Gears of War Ultimate Edition PC gets File Size & Requirements – Ideal Specs: 16GB RAM + 980Ti/R9 390X + win 10

[VagabondWraith]

BS recommendations. An i7 and 980 Ti? Smells of something cough Arkham cough Knight ehemmm.

[Citadelen]

1 hour ago, -BirdiE- said:

-snip-

Fable Legends does not make use of Asynchronous Compute, therefor it makes sense that the 980Ti is faster. (off topic) I think these DX12 benchmarks are revealing both the true power of the 290's seeing as the driver overhead is gone, and it reveals the limitations of the Fury X as it see's minor gains in performance when moving to DX12, I believe it would be the fastest card on the planet if it had been built on 20nm instead of 28nm, it needed the 128 ROPs it never got.

[thexzenon]

16 GIGS OF RAM?! What on hell are these specs? Fuck off! (not you OP )

[corsairian]

I never got into Gears of War on Xbox. This looks pretty good though.

[RagnarokDel]

3 hours ago, Mr_Troll said:

According to MS 390x on par with the 980ti. WTF.LOL

 

Source:http://wccftech.com/gears-war-ultimate-edition-pc-screenshots-file-size-requirements-ideal-specs-16gb-ram-980tir9-390x/

https://www.microsoft.com/en-in/store/games/gears-of-war-ultimate-edition-for-windows-10/9nblggh3shm5

•  
•  

except for the part where they never said that.

1 hour ago, VagabondWraith said:

BS recommendations. An i7 and 980 Ti? Smells of something cough Arkham cough Knight ehemmm.

they said it was for ideal settings... jesus some people don't even know how to read.

[VagabondWraith]

13 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

except for the part where they never said that.

they said it was for ideal settings... jesus some people don't even know how to read.

"Ideal" settings. Why exactly is "ideal?" Lazy developers? A $1000 dollar setup is not "ideal" for 98% of PC gamers. IMO, they're covering their asses because its a shitty ass port.

[RagnarokDel]

2 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

"Ideal" settings. Why exactly is "ideal?" Lazy developers? A $1000 dollar setup is not "ideal" for 98% of PC gamers. IMO, they're covering their asses because its a shitty ass port.

recommended is usually for 60 fps at high on 1080p or 1440p. Ideal is for anything above. Aka ultra 1080p/1440p at 60 fps+ or 4k gaming. No what happened here is you unilaterally decided it was a shitty port and now you're looking to confirm your bias.

[TheSlipperySlope]

Dang, 16 gigs of RAM?

[VagabondWraith]

1 hour ago, RagnarokDel said:

recommended is usually for 60 fps at high on 1080p or 1440p. Ideal is for anything above. Aka ultra 1080p/1440p at 60 fps+ or 4k gaming. No what happened here is you unilaterally decided it was a shitty port and now you're looking to confirm your bias.

What exactly is my bias? Their "Ideal" recommendations is just stupid. What's next, dual i7's, quad Titan X and 128GB of RAM? lol Its neverending with these companies. And these games never look good enough to need that many resources. Hell, it probably looks exactly the same as the X1 version.

[SeriousDad69]

5 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Ideal, AMD FX 8-Core. Hm, ye only if its "Zen". And seriously, Intel Core I7 Ghz+. XD, they should at least recommend a model family!

DX12 is much better at addressing multiple cores, making weak single threaded performance matter much less than in DX11.

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, SeriousDad69 said:

DX12 is much better at addressing multiple cores, making weak single threaded performance matter much less than in DX11.

Right....and look at how well i3 6100 do in comparison in GTX 5 for example, compared to an FX 8350.

[BuckGup]

6 hours ago, Accursed Entity said:

 

16GB of RAM for 1080p and 4K? That must be wrong. I know sometimes developers exaggerate but this is either that or a bad port. 

Nah Rainbow Six Siege uses 11gb at 1080. So I can see at 4K it using 14gb.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

I don't think GTA 5 uses DX12...

If you want to see DX12 really come into play, look at a game like Ashes of the Singularity. 

 

Anyway Gears of War is really old game. Couldn't care less about system requirements. More often than not its used to sell hardware. 

Point is, its a game that can use 8 threads. An i3 6100 with its dual hyperthreaded cores is faster in it than an FX 8350. So even in multithreaded games with DX12 support, AMD's FX line will still be mediocre. All CPU would be affected the same by DX12.

[Snadzies]

Buckle up and open those wallets boys and girls, developers don't have to make their games run on 10+ year old consoles now.

Your 5 year old mid range gaming hardware isn't going to be able to max everything under the sun anymore.

[ApolloEleven]

12 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

I love how people are using a single benchmark to make massive generalizations about GPU performance on DX12.

 

Believe it or not, a card's performance is more dependent on the game and how it's programmed than it is on the API used.

