Mirror's Edge Catalyst PC Specs Are a Little Steep

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Mirror's Edge Catalyst PC Specs Are a Little Steep

mirrors-edge-catalyst-320

The minimum and recommended specs for Mirror's Edge Catalyst have been announced, and you're going to need quite a rig to hit the recommendations.

If you're a PC gamer looking to play Mirror's Edge Catalyst, you better make sure your machine is up to par. The minimum and recommended specs were released by EA today, and older machines need not apply.

The minimum specs aren't too bad, but they still require a CPU with at least four logical cores, 6 GB or RAM, and a GTX 650 Ti 2 GB. The recommended specs are what really catch your eye, calling for Windows 10, a GTX 970 4GB, and 16 GB of RAM. Here are the full spec lists, courtesy of the official Mirror's Edge site:

MINIMUM

  • OS: Windows® 7 64-Bit (use the latest Service Pack)
  • CPU: Intel i3-3250 / AMD FX-6350. (Note: Mirror's Edge Catalyst requires at least 4 logical cores to run.)
  • RAM: 6 GB
  • HARD DRIVE: At least 25 GB of free space
  • VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 650 Ti 2GB or better / AMD Radeon™ R9 270x or better

RECOMMENDED

  • OS: Windows® 10 64-Bit (use the latest Service Pack)
  • CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 at 3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350 at 4.0 GHz
  • RAM: 16 GB
  • HARD DRIVE: At least 25 GB of free space
  • VIDEO: NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 970 4GB or better / AMD Radeon™ R9 280x 3GB or better

Those may be the most onerous specs I've seen in recent memory. By way of comparison, The Witcher 3 -one of the best looking games in recent memory - only required a GTX 770 and 8 GB of RAM.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst launches on PC, PS4, and Xbox One on May 26. If you pre-order the game, you'll get to try it out through an Origin Access Trial. You'll also receive a 10% discount on the digital copy for PC.

Permalink

If it was anyone but DICE developing I'd call those minimum requirement inflated. But I remember the release of Battlefield 2, I remember all the fans on my ?1000 gaming PC spinning up to maximum and the audible coil whine coming out of the PSU, like the machine was screaming for mercy.

Given the amount of RAM and CPU requirement they must have some serious physics going on, Frostbite games are always memory heavy, but that's nuts.

Or it could mean they've done no optimising at all. DICE plz...

Okay, why can Escapist not display the pound sign? It shows fine when I type it, it shows fine in preview, but on post it turns into a question mark. Huh.

well i can officially run it at minimum so thats a relief. but i dont know if ill get it. i never did finish the first game

Awesome. I meet the recommended specs nearly exactly. 16gb ram and that's my exact processor. Everything else is sufficient as well.

Jesus that's pretty huge. 16GB RAM and a GTX 970 is exactly what I have and this PC isn't even half a year old, the hell are they pouring into this thing? More bloom lighting? Next gen sprinting vision? I have no idea. I guess Mirror's Edge strikes me as the kind of game that doesn't need so much fancy lighting and next gen window glisten but I guess this is a DICE game so they might as well use the engine.

Let's just hope it's optimised decently, I would rather those specs be high as they are for a reason other than "optimising is hard"

16 GB is completely reasonable for any decent gaming machine the past 1-2 years.
RAM is fucking cheap, jeez!

But still, I bet this is hardly very optimised. That's just one of those things EA HATES to spend money on. And thus they never do (unless fans complain vocally enough for long enough, long after it's been released).

A 4-5 year old low-mid range card and low end 4 core cpu on the minimum requirements is steep? What do people expect at the (relative) beginning of a new generation of consoles where they're once again trying to push stuff as much as possible. I don't get it.

This isn't a promise of "a great looking game" but more of a promise of crappy optimization. The truth is over the last year we've seen devs do a ton with way less reqs.

I actually surpass the recommended with my set up, but seeing such high requirements make me suspicious as opposed to excited. Not that I was going to pre-order before seeing actual gameplay and optimization anyway.

Lillowh:
A 4-5 year old low-mid range card and low end 4 core cpu on the minimum requirements is steep? What do people expect at the (relative) beginning of a new generation of consoles where they're once again trying to push stuff as much as possible. I don't get it.

Minimum requirements tend to be quite low for most games, even if you have to turn all the settings down to get it to run on 30fps, it should still work. The previous build I had before I upgraded last fall would have just barely squeaked by the minimum reqs, and I've never been close to the minimum req on a game before.

I also think the RAM requirement is pretty darned high- 16 is double the recommended on most games, makes you wonder exactly what is so RAM-heavy about it, or whether it's just a sly way to encourage people to buy more. Not having enough RAM is a rather... nostalgic problem for most people, the needs for it plateaued for a long while at about 8GB.

Silk_Sk:
Awesome. I meet the recommended specs nearly exactly. 16gb ram and that's my exact processor. Everything else is sufficient as well.

same here. also have 16 ram and the rest is over. have a i7 4790 intel chip, radeon r9 290x. just that my gaming still has win 7, so i hope this wont be a setback to play the game on max or maybe nearly max settings. i guess i will find out once the beta is out.

