Wednesday, March 13th 2019

The Division 2 System Requirements Outed - RX 480 Enough for 1080p @ 60 FPS, DX12 Renderer Offers Much Improved Performance

The Division 2 is shaping up to be one of the hottest releases of 2019 - particularly as the other shared world, third-person shooter, Anthem, has fared somewhat below expectations. And while Anthem offers very impressive visuals, it also comes with relatively steep performance requirements - at least comparing with The Division 2's requirement of an RX 480 for 1080, 60 FPS gaming. For 4K, 60 FPS, you'll require a much bigger hardware commitment, in the form of AMD'S Radeon VII or NVIDIA's RTX 2080 Ti graphics cards, with a minimum of 16 GB system RAM and a Ryzen 7 2700X or Intel Core I7-8700X CPU.

The Snowdrop engine The Division 2 makes use of, developed in-house by Massive Entertainment, features a particularly impressive DX12 implementation, which should offer some 10-20 fps improvement in certain scenarios. DSO Gaming, testing in the private Beta, saw differences between 59 FPS under DX 11 and 80 FPS, in the minimum frame rate, for the same scene. So if you're not running DX 12 or a DX 12 capable card, know that even a graphics card with the same performance as yours, but that supports the DX12 renderer, will bring tangible performance benefits - particularly if you have an AMD card, due to the title's extensive use of Async Compute. The Division 2's release is set for March 15.
Sources: Ubisoft Store, DSO Gaming
Add your own comment

36 Comments on The Division 2 System Requirements Outed - RX 480 Enough for 1080p @ 60 FPS, DX12 Renderer Offers Much Improved Performance

#1
dj-electric
I get that AMD promotes this but some of those cpu requirements are straight up looking at your $#@& using a magnifying glass.
Posted on Reply
#2
ZoneDymo
ermm its like 1 step up in font size and orange, idk what you are talking about.
(but yes, it is rather painful endorsement imo)

Also acting as if a 2700x is equal to a 7900x or a Radeon VII to a RTX2080Ti is just pathetic.
Come on AMD, (or I guess Ubisoft?) dont do this....
(actually surprised they did not act as if the 1700 is equal to a 8700k)
Posted on Reply
#3
cucker tarlson
needs a 4 core for 1440/60 but a 10 core for 4K/60 :laugh::roll:
Posted on Reply
#4
Raevenlord
News Editor
ZoneDymo said:
ermm its like 1 step up in font size and orange, idk what you are talking about.
(but yes, it is rather painful endorsement imo)

Also acting as if a 2700x is equal to a 7900x or a Radeon VII to a RTX2080Ti is just pathetic.
Come on AMD, (or I guess Ubisoft?) dont do this....
(actually surprised they did not act as if the 1700 is equal to a 8700k)
It probably has more to do with VRAM requirements than any fould play. Remember the 2080 Ti is the only NVIDIA consumer graphics card with more than 8 GB VRAM (aside from Titans, which I wouldn't call consumer-level).
Posted on Reply
#5
ZoneDymo
Raevenlord said:
It probably has more to do with VRAM requirements than any fould play. Remember the 2080 Ti is the only NVIDIA consumer graphics card with more than 8 GB VRAM (aside from Titans, which I wouldn't call consumer-level).
Considering Metro Exodus, Just Cause 4, BF:V and AC Odyssey all use under 8gb of Vram at 4k (heck under 7gb even) im going to have to go with a no on that suggestion.
Posted on Reply
#6
64K
I'm wondering about the VRAM needed as well. Maybe W1zzard will do a review on this game and then we will know if more that 8 GB is needed.
Otherwise the 2080 (non-TI) is a bit faster than the Radeon VII at 4K and should be all that is required.

Posted on Reply
#7
birdie
For some reasons the game looks worse than the original. I cannot explain why.

As if the Snowdrop engine has been downgraded even further.
Posted on Reply
#8
Lightning
Raevenlord said:
It probably has more to do with VRAM requirements than any fould play. Remember the 2080 Ti is the only NVIDIA consumer graphics card with more than 8 GB VRAM (aside from Titans, which I wouldn't call consumer-level).
Posted on Reply
#9
Berfs1
Lightning said:

Also the Radeon VII

Also, um, i7-8700X? You mean i7-8700K right?
Posted on Reply
#10
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
Raevenlord said:
It probably has more to do with VRAM requirements than any fould play. Remember the 2080 Ti is the only current model NVIDIA consumer graphics card with more than 8 GB VRAM (aside from Titans, which I wouldn't call consumer-level).
FTFY. :D
Posted on Reply
#11
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
ZoneDymo said:
ermm its like 1 step up in font size and orange, idk what you are talking about.
(but yes, it is rather painful endorsement imo)

Also acting as if a 2700x is equal to a 7900x or a Radeon VII to a RTX2080Ti is just pathetic.
Come on AMD, (or I guess Ubisoft?) dont do this....
(actually surprised they did not act as if the 1700 is equal to a 8700k)
HEDTS in gaming dont perform that much better for the price than msdts.

