but really, i7-6700k, 16gb ram and a gtx 1070, should be fine right?
1080p60fps shouldn't be an issue.
but really, i7-6700k, 16gb ram and a gtx 1070, should be fine right?
Thats why a 1060 as minimum is raising eyebrows because it still looks like a current gen game.
No one said its a PS5 game. The person I quoted used Eternal's inflated specs requirements (now removed btw) to suggest that people are not ready for next gen specs requirements. I'm saying Doom Eternal doesn't justify its minimum specs requirements while being a current gen game.PC games don't suddenly skip a generation though? Its playable on current consoles (including Switch) and likely best on PC, right?
Who is saying its a ps5 game? Wouldn't it just be referred to as late current gen?
The minimum spec here was for low 1080p though not ultra like your links. It's also supposed to target 60fps on consoles so if a PS4 can run it at 60fps then a 1050 should be more than fine for 60fps.That's laughable. What other game doesn't need a GTX 1060 for 1080p 60Hz at that quality level?
Division 2 does: https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8944/division-benchmarked-20-graphics-cards-tested/index5.html
BF5 does: https://www.techspot.com/review/1746-battlefield-5-gpu-performance/
This is 60 FPS as min spec, not the usual it barely runs at 20 FPS min spec. Game is going to run on a 1050, just not at 60 in 1080p.
And again, Wolfenstein 2 already ran bad on Pascal cards. AMD and Turing are fine and run extremely well.
Wait a second, why does the Steam page say the game requires a Bethesda account? Does that mean it doesn't work if I don't have one? Because I couldn't care less about extra stuff I don't get if I don't register/link my account.
i7-4790k 4.00 Ghz and a gtx 980ti should be fine with 1080p/60 fps right?
îdTech 6 vs 7, the latter is greatly expanded. I wouldn't be too sure to state this as a fact. The probability of it running significantly worse when meeting the lower spec limit of 2016 is pretty high imo.This is going to run well on a toaster; if your toaster ran Doom 2016 well then it'll run this fine.
Massive overreaction right now.
960 is crazy old. Like 2014 old.
Also people in here bitching about a 1060 for minimum card is like 4 years old now. It's only going to increase once new consoles are out. We had it really good this gen because the 10xx series was so powerful at the time, there wasn't any big advancements in engines for a lot of games for running around 60fps. Only since the past year or so have we seen more ray tracing, more effects, and better HDR.
Wait till you see how Cyber punk runs.
i7-4790k 4.00 Ghz and a gtx 980ti should be fine with 1080p/60 fps right?
îdTech 6 vs 7, the latter is greatly expanded. I wouldn't be too sure to state this as a fact. The probability of it running significantly worse when meeting the lower spec limit of 2016 is pretty high imo.
It'll have dynamic res anyway , surely the way to go on a game like thisI'm sure it will, if you don't have all the settings on Ultra.
The odd thing is that there doesn't appear to be any significant visual improvement over the previous game, other than larger levels. Doom 2016 had a lot of post-processing effects that the sequel appears to be lacking. Everything seems so bright in comparison.
A 1060 is not 4x faster than a PS4.....not even closeDoom PS4 vs Xbox One Single-Player Gameplay Frame-Rate Test
John offers up first impressions of Doom's reboot on PS4 and Xbox One, concentrating on the single-player mode. And guess what? It's awesome! Initial thought...www.youtube.com
It's 1080p in most cases as mentioned in the vid and fairly close to the 60fps target. Again we're talking about a card that's 4 times faster than the PS4. Not some card that's slightly better. It shouldn't do barely better than a PS4. If a PS4 game can do dynamic 1080p with a fairly consistent framerate then the 1060 should be able to do that at 4k. I can bet you the X1X, which has a GPU that generally on par with the 1060, is going to target 4k.
That's just a rough estimate I put out based on the X1X. I'd say it's an okay estimate.
its a bit more than 2x as fast as a PS4 in practiceThat's just a rough estimate I put out based on the X1X. I'd say it's an okay estimate.
what about 1440p
no, just have to change settings
That would make it par with the Pro. Yet I've never seen a game where the 1060 doesn't signifcantly beat the Pro. I mean I have a 1060 in an old rig and in most games it can do 4k at PS4 settings where the X1X also does 4K. Sometimes at 25-30 fps but it's pretty close. That wouldn't be possible if it was only 2x as fast. In most games the 1060 matches or comes fairly close to the 580 or X1X, with the exception of some games like Doom & Wolfenstein but those are pretty rare.
The pro is poorly designed and heavily bandwidth limited. Surely at least a little better than engaging someone who keeps repeating something as ridiculous as the 1060 being 4x as fast as a PS4. But hey ignorance is a choiceThat would make it par with the Pro. Yet I've never seen a game where the 1060 doesn't signifcantly beat the Pro. I mean I have a 1060 in an old rig and in most games it can do 4k at PS4 settings where the X1X also does 4K. Sometimes at 25-30 fps but it's pretty close. That wouldn't be possible if it was only 2x as fast. In most games the 1060 matches or comes fairly close to the 580 or X1X, with the exception of some games like Doom & Wolfenstein but those are pretty rare.
Believe what you want to believe though. From what I recall in previous disccusions there's no point in engaging with you because all I see you do is downplay Nvidia & PC versus consoles. I think that's pretty much all you do on here so you must have some biased viewpoint you're trying to push.
Highly doubtful. Is Switch Pro controller natively supported by Windows? It only works in Steam because Valve officially supports it.One question: The Bethesda Launcher version has to support the Switch Pro Controller right?
Thanks.
Well, I would need some software to make it work as if it was a 360 controllerHighly doubtful. Is Switch Pro controller natively supported by Windows? It only works in Steam because Valve officially supports it.
Obviously that will work.Well, I would need some software to make it work as if it was a 360 controller
Well, I would need some software to make it work as if it was a 360 controller
Good idea! ThanksAdd it into steam as a non-steam game and you'll have the regular steam controller options.
I'd be disappointed if I didn't have to rebuild my pc for a new generationYeah at this point I'd have to rebuild my entire rig to play late gen and next gen games. Just going to get a PS5 and call it a day.