Someone explain this for me: how can they recommend that you have 3GB of RAM to run this game when 32-bit Windows processes (including games) are limited to 2GB. What exactly is the extra gigabyte of RAM needed for? OS overhead? Give me a break... after bootup, my installation of XP is using less than 128MB of RAM.

I'm building a new gaming PC in the next couple of weeks. I have a feeling it will be my last PC. If the next gen consoles can display 1080 natively (meaning no upscaling), I'll definitely be buying myself a nice TV and moving to a console for gaming.

I don't believe this. Somehow Assassin's Creed can run on ANY console with HALF A GIG OF RAM.

That's 512 MB.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why they suddenly need SIX TIMES that amount as a MINIMUM?

they only recommend a ~2.4ghz dual core x86 processor when the equivalent console is running it on 3 x 3.2ghz dual core processors

You mean, a triple core (two-issue, I might add) processor clocked at 3.2 GHz. The Xbox 360 does NOT have THREE DUAL-CORE PROCESSORS.

Maybe the game is going to look much better on the PC than on the consoles.
That could explain the steep hardware reqs, or at least that's the way it should be.

I just got this game for the 360. It runs fabulously and is GORGEOUS. Very fun too. Its a TAD repetitive but still VERY fun to play.

so lets set this a little straight

they only recommend a ~2.4ghz dual core x86 processor when the equivalent console is running it on 3 x 3.2ghz dual core processors

they're recommending 3gb of ram mostly because they don't have another, lets say, 4 cores to procedurally generate geometry and textures so they need to store it via some other mechanism like say, i don't know, main memory

they only recommend a SM3.0 generation card with 512mb ram when an equivalent console is running on a USArch (SM4.0) with 10mb edram

while the specs are fairly steep i'd say they aren't that bad
essentially a 2.4ghz dual-core processor, a 7900gt, & 2gb of ram
the only bad thing there is the 2gb of ram which isn't that bad since i've been seeing people recommend 2gb because it's cheap and it's a good way to alleviate the performance hit of hdd access (not just for games)

Hmm.. Giving a little though, and here's another take..

It's not only for the game they recommend 3GB. It's for the whole maching running it, with OS and everything. So to be on the safe side, you can shave off 1-1,5GB from that for the OS, depending on the OS.

And then you have the imbecille filecaching of the Windows OS (or, if it can be cirumvented, the imbecille developers). Loading textures will fill it up fast, and when it's full, you pretty much automatically get lower performance. That's my experience with Windows anyway.

Also, and I'm a bit unsure about this, but since at least the 360 have shared memory, they don't need to store the textures at two places (RAM and video RAM). No?

Blue Ray Drives 400+ for PC?

think not

http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=...

Those requirements look pretty reasonable to me, whats with all the bitchin are you guys really using 5 year old PCs?

And so what if it requires a dualcore processor they have been out on the market how long now?

I enjoy playing games on both consoles and PC's but I would never give up gaming on my PC to just play on consoles. Its fairly easy to keep a PC up to spec in gaming when you resell old parts to cut the cost of new parts.

Most of the bickering seems like its coming from broke ass students living at home than actual computer enthusiast with jobs.If pc gaming is to expensive why not buy a console and be done with it. Save yourself the stress, and save us the pain of having to read about it :)

You gotta pay to play!

Does anyone remember the Atari and Intellivision emulators for Windows 3.11? The emulators were larger AND consumer more memory than the original consoles had soldered on board.

#1 is right on the money; I smell a piss-poor console port job.

Another reason I hate consoles--reducing gaming to an LCD-factor that hurts all of us that love gaming.

I wonder, if Bioshock, Gears of War, and now this are signs of a push by game studios to move all gaming to console, isn't this a really bad thing for high-end hardware makers (like Intel) and system builders? Most, if not all, 'enthusiast' systems are put together solely for gaming, so if the PC gaming market folds, so will this entire segment. The high-end system builders won't have customers and things like AMD's and Intel's high performance chips won't have buyers. I would think they would try to put up some resistance to things like this then.

Then again, they probably just don't have the influence. Also, the high-end market is probably small enough that no one will feel it when it passes.

I find it surprising that they can port a game and end up with specs (for example RAM) which are many times higher than what the consoles are even capable of.

> DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)

Doesn't this imply DirectX A.K.A Windows Vista will be required?

