Saturday, April 25th 2015

NVIDIA Discloses Batman: Arkham Knight PC System Requirements

Ahead of its June 23 release, the minimum- and recommended-system requirements of Rocksteady's next installment to the super-hit Batman: Arkham franchise, Arkham Knight, was disclosed by NVIDIA. The PC version appears to have some clear visual benefits over the console variants of this game, given its steep storage requirements. Given that it will get an NVIDIA GameWorks varnish, PC gamers can expect eye-candy that won't make it to the console versions, including support for high-resolution display standards, such as 4K Ultra HD.
Without further ado, the system requirements lists.

Minimum System Requirements:
  • 64-bit Windows 7 or Windows 8.1
  • Intel Core i5-750 or AMD Phenom II X4 965 quad-core processors
  • 6 GB of RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD-equivalent, with 2 GB of video memory
  • 45 GB free-space
Recommended System Requirements:
  • 64-bit Windows 7 or Windows 8.1
  • Intel Core i7-3770 or AMD FX-8350
  • 8 GB of RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (recommended) or GeForce GTX 980 (for Ultra settings)
  • 55 GB free-space
These requirements lists come from NVIDIA, and so a lack of "AMD Radeon" shouldn't surprise you. We reckon that a Radeon HD 5850 for minimum-, Radeon HD 7870 for recommended, and Radeon R9 290 for Ultra-settings should fit in just fine. The extra 10 GB required for RSR is suspicious, maybe it has an optional high-res texture pack.Source: OCaholic.ch
Add your own comment

32 Comments on NVIDIA Discloses Batman: Arkham Knight PC System Requirements

#1
64K
Another huge game. It seems to me that requirements for games, especially storage space, are escalating fast. I see that Vista is not supported.
Posted on Reply
#2
MakeDeluxe
For what purpose does recommended need 10 gigabytes more disc space than minimum? Also why are disc space requirements so huge these days? Uncompressed audio/textures?
Posted on Reply
#3
NC37
VRAM sizes are ballooning. Course look at consoles. They have jumped to 8GB ranges. Who needs to compress when they've been given a blank check to push to the new limits?

Wouldn't be surprised if 8GB becomes the standard in a year or two. Sat for some time with 1GB. Wasn't till BF3 did 2GB and higher start getting attractive. Consider the last console gen. If devs like DICE didn't start pushing and attention start shifting back to PC, we'd still be fiddling with 360s and PS3s.

Prolly only thing that might hold it back is hardware limitations if things like the 970 continue.
Posted on Reply
#4
Saidrex
NC37 said:
VRAM sizes are ballooning.
where does it mention VRAM requirements?

NC37 said:
Wouldn't be surprised if 8GB becomes the standard in a year or two.
doubtfull. Until next generation it won't go much higher. Even right now 2GB is perfectly fine, 4GB for 4K.

NC37 said:
VRAM sizes are ballooning. Course look at consoles. They have jumped to 8GB ranges.
Consoles don't have 8GB of VRAM, it is shared memory, both CPU and GPU use it and GPU doesn't use much of it considering they struggle to reach 1080p most of the time.

MakeDeluxe said:
For what purpose does recommended need 10 gigabytes more disc space than minimum?
maybe optional HD texture pack.
MakeDeluxe said:
Also why are disc space requirements so huge these days?
Games get bigger and better why would HDD space requirements remain the same?
Posted on Reply
#5
mroofie
NC37 said:
VRAM sizes are ballooning. Course look at consoles. They have jumped to 8GB ranges. Who needs to compress when they've been given a blank check to push to the new limits?

Wouldn't be surprised if 8GB becomes the standard in a year or two. Sat for some time with 1GB. Wasn't till BF3 did 2GB and higher start getting attractive. Consider the last console gen. If devs like DICE didn't start pushing and attention start shifting back to PC, we'd still be fiddling with 360s and PS3s.

Prolly only thing that might hold it back is hardware limitations if things like the 970 continue.
You fail badly :0 the nextgen consoles use a shared memory system and the Gtx 970 is still great value for its price i dont see the hardware limitation since it can use 4GB just at a slower bandwith rate!
Posted on Reply
#6
mroofie
64K said:
Another huge game. It seems to me that requirements for games, especially storage space, are escalating fast. I see that Vista is not supported.
There are still people on vista :0
Such sorcery
Much Wow
o_O
Posted on Reply
#7
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
It seems like the minimum system requires are quite steep graphics card wise to me.

Saidrex said:
where does it mention VRAM requirements?
The minimum system requirements list 2GB. GTA:V only required 1GB.

MakeDeluxe said:
Also why are disc space requirements so huge these days?
Because storage is so cheap and we finally have the VRAM to cram massive textures into.

What amazes me is the number of people that find 45 or 60GB large. A good 4TB drive is only $170. 45GB is like 1% of that, maybe 2% of the space avaialble after formatting and crap.
Posted on Reply
#8
natr0n
The Way It's Meant to be Payed.

Posted on Reply
#9
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
newtekie1 said:
It seems like the minimum system requires are quite steep graphics card wise to me.