V7 is a 1080ti competitor at most.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheinsanegamerN
Does it also list "must be able to put up with hackers and cheaters 24/7 because we are too lazy to make a multiplayer game properly" in the system requirements?
Posted on Reply
#13
Mistral
ZoneDymo said:
Also acting as if a 2700x is equal to a 7900x or a Radeon VII to a RTX2080Ti ...
In this game it could easily be the case.
Posted on Reply
#14
catulitechup
Berfs1 said:
Also the Radeon VII

Also, um, i7-8700X? You mean i7-8700K right?


Maybe new proccesor but i never heard about this :laugh:

:)
Posted on Reply
#15
ixi
Raevenlord said:
It probably has more to do with VRAM requirements than any fould play. Remember the 2080 Ti is the only NVIDIA consumer graphics card with more than 8 GB VRAM (aside from Titans, which I wouldn't call consumer-level).
Looks like you have forgotten 1080ti
Posted on Reply
#16
yakk
11GB VRam for 4K not surprising, but still interesting to see where requirements are heading.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
cucker tarlson said:
needs a 4 core for 1440/60 but a 10 core for 4K/60 :laugh::roll:
More bigger needs more bigger, makes total sense, just like AMD's top GPU versus Nvidia's top GPU :)

Raevenlord said:
It probably has more to do with VRAM requirements than any fould play. Remember the 2080 Ti is the only NVIDIA consumer graphics card with more than 8 GB VRAM (aside from Titans, which I wouldn't call consumer-level).
Come on. Lots of these comparisons in requirements are complete nonsense. The 2080ti for example should have been the 11GB 1080ti in that chart, to make it somewhat believeable. That does not mean you need 11GB VRAM, but it does mean the cards that offer the required performance all have 11GB or more.

its all about interpretation and in that sense, technically AMD can explain that they weren't lying. Its a hard sell, but OK.
Posted on Reply
#19
Fizban
dj-electric said:
I get that AMD promotes this but some of those cpu requirements are straight up looking at your $#@& using a magnifying glass.
The text is all very easy to read.

Are you trying to read it on your phone? I'm using a small 15.6" laptop, and can read all the text plain as day.

I call BS on its cpu requirements personally.

My laptops GPU meets its 1080P/60 fps requirement, my cpu does not. I would bet money on my cpu not bottlenecking my gpu despite that.

Laptop has a 1060 Max-Q and a i5-8300H.
Posted on Reply
#20
notb
Oh man... they've really "optimized" these requirements.

Here's a hypothesis: for each game released this year and each settings, there exists an i7 old and weak enough to be considered minimal.
They could have easily replaced that i5-2500K as well. :-)

And putting 7900X as minimal Intel for 4K is just sad.

Literally few days ago some known AMD fanboys mocked Tom's Hardware for being *allegedly* sponsored by Nvidia. I'd love to see their opinion in this thread... ;-)
Posted on Reply
#21
Fizban
I mean, a i7-940 or something is "old and weak", but a 4790 is still a very powerful cpu. Powerful enough to not bottleneck anything except maybe a 1080 TI, 2080, 2080 TI, etc.

The 4790 is about 35% faster than my laptops i5 in multi-threaded benchmarks, and my i5 is plenty powerful for 1080P gaming at framerates far exceeding 60 fps in pretty much every game I've tried.
Posted on Reply
#22
HD64G
Let's see if those recommendations are fair and accurate after @W1zzard tests this game in both DX11 abd DX12...
Posted on Reply
#23
Fizban
I think a 970 for 1080P/60 fps seems reasonable, it's only the cpu side I really scoff at on the 1080P listings at least.
Posted on Reply
#24
raptori
I made an extensive performance comparison on my GTX 980 ( sure not the best in DX12) in Close and open Beta , and I had zero different in fps and DX12 was flickering white polys ( known issue in DX12 in Beta ) so I swtiched back to DX11.

Division 2 got a built in benchmark that was not included in Beta, I hope we will get a performance review on TPU , it's a good game visually and the gameplay in also good especially for co-op.
Posted on Reply
#25
srsbsns
Fizban said:
I think a 970 for 1080P/60 fps seems reasonable, it's only the cpu side I really scoff at on the 1080P listings at least.
I think the use of Async compute says otherwise.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment