How to know real Minimum System Requirements? :: Hardware and Operating Systems

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Hardware and Operating Systems > Topic Details

Str3lok 26 Jul @ 12:05pm

How to know real Minimum System Requirements?

Ok, so I noticed that minimum system requirements do not mean anything. I play games very casually, but I still notice that minimum system requirements are useless at best and misleading at worst.

For example, I bought laptop with AMD 780M integrated GPU with Ryzen 7 8845HS CPU. I just checked one game, Tempest Rising, which listed GTX 1060 and RX 580 as MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. When I tried game, which I don't like but that doesn't matter, it not only ran, but it ran on HIGH details FHD resolution 30+ FPS (40-60 most of the time), no FSR turned on. I don't think that qualify as "minimum", that's already recommended level. Moreover, according to techpowerup.com 780M iGPU (which is as powerful as GTX 1650) is 22-25% slower/weaker than GPUs in their "minimum system requirements".

I also noticed it in other places. I had for few weeks even more powerful laptop with RTX 4050 which I sold as it way too OP for my needs. Many other games where that GPU was below minimum not only ran, but ran on medium or even high settings. Doom: Dark Ages, Indiana Jones (didn't play those, but watched benchmarks with same laptop) ran perfectly fine even tho 4050 was at minimum or even below system requirements.

So, you might say why I am complaining? Well it's misleading. Many people would end up buying overpowered hardware because they would be afraid it won't run well (as I mentioned happened to me), spending more money than they need to, when in fact games run perfectly well on 20-30% weaker hardware than minimum system requirements. I lost 200€ selling and buying new laptop and even now I believe 780M is borderline OP as it runs 97-98% games without any issues and that's certainly not what I need as casual player of games.

So is there any way, for future reference, to truly know absolute minimum requirements for games to run on lowest settings? Should we check GPUs 50% slower than written in minimum requirements or what? Tnx for ideas and answers!

< >

Showing 1-15 of 19 comments

C1REX 26 Jul @ 12:25pm

Most desktop players expect 60fps as a bare minimum and most minimum specs still aim at that. Not all but most.

The only way to be sure is to test yourself and refund within 2h if it’s not good enough.

Or check some YT benchmarks from smaller channels who test similar to yours hardware.

Last edited by C1REX; 26 Jul @ 12:26pm

BlackCobra_fst 26 Jul @ 12:30pm

Originally posted by Str3lok:
Ok, so I noticed that minimum system requirements do not mean anything. I play games very casually, but I still notice that minimum system requirements are useless at best and misleading at worst.

For example, I bought laptop with AMD 780M integrated GPU with Ryzen 7 8845HS CPU. I just checked one game, Tempest Rising, which listed GTX 1060 and RX 580 as MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. When I tried game, which I don't like but that doesn't matter, it not only ran, but it ran on HIGH details FHD resolution 30+ FPS (40-60 most of the time), no FSR turned on. I don't think that qualify as "minimum", that's already recommended level. Moreover, according to techpowerup.com 780M iGPU (which is as powerful as GTX 1650) is 22-25% slower/weaker than GPUs in their "minimum system requirements".

I also noticed it in other places. I had for few weeks even more powerful laptop with RTX 4050 which I sold as it way too OP for my needs. Many other games where that GPU was below minimum not only ran, but ran on medium or even high settings. Doom: Dark Ages, Indiana Jones (didn't play those, but watched benchmarks with same laptop) ran perfectly fine even tho 4050 was at minimum or even below system requirements.

So, you might say why I am complaining? Well it's misleading. Many people would end up buying overpowered hardware because they would be afraid it won't run well (as I mentioned happened to me), spending more money than they need to, when in fact games run perfectly well on 20-30% weaker hardware than minimum system requirements. I lost 200€ selling and buying new laptop and even now I believe 780M is borderline OP as it runs 97-98% games without any issues and that's certainly not what I need as casual player of games.

So is there any way, for future reference, to truly know absolute minimum requirements for games to run on lowest settings? Should we check GPUs 50% slower than written in minimum requirements or what? Tnx for ideas and answers!

You're right, "minimum requirements" are often overly conservative to reduce support issues. A better approach is to check real-world benchmarks (YouTube, tech sites) for your GPU on that specific game. If your GPU performs within 50–70% of the listed minimum, chances are high it will run fine on low/medium.

