Friday, October 20th 2023
Alan Wake II System Requirements Released, Steep RT Requirements Due to Path Tracing
Alan Wake II by Remedy Entertainment promises to be the year's most visually intense AAA title. The publisher put out the various tiered system requirements lists that highlight just what it takes to max the game out. As with most publishers these days, the company put out separate lists for RT and non-RT experiences. The common minimum requirements across all tiers include 90 GB of SSD-based storage, Windows 10 or Windows 11, and 16 GB of main memory. At the bare minimum, you'll need a quad-core Intel Core i5-7600K or comparable processor. For all other tiers, Remedy recommends at least an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X or Intel equivalent processor (which would mean at least a Core i7-10700K), or an 8-core/16-thread processor that's as fast as the 3700X.
The bare minimum GPU requirement calls for an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 or Radeon RX 6600. With this, you can expect 1080p @ 30 FPS, and can use the "quality" setting with DLSS 2 or FSR 2. The non-RT "Medium" list, is either 1440p @ 30 FPS or 1080p @ 60 FPS. For 1440p @ 30 FPS, you'll need a GPU at least as fast as a GeForce RTX 3060 or Radeon RX 6600 XT. 1080p @ 60 FPS requires at least a GeForce RTX 3070 or Radeon RX 6700 XT. The "Ultra" non-RT preset with 4K @ 60 Hz, which is the best experience you can possibly have without ray tracing, demands at least a GeForce RTX 4070 or Radeon RX 7800 XT. Ray tracing is a whole different beast.The "Low" ray tracing tier, which is medium raster graphics settings with low ray tracing, for 1080p @ 30 FPS, demands at least a GeForce RTX 3070 or Radeon RX 6800 XT. The "Medium" ray tracing tier, which is medium raster graphics settings with medium ray tracing and path tracing enabled, for 1080p @ 60 FPS gameplay, demands at least a GeForce RTX 4070. There's no AMD Radeon GPU with the ray tracing performance of an RTX 4070 in its price-range, so Rockstar didn't recommend an AMD option. The "High" ray tracing preset, which combines high raster graphics with high ray tracing, and path tracing; for gameplay at 4K with 60 FPS; requires a GeForce RTX 4080.
The bare minimum GPU requirement calls for an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 or Radeon RX 6600. With this, you can expect 1080p @ 30 FPS, and can use the "quality" setting with DLSS 2 or FSR 2. The non-RT "Medium" list, is either 1440p @ 30 FPS or 1080p @ 60 FPS. For 1440p @ 30 FPS, you'll need a GPU at least as fast as a GeForce RTX 3060 or Radeon RX 6600 XT. 1080p @ 60 FPS requires at least a GeForce RTX 3070 or Radeon RX 6700 XT. The "Ultra" non-RT preset with 4K @ 60 Hz, which is the best experience you can possibly have without ray tracing, demands at least a GeForce RTX 4070 or Radeon RX 7800 XT. Ray tracing is a whole different beast.The "Low" ray tracing tier, which is medium raster graphics settings with low ray tracing, for 1080p @ 30 FPS, demands at least a GeForce RTX 3070 or Radeon RX 6800 XT. The "Medium" ray tracing tier, which is medium raster graphics settings with medium ray tracing and path tracing enabled, for 1080p @ 60 FPS gameplay, demands at least a GeForce RTX 4070. There's no AMD Radeon GPU with the ray tracing performance of an RTX 4070 in its price-range, so Rockstar didn't recommend an AMD option. The "High" ray tracing preset, which combines high raster graphics with high ray tracing, and path tracing; for gameplay at 4K with 60 FPS; requires a GeForce RTX 4080.
157 Comments on Alan Wake II System Requirements Released, Steep RT Requirements Due to Path Tracing
Everything is showing off lighting .... which looks good, everything else seems a generation behind.
Sad.
Other games we've seen (specially UE games, 4 and 5) coming out recently are stupid heavy to run while also looking meh
Not that I will buy this game anyway since it is Alan Woke.
A much better comparison is AMD blocking DLSS from their sponsored games on purpose, then modders releasing DLSS on the first day the game comes out. Ahem starfield, immortals of aveum, So you think it looks bad, yet you don't have a pc that can run it, you've never run anything better looking because you can't, and you actually hate the game because of some pseudo political mumbo jumbo that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that's in the game itself. In your own words...
Problem?
I can run RT just fine, just it's not the Nvidia 3.5 DLSS vision they have. You can run DLSS in Forza, how's that working out for ya?
