheJaggs YT *they were
TheJaggs YT so true! Im playing gta 4 with 2gb of ram and my os is windows 10 but the game lagging every 1-6 sec. Even i dont doing anything, when im checking task manager the ram usage was at 60%!
What the heck bill gates!
Even my school computer 2gb of ram with windows 7 only uses like 20% of ram usage
thx bud, English is not my first language. I can use grammar perfectly fine but spelling is not my strongpoint.
ram requirements of 2gb for IV were based on XP or 2.5 for vista.
I had no problems running gta iv or gta v on windows 7 but then on windows 10 with all updated drivers the game sometimes slowed down to around 10fps for a an second and got some graphical glitches when i had none on windows 7 and that's why i hate windows 10 it's new os and does not support older titles :(
One of the best video you have made!
i agree
I agree
I agree..... that you don’t smash 😂😂😂😂
I agree
I love when I see a game with recommended specifications like Geforce 210.
I'm a budget gamer, here in Brazil the prices are ridiculously high and we need to improvise so I still use my 5 year old FX6100 and HD6970 with 8GB DDR3 1333. Still kicking asses, playing Dark Souls 3, Mortal Kombat XL and The Surge. Requirements depends on the user too.
DMN_Sonic - Rockin' the games!
Good on you man, and not altogether a bad setup.
DMN_Sonic - Rockin' the games! I recognize a hustler when I see one. Keep on gaming, man!
DMN_Sonic - Rockin' the games! Sstill better than my geforce 210
DMN_Sonic - Rockin' the games! "still kicking ass" while playing outdated or not graphicly demanding games at all yes
É mesmo e o pior é essa crise que vem vindo, Brasil aqui também!
My old computer stomped on Saint's Row 2's recommended specs and could barely manage 15 fps on low, its so poorly optimized.
Saints row was my childhood
LairdDeimos If I played SR2 first on pc instead of the 360 I would never have given that game a chance.
Developed by CD Projekt funnily enough
Developed by CD project red? Sorry but what?
The PC port of SR2 was developed by a division of CD Projekt. Not specifically the CD Projekt Red division I don't think but the same overall company.
30 High 60 Medium never low
90 fps on low
@ what exactly is your problem man?
@ We have a special snowflake over here
The Saints Row devs found SR2’s source code, and they’re planning on redoing the port.
Would that mean we get a remaster for free if we bought 2 or the Series bundle?
@@SentientHoodii They confirmed you'll get it for free if you already own SR2 on Steam. The DLC will be free as well.
@@SentientHoodii Not a remaster in the sense that the term is used in gaming, just a functional port and all the DLC. Indeed, it will be free to PC SR2 owners.
Skitz I would assume GoG as well, but I don’t think they talked about that.
Oh shit really? source? I will finally be able to properly play it, even we a modern pc i struggle, last i tried was with an r9 280
Sometimes i wish i could just pull out box of pc parts and play anygame i want...
But nope, im stuck with a a shitty ass laptop
im stuck with a shitty xbox one that has gear grinding issues.
fuck
nt mega 360 m8
Although I just kinda funded my own conputer building company.
hit me up is u need I can get a deal for a fellow rginhd veiwer
Blue Cloak Leader no
xXTHEBOMBSQUADXx Gaming me toooooo
I had a laptop with a gt720m it wasn’t terrible, plenty of games ran fine honestly
GTA IV: 23 fps pretty cinematic :)
I have always considered the "recommended" specs to allow you to play the game the same way you would be able to on the consoles that also ran the game.
lol dont you mean minimum requirements?
nah, minimum requirements ranged from 640x480 20 fps low to 1920x1080 60 fps low to medium, recommended were at least in a ball park. I feel as if the devs took their most powerful rig set, it the lowest settings, lock the frame rate and just guessed what is equivalent by looking at CPU and GPU usage numbers.
Hmm.. I allways thought recommended settings means 60 fps / Ultra
Gabriel Perianu Nope, recommended just means what they recommend you would need to have a good experience. It can mean 60fps high settings, it can mean 60fps medium settings, it's basically whatever the developer feels is right for a good experience.