The minimum system requirements list 2GB. GTA:V only required 1GB.



Because storage is so cheap and we finally have the VRAM to cram massive textures into.

What amazes me is the number of people that find 45 or 60GB large. A good 4TB drive is only $170. 45GB is like 1% of that, maybe 2% of the space avaialble after formatting and crap.
this game should look a lot better then GTA5 though if the screenshots released so far have anything to say about it.
Posted on Reply
#10
FrustratedGarrett
"The PC version appears to have some clear visual benefits over the console variants of this game, given its steep storage requirements. Given that it will get an NVIDIA GameWorks varnish, PC gamers can expect eye-candy that won't make it to the console versions, including support for high-resolution display standards, such as 4K Ultra HD."

No AMD GPUs are recommended for this game. It seems like Nvidia's way of "working with a game company" is to make the company's games exclusive to their hardware. Every piece of technology Nvidia makes is proprietary. They have this mindset that they need to solely dominate the whole market and everyone else needs to die. They don't understand that by doing so they're segmenting the market and slowing down any progress that could possibly move the industry forward.

With regard to the game itself, I'm not a fan of any of the Batman games. I tried Arkham Origins and I didn't like it. It's a PS3 class game in terms of visuals and mechanics. Nothing impressive and to much repetition.
The story telling is not too bad, but man I'm not a fan of super hero stories and comics.
Posted on Reply
#11
mroofie
natr0n said:
The Way It's Meant to be Payed.
Not sure if butthurt or sarcasm
Amd fanboys rejoice :D
If you where only excited/trolling I sincerely apologize :)

On Topic :)

btarunr said:
Ahead of its June 23 release, the minimum- and recommended-system requirements of Rocksteady's next installment to the super-hit Batman: Arkham franchise, Arkham Knight, was disclosed by NVIDIA. The PC version appears to have some clear visual benefits over the console variants of this game, given its steep storage requirements. Given that it will get an NVIDIA GameWorks varnish, PC gamers can expect eye-candy that won't make it to the console versions, including support for high-resolution display standards, such as 4K Ultra HD.

Without further ado, the system requirements lists.[---]

Minimum System Requirements: •64-bit Windows 7 or Windows 8.1
•Intel Core i5-750 or AMD Phenom II X4 965 quad-core processors
•6 GB of RAM
•NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD-equivalent, with 2 GB of video memory
•45 GB free-space
Recommended System Requirements: •64-bit Windows 7 or Windows 8.1
•Intel Core i7-3770 or AMD FX-8350
•8 GB or RAM
•NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (recommended) or GeForce GTX 980 (for Ultra settings)
•55 GB free-space
These requirements lists come from NVIDIA, and so a lack of "AMD Radeon" shouldn't surprise you. We reckon that a Radeon HD 5850 for minimum-, Radeon HD 7870 for recommended, and Radeon R9 290 for Ultra-settings should fit in just fine. The extra 10 GB required for RSR is suspicious, maybe it has an optional high-res texture pack.

Source: OCaholic.ch
the requirements seem a bit high but hey at least the players get eye candy :p. I see Amd users can also be happy since they don't need a 8 core FX as minimum so there's that :-]

MxPhenom 216 said:
this game should look a lot better then GTA5 though if the screenshots released so far have anything to say about it.
I wonder if i3 owners can play as well since they have hyper threading :confused:

newtekie1 said:
These specs are released by nVidia, not the game developer, of course it will only list nVidia GPUs. It doesn't mean you can't use AMD cards...
Tell em ;)

RCoon said:
I'm on my mobile so my view may be incorrect, however I've seen you double post multiple times. Please stop. Use the edit button.
Please look again only 2 post's are not multi posted!



FrustratedGarrett said:
"The PC version appears to have some clear visual benefits over the console variants of this game, given its steep storage requirements. Given that it will get an NVIDIA GameWorks varnish, PC gamers can expect eye-candy that won't make it to the console versions, including support for high-resolution display standards, such as 4K Ultra HD."

No AMD GPUs are recommended for this game. It seems like Nvidia's way of "working with a game company" is to make the company's games exclusive to their hardware. Every piece of technology Nvidia makes is proprietary. They have this mindset that they need to solely dominate the whole market and everyone else needs to die. They don't understand that by doing so they're segmenting the market and slowing down any progress that could possibly move the industry forward.

With regard to the game itself, I'm not a fan of any of the Batman games. I tried Arkham Origins and I didn't like it. It's a PS3 class game in terms of visuals and mechanics. Nothing impressive and to much repetition.
The story telling is not too bad, but man I'm not a fan of super hero stories and comics.
One word : Mantle
Stop crying amd fanboy
And accept the power that is NVIDIA
Mwahahaaha ;)
Posted on Reply
#12
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
FrustratedGarrett said:
No AMD GPUs are recommended for this game. It seems like Nvidia's way of "working with a game company" is to make the company's games exclusive to their hardware.
These specs are released by nVidia, not the game developer, of course it will only list nVidia GPUs. It doesn't mean you can't use AMD cards...
Posted on Reply
#13
FrustratedGarrett
newtekie1 said:
These specs are released by nVidia, not the game developer, of course it will only list nVidia GPUs. It doesn't mean you can't use AMD cards...
Here's a listing of the system requirements for the game from Guru3D:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/batman-arkham-knight-pc-specs-revealed.html

NO AMD GPUs are in the recommended and ultra system requirements sections. What this means is that this is another one of these games that run horribly on decent hardware from both AMD and Nvidia, but run a lot worse on AMD hardware. That's what Gameworks is all about...
Posted on Reply
#14
NightOfChrist
I cannot see a reason why it should become a problem. One can always use AMD graphics card that is equal to or better than GTX 760 and GTX 980 listed in recommended and ultra requirement respectively.
Posted on Reply
#15
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
FrustratedGarrett said:
Here's a listing of the system requirements for the game from Guru3D:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/batman-arkham-knight-pc-specs-revealed.html

NO AMD GPUs are in the recommended and ultra system requirements sections. What this means is that this is another one of these games that run horribly on decent hardware from both AMD and Nvidia, but run a lot worse on AMD hardware. That's what Gameworks is all about...
Everyone who has been posting system specs have gotten it from Nvidia's. Since Nvidia is the first to release anything thus far. There hasn't been specs released from RockSteady yet.
Posted on Reply
#16
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
FrustratedGarrett said:
Here's a listing of the system requirements for the game from Guru3D:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/batman-arkham-knight-pc-specs-revealed.html

NO AMD GPUs are in the recommended and ultra system requirements sections. What this means is that this is another one of these games that run horribly on decent hardware from both AMD and Nvidia, but run a lot worse on AMD hardware. That's what Gameworks is all about...
From the Guru3D page, which you obviously didn't even bother to read:
The specs have been shared by Nvidia...
:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#17
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
mroofie said:
snip
I'm on my mobile so my view may be incorrect, however I've seen you double post multiple times. Please stop. Use the edit button.
Posted on Reply
#18
Naito
newtekie1 said:
What amazes me is the number of people that find 45 or 60GB large. A good 4TB drive is only $170. 45GB is like 1% of that, maybe 2% of the space avaialble after formatting and crap.
Some countries have sub-par internet with slow download speeds and limited quota.

FrustratedGarrett said:
They have this mindset that they need to solely dominate the whole market and everyone else needs to die.
Isn't that every corporations goal in a capitalist economy?
Posted on Reply
#19
Prima.Vera
newtekie1 said:

What amazes me is the number of people that find 45 or 60GB large. A good 4TB drive is only $170. 45GB is like 1% of that, maybe 2% of the space avaialble after formatting and crap.
Sorry mate, I prefer running the games from my SSD for fast loading, not from a shitty HDD. If a game is 60GB, you do the math on how fast a 512GB drive gets full ;)
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Naito said:
Some countries have sub-par internet with slow download speeds and limited quota.
Then you order the retail copy.

Prima.Vera said:
Sorry mate, I prefer running the games from my SSD for fast loading, not from a shitty HDD. If a game is 60GB, you do the math on how fast a 512GB drive gets full ;)
That is your choice, but it barely makes a difference. You'll waste 60GB of SSD space just so the game loads 15s faster when you first start it and nothing else?(Yes, I tested GTA:V on my SSD and my HDD, and that is literally the only difference.)
Posted on Reply
#21
CrAsHnBuRnXp
64K said:
Another huge game. It seems to me that requirements for games, especially storage space, are escalating fast. I see that Vista is not supported.
32bit isnt even on there. I also read that post launch this game will get a DX12 update patch.
Posted on Reply
#22
Bansaku
FrustratedGarrett said:
What this means is that this is another one of these games that run horribly on decent hardware from both AMD and Nvidia, but run a lot worse on AMD hardware. That's what Gameworks is all about...
nVidia Gameworks (along with Ubisoft's sh*t PC releases) IMO is what is severely hurting the PC game industry. This does nothing but cause division and hampers both progress and gaming enjoyment.
Posted on Reply
#23
Fluffmeister
Can't wait for this, looks superb.

It's not even out yet but like every Batman game before, the peeps that freely go AMD are already playing the victim card.

God bless the free market.
Posted on Reply
#24
ISI300
As far as I can remember every batman game had had issues (both with AMD and NVIDIA graphics cards) at launch.
Arkham Asylum ran well but had MSAA disabled on AMD, even when it was enabled it was running several passes as opposed to the the necessary one and severely hurting AMDs performance.
Arkham City's DX11 code path was a serious performance hog that ran like crap unless you used the DX9 path. Also GFWL, nuff said.
Arkham Origin had Crysis 2 levels of overtesselation and had game breaking glitches that took a long time to fix. Finally, the devs gave up and said every issue that doesn't prevent progression won't be fixed because there were so many of em.
It's fine to watch a snazzy trailer for any game and lose your shit, but no game that Rocksteady has made to date was optimized properly.
Fingers crossed, it looks like an amazing game. Hopefully it'll be a done deal at first.
Posted on Reply
#25
john_
mroofie said:

One word : Mantle
Two words: DirectX 12, Vulkan
Try again.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment