Fallout 4 PC System Requirements Announced

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Fallout 4 PC System Requirements Announced

fallout 4 social

You won't need a PC from the future to run Fallout 4.

Bethesda has just released the official minimum PC system requirements for Fallout 4, and I have to say, they are much more forgiving than I would have expected. The "recommended" specs are a bit beefier, but if you just want to play the game you should be able to on a fairly mid-range box.

For your reference:

Minimum:
Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
8 GB RAM
30 GB free HDD space
NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent

Recommended:
Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
Intel Core i7 4790 3.6 GHz/AMD FX-9590 4.7 GHz or equivalent
8 GB RAM
30 GB free HDD space
NVIDIA GTX 780 3GB/AMD Radeon R9 290X 4GB or equivalent

Additionally, Bethesda also revealed a bit of information about the game's PC launch. Digitally the game will become available on November 10, 2015, at 12:01 am (local time) in all territories (In North America, the unlock time will be 12:01 am EST), except Asia (available at 12 am on Wednesday, November 11th) and Japan (available at 12 am on Thursday, December 17th).

You'll also be able to plug in an Xbox 360 or Xbox One controller to your PC and play the game with it right from the get-go.

Source: Bethesda

Permalink

Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

Meh. Weaker PCs will max it out. Again.

And I am ROFLING at the i7 requirement...
An i5 will max it. Even second gen ones. I am 100% certain of it

I have frequently been told that an i7 Processor is overkill for gaming so I am slightly surprised they put it as recommended.

I am still not sure about buying it, but at least I know that I have more than the recommended specifications, if I do decide to (except I will have an i5 6600K processor instead).

hmmmm... I have enough ram but maybe I should get more. I hope they have SLI support from the get go. two 770s should be able to ultra this game I hope. The only thing I truely lack is an i7, instead I got the i5 at 3.4... but I usually turn down AA, so I should be mostly good to go.

Though... I don't expect the game to actually be playable for about a week... this is Bethesda we're talking about. I half expect every character's heads to spin while the game crashes after every step.

A KissLike Smile:
I have frequently been told that an i7 Processor is overkill for gaming so I am slightly surprised they put it as recommended.

I am still not sure about buying it, but at least I know that I have more than the recommended specifications, if I do decide to (except I will have an i5 6600K processor instead).

Many games have an i7 CPU as their recommended.

Not even one actually uses it...

For example Wolfenstein has it in requirements. DOes it need it? No. Not at all.
Wolfenstein also lies about which API it uses...

MAYBE Witcher 3 at some extreme resolution with several Titan X's will make use of an i7. Maybe.

Charcharo:
Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

Meh. Weaker PCs will max it out. Again.

And I am ROFLING at the i7 requirement...
An i5 will max it. Even second gen ones. I am 100% certain of it

Yeah... something isn't right. Either it is horribly optimized or the requirements aren't accurate. I'm sure that the game is, generally speaking, demanding; it is a very ambitious title. However, I'm not buying it (the requirements, that is; I may purchase the game).

Mad World:

Charcharo:
Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

Meh. Weaker PCs will max it out. Again.

And I am ROFLING at the i7 requirement...
An i5 will max it. Even second gen ones. I am 100% certain of it

Yeah... something isn't right. Either it is horribly optimized or the requirements aren't accurate. I'm sure that the game is, generally speaking, demanding; it is a very ambitious title. However, I'm not buying it (the requirements, that is; I may purchase the game).

Not really. ALL GAMES WITHOUT EXCEPTION have artificially buffed requirements. Fallout 4 is just following the trend. It might even be very optimized...

I've got barely any clue what this all means but I can surmise I'm only going to be able to play it at the minimum setting, if at all. Then my computer will crash every other hour when it's normal crashes combine with Bethesda crashes to destroy my PC.

Damn I wish I had an XBone or PS4. But I'm trapped on the most unreliable platform.

Yeah, I sense bumhuckey with the i7 there. We shall see if it is madness and overexaggeration come release day.

Charcharo:
Not really. ALL GAMES WITHOUT EXCEPTION have artificially buffed requirements. Fallout 4 is just following the trend. It might even be very optimized...

Like I said, it's probably one or the other. If it's not poorly optimized, it's the requirements which are off. I'm sure that it will be well optimized; Bethesda seems to typically do well in that department.

Mmm recommended settings hit just below my PC. Good. More 60+fps at ultra if its anything like other games that my rig hits slightly above.

It's the same engine as Skyrim only a little beefed up with a few bells and whistles. They really haven't pushed the boundaries or anything on this one.

It won't take much to run well. Skyrim with mods is going to be more demanding than a vanilla copy of fallout 4.

Well my specs are way above the minimum, but way below the recommended.
Guess I'll find out...

Mad World:

Charcharo:
Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

Meh. Weaker PCs will max it out. Again.

And I am ROFLING at the i7 requirement...
An i5 will max it. Even second gen ones. I am 100% certain of it

Yeah... something isn't right. Either it is horribly optimized or the requirements aren't accurate. I'm sure that the game is, generally speaking, demanding; it is a very ambitious title. However, I'm not buying it (the requirements, that is; I may purchase the game).

