GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Mass Effect: Andromeda PC Specs Announced

Here's what you'll need.

269 Comments

If you're hoping to play Mass Effect: Andromeda on PC, we now know what kind of hardware you'll need to do so.

Origin has published the minimum and recommended specs for Andromeda ahead of its release next month. The low end isn't especially demanding, only calling for a 2 GB GTX 660 or Radeon 7850 to be paired with an i5-3570 or FX-6350.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: GS News Update: Mass Effect Andromeda PC Specs Announced

If you want a more ideal experience, though, the recommended specs suggest you have at least a GTX 1060 or RX 480 with an i7-4790 or FX-8350.

Unfortunately, EA doesn't specify what level of quality, framerate, or resolution this hardware is needed to reach. Ubisoft's recent recommended specs have only been for 1080p, while many PC players will expect to play at higher resolutions.

Andromeda launches on all platforms on March 21. A multiplayer beta is expected to launch at some point before then, which may give you the chance to see how the game runs on your system.

In the meantime, check out our latest preview of Andromeda and chat with BioWare about the size of the game.

Minimum System Requirements

  • OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10
  • CPU: Intel Core i5 3570 or AMD FX-6350
  • RAM: 8 GB
  • GPU: Nvidia GTX 660 2 GB, AMD Radeon 7850 2 GB
  • Hard Drive: At least 55 GB of free space
  • DirectX: DirectX 11

Recommended System Requirements

  • OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10
  • CPU: Intel Core i7-4790 or AMD FX-8350
  • RAM: 16 GB
  • GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060 3 GB, AMD RX 480 4 GB
  • Hard Drive: At least 55 GB of free space
  • DirectX: DirectX 11

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 269 comments about this story
269 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for stl_blue_notes
Stl_Blue_Notes

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Stl_Blue_Notes

Just joined the PC 'master race', and just in time for Mass Effect. Tired of playing games @ 30 fps. I could deal with the lower resolutions on consoles, but I always hated the low fps.

12 • 
Avatar image for DeathCrusher91
DeathCrusher91

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@stl_blue_notes: I also joined the 'master race' (or should I say: 'retarded race'?) a few months ago and there is a few tips I can give to you from what I've learned:

- Never trust the 'recommended specs' for most games: some games will run like shit even if you have better settings than the recommended (Dishonored 2, for example)

- PC gamers love to talk about full Backward compatibility on PC, but they forget to tell you that most of older games won't run on new machines without some tweaks here and there (if I haven't searched for some fixes, I wouldn't be able to play GTA 3 on win 10, for example)

- and the last but not the least, never pay the full price on a pc game, as most modern games are just lazy console ports and, like I said before, may not play very well, even on the 'recommended' specs (Deadly premonition, pc version, altough it is the most 'beautiful' version and plays 60fps, it will crash so often that you'll want to uninstall and don't play anymore), always look for discounts in sites like nuuvem or steam sales.

With that all being said, there's one thing I really like on my pc and consoles will never beat: Emulation. Playing a ps2/gc game in 4/6x native resolution is priceless, or should I say, the price you can pay for your GPU/CPU.

My Rig: gtx 1060 6gb, i7 6700k and 16gb ram.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for stl_blue_notes
Stl_Blue_Notes

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@DeathCrusher91: Not too worried about playing older games, as there plenty of newer titles I've missed out on by playing exclusively on consoles. I've recently gotten into survival games, strategy, simulation, etc. There just aren't many of those titles on consoles (probably due to lack of keyboard and mouse). I'll be busy for a long time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5a78c2afc0b10
deactivated-5a78c2afc0b10

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@stl_blue_notes: I remember buying a PS3 at the end of the generation for the 4 exclusives that interested me. The 30 fps was fine but many games had so many drops below that it looked like someone was using a flip motion picture book on the other side of the screen.

The frame rate and auto-aim really killed it for me.

3 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@stl_blue_notes:

Lol you just wasted $2000 for no difference the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is neglable lol

2 • 
Avatar image for rasterror
rasterror

3696

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: I have 2 1080's and have experienced Witcher 3 in 2K on ultra at 100+ fps. There's nothing like it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for masato_indou
Masato_Indou

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Masato_Indou

@Marky360: there actually is a difference, in terms of responsiveness and smoothness of how a game runs esp on TN monitors (1ms rsp) calling it negligible is a bit of an overstatement, saying that there's nothing wrong with 30fps (matter of preference), it's only a big deal if you make something out of it :)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for verysalt
verysalt

264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

@Marky360:

There is a difference in feeling. Of course if you play turn based games like X-Com or isometric RPGs it makes virtually no difference but for action games the fluidity brings different perception.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jonparkes84
jonparkes84

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: Stop talking out your ass, 30-60 is a massive difference.

