bit-gamer.net

Assassin's Creed PC specs released

Published on 23rd January 2008 by Joe Martin

The PC hardware requirements for Assassin's Creed are very high, unfortunately.

Assassin's Creed was, at first glance, a love it or hate it kind of game. People were quickly divided into one of the two groups. There were those who loved the free-roaming, free-running and free-spirited approach of the game, and there were those who just wanted to be stick-in-the-muds. Either way, the one thing that everybody agreed on was the visual - the game had a visual flair that is pretty much unmatched.

Unfortunately, graphics that good come at a price and, although the console variants seem to have managed OK, the PC version has some rather steep system requirements. Check them out below...

Minimum Requirements
Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
RAM: 2GB
Video Card: 256MB DirectX 10.0-compliant video card or DirectX 9.0-compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 compliant sound card
HDD Space: 12GB
OS: Windows XP or Vista
DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)

Recommended Requirements
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better
RAM: 3GB
Video Card: 512MB DX10/DX9.0c (SM3.0 or higher) video card
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 compliant sound card with 5.1 surround
HDD Space: 12GB
OS: Windows XP or Vista
DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)

Yowzer, eh? The PC version of Assassin's Creed has minimum requirements which are in some cases higher than the recommended specs for Crysis! It all sounds a bit fishy to us and the general consensus seems to be that the PC version may be just a little bit unoptimised.

The supported list of graphics cards includes anything from the Radeon X1300 / GeForce 6600, right up to the latest and greatest cards from both ATI and Nvidia.

Are the high hardware requirements driving you away from PC gaming and towards consoles? Will you be able to play the PC version of Assassin's Creed? Let us know in the forums.

24 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply

badders 23rd January 2008, 10:33

It'll be fine!
I'd definitely like Bit-Tech to take a look at this when it finally rolls out, as I spent £450 on a new PC instead of a PS3 or Xbox!

cjoyce1980 23rd January 2008, 10:40

wow! these specs are crazy! thank god that i got this game on my 360. I spent £600+ on a new build in the summer and i would think i would have the trouble running most of the effects at medium.

I'm sure this out specs Crysis, UT3 and stranglehold!!!

Jordan Wise 23rd January 2008, 10:46

out specs, but doesn't look as good. Typical port

Mankz 23rd January 2008, 10:46

Meh, game doesn't intrest me at all anyway.

steveo_mcg 23rd January 2008, 10:57

3gb ram seems a bit steep, do the consoles even have half that? I think you may be right about the lazy unoptimised port, my prediction it won't sell that well and they'll use it as another nail in the we're not going to bother making PC games coffin.

p3n 23rd January 2008, 11:05

Well both the xbox and ps3 are multi-core machines so its not strange that multi-core cpus are even minimum recs, I give up on the gfx requirements for Pc games though ... the xbox gfx chip must be 'half' a generation old so thats odd.

yakyb 23rd January 2008, 11:39

well ill have a new PC by then so im not all that bothered i do hope its not a badly optimised port tho

im thinking it wont be at the moment only due to the delay in getting it out

Florian 23rd January 2008, 11:50

This had better be a significant improvement over the PS3 and 360 versions to justify those requirements. But it's probably just the usual lack of optimization that is so common in PC games nowadays.

Bauul 23rd January 2008, 12:14

Erm, how can they say DirectX 10 is a requirement, but then list Windows XP as a recommended operating system?

jakenbake 23rd January 2008, 12:17

My friends girlfriend beat this game in 1 day on xbox over christmas break. and she doesn't play video games. i think that tells you more about the game than anything.

mmorgue 23rd January 2008, 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bauul
Erm, how can they say DirectX 10 is a requirement, but then list Windows XP as a recommended operating system?

Well, it does say after that, "...or DirectX 9.0-compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher".

Just not worded correctly, i think. Should be minimum req a DX9 card with SM3+ with a recommended req of DX10...