One thing I've learned as a PC gamer is that the Recommended Specs are almost always a lie.

Still given my dislike of first person games, this wasn't really on my radar in the first place.

Meh. Steep for casuals. I planned on saving for a VR set just for this game and already passed the steam VR test with flying colors, so bring on the open world parkour. My body and PC are ready.

CDPR cares about the platform, so they worked really hard to optimize the game really well. So they got maximum effect out of less. EA and Dice... not so much. They rely more on the ability of a system to output raw power to make games work better. They don't optimize it because they don't care about the platform as much as they should.

Remus:
Meh. Steep for casuals. I planned on saving for a VR set just for this game and already passed the steam VR test with flying colors, so bring on the open world parkour. My body and PC are ready.

When you say casuals is that another way of saying serious gamers without a lot of disposable income?

After all, we are talking about Frostbite, the colossally unoptimised piece of shit.

Major_Tom:
After all, we are talking about Frostbite, the colossally unoptimised piece of shit.

True enough. Look at the mess it made of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Xan Krieger:

Remus:
Meh. Steep for casuals. I planned on saving for a VR set just for this game and already passed the steam VR test with flying colors, so bring on the open world parkour. My body and PC are ready.

When you say casuals is that another way of saying serious gamers without a lot of disposable income?

Or serious gamers that don't know how to put money away. I saved for half a year to buy the PC I wanted so that I won't need to upgrade for years. Income is only disposable for me if I plan well in advance. The PC I had before was 8 years old and showing its age with its inability to play Witchers and texture loading in game for pretty much anything else. I'm happy I can brag about being current with my specs - this may not happen again for a decade.

I already wasn't getting this on PC cause EA = Origin = no thanks. I can probably run this fine, but I don't care. If I get it, definatly going console. I should probably actually go play and beat the original game...even though its a remake, but I'm already doing that for Dark Souls and procrastinating fighting the Anor Londo duo.

That's fine with me. No need to cater every game under the sun to the entitled gamers who don't want to upgrade their computers to something made within the last few years. For those who cant afford new components (calling an 8350 new is a stretch), well, I'm sorry.

IDT a 970 is steep. Its the 1st level of enthusiast cards. Plus it depends on what "recommended" entails is it 1440 or 1080 with everything jacked up to ultra then yeah a 970 would be recommended even on current releases

Unoptimised console port is unoptimised.

I legit laughed out loud when I saw those recommended specs. I am not the neo-luddite millennial most of my brethren are, but I also know that MAAAYBE those specs are a tad high.

votemarvel:

Major_Tom:
After all, we are talking about Frostbite, the colossally unoptimised piece of shit.

True enough. Look at the mess it made of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

And this might be the culprit since DA: I was very poorly optimized on PC.

In what universe is a GTX 970 the equivalent of a R9 280X? And why is minimum RAM 6GB but recommended 16GB? By looking at the recommend specs its clear somebody either didn't know what they were talking or taking the piss. But what's far more unsettling is that it most likely isn't a mistake and simply signifies that the high end graphics are poorly optimised. Seems that the shitty ports are real this year.

They should add a bucket to the requirements. from gameplay videos i saw playing this is most definately going to make you vomit. The camera work is even more obnoxious than the first one!

fix-the-spade:
If it was anyone but DICE developing I'd call those minimum requirement inflated. But I remember the release of Battlefield 2, I remember all the fans on my ?1000 gaming PC spinning up to maximum and the audible coil whine coming out of the PSU, like the machine was screaming for mercy.

Coil while only means that your PSU was working with high voltage. Its not dangerous on its own, but it can be a sign of PSU overload which may be dangerous if you got a cheap no-name PSU. Coil while itself is very common, but most manufacturers actually glue the coils in place to reduce it (literally they just pour glue to reduce vibration). I got a GPU that whines when framerates rise over 400. Very annoying in Bethesda games where if you unlock framerate as soon as you go into menu/inventory/book the game stops generating the world behind you so FPS jumps to 2000+ and it starts to whine. I had to make a custom FPS cap at 120 fps just to stop this bug.

Kenjitsuka:
16 GB is completely reasonable for any decent gaming machine the past 1-2 years.
RAM is fucking cheap, jeez!

No, it is not. not reasonable that is. This is because games do not require that much ram. expoeriments done on builder forums revealed that even games claiming 8 GB to be minimum ran just fine on 3GB and the difference between 3GB and more were nonexistent. Bellow 3 GB you start to have problems, but if you have the currently standard 8 GB you should run EVERYTHING without ANY problems.

Lillowh:
A 4-5 year old low-mid range card and low end 4 core cpu on the minimum requirements is steep? What do people expect at the (relative) beginning of a new generation of consoles where they're once again trying to push stuff as much as possible. I don't get it.

People want their shitty prebuild with 730M in it to run games forever.

Wow, that's pretty ridiculous. That probably means the game is terribly optimized.

Oh, it's published and developed by EA? Well, that explains that then.

Well, hardware is no issue, but I wonder how much difference the OS makes since I'm still on 7.

16GB of RAM and an i7's worth of cores/threads? I call shenanigans.

