Far Cry Primal System Requirements Slightly Lower than 4?

Subject: Graphics Cards, Processors | January 9, 2016 - 07:00 AM |
Tagged: ubisoft, quad-core, pc gaming, far cry primal, dual-core

If you remember back when Far Cry 4 launched, it required a quad-core processor. It would block your attempts to launch the game unless it detected four CPU threads, either native quad-core or dual-core with two SMT threads per core. This has naturally been hacked around by the PC gaming community, but it is not supported by Ubisoft. It's also, apparently, a bad experience.

View Full Size

The follow-up, Far Cry Primal, will be released in late February. Oddly enough, it has similar, but maybe slightly lower, system requirements. I'll list them, and highlight the differences.

Minimum:

  • 64-bit Windows 7, 8.1, or 10 (basically unchanged from 4)
  • Intel Core i3-550 (down from i5-750)
    • or AMD Phenom II X4 955 (unchanged from 4)
  • 4GB RAM (unchanged from 4)
  • 1GB NVIDIA GTX 460 (unchanged from 4)
    • or 1GB AMD Radeon HD 5770 (down from HD 5850)
  • 20GB HDD Space (down from 30GB)

Recommended:

  • Intel Core i7-2600K (up from i5-2400S)
    • or AMD FX-8350 (unchanged from 4)
  • 8GB of RAM (unchanged from 4)
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (up from GTX 680)
    • or AMD Radeon R9 280X (down from R9 290X)

While the CPU is interesting, the opposing directions of the recommended GPU is fascinating. Either the parts are within Ubisoft's QA margin of error, or they increased the GPU load, but were able to optimize AMD better than Far Cry 4, which was a net gain in performance (and explains the slight bump in CPU power required to feed the extra content). Of course, either way is just a guess.

Back on the CPU topic though, I would be interested to see the performance of Pentium Anniversary Edition parts. I wonder whether they removed the two-thread lock, and, especially if hacks are still required, whether it is playable anyway.

That is, in a month and a half.

Source: Ubisoft

Video News


January 9, 2016 | 07:21 AM - Posted by Cyclops

Is this gonna be an AMD title?

Seems like Nvidia specs have gone up while AMD specs have gone down.

January 9, 2016 | 08:13 AM - Posted by Loon Iam (not verified)

there is a huge discrepancy between a 680 and 290X in FC4. the 780 and 280X are both more inline - with the 280X just nudging out the 780 ~10%.

seems more appropriate.

January 9, 2016 | 03:04 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Like I said, my guess is that they slightly increased the load, but Far Cry 4 was (I guess) so unoptimized for AMD that it ended up being a net-gain for them.

January 9, 2016 | 05:10 PM - Posted by Tralalak (not verified)

This PC requirements are weaker than Star Wars Battlefront (2015) or Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (2015) witch I play with 2.0GHz VIA QuadCore E C4650 and 4GHz NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 OC.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JotRC775YWg
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90Q7fkdzi4

I'm already looking forward to Far Cry Primal.

January 9, 2016 | 06:32 PM - Posted by remc86007

4GHz gpu clock speed?

January 9, 2016 | 07:20 PM - Posted by Tralalalk (not verified)

Sorry overstriking and of course 4GB GDDR5 at 7 010 MHz (7,01 GHz) GIGABYTE GTX 960 WINDFORCE 2X OC Gaming.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y56QLGB8vvc

January 10, 2016 | 09:50 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Gaming on a via

Wut

January 13, 2016 | 07:06 PM - Posted by Speely

As crazy as that sounds, apparently it's not too bad for a low-end processor. Quad core, x86-64, TSMC 28nm.

I generally don't have much respect for WCCF, but they talked about the chip a few months ago: http://wccftech.com/via-28nm-c4650-x86-quad-core-processor-benchmarks/

January 12, 2016 | 02:01 PM - Posted by collie

Here's a theory. Since they aren't trying to sell us on "New Graphic Technologys" that ended up not working and quite frankly breaking the game at some points (mulitple hairy creatures in a woody place with hairworks and godrays on=1fps) then perhaps they didn't cram all that gpu eating garbage in, and so it's a little kinder to cheaper systems.

Also, on the issue of 4 core lock, I heard from friends at ubisoft Montreal (one in marketing one in consumer relations so their tech-knowledge is minimal) is that they were simply having problems keeping the engine stable on core0 for some "Spooky ghosts" reason but it was reasonably better on core2.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.