Ubisoft Publishes Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora PC Specs

[T0@st]

In Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, you play as a Na'vi learning to reconnect with your own homeland while reckoning with the human militaristic corporation known as the RDA. Ahead of launch, check out the recently unveiled PC specs, and catch up on some of the PC-specific features you can expect when Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora drops on December 7.

Ray tracing and Extended Graphic Settings
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora will include raytraced reflections and shadows for more immersive environmental exploration, and extended graphic settings that allow for granular tweaks to a multitude of visuals such as environment reflection quality, and distant shadows.




In case you missed it, check out the PC features players will be able to enjoy in Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora at launch!

AMD FSR Technology, Resolution and Ratio Adaptability
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora will utilize AMD's FSR 2 technology so players can fine-tune visual quality and performance. FSR 3 will also be available day 1. Stay tuned to Ubisoft News for more information, closer to launch. The game will be able to handle most resolution and aspect ratios; including ultra-wide screens and it will support DLSS and XeSS.

A Smooth Experience, High Core Count Processors
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora will deliver a smooth experience, stable FPS, and low latency in all resolutions. Players can even expect a higher frame rate with the right settings and the latest hardware.

PC Benchmark Tools Included
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora will allow players to access its PC benchmark tools, including fine grained statistics, advanced command line options and an automated mode. This will let players test out their hardware in different ways to optimize their experience.

PC Specs:

MINIMUM

• Visual setting: 1080p, Low Preset with FSR 2 Quality/30 FPS
• CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 / Intel i7 8700K
• GPU: AMD RX 5700 8 GB / NVIDIA GTX 1070 8 GB / Intel ARC A750 8 GB (REBAR ON)
• RAM: 16 GB dual channel
• Storage: 90 GB SSD
• Operating System: Windows 10/Windows 11 with DirectX 12

RECOMMENDED

• Visual setting: 1080p, High Preset with FSR 2 Quality/60 FPS
• CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5600x / Intel i5 11600k
• GPU: AMD RX 6700 XT 12 GB / NVIDIA RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB
• RAM: 16 GB dual channel
• Storage: 90 GB SSD
• Operating System: Windows 10/Windows 11 with DirectX 12

ENTHUSIAST

• Visual setting: 1440p, High Preset with FSR 2 Quality/60 FPS
• CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5600x / Intel i5 11600k
• GPU: AMD RX 6800 XT 16 GB / NVIDIA RTX 3080 10 GB
• RAM: 16 GB dual channel
• Storage Space: 90 GB SSD
• Operating System: Windows 10/Windows 11 with DirectX 12

ULTRA

• Visual setting: 4K, Ultra Preset with FSR 2 Balanced/60 FPS
• CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800x3D / Intel i7 12700k
• GPU: AMD RX 7900 XTX 24 GB / NVIDIA RTX 4080 16 GB
• RAM: 16 GB dual channel
• Storage: 90 GB SSD
• Operating System: Windows 10/Windows 11 with DirectX 12

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[evernessince]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

Ive considered hard drives dead in consumer PC's for years now. The only thing I believe they're good for is mass storage such as a NAS or data center.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Its basically farcry but with an Avatar theme/skin on top and parkour elements from Assassins Creed.

 

[QuietBob]

7900XTX / RTX4080 for 1270p with 60 fps on ultra?

 

[Frick]

Ive considered hard drives dead in consumer PC's for years now. The only thing I believe they're good for is mass storage such as a NAS or data center.

Lots of consumer reasons to have 8TB storage. Not a lot of money in HDDs, A LOT of money in SSDs.

 

[neatfeatguy]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

I still install most of my games on a HDD. The couple of games play more frequently I'll put on SSD, but everything else goes on my HDD. Maybe I miss out on some load times being faster, but I haven't ever run into issues with games loading stuff when I'm playing.

 

[evernessince]

I still install most of my games on a HDD. The couple of games play more frequently I'll put on SSD, but everything else goes on my HDD. Maybe I miss out on some load times being slower, but I don't ever run into issues with games loading stuff when I'm playing.