The reason they do this is to cover their backs. These are the minimums where they can guarantee there will be no issues at all, so they can never be done for false advertising or anything.

dragongit:
hmmmm... I have enough ram but maybe I should get more. I hope they have SLI support from the get go. two 770s should be able to ultra this game I hope. The only thing I truely lack is an i7, instead I got the i5 at 3.4... but I usually turn down AA, so I should be mostly good to go.

The fact that both the minimum and recommended memory is 8GB leads me to believe that you could probably get by fine on a bit less. Also, AA is fully handled by your GPU so turning it off won't affect you CPU performance. Hopefully we'll see a new driver from Nvidia the week before implementing SLI.

Damn. I meet all except the GFX card. AMD Radeon HD 6950. Should still be able to play though.

Mad World:

Charcharo:
Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

Meh. Weaker PCs will max it out. Again.

And I am ROFLING at the i7 requirement...
An i5 will max it. Even second gen ones. I am 100% certain of it

Yeah... something isn't right. Either it is horribly optimized or the requirements aren't accurate. I'm sure that the game is, generally speaking, demanding; it is a very ambitious title. However, I'm not buying it (the requirements, that is; I may purchase the game).

I'd wager that it's poorly optimized, Bethesda have a bad habit of releasing games in states like that, hell it's still a massive pain in the arse to get Fallout 3 running.

And to think I just bought an i7 and GTX 970 so I could guarantee to play this, seems like a massive overkill now :(

Well, looks like my 760 is going to have a good workout to look forward to.

Though if screenshots are anything to go by looks like the game suffers from same problem as skyrim - butugly textures and no good tech supported by the engine.

I have an i5-3570 but a GTX 970, so minimum requirements on the CPU but above recommended on the GPU. Do I have anything to worry about?

RedRockRun:
I have an i5-3570 but a GTX 970, so minimum requirements on the CPU but above recommended on the GPU. Do I have anything to worry about?

No. The only thing that ever actually needs worrying about is RAM, both system and GPU (and drive space of course, but it's always possible to delete some stuff without needing to do anything with the hardware). Falling short anywhere else means the game might run a bit slower than ideal, which is generally easily solved by lowering various graphics settings. I was happily running things on a GTX460 long after that was below minimum spec for most games, you just have to accept that the game won't look as pretty as it could. As long as it's not so old that drivers, DirectX and so on aren't supported, there's really no such thing as a minimum requirement for processing power, it's simply a personal choice of how much you're willing to compromise on performance. On the other hand, if you're lacking in RAM, the game simply won't fit in in it and won't be able to run at all. Even then, you might be able to get away with just occasional crashes when the game tries to load larger textures.

Huh. First time I have ever seen a 9590 as a recommended. Usually, on the AMD side of things, it asks for an 8350.

That being said, though, the recommended specs are pretty beefy here, but I wonder how true these actually are.

Devs really need to start telling people what resolution they're thinking of when they announce the requirements. Your monitor resolution is definitely something that should be taken into account. Gaming at 4k requires a much stronger GPU than gaming at 1080p. And a lot of people still play at 720p believe it or not. Those gamers will probably get away with any 2Gb $100 GPU and max the game out at 720p. That's easy. There's nothing in that game that looks like it would require 3Gb of VRAM for 1080p so it makes me think that recommended specs are meant for 4k gaming.

A KissLike Smile:
Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

It's only about TWICE as powerful so it's not that much ROFL.

Can Bethesda just tell us if they have fix the stealth mechanic to something tolerable or not?

I'm running with an FX 8350, 16GB of ram, and an R9 290. I think I'm fine even with these buffed up requirements. And IF these requirements are because it's poorly optimized, no doubt the modding community will be on top of and have it figured out before the devs do.

Since I was able to run Skyrim with a stupidly large amount of mods(Just to see how many I could get away with without CTD, I know, it also depends on the mods), I'm far from worried about running this game without any mods.

Did I mention I like mods?

Strazdas:
Well, looks like my 760 is going to have a good workout to look forward to.

Though if screenshots are anything to go by looks like the game suffers from same problem as skyrim - butugly textures and no good tech supported by the engine.

A 770? Sir, you disgust me! Mine's at least 10 higher than that. Roll up your shirtsleeves; Queensbury rules.

...Although I won't be able to afford another one for anything up to ten years, far as I know...shit's rough right now. Thanks, Obama.

All we've seen of the textures thus far has been pretty limited gameplay compressed by YouTube. That's a harsh sample to judge the final game by. I have to commend the bolder exploration of the colour wheel with this game, because FFS, that green filter made it look like parts of Fallout 3 were being viewed through a haze of piss - and I usually have better aim than that.

Adam Jensen:
And a lot of people still play at 720p believe it or not. Those gamers will probably get away with any 2Gb $100 GPU and max the game out at 720p. That's easy.

