• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

The (leaked) Just Cause 3 system requirements are here

Gregster

Gregster

Gregster

Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,283
Location
Essex innit!
Just Cause 3 is a game about blowing stuff up, just 'cause it's there. Get it? It's a play on words! Is the cause just, or is it all just 'cause? It's quite clever, actually, because it so succinctly captures the dichotomy of videogames, in which you, as the savior figure, inflict levels of violence that transcend gratuitous and push into the obscene, all in the ostensible pursuit of a higher, perhaps noble, sometimes beautiful, goal. It's a disconnect between means and end that's so ubiquitous in our genre that some developers choose to not simply overlook it, but embrace it, essentially encouraging players to ignore the studio's envisioned narrative in favor of indulging their worst anti-social tendencies, guilt and consequence-free.
So anyway, here's what you'll need to play it.

Minimum Specifications
  • OS: Vista SP2, Win 7 SP1, Win 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K, 3.3 Ghz | AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3 Ghz
  • Memory: 6GB RAM
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) | AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)

Recommended Specifications
  • OS: Vista SP2, Win 7 SP1, Win 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
  • CPU: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz | AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB Ram
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (3GB) | AMD R9 290 (4GB)
Click to expand...

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-leaked-j...facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=pcgfb

Seems to be a trend now with the recommended specs being high. Hopefully the game will justify the requirements and whilst I have never played the series, the hype has got me interested in this.
 
High recommended specs as per most titles in today's world.

This is the only game I'm looking forward to coming up so I hope it is good.
 
An increment higher than Mad Max's requirements on CPU and GPU, but pretty similar.
MAD MAX

Minimum:
OS: 64 bit: Vista, Win 7, Win 8
Processor: Intel Core i5-650, 3.2 GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4 Ghz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660ti (2 GB Memory or higher) or AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2 GB Memory or higher)
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 32 GB available space

Recommended:
OS: 64 bit: Win 7 SP1, Win 8.1
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (3 GB Memory or higher) or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (3 GB Memory or higher)
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 32 GB available space
Click to expand...

Now, if they can make the game run just as well as Mad Max did (perfectly at over 60FPS on 3 screens and Crossfired 290s) then I will be a very happy bunny come launch day. :D Not into Fallout and gave up buying COD after Ghosts, JC3 is THE game I've been waiting all year for.
 
I'm glad recommended specs are going up, for a while it's seemed like games are stagnating in terms of graphics. I think perhaps the new gen of consoles has pushed us on a bit.
 
rtho782 said:
I'm glad recommended specs are going up, for a while it's seemed like games are stagnating in terms of graphics. I think perhaps the new gen of consoles has pushed us on a bit.
Click to expand...

I see that more and more games are starting to recommend an i7. Although paradoxically with dx12 games on the horizon isn't the need for a beefy cpu going to be abated somewhat?
 
These specs are increasingly becoming fairly meaningless.

A 2500k is 'minimum' but an 8350 is recommended? That kind of nonsense tells me they are just throwing up guesses half the time. I seriously doubt they go through the trouble of doing any rigorous benchmarking trials to see what you *really* need.

And 'minimum' seems to mean '1080p/30fps' with these bigger titles as well. Which is strange, because I'd really think they'd realize that somebody might be perfectly willing to reduce the resolution a bit to hit the performance they need if they've got an older graphics card, but these people will obviously be scared off by these specs that would imply that the game simply wont run for them at all. In other words 'minimum' seems to mean 'console spec' and not actually minimum anymore.
 
Seanspeed said:
A 2500k is 'minimum' but an 8350 is recommended? That kind of nonsense tells me they are just throwing up guesses half the time. I seriously doubt they go through the trouble of doing any rigorous benchmarking trials to see what you *really* need.
Click to expand...

8350 isn't a million miles away from a 2500k and has twice the threads. If it's a multi threaded game then of course it makes sense.
 
Cyanide said:
8350 isn't a million miles away from a 2500k and has twice the threads. If it's a multi threaded game then of course it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Twice the integer threads.

Same number of floating point threads, and FP is used more in games, where the 2500k will spank the 8350.

I could see them both being the same (both minimum or both recommended) but these specs are always pulled out of the air somewhat.
 
Cyanide said:
8350 isn't a million miles away from a 2500k and has twice the threads. If it's a multi threaded game then of course it makes sense.
Click to expand...
I think if all the threads get used, the FX8350 would likely to be faster than the 2500K if we were comparing stock clock to stock clock (due to FX8350 having higher stock clock); but the thing is the 2500K have twice the overclocking headroom comparing to FX8350...I am pretty sure the 2500K will run ahead of the FX8350 by a bit when both are overclocked to 4.7-4.8GHz...and the 2500K would be running at less than half the power consumption (and much lower temp) comparing to the FX8350 as well.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
I think if all the threads get used, the FX8350 would likely to be faster than the 2500K if we were comparing stock clock to stock clock (due to FX8350 having higher stock clock); but the thing is the 2500K have twice the overclocking headroom comparing to FX8350...I am pretty sure the 2500K will run ahead of the FX8350 by a bit when both are overclocked to 4.7-4.8GHz...and the 2500K would be running at less than half the power consumption (and much lower temp) comparing to the FX8350 as well.
Click to expand...

I don't imagine developers will be taking overclocking in to consideration - the vast majority of gamers will be running stock.
 
rtho782 said:
I'm glad recommended specs are going up, for a while it's seemed like games are stagnating in terms of graphics. I think perhaps the new gen of consoles has pushed us on a bit.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd be glad if the skyrocketing requirements brought about a significant graphical leap, which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Instead of more polished worlds, textures and effects, all we mostly get is a set of ULTRAAA!!! settings that make a 980Ti sweat at 1080p without offering a significant visual upgrade (there are exceptions, of course).

Mad Max ran great and Just Cause 3 doesn't really look that good so I hope it'll perform well on reasonable hardware.
 
Cyanide said:
I don't imagine developers will be taking overclocking in to consideration - the vast majority of gamers will be running stock.
Click to expand...
That's what I meant.

I was addressing to those that comment along the line that "there's no way the 2500K is slower than the FX8350", and I refering to that at stock vs stock clock it is possible.

I think when most people talk about the 2500K performance, the first thing that pops into our mind about its performance is actually around the 4.5GHz+, rather than 3.3GHz :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom