Assassins Creed 3 specs revealed

[Satangel]

The system requirements for Assassin’s Creed III have been revealed, over at Ubisoft’s Customer Support page. These are the minimum specs required to run the game properly, they claim, adding that laptop versions of these cards may work but are not supported — “These chipsets are the only ones that will run this game.”

Supported OS: Windows Vista (SP2) / Windows 7 (SP1) / Windows 8
Processor: 2.66 GHz Intel Core2 Duo E6700 or 3.00 GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ or better recommended
RAM: 2 GB (4 GB recommended)
Video Card: 512 MB DirectX 9.0c-compliant with Shader Model 4.0 or higher (see supported list)*
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c-compliant (5.1 surround sound recommended)
DVD-ROM: Dual-layer drive
Hard Drive Space: 17 GB
Peripherals Supported: Windows-compatible keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)
Multiplayer: 256 kbps or faster broadband connection
Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
AMD Radeon HD 3870 / 4000 / 5000 / 6000 / 7000 series or better
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT / 9 / 100 / 200 / 300 / 400 / 500 / 600 series or better


So I have a Nvidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB. Will that card work at launch with this fantastic game?

 

[FAST6191]

The 8 series did DX10 which I believe had VS 4.0 as a requirement to call itself DX10 compatible so theoretically yes (also the 8800GTS is better than the 8600GT in most regards), how well it works is a different matter; PC ports of AC have historically not been that well optimised.

I am curious that they are listing DX9 hardware but not listing XP as a compatible OS though.

 

[exangel]

"Supported" in this sense may only/also mean "what the Ubisoft tech support can hold your hand to get working because that's all they've officially tested". The slightly better than bottom-rung variants (as FAST6191 described yours is), and the mobile versions of these graphics device series should work fine but there's the small possibility of driver issues at launch which ATI or nVidia may rectify due to the popularity of the game.

It's a lot easier to run a tech support department if the official line of support is limited instead of comprehensive.

 

[notmeanymore]

"Processor: 2.66 GHz Intel Core2 Duo E6700"
Sadly that's 0.86 GHz faster than the Core 2 Duo in my laptop right now. :/

 

[shakirmoledina]

TehSkull, I have an ATI Radeon 4670 1 GB DDR3 and the game has been running at 1080p with excellent speed. I don't think it will be a problem for you at at least 720p.
Also processor... according to experience, it speeds up load times but the game, I have not seen it affect it much. GPU affects almost 70% of the game.

Proof: The Witcher 2 - FPS at 1080p
Laptop - 1 GB DDR3 with Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (note the windows experience for the cpu is 6.0) = around 30 - 40
Desktop - 1 GB DDR5 with Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz (note that the windows experience rating for this is 4.6 and all emus run slow) = 50+

so I believe if you have a decent core 2 duo processor, you don't need that much.
I just hope I can play 1080p at 40+ fps on the laptop since ubisoft's other game I Am Alive was not playing so well on 1080p (30 fps or lower). Same goes for sleeping dogs.

correct me if I am deciphering wrongly

I just noticed the hard disk requirement is 17GB. That's the highest I have ever seen. Even arkham asylum was not that much (but it was repack). I hope the repack is truly a repack and not too much.

One of the most anticipated games ever!

 

[Gahars]

Doesn't seem like there's anything revolutionary here. Considering the time period of the game, that's a bit disappointing.

 

[Satangel]

TehSkull, I have an ATI Radeon 4670 1 GB DDR3 and the game has been running at 1080p with excellent speed. I don't think it will be a problem for you at at least 720p.
Also processor... according to experience, it speeds up load times but the game, I have not seen it affect it much. GPU affects almost 70% of the game.

Proof: The Witcher 2 - FPS at 1080p
Laptop - 1 GB DDR3 with Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (note the windows experience for the cpu is 6.0) = around 30 - 40
Desktop - 1 GB DDR5 with Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz (note that the windows experience rating for this is 4.6 and all emus run slow) = 50+

so I believe if you have a decent core 2 duo processor, you don't need that much.
I just hope I can play 1080p at 40+ fps on the laptop since ubisoft's other game I Am Alive was not playing so well on 1080p (30 fps or lower). Same goes for sleeping dogs.

correct me if I am deciphering wrongly

I just noticed the hard disk requirement is 17GB. That's the highest I have ever seen. Even arkham asylum was not that much (but it was repack). I hope the repack is truly a repack and not too much.

One of the most anticipated games ever!

MW3 and even GTA IV were that massive too, I think Max Payne 3 was even above 20 GB? The download alone was that much IIRC.

Doesn't seem like there's anything revolutionary here. Considering the time period of the game, that's a bit disappointing.

Was kind of to be expected it wouldn't be that much higher than the AC2/Brotherhood/revelations games, also it's still for the current gen of consoles.
Nice pun vs the revolution of course, I feel ya

 

[notmeanymore]

TehSkull, I have an ATI Radeon 4670 1 GB DDR3 and the game has been running at 1080p with excellent speed. I don't think it will be a problem for you at at least 720p.
Also processor... according to experience, it speeds up load times but the game, I have not seen it affect it much. GPU affects almost 70% of the game.

Proof: The Witcher 2 - FPS at 1080p
Laptop - 1 GB DDR3 with Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (note the windows experience for the cpu is 6.0) = around 30 - 40
Desktop - 1 GB DDR5 with Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz (note that the windows experience rating for this is 4.6 and all emus run slow) = 50+

so I believe if you have a decent core 2 duo processor, you don't need that much.
I just hope I can play 1080p at 40+ fps on the laptop since ubisoft's other game I Am Alive was not playing so well on 1080p (30 fps or lower). Same goes for sleeping dogs.

correct me if I am deciphering wrongly

I just noticed the hard disk requirement is 17GB. That's the highest I have ever seen. Even arkham asylum was not that much (but it was repack). I hope the repack is truly a repack and not too much.

One of the most anticipated games ever!

Arkham City goes from anything between running smoothly on low to running like shit. And it takes GameBooster to even get that much.

 

[shakirmoledina]

I do remember having mafia 2 on 8500 GT. It was really slow.
You may need to upgrade is what I feel so since if I am not mistaken, 8800 is DDR2 which means almost like nothing these days. If a ddr3 1 gb cannot do so well, then what about others.

Then again, if you really wanna play this on pc, I suggest setting some money aside for a new card.

WAIT!! Its actually DDR3. I don't understand then why it has gotten so slow. It shouldn't actually. You should be able to play at 720p at least. Hope for the best bro!

You can see the comparison here. I like to rate the card based on FLOPS
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=475&card2=579

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Sweet, my piece of crap PC can still run it. Then again, not that surprised considering it could run Arkham City like a champ: Glad to see my nvidia 450GTS is still reliable.

 

[Rydian]

Well the 4xx series is only about two years old (the 450 model launches last September) and it's mid-range for the series, so it's not surprising it'll be supported by new games for a while.

I've got an HD 5770 in my rig and no plans on replacing it for a while, I already have enough older games to play.

 

[Wizerzak]

Cool, so hopefully an 8800GTX will run this? It ran on max settings with brotherhood but was a bit slow with revelations for some reason (not that I played revelations much anyway, found it quite boring).

 

[pyromaniac123]

Doesn't seem like there's anything revolutionary here. Considering the time period of the game, that's a bit disappointing.

*Not sure if pun or being serious...

 

[Gahars]

Doesn't seem like there's anything revolutionary here. Considering the time period of the game, that's a bit disappointing.

*Not sure if pun or being serious...

With my posts, it's often best to err on the side of pun.