Everyone is just going off of the Ashes benchmark.... But you can hardly make that assumption for every DX12 game... Fable Legends for example..

 

 

 

The Fury X is better at Ashes, the 980ti is better at Fable Legends... All in how the game is programmed.

I think the Fury X was held back by VRAM in this case, especially when the R9 290X is not far behind the Fury X.

Even though the R9 390X and R9 290X is technically the same, the R9 390X is able to match or outperform the GTX 980 in many recent games because of the extra VRAM, while the R9 290X is way behind the GTX 980 and R9 390X even though it is the same chip but with less VRAM.

 

Benchmark at 4:21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zt-psnJkiE 

 

EDIT: Also see PlayModeOn's post below.

[Ashaira]

3 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Point is, its a game that can use 8 threads. An i3 6100 with its dual hyperthreaded cores is faster in it than an FX 8350. So even in multithreaded games with DX12 support, AMD's FX line will still be mediocre. All CPU would be affected the same by DX12.

i dont remember ever seeing gta 5 use 8 cores. multithreaded doesnt mean it will use all cores. heck if it uses 2 it is by all definitions multithreaded.

[PlayModeOn]

9 minutes ago, ApolloEleven said:

I think the Fury X was held back by VRAM in this case, especially when the R9 290X is not far behind.

Even though the R9 390X and R9 290X is technically the same, the R9 390X is able to match or outperform the GTX 980 in many recent games because of the extra VRAM, while the R9 290X is still behind the GTX 980 and R9 390X.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zt-psnJkiE 

You can also see the R9 290/X handily beat the GTX 970 in Fables Legend despite having the same amount of VRAM. The Fury X is bottlenecked by its own VRAM. Only ~2-5 FPS behind the GTX 980Ti is not bad for a 4GB card.

 

@-BirdiE- What you just accidentally proved is how good the Fury X and R9 290X is with less/equal VRAM.

[dimitriianghelov]

12 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Add a 50MHz to that R9 290X in the benchmarks, it still won't have perform any where near as good as a GTX 980ti.

 

290x is not 390x ,it has 4gb of vram while 390x 8gb of vram

[Dabombinable]

Just now, dimitriianghelov said:

 

290x is not 390x ,it has 4gb of vram while 390x 8gb of vram

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index.html

 

Sure, the R9 290X doesn't have 8GB vRAM    /s

 

[dimitriianghelov]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index.html

 

Sure, the R9 290X doesn't have 8GB vRAM    /s

 

 

cause a few aftermarket cards are representative of r9 290x

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, dimitriianghelov said:

 

cause a few aftermarket cards are representative of r9 290x

Lmao, you call a card made by Sapphire,  aftermarket?

[dimitriianghelov]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

Lmao, you call a card made by Sapphire,  aftermarket?

290x was released and sold with 4 gb vram, the majority of people owning 290x have it with 4gb

[Dabombinable]

Just now, dimitriianghelov said:

290x was released and sold with 4 gb vram, the majority of people owning 290x have it with 4gb

My point still stands, overclock one by 50MHz and you have a 390X. Same GPU, same performance.

[Prysin]

 

@Dabombinable
Gta v is dx11. Not dx12. Your argument against the fxs potential dx12 performance is worthless because dx11 cannot do drawcalls on more then 2-4 cores, even under nvidia drivers. Thus even a well optimized dx11 title basically cannot use more then 2-4 fx cores to do drawcalls. if 6 fx cores  < Skylake cores + hyperthreading, Then it is blatantly obvious 2-4 wont compete. anyway, to give you some numbers to chew on. I built a i5 6500 setup just 3 weeks ago for someone else. I benched it before i handed it over.
I5 6500 Scores 555 points in CB R15 multi thread.  FX 8320 at stock scores 553. Fx 8320 at 4.62GHz scores 748. Fx 8320 with 6 cores enabled, at 4.62GHz scores 551.... mind you the 6500 is clocked at 3.2ghz....in comparison, an i7 4790k with HT disabled and downclocked to 3.2ghz scores 501 points. Stock 4790k w HT scores 800+....

As you can see, if FX gets to use its cores at max potential, with as little driver overhead as possible then they are still usable. Not great, but usable...thing is though, that this all depends on the game devs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FakezZ]

16 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

I love how people are using a single benchmark to make massive generalizations about GPU performance on DX12.

 

Believe it or not, a card's performance is more dependent on the game and how it's programmed than it is on the API used.

Everyone is just going off of the Ashes benchmark.... But you can hardly make that assumption for every DX12 game... Fable Legends for example..

 

 

 

The Fury X is better at Ashes, the 980ti is better at Fable Legends... All in how the game is programmed.

Fable Legends BETA. It is not a finished game, so benchmarking it makes absolutely no sense.