Word. I played Witcher 3 at high/medium at release without even hitting the minimum system requirements on the GPU department.

Not sure why they are what they are, the visuals in the game aren't that impressive. Not unless one of the free DLCs is going to be a high res texture pack, and those requirements reflect the future change.

Barbas:

All we've seen of the textures thus far has been pretty limited gameplay compressed by YouTube. That's a harsh sample to judge the final game by. I have to commend the bolder exploration of the colour wheel with this game, because FFS, that green filter made it look like parts of Fallout 3 were being viewed through a haze of piss - and I usually have better aim than that.

is this from a video?
http://www.pcgamer.com/fallout-4-screenshots-and-art-show-customisation-mutants-more/
http://www.pcinvasion.com/24-fallout-4-screenshots-irradiate-the-internet

because that looks pretty bad. especially the ones with supermutants. also the UI looks like were back in the 90s.

Adam Jensen:
Devs really need to start telling people what resolution they're thinking of when they announce the requirements. Your monitor resolution is definitely something that should be taken into account. Gaming at 4k requires a much stronger GPU than gaming at 1080p. And a lot of people still play at 720p believe it or not. Those gamers will probably get away with any 2Gb $100 GPU and max the game out at 720p. That's easy. There's nothing in that game that looks like it would require 3Gb of VRAM for 1080p so it makes me think that recommended specs are meant for 4k gaming.

A KissLike Smile:
Once more artificially bumped up requirements. Also the 7870 is much more powerful than the 550 TI...

It's only about TWICE as powerful so it's not that much ROFL.

i agree that telling the revolution this is for should be a thing now.
but i dont agree about the 720p part. according to steam 1.28% of users have 720p as their primary screen resolution. thats hardly a lot.

also could this indicate bad optimization for AMD cards?

Strazdas:

Barbas:

All we've seen of the textures thus far has been pretty limited gameplay compressed by YouTube. That's a harsh sample to judge the final game by. I have to commend the bolder exploration of the colour wheel with this game, because FFS, that green filter made it look like parts of Fallout 3 were being viewed through a haze of piss - and I usually have better aim than that.

is this from a video?
http://www.pcgamer.com/fallout-4-screenshots-and-art-show-customisation-mutants-more/
http://www.pcinvasion.com/24-fallout-4-screenshots-irradiate-the-internet

because that looks pretty bad. especially the ones with super mutants. also the UI looks like were back in the 90s.

Yes, those are all stills from the YouTube videos I was talking about. And they don't look bad. They might not be as nice as you'd like, but bad is a different thing entirely. They are, in fact, objectively better than anything I've seen in either Fallout 3 or New Vegas.

As for the UI, it's minimalist. Stylistically similar to the 90s? Maybe; I didn't play enough 90s FPS games to compare it accurately. The graphics and HUD are similar to what they were going for with Skyrim. Looks good to me; it's on-target. Mods will eliminate any niggles I'd have with it anyway (and those usually show up in ones or twos a good long while after I've finished taking in the bigger stuff). So it won't matter how the UI looks anyway, because you'll be looking at a placeholder.

Noooo, I just upgraded my ENTIRE system to a Xeon 1231v3. Combine that with my 980ti and there hasn't been a game that can even TOUCH what my computer is capable of without turning the resolution to 4K. Fallout 4 looked pretty, but there's no way it's going to require what it says it will.

Like everyone has said, this has to be another game with artificially high system requirements.

PLEASE don't let this be another unoptimized game with horrible frame skipping when it drops below 60. My heart can't take another disappointing port this generation. I'm still not over Far Cry 4.

Strazdas:
i agree that telling the revolution this is for should be a thing now.
but i dont agree about the 720p part. according to steam 1.28% of users have 720p as their primary screen resolution. thats hardly a lot.

Primary screen resolution isn't the same as in-game resolution. I have a 1440p monitor yet I hardly ever play at that resolution if the game is too demanding. I'm fine with 1080p and all the other effects turned up higher. Plenty of people sacrifice resolution for things like ambient occlusion and draw distance etc.

Strazdas:
also could this indicate bad optimization for AMD cards?

Theoretically it could be. But it would have to be a complete mess considering the difference between the 550 Ti and 7870. As an owner of R9 280x I hope it's not indicative of optimization. The game doesn't use any proprietary tech from Nvidia. In fact it uses Havok for physics simulation which runs flawlessly on AMD. Not to mention that consoles use AMD as well. So there's absolutely no justifiable reason for this game to be badly optimized for AMD.

It needs such large requirements to handle the massive save bloat and bugs that will inevitably occur.

isnt the 'recommended' usually around what it would take to absolutely max out EVERYTHING?

im not worried about my just under said recommended i5 3.5 processor

Wait a day to see how often it crashes and the game breaking bugs on launch before buying.

Crap I'm worried, apparently my GPU isn't hefty enough to run it... I can run Crysis 2 on near maximum settings and Dragon Age Inquisition on medium-high setting but apparently can't run this...

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here