Devil May Cry 5 PC Requirements Revealed - 8 Threads, 8 GB RAM Minimum

[renz496]

8 threads for what exactly?

extra layer of DRM.....

 

[Nucleoprotein]

extra layer of DRM.....

Maybe this requirement is because new version of Denuvo

 

[renz496]

Running a game in 2018.

Or are you still in 2011?

lol no. game like this even Quad core most likely more than enough if you just want to run the game. give me one game that being released this year that won't start at all unless you have 8 thread CPU.

Maybe this requirement is because new version of Denuvo

with another layer of VM to protect that Denuvo from being cracked....

 

[jigar2speed]

I just bought myself a shiny 8600K (6 cores). What happens to me ?

 

[efikkan]

I just bought myself a shiny 8600K (6 cores). What happens to me ?

Nothing, you have an excellent CPU good enough for gaming for many years to come.

The requirements says nothing about requiring 8 threads, it says "Intel® Core™ i7-4770 3.4GHz or better".

As people should know by now, SMT like HT doesn't benefit gaming, it actually hurts gaming. Gaming is a highly synchronous task, anything impacting the threads of the game is a bad thing, either other threads in the game or other things running in the background. If you game at 60 FPS, you have a 16.7 ms window for everything the game have to do to produce the next frame. Things like HT overhead, OS scheduling overhead etc. all have an impact on stutter. It usually doesn't impact average FPS until it's really bad, but stutter is perceivable long before that.

Many people have misconceptions about cores and threads in gaming. First of all, forget threads, cores is all that matters for synchronous tasks. HT only allows cores to switch between two threads, it doesn't in any real way compare to having two cores. Secondly, multhreading is greatly limited by synchronization. It scales nearly perfectly if a workload can be split up in x chunks and processed independently, but that's not how games work. Thread synchronization usually costs 0.1-1 ms, and scheduling in the OS even more, like 1-10 ms. So it should be clear that very little synchronization can actually be done between the various threads of a game.
So how many cores do you need? You need as many cores as the game have threads with real work, plus potentially extra cores to process whatever you are running in the background.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

So how many cores do you need? You need as many cores as the game have threads with real work, plus potentially extra cores to process whatever you are running in the background.

exactly what is implied here. The game has 8 threads.

also: oh crap here we go again with the SMT/HT argument again...

 

[Mescalamba]

Nothing, you have an excellent CPU good enough for gaming for many years to come.

The requirements says nothing about requiring 8 threads, it says "Intel® Core™ i7-4770 3.4GHz or better".

As people should know by now, SMT like HT doesn't benefit gaming, it actually hurts gaming. Gaming is a highly synchronous task, anything impacting the threads of the game is a bad thing, either other threads in the game or other things running in the background. If you game at 60 FPS, you have a 16.7 ms window for everything the game have to do to produce the next frame. Things like HT overhead, OS scheduling overhead etc. all have an impact on stutter. It usually doesn't impact average FPS until it's really bad, but stutter is perceivable long before that.

Many people have misconceptions about cores and threads in gaming. First of all, forget threads, cores is all that matters for synchronous tasks. HT only allows cores to switch between two threads, it doesn't in any real way compare to having two cores. Secondly, multhreading is greatly limited by synchronization. It scales nearly perfectly if a workload can be split up in x chunks and processed independently, but that's not how games work. Thread synchronization usually costs 0.1-1 ms, and scheduling in the OS even more, like 1-10 ms. So it should be clear that very little synchronization can actually be done between the various threads of a game.
So how many cores do you need? You need as many cores as the game have threads with real work, plus potentially extra cores to process whatever you are running in the background.

Ive actually tested it and since then I have disabled HT. Majority of games I played runs faster and without hiccups with HT disabled. Even in Win 10 which handles multi-cores a bit better than past versions, it still offers no benefit to most games.

Sure there might be games that do use more than 4 threads, but probably not what I play. In fact most of my games could run even on dual core CPUs. (but since its good to have something for system and other stuff, then nope.. wouldnt go under 4 core 8 threads today). I think 6-12 or just 6-6 is about perfect for today and future (even very distant future, unless they wont make consoles with something like 20 cores).

 

[dirtyferret]

Probably another console port game that only uses two cores with the Pentium g5600 beating the Ryzen 1600.

 

[CheapMeat]

I just realized I'm getting older because the game footage didn't appeal to me at all.

 

[Ruru]

As people should know by now, SMT like HT doesn't benefit gaming, it actually hurts gaming.

Try some new games with a dual core, then a dual core with HT and come to say that again. Or try streaming new games with a quad-core i5, then with a quad-core i7 with HT.

A Pentium G4560 wiped the floor with Pentium G3258 @ 4.7GHz when I compared those. Also, i5-7600K @ 4.7GHz was pure crap when playing Far Cry 5 and streaming it. i7-7700K @ 5GHz eliminated all the problems.

 

[StrayKAT]

I just realized I'm getting older because the game footage didn't appeal to me at all.

It's not you getting older. DMC has always been juvenile and corny (but a couple were really challenging).

 

[AlwaysHope]

3rd person game, that in itself is immersion breaking imo.

 

[kastriot]

Even 1 thread is too much for this crap..

 

[Ruru]

It's not you getting older. DMC has always been juvenile and corny (but a couple were really challenging).

The first one on PS2 was great.

 

[Bruno_O]

The requirement is for i7-4700, not for 8 threads. @Raevenlord what's the point of this creative title writing?
All i5-8xxx beat 4770 easily. i3-8300 and i5-7600 aren't far behind.

