As promised, Konami has revealed the final PC requirements for the PC version of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. These system specs feel more like what you’d expect from a polished game, and requires only 4GB of total RAM. Not only that, but Konami has listed a GPU with 2GB of VRAM as its minimum GPU requirement. You can view the new, final, PC system requirements below.
Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes – Final PC Requirements:
MINIMUM:
- OS: Windows Vista SP2 x64, Windows 7 x64, Windows 8 x64 (64-bit OS Required)
- Processor: Core i5-4460 (3.20GHz) or better *Quad-Core or better
- Memory: 4 GB RAM
- Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (2GB) or better (DirectX 11 graphics card required)
- DirectX: Version 11
- Hard Drive: 4 GB available space
- Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card (Surround Sound 5.1)
RECOMMENDED:
- OS: Windows 7 x64, Windows 8 x64 (64-bit OS Required)
- Processor: Core i7-4790 (3.60GHz) or better *Quad-Core or better
- Memory: 4 GB RAM
- Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (DirectX 11 graphics card required)
- DirectX: Version 11
- Hard Drive: 4 GB available space
- Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card (Surround Sound 5.1)
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
I sensed that 4GB of vram was a mistake
indeed my screen shot I took shows eh eh
Still fake requirements! 😛
I just cannot rap my head around those Recommended CPU requirements. The consoles have crappy 1.6-1.8 GHz tablet CPUs and they can run this game at 60 FPS. What the hell have they added to the PC version to make the Recommended CPU requirements jump so much.
It’s probably because the Recommended CPU has bigger numbers. It would be very embarrassing if a game that runs nice on the PS4 can run far better on a medium spec PC.
The more I see it the more I believe that those super high PC requirements are not specifically for us PC crowds but for the console fans playing their versions. As long as the PC requirements sound extremely high then their decision to pick up next gen consoles would feel justified.
DX11 + higher settings: not so aggressive LOD, higher draw distance, etc. Of course, it doesn’t mean that those requirements are really needed, however it is an explanation for faster hardware.
Actually both the XO and PS4 CPU are based on laptop version AMD CPU – namely the A4-5000 series.
Consoles = low-level rendering API with very little driver CPU overhead
PC D3D11 = over-bloated mess of an API with lots of driver overhead
In short, on PC you’re just brute-forcing your way through inefficient API’s by paying more for hardware. It’s been this way for ages with both DirectX and OpenGL.
That’s because the PC is suited and designed to deal with all workloads and things besides games, it’s not like a toaster designed to do minimal things and primary play games. Mantle and DX12 fixes the overhead and draw call issues and destroys the consoles even more.
What? That had nothing to do with what I was talking about. You don’t need to have 50,000 background processes running when you’re playing a game. Even if you disable many of those processes, you’re still gonna be bottlenecked by the inefficient API of D3D (pre version 12 anyway) and OpenGL.
Mantle and DX12 doesn’t “destroy the consoles”, it tries to literally emulate the low-level hardware access and minimal CPU bloat that consoles have been enjoying for ages now. This is something developers on PC have been asking for for AGES now and they’re *just* now getting it.
it has everything to do with it, PC’s are not designed about playing games solely ,the whole driver framework and DirectX is about plugging in anything and everything. You act like the PC is a toaster like a console is, it wasn’t designed primary for playing games like a console is.
I’m not “acting like” anything, don’t put words in my mouth. And not once did I ever imply a PC’s sole purpose is a gaming machine. The whole point of a PC is to do whatever you want to do. Regardless, the fact is that ever since Mantle got unveiled (an initiative started by Johan from DICE) suddenly everyone else wants to make low-level API’s like Metal, DX12, OpenGL Next, etc. This should’ve been done ages ago when devs started asking for it then.
The fact that the PC as a platform offers much higher flexibility and modularity than a console is NOT a valid excuse for it taking this long for lower-level API’s to appear.
Blame Microsoft then, monopolise first is what they always do.
Microsoft and their Wintel alliance isn’t a secret. They’ve been making Windows itself bloated for well over a decade in order to “influence” consumers to keep buying new hardware to keep up. Though that trend has pretty much ended nowadays.
And no, my brute force comment wasn’t about the PS4’s CPU, it was purely about PC. Mantle performance analysis already shows how CPU’s from literally eight years ago could adequately feed high-end GPU’s today, but that can’t be done under D3D because it’s so horribly bloated. There was a guy over at [H] who tested this with an HD 7950 and a Core 2 Quad CPU — Under DX11 with BF4 in multiplayer, he was getting 30~35 fps — in the same map with the same amount of players in Mantle, he was getting well over 80fps. That’s pretty substantial.
That’s what my brute force comment was about, had nothing to do with consoles. We’ve been brute-forcing our way through terrible API’s for ages now. It’s no secret why. You misinterpreted my comment due to your perception of me trying to praise consoles for whatever reason. I’m not about that generic bias BS.
Why don’t you just shut up and actually make a point instead of ranting about something obvious that we can’t change because it’s past tense.
Lol nice reply. You don’t know what you’re talking about and it all goes over your head so you just turn to blind insults. I’ll let you get back to your generic PC mastur rase circle-jerk.
Go back to Dual Shockers and thumb jerk together.
Lol nice try but I don’t even post over there, and don’t care for the website at all.
Be happy then, good times ahead with Mantle and DX12, we’ve finally moved on.
Indeed. It’ll only get better from here on out.
That’s because a non-extreme edition i7 isn’t an 8-core. The only i7 octocore there actually is is the i7-5960x, which retails for over $1,000 USD. All of the mainstream desktop i7’s are quad-cores, and then the enthusiast platform has quad-cores, hexacores, and the single octocore model.
