Street Fighter V Specs

dreamers75

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.6 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Video: Nvidia GTX 480 or higher
Sound: DirectX-compatible sound card or onboard chipset
DirectX: Version 11
Internet: Broadband connection required
And here's what you'll need to hadouken a guy in the junk really hard:
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K @3.50GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Video: Nvidia GTX 960
Sound: DirectX-compatible sound card or onboard chipset
DirectX: Version 11
Internet: Broadband connection required

Its a 2.5D fighting game with specs that are more than Arma 3s

CPU: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz
CPU Speed: Info
RAM: 2 GB
OS: Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM
Sound Card: Yes
Free Disk Space: 15 GB

Azza

Couple of points. Its an Unreal Engine 4 game, which is newer engine than Real Virtuality 4 engine in Arma 3.

The engine in Arma 3 is widely considered to be un-optimized in terms of how it uses CPU cores with 1 core being heavily used and much lower usage on all remaining cores, while the GPU doesn't seem to be fully utilized either. The recommended system requirements in Arma 3 will get you no where near maximum visual fidelity in that game (even excluding draw distance). 60 FPS is very difficult to achieve in Arma 3. A top of the line CPU combined with Geforce 980 TI will average in around 40FPS at 1080p when using vehicles and only achieve 60 FPS when on foot and that is dependent on number of characters on screen and the number of effects being rendered.

While SF V like its predecessors still plays across a 2D play field, the characters and environment are all 3D. The stages and characters in SF V massively limited in size compared to Arma do look nicer than anything in Arma 3 in my opinion.

SF V will run at at a locked 60FPS with no drops ever regardless of whats going on screen during gameplay. 60 FPS is utterly crucial to fighting games, more than any other genre of games.

While the system requirements are still high for SF V in my opinion, the recommend system requirements should guarantee 60FPS @ 1080P with graphics equaling the PS4 version but with higher anisotropic filtering and anti aliasing settings. The PC version will likely support higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K.

Capcom's PC ports have been for the last few years generally quite good.

dreamers75

Arma 3 renders 100 square KM on a PC thats less than those recomended specs to this degree.




SFV is a fighting game, I know your an SF fan but there is no justification for a fighting game to have those specs for PC.

Hard to find an actual SFV 1080 in game screenshot, but still massive overkill.

Azza

Arma 3 actually renders 270 square km on the larger island. But obviously it doesn't render the whole island in maxim detail. It dynamically renders whats close by to the player in higher detail, as the picture you posted shows.

The picture doesn't show the frame rate either which isn't a locked 60FPS that's for sure.

Just find it odd that you chose Arma 3 to compare the game against, when Arma 3 is not considered well optimized.

There is also to be a two and half year gap between them with SF V is released. One would expect system requirements to go up to run a more modern engine.

Again I think the specs are high for SF V. They are more than likely exaggerated and the game will run fine on PC's with lower system specs , but as it stands we don't know if the PC version is getting any additional graphically settings over the PS4 version. I don't think the PC version has been even demonstrated once yet.

And as I said Capcom's recent PC ports have generally been quite good.

nesf

dreamers75 wrote: »

SFV is a fighting game, I know your an SF fan but there is no justification for a fighting game to have those specs for PC.

I'm not a fighting game fan at all but I really think using Arma as a comparison is a bit silly. I play turn based games that demand (and really, really need) better specs than Arma does never mind an FPS locked fighting game.

The recommended specs look high, but they're not insanely high, I'd agree with Azza and say they're just insuring themselves. Remember, different genres demand different things, most of a MMO crowd might be oblivious to wild FPS swings (and they are, usually) but something like Super Meat Boy has to be silky smooth and responsive at all times or the fans will not touch it.

Robert ninja

Those specs are pretty bad but that's nothing new with modern games. Nothing looks any better than Crysis 1 and A.I hasn't made any huge advances since F.E.A.R or old RTS games... yet the requirements keep getting higher. The only thing that's really bad about these specs is the CPU requirement. Wait for benchmarks to see if it plays on toasters... which it ought to since it's a fighter.

dreamers75

Arma 3 is a 3 year old PC game, prolly the best comparision considering its an absolute unoptimised resource hog and still less than SFV.

Azza

Robert Ninja wrote:

Nothing looks any better than Crysis 1 and A.I hasn't made any huge advances since F.E.A.R or old RTS games... yet the requirements keep getting higher.