7 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jonparkes84:

Bullshit that's a load of crap there's no difference I think what we have here is a case of wait for it "Alternative Facts"(See what I did there?)

2 • 
Avatar image for slickr
slickr

2279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: You are an uneducated and ignorant buffoon. The human eye can see motion a fraction of a millisecond, therefore we can easily see the difference in motion between 60hz and 144hz monitors. Ignorant buffoons like you who haven't experienced this or at least read about it, would of course have no clue about it.

There is massive difference between 30fps and 60fps and of course even at 150fps the human eye can notice the difference if you obviously have a 144hz monitor.

30fps is barely playable, anyone who's gamed on a PC and gone from 60fps to 30fps can't play on 30fps, it feels as slow motion.

2 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Marky360

@slickr:

Feels like slow motion lol are you high? I can garuntee you there isn't that drastic of a difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Maybe you should just lay off the cannabis before you game but don't blaming it on the frame rate. It's because of ignoramuses like you as to why 343 priorized something as trivial as 60FPS gameplay for Halo 5 but took out split-screen co-op a real feature that has always been a long standing tradition for the Halo series and did it make Halo 5 any better? Hell no Halo 5 was fucking garbage and played like a cheap Call of Duty rip-off Halo 3 a game running at wait for it 30FPS is way better then that 60FPS garbage 343 what out. Removing a legitimate feature all so they can get a stupid bullet point on the back of the box "Runs at a blistering 60FPS" all in a bid to get you PC nerds wet for the game instead of actually focusing on gameplay features that ppl actually want to make ppl play the shit.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jonparkes84
jonparkes84

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jonparkes84

@Marky360: I was once like you, a console player that didnt have a clue what fps was. Then I got my laptop and played Skyrim at 60fps rather than the 360's 30 and the difference is immense. Im currently playing through Mass Effect 2 on the 360 I also have it on the pc but I dont like keyboard and mouse, again how smooth it plays on the pc at 60fps to the 360 version at 30fps is like night and day.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jonparkes84:

I've played games at 60FPS I couldn't tell any difference if I had a PC I'd sacrifice frames just to play at a higher resolution. For instance 4K/30FPS would be totally acceptable to me.

2 • 
Avatar image for jonparkes84
jonparkes84

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: fair enough each to their own. I prefer a balance of as high settings as possible and 60fps.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for runstalker
runstalker

2894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By runstalker

@Marky360: If you can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, my god, it's your loss. And it's really not just about "seeing" the difference. Not at all. It's about feeling the difference.

Fundamental gameplay difference. Twice as much response and input-to-action time per frame is clearly a better gameplay experience.

This is an interactive medium. This is not film, sitting back passively. This is about input and response. That is a direct implication of frame rate, input, and refresh.

And while a locked 30fps is perfectly acceptable in many games, certainly, those same games will play much better at 60fps. Play, not look. They will play better. Period.

That's basic human physiology in effect: Visual data entering the visual cortex and brain at a faster rate and eliciting physical response with corresponding input-to-action within render time, with a corresponding faster physical return and result to refresh.

(A game controller's average polling time completely exceeds render times and frame times, so the faster your brain is fed information to generate a response, the faster your potential return input and corresponding results).

To deny this is to deny basic human physical function.

It supercedes opinion.

We can all "live" with gameplay in a nice, smooth 30fps game, but ANY able-bodied human will benefit from gameplay in a smooth 60fps game. Period. No question.

2 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@runstalker:

Oh my lord now you are just making stuff up 60FPS games do not play any better then 30FPS games go look at Halo 3 both on the Xbox One and Xbox 360 they play identically with NO variation in gameplay what so ever. I swear I can't wait til Trump reports all you illegals and your BS "Alternative Facts"

Upvote • 
Avatar image for runstalker
runstalker

2894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: Nice troll attempt. You cannot deny a fact of physiology. There's a reason competitive shooters, fighters, MOBAs, etc. are played at 60fps minimum and up (even on console), and it's not about pretty pictures. Or perhaps you believe such design choices are purely arbitrary?

Again, not all games need 60fps, some experiences are perfectly adequate at an (important) consistent 30fps, but any game would inherently be more responsive at 60fps. That's how it goes.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DeadPhoenix86
DeadPhoenix86

2001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: more like 30 vs 120 fps.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for stl_blue_notes
Stl_Blue_Notes

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Stl_Blue_Notes

@Marky360: Who said I spent $2000 anyway? Closer to half that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@stl_blue_notes:

Lol you wasted $1000 on a garbage PC when you could have bought a Switch. Some body get this man a news paper lol

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fedor
Fedor

11831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: I feel like your IQ is below 90.

4 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@fedor:

Cash me Outside How Bout Dat

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5e83c14458072
deactivated-5e83c14458072

2727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@fedor: He's just trolling. You can't seriously think there's no difference.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Arkhalipso:

There isn't so nah ya'll just making shit up

Upvote • 
Avatar image for drprophecy
DrProphecy

165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: When Witcher 3 was dipping below 20fps, you felt it from a mile away didn't you?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@drprophecy:

Hell nah that game was bad but it nothing to do with frame rate it was the combat it was slow and it just basically sucked

Upvote • 
Avatar image for drprophecy
DrProphecy

165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: Game wasn't bad, just a bad player. What did you want the combat to be? Ninja Gaiden? I admit game has a few annoyances during combat, like Geralt getting stuck on little obstacles and can't jump when he's in combat stance but other than that, the combat system is fine.

I think you were feeling the sluggish combat because of low fps and you don't know what was the issue.

2 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@drprophecy:

no the game had bad slow paced combat it had nothing to do with frame rate. If it had Shadow of Mordor styled combat it would have been better.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for babaelc
babaelc

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By babaelc

@stl_blue_notes: you won't be disappointed.

4 • 
Avatar image for MrDoomLWest
MrDoomLWest

37

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Wow, nothing special, more players i guess.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Megawizard
Megawizard

586

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

OC'd i5-3570K & a GTX 670 Ti; I will make it work decent enough. XD

4 • 
Avatar image for slickr
slickr

2279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

@Megawizard: I5 3330, 16GB DDR3 and GTX 1060 6GB. My processor is letting me down in few games, but overall I'm pleased with my performance. Will be switching to Ryzen once the competition heats up and prices fall even more. We are either way going to have to wait for Ruzen 5 processors, so I'm in no hurry to upgrade right now.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ishsgames
ishsgames

519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

@Megawizard: 670 Ti? >.> Some classified god tier 670 with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 512 bit bus with 2150 cuda cores and massive hordes of OC headroom or something?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for runstalker
runstalker

2894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By runstalker

@Megawizard: Get a good OC'able RX 470 for $180. Several models can be very safely overclocked to Rx 480 reference clocks (while running cooler and consuming less power) and in addition they're amazing DX12 performers, beating out GTX 970 and 1060. The RX 470, for example, easily runs The Witcher 3 at 1080p holding 65fps with a mix of Very High and Ultra settings - miles beyond console for a very affordable price.

Just saying, if you need a great budget upgrade...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for slickr
slickr

2279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

@runstalker: Sorry, but the RX 470 doesn't beat the 1060 6GB, doesn't even come close. It's a bit slower than the 1060 3GB overall, has small advantage in DX12 games over the 1060 3GB and of course costs about $20 to $40 less depending on model and stuff, but if you truly want proper gaming you absolutely need 480 8gb or 1060 6gb.

2 • 
Avatar image for runstalker
runstalker

2894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@slickr: Well no, not the 6GB 1060. That's in another league, just as it's a step up from the 3GB model in more ways than memory.

But seriously, a couple of the RX 470 SKUs can be OC'd stable to 1400 core/1800 memory, at which point you have yourself a 1080p/sometimes 1440p beast for a very good price.