Some of these newer games requiring SSDs do bug out when played on a HDD. Alan Wake 2 for example will skip audio, have audio corruption, and blurry textures on a HDD.

While you can definitely still play on a HDD, having an SSD as a minimum requirement means that they don't really have to test their game on a HDD and aren't obliged to release fixes for any HDD related issues.

Many newer games are being designed around loading in new scenes without a load screen, which doesn't jive very well with a HDD.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

I still run some HDDs. If a game's installed size is 20GB or less it goes on one of my HDDs. If it's 20GB-80GB I put it on a SATA-cabled SSD. If it's north of 80GB then I put it on an NVME SSD to load balance and manage my space.

My Plex server runs all HDDs - around 16TB in total size but doesn't need to read crazy fast, and HDDs are cheap in comparison, so HDDs aren't dead, just kind of depends on the usage scenario.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

no no, just because it claims it needs it does not mean it actually needs it, and I wish perhaps TPU made a fun article of trying all these games on a Raid 0 HDD setup.

 

[AGlezB]

Walking and running looks weird AF in the video. Na'vi are way taller than humans so motion animations and movement speed will have to be finely tuned to avoid feeling like you're race walking.
Well, I'm not buying Ubisoft games these days so good luck.

 

[evernessince]

no no, just because it claims it needs it does not mean it actually needs it, and I wish perhaps TPU made a fun article of trying all these games on a Raid 0 HDD setup.

I'm going to repeat what I said in my last comment because it applies here

While you can definitely still play on a HDD, having an SSD as a minimum requirement means that they don't really have to test their game on a HDD and aren't obliged to release fixes for any HDD related issues.

If you do experience issues on a HDD, they will simply point to the minimum specs.

 

[mama]

For modern gaming, HDs have been dead a long time.

 

[Vya Domus]

7900XTX / RTX4080 for 1270p with 60 fps on ultra?

With RT I assume, kind of what to be expected.

 

[HOkay]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

Only if you insist on having one drive, I've got 3x2TB in my PC which is plenty of storage for games & didn't cost all that much. Way more than a 6TB HDD yes, but not prohibitively expensive like a 4+TB SSD. All my family photos etc. are on HDDs in a NAS.

 

[evernessince]

Only if you insist on having one drive, I've got 3x2TB in my PC which is plenty of storage for games & didn't cost all that much. Way more than a 6TB HDD yes, but not prohibitively expensive like a 4+TB SSD. All my family photos etc. are on HDDs in a NAS.

The drawback with that is you are increasing your power consumption, increasing failure chance (3x drives = 3x the possibility of failure), and increasing file management complexity. It's not really feasible for those with larger storage requirements either because even most expensive motherboards top out at 4 m.2 slots. It's this reason that I had to buy enterprise U.2 products, the pricing of consumer 8TB m.2 SSDs is absolutely silly in comparison. You can get a 15.36TB enterprise SSD for the same price as a consumer 8TB m.2 and it'll have 5 times the endurance.

 

[MarsM4N]

The drawback with that is you are increasing your power consumption, increasing failure chance (3x drives = 3x the possibility of failure), and increasing file management complexity. It's not really feasible for those with larger storage requirements either because even most expensive motherboards top out at 4 m.2 slots. It's this reason that I had to buy enterprise U.2 products, the pricing of consumer 8TB m.2 SSDs is absolutely silly in comparison. You can get a 15.36TB enterprise SSD for the same price as a consumer 8TB m.2 and it'll have 5 times the endurance.

The drawback with "enterprise SSD's" is that you'll get shorter warranty and often no firmware updates for future OS compatibility. So it's not really worth it.

The best way is just go for 2x 4TB consumer drives and split your gaming libraries among the drives. Absolutely no reason (and not very smart) to "raid" them.

 

[alwayssts]

7900XTX / RTX4080 for 1270p with 60 fps on ultra?