_I_ 26 Jul @ 12:34pm

you can go slightly lower if you dont mind lower fps or if your system has less background junk running
no browser open, clean reboot with minimum startup items and un-necessary system services disabled

but if the cpu or gpu are missing instruction sets, or not enough ram, it will not run at all or very well

Tonepoet 26 Jul @ 1:40pm

Originally posted by C1REX:
Most desktop players expect 60fps as a bare minimum and most minimum specs still aim at that. Not all but most.

The only way to be sure is to test yourself and refund within 2h if it’s not good enough.

Or check some YT benchmarks from smaller channels who test similar to yours hardware.

Most minimum specs. I've seen aim at 30 F.P.S. Recommended specs. aim for 60.

C1REX 26 Jul @ 1:54pm

Originally posted by Tonepoet:
Most minimum specs. I've seen aim at 30 F.P.S. Recommended specs. aim for 60.

Is it truly most games or a growing number of new AAA games?

Last edited by C1REX; 26 Jul @ 1:54pm

bossman150 26 Jul @ 3:28pm

Most people shoot for higher then the minimum requirements. Wanting to shoot for even less then then the listed minimum makes no sense at all.

I can't decide if you're a troll or just odd.

Tonepoet 26 Jul @ 5:55pm

Originally posted by C1REX:
Originally posted by Tonepoet:
Most minimum specs. I've seen aim at 30 F.P.S. Recommended specs. aim for 60.
Is it truly most games or a growing number of new AAA games?

There's a difference between "truly most games" and "most games I've seen". Nobody has played most games on the market, and I haven't researched most of the games on the market.

That having been said if you want an example of a lower budget game targeting 30 F.P.S. with the listed specs. Palworld isn't considered AAA and the listed minimum requirements are specified for 30 F.P.S.[www.chillblast.com]

Granted, if you have a 3570k and a GTX 1050 you should probably be upgrading but by the same token it would have been very easy for them to have bumped up the requirements to get it running at a higher frame rate. It's so abnormally low for the year of its release.

Black Myth Wukong lists an RX 580 and a Ryzen 5 1600, and here when the RX 580 is paired with a 3600x, which is a significantly stronger processor, we're seeing it's mostly between 30 and 40, dropping into the upper 20s for the 1% lows. Also not considered a AAA game.

I wouldn't exactly call those indie games either mind you. Too many people working on them. Too high of a budget, but AAA is reserved for the higher budget and more demanding games of the year of their release.

If the specs. are listed as minimum reqs. I'd expect 1080p 30 to be the target, although Hogwarts Legacy actually targets 720p 30[primagames.com]. Not sure if Hogwarts Legacy was really a AAA game. Licensed games usually aren't considered AAA, but also it was the best selling game of 2023. More of a darkhorse contender turned champion really I suppose.

Fair enough?

Illusion of Progress 26 Jul @ 7:13pm

Time is the most precious resource in the world. Nobody wants to spend the time testing a growing combination of hardware configurations for a diminishing conclusion on what is good enough. Sometimes "good enough is good enough" even if it's not entirely accurate. And defining accuracy here can't be done anyway since everyone has a different opinion on what level performance is good enough.

Defining standards for it becomes tricky, adds regulatory Red tape for development, and could work against itself (imagine not meeting some random criteria, but still have a reasonably well performing game... well now you still have requirements that are misleading).

The developer will have an incentive to balance the minimum requirements reasonably. Go too low and people complain of performance. Go too high and you cut off more potential sales.

There's simply little point in spending time and effort testing it on something it "could" run on... if that hardware is either too old or uncommon that only a very small minority has it. The very bottom end of the market is also the least likely to spend much, so there's generally a growing "minimum" performance point that development will focus testing on.

⛧Blasphemous⛧ 26 Jul @ 11:20pm

Use CanYouRunIt app or website. It's free. Works everytime for me.

edit: It's the opposite for me usually. Some games surprise me because my system matches the recommended requirements but still it takes few dozens fps on low settings. Game optimization quality makes great difference.

Last edited by ⛧Blasphemous⛧; 26 Jul @ 11:24pm

C1REX 27 Jul @ 4:55am

Originally posted by Tonepoet:
Fair enough?

I believe so. It was a genuine question rather than a confrontation as I simply don’t know what portion of games aim at 30 or 60fps for minimum specs.