Crysis 1 still looks great but its been surpassed graphically by Crysis 3 and Battlefield. Can't recall the A.I in F.E.A.R so can't really comment on your A.I claim, but I'd be surprised if A.I in RTS games hadn't moved on though the years.

dreamers75 wrote:

Arma 3 is a 3 year old PC game, prolly the best comparision considering its an absolute unoptimised resource hog and still less than SFV.

Arma 3 is actually 2 years old, and its not actually a resource hog, that's the problem. It doesn't fully utilize multicore CPU's and the GPU.

SF V will in all likelyhood be maxed out on a GTX 960 at 1080p, which for reference is slightly slower than the GTX 680 released back in March 2012.
I strongly suspect the actually CPU requirements won't be as high as stated.

Arma 3, on the other hand, you could couple those system specs with a GTX 980 TI and still not achieve a locked 60 FPS at 1080p, even with overclocking the CPU.

I suspect the minimum requirements for SF V will also target a locked 60 FPS at 720p at lowest settings. I also suspect Arma 3 run on a minimum spec PC would look pretty terrible if your targeting at least 30 FPS which is probably the bare minimum you would want for an first person shooter.

TerrorFirmer

Those spec's are ridiculous as a minimum, what an earth could require the grunt of an i3-4170 as a baseline? Unless the game renders realistic physics for strand of hair individually I'd be shocked if a €50 G3258 wouldn't run it perfectly. 4690K recommended is nonsense as well. I don't know where developers get this stuff from sometimes, the most recent example was Wolfenstein - the recommended stated an i7, despite the fact that the game runs identical on an i3, i5 and i7.

dreamers75

Azza wrote: »

Arma 3 is actually 2 years old, and its not actually a resource hog, that's the problem. It doesn't fully utilize multicore CPU's and the GPU.


Arma 3, on the other hand, you could couple those system specs with a GTX 980 TI and still not achieve a locked 60 FPS at 1080p, even with overclocking the CPU.

You will find an SSD improves A3 performance more than a CPU or GPU. Due to the way its loads, CPU is irrelevant to A3 1 core or 10 the SSD will do most of the work along with RAM.


SFV most likely is going to load the entire game onto the RAM, which may explain the high requirement there. But the CPU and GPU are completley nuts. The PC that took that A3 screenshot is still here in some form, will stick SFV on it when its released for comparison.

Azza

From checking around the web, the minimum requirements to run Unreal Engine 4 is a 2.5Ghz Quad Core CPU from Intel or AMD, Windows 7 64bit, 6GB ram and a GTX 470.

System requirements seem to be in line with this given as I said before this game requires a locked 60 FPS at all times during game play regardless of the graphically settings. Who knows what frame rate you would get if you went for the absolute minimum UIE 4 required.

Azza

dreamers75 wrote: »

You will find an SSD improves A3 performance more than a CPU or GPU. Due to the way its loads, CPU is irrelevant to A3 1 core or 10 the SSD will do most of the work along with RAM.


SFV most likely is going to load the entire game onto the RAM, which may explain the high requirement there. But the CPU and GPU are completley nuts. The PC that took that A3 screenshot is still here in some form, will stick SFV on it when its released for comparison.

It will improve texture pop in, load times and may eliminate micro stutter but an SSD won't boost FPS in Arma 3 in any significant way. On the other hand I've read numerous reports of CPU overclock providing tangible FPS boosts. CPU is almost certainly the most relevant bit of hardware you could have in relation to Arma 3, more so than the GPU. Arma 3 utterly hammers one core of a CPU but only uses around 30% of all remaining cores from what I read.

I've played Arma 3 on an i5 3570 @ 3.4Ghz coupled with a GTX 680 SC, 8GB Ram and installed on an SSD. At 1080p on a combination of settings, mainly high my frame rate move around from 24-45fps depending on what I was doing.

nesf

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Those spec's are ridiculous as a minimum, what an earth could require the grunt of an i3-4170 as a baseline?

Engines are moving on from being optimised around two cores finally? I expect to see more games this year and next year that genuinely do run better on quad core machines. It's been happening with strategy games for a while now (I've heard several friends talking about or moving from i3s and similar because of strategy games released in the last year or two).

Azza

Apparently the reason Capcom are doing a PC port for this game is their going after the E-Sports market, and in particular the South East Asia, African and Latin American markets.

The new characters to the series are from these target markets.
Necalli is an Aztec warrior so thats Latin America
Rashid is an Arab so that's one for North Africa.
Two more new fighters to be announced.