I just finished setting up my friend's Nitro and it benches reeeally well - in line or better than 480 stock - at 1380/1800. I was very impressed for the $180 he paid.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for yumyumnomnom
yumyumnomnom

200

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By yumyumnomnom

@Megawizard: Low settings through and through lol

4 • 
Avatar image for GrayFlare
GrayFlare

57

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I have a Intel i7 3770k paired with two GTX 970's in SLI and 8GB of system RAM. Hopefully that will be good enough for 60 fps at1440p resolution.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zerohournow
Zerohournow

705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By Zerohournow

@guitarist1980: Yes, It was a scathing example of rage. If you think that is angry you should wait until your step dad gets home...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for guitarist1980
guitarist1980

1542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

Edited By guitarist1980

@zerohournow: Your a strange one.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fedor
Fedor

11831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@GrayFlare: if the game has SLI support, doesn't really require 16gb ram to max, and VRAM doesn't become an issue, you should be fine.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

527

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Rolling with a GTX 1080 and a i5-4690K over here. I expect 1080p to be a breeze and easily run at 60fps maxed out, 4K might be something else altogether, but my hardware has surprised me quite a bit with certain games at 4K, so we'll see.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fedor
Fedor

11831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Fedor

@titang1: I think you'll hit 4k/60 tbh. What clock do you have your i5 at?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for couly
couly

6285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

It can run on consoles therefore everyone is fine.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5e83c14458072
deactivated-5e83c14458072

2727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@couly: Optimization says "no".

2 • 
Avatar image for couly
couly

6285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

@Arkhalipso: I'm sure medium will do just fine

Upvote • 
Avatar image for croxus
Croxus

321

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 5

@couly:

But the game devs never optimize their games as good as they do it for the consoles though, its like the super Android flagships vs the latest iphones, who have half the specs...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for couly
couly

6285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

@croxus: Maybe last gen, but aren't the new gen consoles very similar to PCs as regards development? at least, i thought they were.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DeadPhoenix86
DeadPhoenix86

2001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@croxus: its impossible to have perfect optimization on PC, because of the endless different hardware combinations they have to keep in mind.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dirthurts
dirthurts

618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm sure my new Ryzen 1700 will do just fine.

I hope.

I might have got a little anxious with that pre-order...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fedor
Fedor

11831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dirthurts: if it's really going to perform at a 6800 level then you'll be golden for a long time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dirthurts
dirthurts

618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@fedor: That's my hope. I try to only upgrade my CPU/Mobo every 5 years or so.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Myron117
Myron117

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Mercaptan: no, why would they care?

Its more likely so people who have lesser hardware cant say "i bought this game because you said it would run it fine" they also have to up the specs due to the different configs to make sure the game runs well.

Remember arkham knight? If they had stated you need a 1060 or RX480 they probably wouldnt have recieved as much flak as they did. (Yes i know it was terrible coding)

2 • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Myron117:

The 1060 wasn't out then was it?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Myron117
Myron117

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Marky360: hypothetical statement

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Marky360
Marky360

5549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Myron117:

So it was I can't remember honestly.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Sepewrath
Sepewrath

30737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Myron117: Well in either case, it would be them overselling what you actually need. Especially since these minimum specs don't indicate what performance is expected.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fedor
Fedor

11831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Myron117: the biggest problem with AK was memory leaks.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thalandor
Thalandor

74

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't find it reasonable that the recommanded GPU is the current generation one that's been out for less than a year. Seems unreasonable for the types of graphics we're getting... a hint of bad optimisation?

The minimum specs look fine.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jako998
Jako998

1237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 5

@Thalandor: developers always do that sadly. they do it so that people will buy the new cards to put money in Nvidia's pocket. Of what ive been reading from other people who know specs, power and etc and that build PCs, they say that a gtx 970 is more then enough too run this game on high settings no problem.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ddg4005
ddg4005

37

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The specs aren't too bad. Both my boxes are outfitted with Core i7 3770s, Maxwell-era Titan X cards (one per box), and 32GB of RAM each. They should be able to handle Andromeda at 1440p.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Lach0121
Lach0121

11815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

Edited By Lach0121

Seems reasonable in regards to the GPU.

16gb of RAM? I doubt that much though.

2 • 
Avatar image for DeadPhoenix86
DeadPhoenix86

2001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@Lach0121: the price difference between 8 and 16GB isn't that big to be honest. so most people are opting for 16 instead of 8. also 8GB is considered bare minimum these days.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Lach0121
Lach0121

11815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

@DeadPhoenix86: I agree. I have had 16gb for over 2 years now. DDR4. I just don't see the game actually utilising 16gb.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

59252

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

DaVillain  Moderator

That's pretty reasonable.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thalandor
Thalandor

74

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thalandor

I have a Core i5-750 (1st core i5 generation) and it still rocks current games on PC at high settings, so yeah, I'd take the Corei5-3570 minimum spec with a grain of salt. I did update my vid card though since those days ;)

2 •