Gabriel Perianu Ultra is luxury that is really wasteful visual upgrade to fps ratio. You can also go insane on AA and resolution and break any setup.
is it just me or people notice him not smashing the people with cars whenever he's about to do so. He skips the schene lmao
this is actually a really good idea for a video, i'm surprised LTT hasn't done a video like this
I played Dying Light with under minimum settings achieved 25fps and finished the game
Setup:
FX 6100 (Minimum Dying Light FX 8100)
GT 630 (UPGRADED LATER TO GTX 750 TI) PS "I'm a dummy" Sorry for misguiding ya...
8 GB RAM
WIn 7
720p Display
25FPS? You should be getting way more with that GPU
Dizzee his cpu is shit
Only 25 fps with a 750 TI? Something is wrong there...
Marcos This is an issue with the "Draw distance",even i5s and i7 struggle with this game when you have it maxed out. Don't talk with your ass. They even released a patch which fixed it.
TehPlayer14 if you are not going to overclock the fx 8100 you are going to have 2-3 fps more than with your 6100,but if you buy fx 8 core and overclock it close to 4.5 or above you will gain a pretty good boost
Personally, I think minimum requirements should be what it takes to run a game at a solid 30 fps at low, whereas recommended would be how much it should take to run a game at a solid 60 fps.
Exactly, minimum should be like regular 30fps on low settings 1080p since majority of screens use 1080p these days.
And recommended should be like solid 60fps on highest or high setting at 1080p as well since that's still likely the most common monitor resolution on both low and higher budget builds.
Minimum requirements: Holy sht it runs
Recommended requirements: It runs, not great, but it runs
Actually there are few exceptions to the rule: Far Cry 3 and GTA 5. Those games ran great on recommended requirements. Those games had pretty good optimization.
This was a cool little concept. I would like to see some more game tests with recommended (or even minimal) system requirements.
Personally I never had much issues with running GTA IV acceptably even on lower systems. However it is complete opposite with Saint's Row 2 who never run well on anything I tried.
So early that there are no comments to read .
St4r theres 3
St4r that's the worst
Ahhh what did I miss
We need another one of this :D
Do you believe me that i can't handle even the recomended settings for Gta San Andreas?
I've got a Intel G41 express.
That's it.
Luca Cavazzana but then you slapped GT 730 (DDR5) to it, put a C2Q in it and upgraded from 2 to 4 GB of RAM and that's how it became my budget shit
Just use Wine for Mac to run Windows games and applications. Problem solved.
I was using E5300 at 2.6ghz stock 4GB ddr2 and asrock g41m-vs MB and it was prety crapy at low like 15-20fps but when i got r7 250x 2gb ddr5 i got it to max at 60+ fps.
@GamingSpace GS I am now picking a R9 390 8gb Nitro for $60 second hand so maybe next month
wow ?
is that mean my phone better ?
😂
Guy, congratulations for the video, only an exception, the recommended requirements are made to have a medium graphics configuration in the actually most popular resolution (Overwatch: 1080p) (GTA IV: 720p).
just type in google “can you run it” and everything will be fine
Thank
Can you run it uses the recommended specs and minimum put out by the companies tho.
L
This actually is pretty bull ... my pc was built in 2009 and in the past 4 years I've tried this, I'm not supposed to be able to run anything .. it was totally wrong
And the only thing it gets right is my hard drive space cuz its always low.
Damn dude, I made a new account a little while ago and forgot about this channel. Now I came back and boom, 183k? Damn dude, it's like you had a couple hundred yesterday. Congratulations.
Anyone remember the Windows Experience Index score Microsoft tried to implement with Vista? Yeah that lasted didn't it?
P.S: I know that it technically still exists in Windows 10 but it's only a command prompt function now, not the fully fledged GUI you had in Vista and 7.
The MaskedGeek what's the command?