I think Capcom feel they have the originally E-Sports title in Street Fighter and it should have a much large presence in this regards.

Its interesting they have adopted a League of Legends style update system for this game after years of complaining from casual players that Capcom where milking the franchise.

Its biggest hurdle they have to overcome is simply the execution barrier, fighting games are far to hard to play, and this puts most people off the game long before they get to the interesting tactics and meta game.

To that end Capcom have greatly reduced the difficult of preforming combo's in SF V.

But it seems like Capcom are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
While they are adopting a free update model, its not a free to play game, its got a a full retail price with it.
The system requirements will hurt adoption of the game in internet cafes.
But the biggest hurdle the game has to overcome is that a keyboard is totally inadequate to play the game at high levels and that joypad or arcade stick stick is needed to get the most out of the game.

Anyways are you PC gamer's familiar with the series?
I mean I think the majority of older gamers probably played some version of Street Fighter 2 back in the Arcade or on their Mega Drive/Snes during the early Nineties but do any of guys have more than a passing interest or any of you intend to get into SF V?

nesf

Azza wrote: »

Anyways are you PC gamer's familiar with the series?
I mean I think the majority of older gamers probably played some version of Street Fighter 2 back in the Arcade or on their Mega Drive/Snes during the early Nineties but do any of guys have more than a passing interest or any of you intend to get into SF V?

My interest is mostly in this maybe being suitable for my kids to play against the AI (Mortal Kombat, eh, not so much). My hands are long past their best years and the idea of competitive play in games really doesn't appeal to me these days.

I've fond memories of the Mega Drive games and arcade machines, I wouldn't mind seeing the kids have similar ones. If I was ten years younger I think I'd definitely get involved in the Irish scene though. I've heard nothing but good things from people who've gone to the events.

dreamers75

https://psnbeta.eu.playstation.com/userInfo.php?enroll=SFV


BETA end of the month, looks like you need a PSN ID to play it on pc.

http://www.capcom-unity.com/combofiend/blog/2015/10/07/street-fighter-v-beta-2-details

Hey everyone, I come bearing titillating details on our second Street Fighter V global beta coming your way on October 22nd and running through October 25th (dates subject to change, exact times to be specified later). There are a lot of things we plan to test over the four days the beta is live, most importantly, cross-platform play between PC users and PS4 users

Europe & Rest of World:

Supported Countries:

Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus , Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, German, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kuwait, Luxembourg , Malta, Netherland, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania , Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, Ukraine

Users can sign-up via the PlayStation Store for a chance at being selected to participate in the beta program. If you had access to the first PS4 beta you will automatically have access to the second and there is no need to re-register.

You can still sign-up at the following link:

Street Fighter V Beta Enroll

Users who are selected to participate in the beta will receive an email to their registered PSN ID email with instructions on how to access their beta redemption key.

nesf

Fallout 4 specs:

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

Are we seeing a strong shift from dual to quad core now as a baseline?

TerrorFirmer

Not really.

A lot of games demand quads as minimum but run perfectly on 4th gen i3's, some even run identical on i3's as they do on i7's despite the requirements.

for example, in the vast majority of games, an i3-4160 easily beats AMD's 8 core 8350. AMD took the gamble that more slower cores would beat faster but lower number of cores - and it ended up badly.

The Witcher 3 lists an i5 as a minimum requirement even though the game is not bottlenecked by an i3-4160 whatsoever. Fallout will be the same, it'll run perfectly on an i3 4th gen no doubt.

Those specs can't be right though, as the 7870 is way, way faster than a 550Ti.

nesf

Ah now, a move to quad core as the norm for minimum specs does not mean they won't run on dual core. I knew people still gaming on single core P4s up to last year and while far from ideal you could play a lot of games acceptably on one (so long as they weren't games that really wanted a quad core instead of a dual core). It's very uncommon for minimum CPU specs to be actual minimums (GPU is weirder because it's often more about available graphics memory at the low end rather than anything else), they're just not going to guarantee performance below this because they haven't optimised the game with those chips in mind. It'll be a very long time before we see games that refuse to run acceptable on dual cores being a common thing (they already exist but in niche genres). i3s aren't exactly simple dual core chips though. I expect Fallout to run just fine on a modern i3 but maybe a more basic AMD dual core might have more trouble with it. Probably not would be my guess but the day is coming.



The disparity between AMD and nVidia cards has generated a lot of discussion. Some kind of nVidia tech being leveraged is the main explanation I've seen but I haven't read much about it.