The i7 is almost NEVER required. Discount it.

The AMD 280X is supposedly inferior to the GTX 970. Either DICE is talking BS, or Gimpvidea are failing again. Which would not surprise me, gotta milk people who know nothing about hardware with Pascal.

Seriously people, this happens every single time. System Requirements = shit. Wait for benches, preferably after patches and driver updates (as the game will be broken day one anyway).

I guess if I wanted to play this on max settings (I don't actually want to play it at all, but hypothetically speaking), I'd have to get more ram. As others have said though, as far as system specs go, ram is one of the cheapest components.

RedDeadFred:
I guess if I wanted to play this on max settings (I don't actually want to play it at all, but hypothetically speaking), I'd have to get more ram. As others have said though, as far as system specs go, ram is one of the cheapest components.

It is almost never correctly put in the requirements to be fair.

I remember how Witcher 3 said 6GB of RAM as a minimum. It was a lie. Again. Almost ALWAYS is.

Charcharo:

RedDeadFred:
I guess if I wanted to play this on max settings (I don't actually want to play it at all, but hypothetically speaking), I'd have to get more ram. As others have said though, as far as system specs go, ram is one of the cheapest components.

It is almost never correctly put in the requirements to be fair.

I remember how Witcher 3 said 6GB of RAM as a minimum. It was a lie. Again. Almost ALWAYS is.

I think they just cover themselves since other processes use ram too. When checking my ram usage in game, I don't think I ever went over 6.5, and that's with almost max settings.

Having a ram or two extra in the requirements is par for the course with most games that say 6-8. Going from 6 to 16 just screams poorly optimized. I'm assuming the game would at least use more than my 8.

RedDeadFred:

Charcharo:

RedDeadFred:
I guess if I wanted to play this on max settings (I don't actually want to play it at all, but hypothetically speaking), I'd have to get more ram. As others have said though, as far as system specs go, ram is one of the cheapest components.

It is almost never correctly put in the requirements to be fair.

I remember how Witcher 3 said 6GB of RAM as a minimum. It was a lie. Again. Almost ALWAYS is.

I think they just cover themselves since other processes use ram too. When checking my ram usage in game, I don't think I ever went over 6.5, and that's with almost max settings.

Having a ram or two extra in the requirements is par for the course with most games that say 6-8. Going from 6 to 16 just screams poorly optimized. I'm assuming the game would at least use more than my 8.

I use Windoes and have dozens of tasks open as well. So all 4GB of RAM did in Witcher 3 was make loadings worse. Nothing more or less.

Also, Star Wars Battlefront said it wanted 16gb of RAM as well. It was NOT correct and the game is VERY optimized.

So again, just marketing lies people that dont know much (most of the Escapist unfortunately) eat up :(

Such is life I guess.

Charcharo:

RedDeadFred:

Charcharo:

It is almost never correctly put in the requirements to be fair.

I remember how Witcher 3 said 6GB of RAM as a minimum. It was a lie. Again. Almost ALWAYS is.

I think they just cover themselves since other processes use ram too. When checking my ram usage in game, I don't think I ever went over 6.5, and that's with almost max settings.

Having a ram or two extra in the requirements is par for the course with most games that say 6-8. Going from 6 to 16 just screams poorly optimized. I'm assuming the game would at least use more than my 8.

I use Windoes and have dozens of tasks open as well. So all 4GB of RAM did in Witcher 3 was make loadings worse. Nothing more or less.

Also, Star Wars Battlefront said it wanted 16gb of RAM as well. It was NOT correct and the game is VERY optimized.

So again, just marketing lies people that dont know much (most of the Escapist unfortunately) eat up :(

Such is life I guess.

Wow. I never paid attention to Battlefront's specs because I had zero desire to get it. People are running it on ultra with 8GB.... I mean, I always knew they exaggerated a bit with any game, but not this much. And then there's a video of a guy running it smoothly on medium with 4GB! I don't think I'll be upgrading in the near future. Today I have learned.

... Eh?

My now 6 year old desktop system, while probably unable to run this still comes surprisingly close to those specs.
If this is considered demanding, I'm concerned about the state of PC gaming, honestly.

Then again, only about 1 in 100 games no longer seem to run on that same 6 year old system.
And before you ask, no it wasn't a top of the line most expensive parts available kind of build either.
Core i5, and 5770 is hardly high end parts. It's the upper bounds of mid-range for that era.
But the thing is, past that point you easily double or triple the cost, (or worse)

In any event, PC gaming has always been expensive if you want to keep up with the mainstream AAA titles.
Or at least, that was absolutely the case from about 1995 to 2005 or so.
After that... Things got a little less predictable, especially since consoles started dictating what high end games looked like, which really wasn't the case before then...

Holy shit. I think whatever uni/college these guys went to, they forgot to take optimisation courses. Jesus christ.

On the other hand: I remember that ME1 was also colossally fucked. I played it on an old-ish laptop, which made for some fun scenarios. Apparently physics calculations on background objects was only done in idle time. This meant that glass from a broken window was falling in slow motion, while people ran around at normal speeds.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.