You need to run this in an admin elevated command prompt (regular ol' command prompt won't work)
winsat formal -v -xml c:\winstatresults.xml
You won't see the tests you would normally see in Vista and 7 as this is a command prompt verbose only test, but once it's done go to C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore and you'll see a list of XML files that'll show your ratings for the various tests.
The MaskedGeek k thanks
Primary Hard Disk knocked the overall down to 5.9, no matter the rest of your setup too, unless you had an SSD.
5.9 on primary disk? Did you have a 10,000rpm or something? My drives were 3.9 at best and they were 7,200rpm SATA II drives usually Seagate Barracuda or WD Blues. My worse actual hardware score was my then 550TIs which clocked in at 4.5.
Making this video must have been such an effort, kudos my guy.
In most cases its worth looking for benchmarks on youtube with your system or atleast something very close to your system to see a ballpark figure of what you''ll be getting. Even if it runs bad there's refunds nowadays on origin and steam so nothing to worry about if you have a poor immediate experience.
Indeed. For example, I habe a GTX 970 OC Turbo by Asus, and my CPU is quad-core i5 4570 (still going strong to this day,if it ain't broken-dont fix it).
And, for example, you want to know how well your PC can handle, lets say, The Evil Within 2. Right.
You open up youtube, and you type in "The Evil Within 2 gtx 970 oc i5 4570". You press enter.
What comes up? Well, you gotta look what might probably/possibly/unfortunately look like the closest combination to your CPU and GPU. In my case, this seems like the closest one :
ruclips.net/video/ql-_YbMylq4/видео.html
And believe it or not, but yes, the performance is pretty similar as depicted in it (of course, I went an extra mile and i've applied .exe priority and active power profile tweaks on Bitsum Process Lasso, turned on my custom, perfect GPU overclock profile on my Asus GPU tweak application, launched the game thru Razer Cortex, I have crap-services disabled), and yea, my framerate varies from 60-70 FPS, sometimes drops down to 55-60 something. Whatever, the game runs great on max-ish graphics, nothing to worry about.
Simple as that :)
Brilliant tests, cheers. GTA IV is so bonkers that I no doubt, even 'till this day, even Rockstar Games themselves can't run it at a minimum 60FPS 😆😂😝
That game is a right gem though. I love it, and always will. The depths of the characters and story are incredible, and the driving is so engaging to me that I'd often just completely enjoy driving around on it in various vehicles 🥰😊
Anyone see his name was "Yeah boi" ?
mimimi!
Mamamamma
Yeah boi, sure I did.
I like it:
No over the top intro
No intro video screen
No high pitched squealy voice
No stupid adverts
No overbearing personal life info
It’s about exactly what the title of the video says it’s about. Just meat and potatoes no fucking carrots and bread sticks.
Best of all no outro either, promoting himself, others, or begging for support. It’s a video clean and simple.
This is exactly why I pirate before I buy it. I'm not going to purchase a broken product and I have every right to ensure that I receive a working product.
If the game is riddled with bugs or un-optimised, I will find it out before I give anyone a penny. IF it works fine and its enjoyable in the way it's supposed to then I'll purchase it.
Since developers have this attitude that once you've paid for something they can abandon it and take your money. Don't think so and until they respect consumer rights they ain't going to be able to do shit about piracy
Most devs aren't the type to abandon a game after launch btw, and most games come out working fine. You can just buy and refund if it doesn't work to your standards...and I hope your standards aren't "I have to max out every game and get locked 60fps on my $200 GPU" because that's utter ridiculousness.
deathbat6916 yeah you can refund. But I usually don't buy games on the platform but from other sellers. It's mostly cheaper.
A random person Or you could buy them and get a refund (assuming you use steam)
Kommentator true that. I'd rather buy and refund if it doesn't work...which, frankly, I rarely have to refund because most games work on the spot.
Some devs puts a program line that creates a bug or makes you some shit on game if you crack it.How do you know it works well.
i really enjoy these types of videos and i think you should do more! really like your content :D
The thing is 30 FPS is enough for racing games and stuff but not for FPS games
15-20 fps is fine for me in strategy games like Civ, and AoW. but yeah, for more fast paced games, the more frames, the better.
30fps is not enough for racing games. You just cant say what games need what framerates. It depends on person. If they want to play they wont mind 30 fps in any game. And racing game are fast paced game so 60 is more likely to be fps youre aiming for
I sont mind 30 fps for shooters because i rarely play multiplayer
Unless you need a standard frame time (ie. Fighting game), the higher the better for anything (barring glitches or screen tearing). What's "playable" though is really really vague and up to person.
Sean Metivier for me playable is over 30 and enjoyable is at least 45 or 50
This is why I love games with demos, I don’t get them to see if I like the game, I get it to see if it runs ok
When your GTAV runs 60 on ultra but drops to 20-30 on low, you know something is fucking wrong with logic.
Im not joking this happens to me.
lol, i have the same problem, i have a bad pc, but in high setting its runs beter than low setting!
My dual core pc with gt 640 runs fifa 14 in 60 fps on high setting but drops to 30 fps on medium setting.
Also V-Sync is causing the GPU not to work very good.
I play Team Fortress 2 maxed out with 8x MSAA at 1080p at 100-200 FPS in game and almost 300 FPS in the main menu with my GTX 750 Ti with V-Sync off, but when I turn it on, the framerate is not 60 FPS on my 60 Hz monitor, but only 50 FPS in game and even under 30 FPS in the main menu. Like come on.
Probably a CPU bottleneck.
Love it how this guy got into the video from the 1 second and he doesn't exhaust us with any bs.❤️
"SYD Van Der Linde"
they have predicted the future...
Developers should be legally required to adjust spec requirements whenever they release an update to the game. I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, glad to see a video that supports the thought as well. It almost always seems like the spec requirements stay the same from launch, even after 5 years of content and graphical updates to all games. 5 years after release, the minimum definitely changes for a lot of games anyway
*HELLO EVERYONE AND WELCOME...TO ANOTHER VIDEO*
NOW
Engineering Explained
I've worked at a studio that made some PC games. While I can't say how we determined recommended specs, min specs are usually determined by just taking the low end PC specs from a few years before the game gets released. While I can't speak for all PC ports, since our game was released on XBox 360 and PS3, many older computers with weaker hardware than the minimum specs were able to play the game without any issues. It mostly came down to how much hardware we want to officially support, since it takes too much time and money to ensure every PC configuration worked without issues.
Awh man and then you don't test Dirt3 itself :(
Thanks for putting this all together man. I’m a budget gamer to so this was interesting to watch
Cuphead minimum requirements: GeForce potato 512 MB
Fx i3 210
512 MB of ram
40 gb of storage
Windows 10
Butter cooling
Apcoolcharles I actually run cuphead on my laptop (so I can bring it to a friend's). It has a i5 2450m and gt410m and runs at 60fps!
You should get 80 fps on Gta IV with that specs ;)
omg i'm so much addicted to your videos 😭 i'm watching all videos recommended and it's so much interesting that i felt back to this video of the 17/08/2017
yeah boi
Piere, Graeme and Jaime can go suck one, they ain’t winning today
Nay gigger
Dude, already 1mio views, I watched the video when it just released. If u make more of this kind of videos, LTT is not far away. Keep up the amazing work
I hate how Ark barely runs on my pc. I7 6700 8gb ram 1050ti. I know there is a 20% bottleneck but still Gta runs at over 100 on high soooo
That's not a bottleneck that affects the performance anyway.
MIGHTY REX Actually, in gta v, the cpu is the bottleneck.
Ark is just a piece of unoptimised piece of garbage, developers should have released it in 2018 when they where actually finished with the game instead of releasing it pre-alpha bare minimum game.
Overkill CPU for that GPU.
Clorox Bleach Even an older i7 can run GTA V at constant 60fps. GTA V is only demanding in single threaded performance which is why all AM3 CPUs suck at running it (learned the hard way).
consistently one of the best channels for years
.... i played rocket league with lower specs then that minimum specs, and its great!