Yeah, that's definitely surprising, at least wrt Radeon. 4070ti being relagated to performance (1080p) is not surprising at all. Curious why that is the case. It may be (probably is) the max software RT/GI/SSR/shadow quality compute req.

Was thinking this might be the game that had 4070 Ti at DLSS performance (1080p) and 7900xt at FSR quality(1440p) or balanced(1270p), as I think that's going to be normalized very quickly (within a year or so).

The performance hit between performance and quality DLSS/FSR is roughly 20%, and the difference in compute between 7900xt/4070ti can be up to 40% (~20-30% real-world performance), which essentially equates to a decent 16GB card (1/3 more than 4070 ti), and ofc in-fact it has 20GB. This is why 4070 ti is destined to be a 1080p card outside of nVIDIA-tailored situations before too long.

We shall see how everything performs in reality, and/or what concessions need to be made for those cards to be playable at balanced (1270p), or the quoted above to hit (DLSS/FSR) 1440p. I would imagine it won't be anything incredibly drastic, as DF kindly showed (~14min, but you may want to watch it all bc it's interesting imho) wrt Alan Wake.

JMO, but I do think this is the key resolution to hit, and I will absolutely not be surprised if 4070 Ti won't be able to do it in many titles, but I would hope 7900xt (and AMD/nVIDIA's next 16GB cards with ~7900xt performance) would.

That's the only reason this is goofy IMHO. That said, I imagine it's one of those situations where on a 7900xt you'll simply need to turn down something that hits compute one notch or so (if not simply overclock that card). Situation might be more dire for 4070 ti, depending on compute/ram requirements.

Again, we shall see.

 

[evernessince]

The drawback with "enterprise SSD's" is that you'll get shorter warranty and often no firmware updates for future OS compatibility. So it's not really worth it.

The best way is just go for 2x 4TB consumer drives and split your gaming libraries among the drives. Absolutely no reason (and not very smart) to "raid" them.

Depends what condition of drive you purchase. Many new enterprise drives come with a 5 year warranty. It's OEM drives that won't carry a warranty or only a warranty through the dealer.

Enterprise drives do receive new firmware as well, at least the Micron and Samsung one's I have do. I have flashed OEM firmware to updated stock firmware no problem. Not sure future OS compatibility is a huge issue. My 9300 Pros use the same driver as my Kingston Fury Renegade. The interfaces may be difference but they are both PCIe NVMe drives. I don't see windows dropping support for that in a long time.

 

[SKD007]

The last Avatar game had 3D support and was awesome. They should have added VR

 

[kapone32]

Well since I enjoyed the First movie in 3D. Going to Pandora was a pipe dream. I seriously hope it is completely Open and I can fly around all I want.

 

[HOkay]

The drawback with that is you are increasing your power consumption, increasing failure chance (3x drives = 3x the possibility of failure), and increasing file management complexity. It's not really feasible for those with larger storage requirements either because even most expensive motherboards top out at 4 m.2 slots. It's this reason that I had to buy enterprise U.2 products, the pricing of consumer 8TB m.2 SSDs is absolutely silly in comparison. You can get a 15.36TB enterprise SSD for the same price as a consumer 8TB m.2 and it'll have 5 times the endurance.

The increase in power consumption is pretty minor, but I can't deny that's true. The increase in failure chance doesn't matter in the slightest for me though as all my important data is backed up onto HDDs in a NAS, so I'd only be losing games which can all be downloaded again.

Interesting about enterprise drives being cheaper, that's not usually the case for enterprise stuff!

I understand if someone does a lot of video editing or large simulation work you might need more SSD space locally. Although even then I'd have thought it'd only be active projects stored locally with older ones backed up to a NAS or external drive of some kind. I am curious though, why do you need so much local space? If you don't mind sharing that ofc!

 

[Prima.Vera]

Is Ray Tracing by default, or can be disabled?

 

[boomstik360]

Another game that requires an SSD, looks like HDDs are essentially dead. Shame it costs an arm and a leg for anything over 4TB.

I haven’t used a HDD since 2006 on AM2 platform LOL