Regardless whether you're being genuine or not, sounds like a low tier political troll rather than any kind of feedback remotely involving the game
Get over yourself and stop taking it personally. Basic logic. Hmm what do you call an agreement in exchange for money that discourages implementation of DLSS and expects prioritization. Oh I got it, a bribe :).
'Frank Azor admitted that such agreements provide for money in exchange for technical support (roughly speaking, AMD, like NVIDIA, pays developers for the appearance of a corresponding die at the beginning of the game), and that AMD expects partners to prioritize its technologies over competitors, but stressed that this does not prohibit the implementation of DLSS in such games.'
It's not a coincidence every AMD sponsored game is lacking DLSS, yet nvidia sponsored games have FSR. It's not a coincidence modders can release DLSS in 1 day yet studios can't do it in 5 years of development.
There isn't, and will never be an excuse for this. If they wanted good raytracing they could do it, they don't want to. That's your problem, don't buy the card if you can't emotionally handle that. Literally turn raytracing off lmfao. You have the power to solve your own misguided issues in 1 second but you'd rather roll around in a puddle complaining you're wet.
So one last time for the people who don't understand: If you lack raytracing, you are inferior in raytracing. Take that personally if you like.
You had to go back 2 generations and 2 model tiers lower for a comparison because of how inferior you felt for having this card. At the end of the day you're bending over backwards to justify your purchase.
AMD gpu's have always been inferior, but they are reasonably priced and sometimes that's the better option. They've always performed worse on average and at the end of the day you buy what you can afford, but the fact is that anyone with an unlimited budget would choose nvidia on performance.
Unlike their CPU's, their gpu's offer little to no unique benefits at all and unlike nvidia, they're perpetually playing catchup. Their biggest chance to really set the bar was totally blown this generation when they didn't totally price out nvidia or win on performance. Every single AMD gpu I've ever owned has had software issues which take months to years to fix.
So, you just bypass that Nvidia is pushing developers to optimize their games in a way that not only makes other cards, even older Nvidia models, look bad, but also make games look much worst visualy in anything not supporting a specific Nvidia feature. In the past it was PhysX, then Hairworks and Gameworks, then RayTracing, now Path Tracing and off course we got pretty fast in a situation where developers are unable to optimize a game and Frame generation is absolutely necessary for smooth...... 1080p gaming with an RTX 4090. This is something happening the last 15 years. When Nvidia promoted PhysX, developers "$$$forgot$$$" how to code physics effects in games and they where totally depended on PhysX. Then they stop knowing how to build their own libraries that work great everywhere, and they where totally depended on Gameworks. Then they decided that moving hair means Hairworks only. They could implement their own solution, they didn't know how. Then we had the tessellation fiasco with a full tessellated ocean under a city!!! Then we got RayTracing that was promoted as a breakthrough, but here we are in today where every tech site out there calls even DLSS 3.0 as mediocry without ray recostraction. Developers are starting forgeting how to code lighting without raytracing. Then Frame Generation is here to make RTX 3000 and below and anything non Nvidia look bad, so optimization just died.
Off course when AMD had DirectX 10.1 and Nvidia didn't, Nvidia pushed for the removal of a patch supporting DX10.1 from a specific game, because Radeon cards where getting a 20% boost in a specific area and that was bad for Nvidia of course.
Anyway, having conversation with someone who finds security and feels superior by supporting the strongest brand and playbacking their marketing messages, probably with a smile in their face, certain that the other person "must be sweating hard" is pointless. And It is long ago I was 15 years old to enjoy conversations with a 15 years old mentallity.
Have a nice day.
PS Modders don't need to offer support, so they can throw anything they want from day 1. Still you avoided the fact that if AMD really wanted to block DLSS they could lock the game on FSR libraries. Nvidia was locking the CUDA and PhysX use by disabling those in case the primary card wasn't an Nvidia one. If someone really wants to block something, they can.
What data are they gathering? I am perhaps a bold paratrooper for not detailedly knowing how game development works but, errr, isn't reverting back to one of the previous states a 0 IQ two-click action? Why is there no fixes in a whole month after this reply?
Anyway, once again, I am not sure it's Huang to blame. 'haps it's just CDPR.
Dlss3.5 increase performance 500%
This shitcake is batman, Crysis all over again.
You needed physx or it looked less good.
Or the tesselation power for a hidden sea.
Now we Need an RTX 4090 to hit 1080p native.
My two finger salute for this game is infinite.
Not even in a sale is this turdburger being bought.
I hope only 4090 owners buy in at best and the dev sinks out of existence for this Shit.
Bought fools.
Nowadays even shitty Unity games opt for DLSS to cover up lack of any performance optimization and look the same as the stuff released 10 years ago.
Also