Soongame HD good on you man! Glad you're able to get a good experience with less than minimum specs
I bet you can even run it on a SNES.
I borrowed my GTX to a friend for 3 days to test it. Potential converting console peasant xD
So I put in a old skool low end HD5450. Man, it became like minecraft, but worse. Even mincreaft it self looked better then Rocket League.
Went from 200fps to 39fps. it was horrible!
Soongame HD I played fear with a mini laptop and I cant believe what worked good.
Soongame HD well that's goods :)
Great video man. Like you positive attitude and creative approach.
Where's the lamb sauce!
?*
MarcusW10 WHERE'S THE LAMB SAUCE!?!
zBruda I'm ninooo XD
Another issue is that there is no standardised specification for a games graphical detail settings on PC.
Whilst the terms 'Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High, Ultra, Hyper' etc. are all used to some extent, these are just arbitrary expressions that vary from game to game and year to year.
Gta iv is one of the worst ports to ever come to pc, red dead two 2 years later. I think that award belongs to me
And MGS2
I think the purpose of these recommended specifications is for you to get the original intended experience on the game that you would see on a console. That is why like you said the results differ from game to game such as on a game like Overwatch which was intended to run at 60fps and a game like gta 5 or far cry 3 which both run at 30fps on console are differing from each other. I don't think optimisation has a lot to do. I mean it does in general, of course, but the hardware on the recommended specifications list is what the developers have tested to receive the intended performance and graphical settings as you would see on a console running the game which is the intended recommended experience. So if you cover the recommended specs for let's say Fifa then you should expect around 60+fps like we see in Overwatch here which was intended for this framerate, but if you cover for gta then expect an overall 30fps epxerience as that game was intended for such a framerate target on consoles, however on consoles they do lock the framerate for a consistent experience so on PC you may see around 25-45fps with it being unlocked. All of this of course should be the results of the games running on the pc equivalent graphical settings or close to those of a console.
Do more of these!
I think it's common practise that minimum requirements means playable at 720p minimum settings and recommended is high/ultra settings at 1080p. Some publishers might do it differently.
Sometimes im even happy with 20 fps..
I like the idea of this video! Do more minimum/recommended hardware videos! Speaking of which, RE7 seems to have the right idea on their PC requirements and recommendation PC.
anyone else cringe when they saw the cards sitting on each other in a box without soft foam?
Nope. :D
I love the recent Digital Foundry vid, where they try out Destiny 2 on integrated graphics. Finally splurged on a powerful custom gaming rig this year but I really enjoy this type of video.
I got this recommended a day after launch of shitty red dead redemption 2 pc port lol. 😂😂😂😂
Wtf, same with me
Same lol
Same.. :/
I guess recommended requirements are what gives you an experience similar to current-gen consoles. Such criteria fits basically every game you tested
The system requirements would be accurate if they optimised their god damn fuckng games.
You need a podcast, I'd listen to you all day.
hears 30fps, *clicks off vid*
This is something i was always wondering about. THX for this video :)
GTA 4 is the worst optimized game ever.
GTA 4 is really cancer
The only game I get motion sickness from, I think because of the movements are some kind of blurry or something.
I disagree, gta IV is OK. I bought in the Steam Berserk and the Band of the Hawk and oh, what the... PS2 level graphics, textures like in the 2003 game, the environment on the same level, everything lags, FPS sags, the gameplay is degeratous ugliness. For 60 dollars) Enjoy! I made a refund 😅. And yes, I like berserk, but even for a fan, it's a piece of shit!
GTA IV is not the worst optimized game. It runs fine on my i7-7700k and RX 480. Saints Row 2 is the worst optimized port.
Kermit is that you? His voice is on the verge of turning into kermit
Fallout 4 has a horrendous port
Sveta Djordjevic hmm,znaci nisi mrtav
Dr.Mrmot hehe nisam koristim ovaj acc svaki dan...
Young Trey people with 1080s and i7s have 30fps in the city...