Tim S 23rd January 2008, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmorgue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Erm, how can they say DirectX 10 is a requirement, but then list Windows XP as a recommended operating system?

Well, it does say after that, "...or DirectX 9.0-compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher".

Just not worded correctly, i think. Should be minimum req a DX9 card with SM3+ with a recommended req of DX10...

AFAIK, it just requires the libraries. You will be able to play the game perfectly well with a fairly recent SM3.0 card (thinking X1950 Pro here).

Gunsmith 23rd January 2008, 13:07

oh please that isnt high, anyone whose serious about they're gaming will be more then covered, but then anyone whose serious about they're gaming probably isnt going to be interested in a console port.

/me goes back to crysis

AlexB 23rd January 2008, 13:15

Haha, didn't know this was coming out on PC, £5 to the first person to make a Spiderman 'skin' for Altair!

Mother-Goose 23rd January 2008, 13:43

So, soon we're going to be heading for games that require 4gb or Ram and therefore 64-bit os, this is good in the sense that it will help make this the defacto standard and we can do away with 32-bit entirely for new OS's. Especially good as that EFI (thing that is replacing BIOs hopefully) is also 64-bit only.

But, as for the question raised at the end of that news bite, is it pushing me towards a console? Well...yes. I have a pretty decent specced machine (see sig) and payed alot for it in May last year (now the same rig is a fair bit cheaper, not hugely so which is good for me) but there is the constant ballache of having to update the drivers and alter settings to get it to play smoothly, and the fact that some great games don't get FRICKING RELEASED (I'm looking at you ace combat 6, you b-a-s-t-a-r-d-s), but then there is the catch that the pc is simply much better for certain games such as WIC et al.

The game that causes me most annoyance though is San Andreas. Obviously the shooting part means you love the mouse, but the flying and driving aspects really need something like an xbox controller, but who really wants to swap from one to the other to get the best of both worlds?! Would any of you do that? (Or should I say, do any of you do that? Do any of you use controllers on your pc to play certain games like Gran Tourismo etc?)

Sorry that I've gone on a bit of a gramatically sparse rant but it all just came to me so I was typing what I was thinking.

legoman666 23rd January 2008, 13:46

I would in no way call those steep. It's about time a game required (or highly reccomended) a dual core CPU. My two generation old PC meets those requirements easy. However, the reccomended 3gb of ram is highly suspect. Looks like it'll be another crappy port that I will avoid.

Firehed 23rd January 2008, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
3gb ram seems a bit steep, do the consoles even have half that? I think you may be right about the lazy unoptimised port, my prediction it won't sell that well and they'll use it as another nail in the we're not going to bother making PC games coffin.

Not even close, but that's the most affordable requirement to meet these days. I got 4GB of RAM for my laptop for $80 a couple weeks ago and I think it's even cheaper in desktop systems.

willowthewhite 23rd January 2008, 15:23

DX10... oh please let it be, I so want this game to look better on the PC, just so I can justify buying my graphic cards rather than a PS3. Just need to add some ram and I'm sorted! 3Gb on XP is cutting it fine though.
EDIT: just spotted the DX9 soundcard please don't tell me they're using EAX, I don't want the mind **** that is creative hardware!

Vash-HT 23rd January 2008, 15:53

AFAIK EAX is not the same as direct3d sound. So basically you need a card that supports the directx sound api, which I think most do.

chrisb2e9 23rd January 2008, 16:19

maybe for once the reccomended specs are for running the game at max detail instead of it running well on low detail.

RedDethX 23rd January 2008, 18:51

I rather get it on my Playstation 3 TBH.:)

shade71 23rd January 2008, 19:47

So, at what resolution will the minimum spec'd machine be able to run? I wish they'd start writing that alongside requirements.

HourBeforeDawn 24th January 2008, 07:28

those specs dont look bad at all, cant wait to check it out.

impar 24th January 2008, 12:04

Greetings!

No problem with the hardware/software requiremnts.

Migh have a problem with:
This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives.

It might turn to be another BioDRMshock screw up.