However, Black Myth Wukong is considered an AAA game. The first Chinese AAA game.
Hogwarts legacy is also considered AAA due to team and budget size.
But that’s irrelevant anyway as you are still likely correct about 30fps considering how many games have 30fps mode on consoles.

#10

Beardface31 27 Jul @ 5:09am

The minimum spec is still just recommended. You can play with specs under the minimum but the experience will be sub-optimal.

#11

Tonepoet 27 Jul @ 5:38pm

Originally posted by C1REX:
Originally posted by Tonepoet:
Fair enough?
I believe so. It was a genuine question rather than a confrontation as I simply don’t know what portion of games aim at 30 or 60fps for minimum specs.

However, Black Myth Wukong is considered an AAA game. The first Chinese AAA game.
Hogwarts legacy is also considered AAA due to team and budget size.
But that’s irrelevant anyway as you are still likely correct about 30fps considering how many games have 30fps mode on consoles.

Not really regarding Black Myth Wukong. The development budget was only around $42 mil.[gameworldobserver.com] and I.G.N. literally called the game an indie game y'know.[x.com] Game Science also isn't a long established studio. They only have two games published on Steam with the other being Act of War: Red Tides, and I think that might actually be the only two they made.

I don't agree with the assessment that it's indie but the whole point of the AAA epithet is that it's reserved for the most ambitious projects. 42 Mil. might have been considered a AAA investment back in the 1990s, but by today's industry standards it's somewhat low. Whenever this article was written it claimed the typical cost was $60 Mil. to $80 mil.[/url[ and we're even seeing games that cost hundreds of millions.Yeah, I.G.N. is full of nonsense, but [url]they're not the only ones I've seen calling it indie[ejaw.net]. Again, they're not the only ones.This article even contrasts monkey game versus roadside assistance games.[exputer.com]

Mind you, I disagree with the assessment that a game on the scale of Black Myth Wukong is meaningfully "indie", but the reason people are calling it that is somewhat because they think in terms of absolutes, and it doesn't quite meet the criteria of what would normally be a AAA game.

Another part of it is because it's self-published, but that's even more ridiculous. That'd mean Sega games are A..A.A. Do we really have to talk about Indie AAA games? What would that even mind?

Oh well. Kinda really doesn't matter, esp. for the purposes of this topic.

Last edited by Tonepoet; 28 Jul @ 8:49pm

#12

fourfourtwo79 27 Jul @ 7:03pm

There's no industry standard for anything here. What makes it even more complicated now is upscalers and FrameGens getting involved. There's games that struggle to even keep 30fps on minimum specs / low settings / 720p. Despite the detailed specs arguing otherwise. https://assetsio.gnwcdn.com/stalker-2-pc-specs.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht4PG9IaQEI&t

Then there's games that run at nigh 60fps with decent settings on minimum specs (Indiana Jones on a RTX 2060 super 1080p native/1440p upscaled, the CPU requirements are a tad "overtuned" too by the way).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeFAjuiK7uk

Overall, specs can be roughly "trusted", as games are typically decently playable on minimum specs. Not ideal, but playable. (Personal mileage may vary, but not long ago ~35-40-45 fps was still considered perfectly playable not merely on consoles, but in PC enthusiast circles also -- Nvidia probably didn't like that): https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/the-witcher-3-benchmark-test.49531/#abschnitt_21_grafikkarten_im_vergleich ). A YouTube search has become my choice also, like [GAME NAME + HARDWARE] e.g. Indiana Jones + RTX 3060.

Last edited by fourfourtwo79; 27 Jul @ 7:41pm

#13

Bad 💀 Motha 27 Jul @ 9:24pm

Yes most games that would need to post modern hardware due to game demands; they will list most recent hardware and that's about it. Not only that, it's what they basically are able to say they stand behind, since they didn't have time or resources available to test on older hardware beyond a certain point; like say anything older then 12 Gen Intel CPUs and Ryzen 3xxx series CPUs maybe. And never bothered to test with any GTX GPUs since even RTX 30 series is deemed quite old now.

But that's not to say that the game won't "run" on say; 4th Gen Intel CPUs + GTX 9xx/10xx series GPUs. Some games generally will not provide you with full available features or options in-game settings though if your are on such older GPUs. Since GTX GPUs for example do not support Ray Tracing, Path Tracing; DLSS/DLAA for example. GTX GPUs can still utilize FSR up to 3.x though.

Last edited by Bad 💀 Motha; 27 Jul @ 9:28pm

#14