Max settings with around 200 mods..that put the game at 4k ans still get 200 fps
uwot? F4 port is quite good, i got constant 30fps on surface and 20-30 in vaults and interiors on my laptop (630m which is a rebranded 540m, 6 gigs of ram and i7 3610qm). if that is a bad port then i don't know what is a good port
Nowadays, with hardware specs finally catching up to GTA IV, it turns out the terrible optimisation of the game now has a nasty sting in its tail: It won’t run properly if your computer _is too fast._ In the final mission, there’s a section where Niko has to jump off a ramp with a bike and grab hold of a helicopter’s landing gear, then mash a button command to get in. If your processor is reasonably new (I.e. an i7 or newer) and has more than two cores, you will never be able to pull Niko into the cabin; the camera just flails around wildly and Niko eventually falls off. The only thing you can do to solve this problem is disable the game’s access to any excess cores, and run it on either one or two of them.
Cough cough pubg
Just want to say, this is possibly the one thing EA does amazingly. In origin it shows you what to use more or less for 720p30 and 1080p60 respectively, and its so great :D
Fir... Nah
I remember that first video haha. Amazing how your channel has grown since =)
I think you should make this into short series of multiple generations
That why you DA MAN my man... You make videos about things people really are interested it.
We'll never know where he hopes to see us next.
Back in my early PC gaming days I saw "Minimum system requirements" as a challenge more than a recommendation as I'd always try playing games my PC was waaaay underpowered for.
I personally think that devs should tell you what their definition of minimum and recommended is (i.e, these specs will run our game at low settings 720p 30fps with resolution scaling at 25% or our recommended settings mean max settings 8K with resolution scaling at 200%)
Quick Tip 2Gb “Available Memory” Does not mean “2Gb RAM” it means 2Gb plus whatever your idle OS requires so you have to add the windows recommended ram and the games recommended together to get the actual amount you should use :)
Its been so long since I was a budget gamer I forgot all about the struggle
Games on my computer run incredibly stable
The fps counter never goes above 0
Ever since the early 2000's. The recommended specs have been the actual minimum requirements
I don't think that developers had 1080p in mind for most of those games. At the time of the release people weren't using such monitors, so probably the recommended requirements were targeting a nice experience at a lower resolution. For example, CNET reviewed a Samsung SyncMaster T220 back in 2008 when GTA IV was released and its native resolution was 1,680x1,050 which is lower than 1080p. And even though I didn't read the whole review, I guess that was quite high-end at the time, so requirements were targeting lower resolutions.
I havent checked requirements for games for 3 years now feelsgoodman knowing I can play any game on ultra
This cuts both ways. Sometimes the minimum/recommended specs are too high and it'll run perfectly fine on a lower end system. Of course it can also depend on what exactly they mean by "recommended". As a recent example, swery's newest game "The Missing" recommends a GTX 1070, which seems way overkill for a 2D puzzle platformer (for reference, Shadow of the Tomb Raider recommends a 1060). I haven't played it yet, so it could be really badly optimised, but you get the point. I sometimes feel like the recommended specs are pretty arbitrary.
Games these days are notorious for overstated minimum requirements, but developers are trying to make sure gamers get a good experience as long as you stick to what they mention. Titanfall 2 was one of these, as they were considering 60 FPS like gameplay.
It's just funny when a quad core is "required" but really the game just needs 4 threads, since on the consoles, they have to be highly multithreaded to make efficient use of their many low IPC cores. You can combine and shove all those console threads through a dual core i3 no problem most of the time.
Seeing the term recommended system requirments sarcastically just cracks me up
I've used the minimum and recondmended requirements many times before to judge if I can run the game, it's hard to judge from them unless you're buying the extract same parts they suggest, I've had games where I thought I met the requirements but it turns out I don't. That's why I was so happy when I finally invested in my fx 8350 as that made all those pains disappear.
I used to be ok with 30 fps minimums as I'd gotten used to it with my old phenom II 955 system, but since upgrading to Ryzen 5 I've been able to run games high/ultra settings at well above 60fps minimum and it is glorious.