As depressing as this looks, considering how cheap consoles are right now (PS3 for 399.99, X-Box 360 for 350 I think), it really would make more sense to just get a console for games like this. It becomes more tantalizing when you consider the extra features you get; such as a cheap Blu-Ray player in the PS3 (Blu-Ray capable optical drives for the PC still cost upwards of $400, and thats just for reading Blu-Ray discs).

I don't understand why people think consoles are less powerful than PCs. In fact, if you look at history, Consoles have been able to do much more with much less physical resources. PCs nowadays can have videocards with a GIG of video ram on board but still are merely "comparable" to their console counterpart-software.

In other words, a big turn off for me back when I was a gamer is that I had to put an F-ton of physical resources into a PC just for it to compete with it's on-paper-weaker console contemporaries.

This is why PC Gamers need their own Operating System, and BIOS specification.

not only can it read blu ray discs. This drive can also Burn blu ray as it says BD-R drive

don't worry.

this game will run on an A64 3000+ fine.

this is unacceptable . they better should made a XBOX 360 emulator and finish with this
At list with the emulator you can play any game in your PC.
The PC is best platform .
I played PS2 games with a emulator , remember PS2 is 128 bit console, on a 32 bit Pentium 4 so a dual core is 4xP4 with its 64bit .
I better buy a PS3 emulator is has far better .and cheaper.

ya that would be Uber Annoying =)

This is lame for Ubisoft. I do agree with some people are saying that the specs are not detailed enough. and also the specs does not make any sense. Crysis uses less ram than that and yet it looks awsome. Shame for ubisoft for not explaining how the technical specs really works. Bottom line if they don't explain why so much ram i am just going to pass and continue playing crysis. And it better not be a crappy port either

Typical of these gaming companies narrow minded to consoles. First of all thats impossible because a 32 bit os xp or vista cant go beyond the 2-3gb barrier. So how can the recommended be 3GB?

they have lots of explaining to do

i also notice that it says "recommended to use a 360 gamepad" that right there says alot.

The-End

LOL at PC gaming.

Maybe they're just being more honest and realistic with their minimum and recommended specs than other publishers have been with games in the past. I can't remember Crysis' minimum reqs (although have seen them), but I'm fairly certain that when put on a machine with those specs it'd pretty much be a slide show for any sort of reasonable resolution (1024x768 and up).

Hopefully Ubisoft's reqs here will offer a reasonable framerate in return for this hardware spend.

This has "ported in the cheapest possible way to make it run on PC" all over it. Since they already made the big bucks in the console versions, they probably aren't expecting any major sales numbers with the pc, so just quick and dirty to make bucks on those who have pimped pcs and don't have a 360/PS3.

And it will likely be cracked the same week its released (or earlier), so its very likely that only those who buy will have to deal with the (still not confirmed but almost certain) crowd pleaser starforce.

Pass.

I guess you really need those high-res textures if you are going to run on a TFT monitor in full resolution, and not depend on upscaling. :-)

But still, both the 360 and PC version runs off DX. There shouldn't THAT much of a difference, eh?

this is unacceptable . they better should made a XBOX 360 emulator and finish with this
At list with the emulator you can play any game in your PC.
The PC is best platform .
I played PS2 games with a emulator , remember PS2 is 128 bit console, on a 32 bit Pentium 4 so a dual core is 4xP4 with its 64bit .
I better buy a PS3 emulator is has far better .and cheaper.

Well, I think I have no problem with the requirements
because memory price is darn cheap now
and I plan to upgrade my CPU and VGA as well.
So bring it on!

Why the spec made us feel too much?
I think you guys should try to read this :

Every single thing in the city can be grabbed, climbed on, jumped from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7041086.stm

So I think this game might be another benchmark if it became popular.

Lastly, I need to discuss about this with Jade Raymond ... personally.

/me try to hide the above line from my GF, she'll kick me for sure. arrggghh

I think the game developer/publisher should put at what resolution and setting the recommended hardware is running. I think AC in consoles run at 1280x720 with maybe 2x AA? Since I see most PC game benchmark is using a very high resolution + high AA and AF, it's logical that the recommended spec should be high. Or maybe Ubisoft should tell us what are the hardware recommendation for running AC with the same setting as the console counterpart, then we can analyze whether Ubisoft done a poor job at porting it or not.

As I said on Ars, these requirements served as Exhibit A - Z to why I gave up on PC gaming. Thank the maker that rat race is behind me.

Upgrading to play Assassin's Creed is like buying a new stove to make Spaghettios.