You get four cores and eight threads, not the same as having 8 “cores” altogether.
The non extreme one its a quad-core with 8 threads and most of the modern games use them 4/8 and also thanks to HT in some games you can have crazy performance jump with an i7 4/8 HT ON!
Intel HT will only provide 10-30% benefit at best, as it’s mainly designed to keep a physical core utilized when one logical core is stalling on memory accesses (it also helps with execution unit utilization, but mitigating stalls are the main benefit). The more optimized the memory accesses are the less benefit you will see. In fact, there are even potential downsides to it that cause some to intentionally limit thread usage to match physical core count only, not the logical count. In other words, you can never rely on guaranteed gains with HT.
Most modern games use four cores/threads at best max and almost none of them scale well beyond that. That’s an inherent limitation of Direct3D for the most part, it’s still not very well optimized for proper multithreading. And no, I haven’t seen a single game that gives a “huge” performance boost using an i7 quad with SMT over an i5 quad. Not even CPU-intensive multiplayer games like Battlefield 3 and 4 on 64-man servers.
Those Zen rumors about it using SMT are unsubstantiated and haven’t been confirmed anywhere. That was just crappy journalists making stuff up to get page clicks. Literally NO ONE besides the engineers working on said products knows anything about the uArch right now.
Sure, it *could* use SMT, but we don’t know for sure yet. And the main reason why Intel chips get better performance is simply because their architecture is much more mature and refined than AMD’s right now. The last time Intel did a fresh-from-scratch design, they failed miserably. That was the Pentium IV, I shouldn’t even have to go into detail about why it was so bad. Then they went back and refined the Pentium III uArch basically and that turned into Conroe down the line which is when Intel reclaimed and retained their x86 lead.
Most games are still single-thread bound which is why you see Intel constantly topping the charts on benches and whatnot. But a modern-day AMD chip will still provide adequate enough performance provided you match it up with a decent GPU at 1080p and what have you. If you’re using multi-GPU’s then Intel is the way to go.
Because SMT and high single-threaded performance are not mutually exclusive.
And yes, AMD does need something new and different, I agree. That’s why they re-hired one of the most renowned CPU architects in the industry over two years ago, who is leading the design teams for K12 and Zen.
The low performance of Bulldozer and its derivatives wasn’t because of CMT, it was because of the design of the uArch itself. The engineers at the time (Bulldozer’s planning and design phases began around 2004 or so) incorrectly predicted that by the time the chip was ready to release, the industry would’ve moved towards heavy parallelization with their software, but they turned out to be wrong.
This is why the design mythos of the chip, high core counts via more small, thinner cores and an emphasis on higher clock speeds to make up for it didn’t turn out so well in the end. The fact that the 32nm process wasn’t what they thought it would be didn’t help either. They originally planned for Bulldozer to ship out of the box with >5ghz speeds and then scale higher than that as time went on, but that also didn’t pan out.
Yeah, the earlier ideas they had for Bulldozer were just insane and unrealistic. It’s no wonder why most of those engineers and higher-ups got sacked from the company after it came out.
You may be thinking about the K8 chip (though K7 was pretty good as well), the Athlon 64. That was the one that Jim Keller had originally designed and it gave AMD the lead back then. Would indeed be nice to see AMD make a big comeback with their x86 performance. Their GPU division is pretty good and always has been.
Those recommended specs are for extra high settings, much higher LOD requires more CPU power.
4BG Vram? C’mon,I can understand Witcher 3 with that sexy graphics at max settings would require it,but this doesn’t look near as good.Why can’t they make they game use more ram or use gpu vram+ram sharing method.
dude 4GB Ram (system memory), not v-ram.
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (DirectX 11 graphics card required) R.I.P AMD. every foking game ask only for nVidia.
game is now avaliable, and it’s less than 3GB
2.87GB to be exact! 😀
:))
Well, people have been calling it a tech demo.
For me though the greatest thing about it is that it’s not region locked(for my region at least, not sure about others)! That means I’ll get to enjoy Phantom Pain too.
it’s not locked here too. i ordered one, i get it in the next 4 hours or so. but man this new region lock thing in steam is kind of scary. i can’t afford to pay 60$ for a game in this s**thole that i’m living. i always buy russian version cuz they are cheaper and i can afford them
Yeah Man, I’m also worried about that.. I just hope there won’t be much difference in the prices..
Just when we thought we got something nice for once, another thing comes along to make it uncertain again.
It a bitter sweet experience when buying MGS: Ground Zeroes. Sweet because it’s not region locked. Bitter because I’m aware of the new region lock policy and I’m not sure how it will affect the future.
I just got done playing the game for about ten minutes. It runs at a solid 60 fps on a 4.4 ghz 3570k and SLI 770’s, 1080p max settings. I haven’t tried it on my 1440p monitor but I suspect I have enough overheard to maintain 60 fps there too. Konami did an excellent job porting this to PC.
AMD is far behind this time, 770 performs better compared to 290x
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http–www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Metal_Gear_Solid_V_Ground_Zeroes_-test-mgs_1920.jpg
Another TWIMTBP title where AMD GPUs performs much worse than NVIDIA GPUs, it’s really pathetic. Maybe an AMD driver update will improve things…..
In some other titles is other way around, for example ryse, dead rising 3, lords of the fallen
The difference is already apparent.
Oh how I almost wish Derp didn’t eat a global IP ban from disqus for this moment.
So far no problems here. 60fps on the highest settings at 1080p and it only uses less then 70% of my 970 without having to OC my Cpu or GPU.