Do recommended PC specs matter?

[Quirkymeister]

Hello,
I've played a lot of PC games, but mostly only old ones, so I haven't really needed to consider whether my PC was gunna be powerful enough. However, I'm in the process of getting parts for a 'proper' gaming rig capable of taking on the new generation so that I no longer need swear fealty to Sony or Nintendo (Microsoft never had my vote). So, a question to you PC gaming johnnies out there:
Does it matter too much if my PC is above the minimum specs, but falls below the recommended specs of a game? I'll use the Witcher 3 as an example because I'd like to get it; the graphics card I'm eying for my build at the moment is an R9 270, which rises above the minimum specs but doesn't meet the recommended specs. Would the game run at an acceptable level with a card like that? Or does falling below the 'recommended' specs simply mean I have to dial down the graphics options a bit but it otherwise works fine?
Your advice is always appreciated,
-Quirky

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Though it varies, the minimum specs are just that. Minimum. You should expect to put all graphics options down to their lowest setting and even then expect some problems.
Granted, I've played games fine with specs well below their recommended or even minimum setting but it's not a guarantee.

 

[Monk5127]

I suppose it all depends on how you define an acceptable level performance. What would your resolution be? Target minimum FPS? How much eye candy is enough?


When I check requirements for modern games I read it as;

Minimum - 720p low <30fps
Recommended - 720p Medium/High ~60FPS / 1080p Low(Shadows/Shaders)/Medium 40-60FPS

That is assuming there isn't a reason for me to just expect the game to run terribly on anything.

 

[baddude1337]

Early gen tended to inflate them a lot, and they usually run on much lower hardware.

Overall recommended specs don't matter too much as they can never take into account everything, and serve more as a guideline. It ultimately depends on how well optimised the game is.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

The thing to remember is that minimum and recommended specs aren't mathematically calculated or anything like that. They're just the publisher's suggestions. So "minimum" can mean anything from "This game will technically run at 15 fps with the graphics dialed way down" to "The game runs perfectly fine at most settings as long as you have these specs." It'll vary from company to company and even game to game.

Similarly, "recommended" can mean anything from "The game runs perfectly fine at max settings with these specs" to "We suck at optimization and don't want to deal with complaints, so we'll set these specs absurdly high so no one can complain." Again, it varies from company to company and game to game.

tldr: I've had games run fine at well below the minimum specs, and I've had games refuse to run at all below the minimum specs. They're recommendations more than science.

 

[DoctorObviously]

Hi! Be cautious with the "Recommended Specifications". Don't take the hardware listed under that to the letter. If you meet these recommended specifications, try to see it as the developer saying: "Yeah, you'll be able to run this at Medium settings with 40-60 FPS."

But like baddude1337 said, it depends on whether the game is optimised well or not. Some games will run beautifully if you meet these requirements, but most will not.

 

[Granfaloon]

It really depends. I've had games run well without meeting the recommended specs, but I've also had games(mostly AAA) crash constantly at above minimum/below recommended specs, though I think that was an issue with my video card at the time rather than the minimum specs being inaccurate. That said, I now have a computer that meets the recommended specs for most if not all games out right now, and I have no problem running games at max settings without issue so far.

 

[mad825]

When I check requirements for modern games I read it as;

Minimum - 720p low <30fps
Recommended - 720p Medium/High ~60FPS / 1080p Low(Shadows/Shaders)/Medium 40-60FPS

That is assuming there isn't a reason for me to just expect the game to run terribly on anything.

Most of the specs today are done with the expectation of it being 1080p. So your figures are a little off, you could get 50FPS with 720p.

 

[Doom972]

The recommended specs are the only ones that matter. In most cases, running a game with the minimum specs is just barely playable.

With that in mind - if you don't have problem messing with in-game settings, or the Nvidia control panel and its AMD equivalent, then you can get a bit more out of your game even if you use a minimum-specs' graphics card.

 

[Bad Jim]

If you are building a PC, you should be looking to exceed the recommended specs for new games by a reasonable margin. This way you can continue to enjoy newly released games for a few years after making it.

 

[Quirkymeister]

If you are building a PC, you should be looking to exceed the recommended specs for new games by a reasonable margin. This way you can continue to enjoy newly released games for a few years after making it.

Understood. However, my not-great budget really only allows for a mid-range graphics card if I want to be able to afford peripherals (yes, I understand I can hook it up to my telly, but most PC games have fine fonts that exist in the expectation that you're really close to the screen).
Thus, I was thinking about getting the game now and perhaps playing it with a lower resolution and maybe turning of that hair physics thing, and then swapping out the graphics card for a better one later on when my finances permit. The freedom to pay what you want for your hardware and upgrading later is probably amongst the coolest aspects of PC gaming.
Also, I've existed as a mostly console gamer up to this point; I haven't really been spoiled by the permanent 60FPS 1080p games that OC gamers have become accustomed to. Thus, my graphical standards aren't super high.

 

[Quirkymeister]

If you are building a PC, you should be looking to exceed the recommended specs for new games by a reasonable margin. This way you can continue to enjoy newly released games for a few years after making it.

Understood. However, my not-great budget really only allows for a mid-range graphics card if I want to be able to afford peripherals (yes, I understand I can hook it up to my telly, but most PC games have fine fonts that exist in the expectation that you're really close to the screen).
Thus, I was thinking about getting the game now and perhaps playing it with a lower resolution and maybe turning of that hair physics thing, and then swapping out the graphics card for a better one later on when my finances permit. The freedom to pay what you want for your hardware and upgrading later is probably amongst the coolest aspects of PC gaming.
Also, I've existed as a mostly console gamer up to this point; I haven't really been spoiled by the permanent 60FPS 1080p games that OC gamers have become accustomed to. Thus, my graphical standards aren't super high.

 

[Flammablezeus]

I've played games with only the minimum specs and been able to run them at high settings with a smooth frame rate. I've also played games with twice the power of the recommended specs and have had games run terribly at medium settings and even crash regularly. It all depends on the game and publisher (Ubisoft being one where the latter scenario has become a regular expectation for me.)

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

well it depends entirely on the game and how it is optimized (or not), hell there are usually tons of user fixes around if there is a problem (like the recent witcher 3 hair fiasco, for AMD cards all you had to do was go into the AMD catalyst program and have it override the witchers settings for one setting and boom, worked great if you turned the hair effects on.) recommended specs are a ballpark figure for what you should be hoping to have, but it's not essential, especially if you turn certain effects down (such as bloom or some of the fancier graphical settings)

if you don't mind me asking, what kind of budget do you got? if you're looking to upgrade your graphics card in the future (and stick with say a 270 right now) I'm sure many users and myself would be more than happy to critique or give you pointers on good parts to pick both short term and long term.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

It really depends on the game. I have a GTX 550Ti (upgrading soon) which doesn't meet the recommended specs for Sleeping Dogs but I ran that bad boy with the high res texture pack, lights and shadows high and everything else about medium at 1600 x 900, 60FPS. Turned a few things down a bit when I went up to 1080p but nowhere near low a d still with high res textures.

On the other hand, Metro 2033 runs like complete arse if I so much as turn DX11 on.

 

[Quirkymeister]

well it depends entirely on the game and how it is optimized (or not), hell there are usually tons of user fixes around if there is a problem (like the recent witcher 3 hair fiasco, for AMD cards all you had to do was go into the AMD catalyst program and have it override the witchers settings for one setting and boom, worked great if you turned the hair effects on.) recommended specs are a ballpark figure for what you should be hoping to have, but it's not essential, especially if you turn certain effects down (such as bloom or some of the fancier graphical settings)

if you don't mind me asking, what kind of budget do you got? if you're looking to upgrade your graphics card in the future (and stick with say a 270 right now) I'm sure many users and myself would be more than happy to critique or give you pointers on good parts to pick both short term and long term.

Trying not to exceed $1200 Australian, including monitor/keyboard/speakers etc.
I've a PC part picker list here. https://au.pcpartpicker.com/user/Quirkymeister/saved/#view=rnKbt6. However, I haven't built a PC before, so I've no idea what constitutes a 'good' gaming rig and what parts can be skimped on in order to save cash. I do have more experienced friends who could help me assemble it however, so I should be fine when it comes to the actual assembling of the thing.

http://www.jw.com.au/new-gmr-entry-level-rebirth-v4-gaming-desktop-p-56079
This pre-built one (with some of the recommended modifications available) was also something I've been looking at.

Anyway, thank you for your advice.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

well it depends entirely on the game and how it is optimized (or not), hell there are usually tons of user fixes around if there is a problem (like the recent witcher 3 hair fiasco, for AMD cards all you had to do was go into the AMD catalyst program and have it override the witchers settings for one setting and boom, worked great if you turned the hair effects on.) recommended specs are a ballpark figure for what you should be hoping to have, but it's not essential, especially if you turn certain effects down (such as bloom or some of the fancier graphical settings)

if you don't mind me asking, what kind of budget do you got? if you're looking to upgrade your graphics card in the future (and stick with say a 270 right now) I'm sure many users and myself would be more than happy to critique or give you pointers on good parts to pick both short term and long term.

Trying not to exceed $1200 Australian, including monitor/keyboard/speakers etc.
I've a PC part picker list here. https://au.pcpartpicker.com/user/Quirkymeister/saved/#view=rnKbt6. However, I haven't built a PC before, so I've no idea what constitutes a 'good' gaming rig and what parts can be skimped on in order to save cash. I do have more experienced friends who could help me assemble it however, so I should be fine when it comes to the actual assembling of the thing.

http://www.jw.com.au/new-gmr-entry-level-rebirth-v4-gaming-desktop-p-56079
This pre-built one (with some of the recommended modifications available) was also something I've been looking at.

Anyway, thank you for your advice.

oof, I forget how much you australians get screwed on pricing :-/

your pc part picker list is great for a first build EXCEPT for the power supply..as a general rule of thumb, never buy a power supply that doesn't have a efficiency rating of hopefully bronze or better, the last thing you need is your power supply crapping out on you, that's easily one of the top parts that you don't want to cheap out on since it has the potential to fuck everything up.

(I know it's a midtower + power supply combo, but everything I could find on that power supply shows that it doesn't have an efficiency rating, which basically means it's the cheapest of cheap, and in the pre-built there is an upgrade option for the psu to get a 80+ rating, which is satisfactory but that bumps it up 69+ in price which may not be worth it to you.)

that pre-built isn't a bad starting spot either, but I do feel like pc part picker is your best bet when it comes to getting the best parts for the cheapest price, so perhaps consult your australian friends more on their PSU's and see if they can offer some more insight.

 

[lacktheknack]

It entirely relies on how well-optimized the game is.

Check a few user reviews. Don't read them too carefully, just scan them for "poorly optimized". The more times you see that term, the more important it is to rise above minimum specs.

 

[veloper]

As a general rule don't aim below the recommended specs.
It's better to google for requirements and framerates, but if you cannot find much, stick to the rule.

3 exceptions:
AMD users may also want to check if the game is poorly optimized for their gfx card.

Laptop users need to figure out first how their hardware performs compared to desktop hardware, because mobile variants are usually a lot slower than the listed CPUs and GPUs.

A modern core i5 at 3+ ghz will usually suffice when a core i7 is recommended. The earliest i7 models are slower than the later versions and hyper-threading is rarely needed on top of having 4 cores for games.