But hey... let's go this route. 4770 is 3.4 GHz base clock. Who knows? Maybe your 1700 with 3.0 GHz default base won't start the game? Wanna bet? ;-)

1700s have 3.2 Ghz base clock on all cores/threads, and 3.75 Ghz on single cores when boositng

 

[notb]

1700s have 3.2 Ghz base clock on all cores/threads, and 3.75 Ghz on single cores when boositng

No.

Honestly... it's not like CPU specification is secret or something. You think that the whole world beside you is wrong?
That's 5+ core boost and XFR, respectively (@Wiki)

 

[Bruno_O]

No.

Honestly... it's not like CPU specification is secret or something. You think that the whole world beside you is wrong?
That's 5+ core boost and XFR, respectively (@Wiki)

I don't care about the spec sheet. In reality, whenever you put all 8 cores / 16 threads under Prime load - for hours - it never goes down below 3.2 Ghz if minimally cooled.
So the base clock is 3.2 Ghz in real usage.
And I've never seen more than 1 core going over 3.2 Ghz when being pushed, even when pushing just 2 cores. That might be XFR 1.1 or whatever is called on Ryzen 2000 series, but not the first XFR on first gen CPUs and chipsets.

 

[notb]

I don't care about the spec sheet. In reality, whenever you put all 8 cores / 16 threads under Prime load - for hours - it never goes down below 3.2 Ghz if minimally cooled.
So the base clock is 3.2 Ghz in real usage.

Base clock is 3GHz. There's really nothing to discuss.

OC your Ryzen to 3.8GHz. Is 3.8GHz the new base frequency? :-D

 

[Bruno_O]

Base clock is 3GHz. There's really nothing to discuss.

OC your Ryzen to 3.8GHz. Is 3.8GHz the new base frequency? :-D

base clock, by default, from stock, it's 3.2 Ghz
without any manual intervention or overclock or whatever
it never stays at 3 Ghz, no matter what the specsheet says and no matter what load you put it under

 

[notb]

base clock, by default, from stock, it's 3.2 Ghz

You're arguing that AMD made a mistake in the specification or you got a bad sample?

it never stays at 3 Ghz, no matter what the specsheet says and no matter what load you put it under

So either the OS is reporting incorrect values or the CPU is malfunctioning.
CPU frequency should drop to lower p-states under low load.

 

[Bruno_O]

You're arguing that AMD made a mistake in the specification or you got a bad sample?

So either the OS is reporting incorrect values or the CPU is malfunctioning.
CPU frequency should drop to lower p-states under low load.

It does drops below 3.2 depending on load, but never sticks to 3 Ghz
Nothing wrong with my sample, this is prob AMD's marketing when they say that it's a 3 Ghz CPU with an "all core turbo" to 3.2 Ghz on any type of load
So, regardless of the marking bull, in reality it's a 3.2 GHz base clock CPU. You can check on multiple reviews that it never maxes at 3 Ghz.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

The requirement is for i7-4700, not for 8 threads. @Raevenlord what's the point of this creative title writing?
All i5-8xxx beat 4770 easily. i3-8300 and i5-7600 aren't far behind.

But hey... let's go this route. 4770 is 3.4 GHz base clock. Who knows? Maybe your 1700 with 3.0 GHz default base won't start the game? Wanna bet? ;-)

Well, considering the 1700 at 3.0 GHz is an 8 core compared to the 4 core + 4 imaginary friends I7, I think that would turn out badly for the I7 if the game was expecting 8 cores to work with.

Perhaps you should have used the FX line, which was 8 cores but only 4 FPUs for your hypothetical argument instead of a true 8 core.

 

[notb]

Well, considering the 1700 at 3.0 GHz is an 8 core compared to the 4 core + 4 imaginary friends I7, I think that would turn out badly for the I7 if the game was expecting 8 cores to work with.

Why would it?
If a game has hard-coded limit for threads, it won't run on CPUs with less. A hard-coded limit for frequency would work exactly the same way. If it's 3.4 GHz, game won't run on 3GHz - no matter if it's 4, 8 or 20 cores.
Not that I think this will be true here, but I recall a game that didn't want to install on my notebook and the error message precisely said that I have less than some desired frequency. So it surely happened before.

I hope you understand that for a single-threaded process a 4-core 3.4GHz CPU is faster than an 8-core 3 GHz one (ceteris paribus).

It does drops below 3.2 depending on load, but never sticks to 3 Ghz
Nothing wrong with my sample, this is prob AMD's marketing when they say that it's a 3 Ghz CPU with an "all core turbo" to 3.2 Ghz on any type of load
So, regardless of the marking bull, in reality it's a 3.2 GHz base clock CPU. You can check on multiple reviews that it never maxes at 3 Ghz.

No one says it maxes at 3 GHz or that it should stick to this frequency. 3 GHz is the base value - end of story. A CPU will drop below in low load and - if some kind of "boost" is provided - will go above the base under heavy load.
Boost idea is not a new one and certainly not exclusive to Zen. It always behaves like that.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

A hard-coded limit for frequency would work exactly the same way. If it's 3.4 GHz, game won't run on 3GHz

pure LOL!

 

[Bruno_O]

Why would it?
If a game has hard-coded limit for threads, it won't run on CPUs with less. A hard-coded limit for frequency would work exactly the same way. If it's 3.4 GHz, game won't run on 3GHz - no matter if it's 4, 8 or 20 cores.
Not that I think this will be true here, but I recall a game that didn't want to install on my notebook and the error message precisely said that I have less than some desired frequency. So it surely happened before.

I hope you understand that for a single-threaded process a 4-core 3.4GHz CPU is faster than an 8-core 3 GHz one (ceteris paribus).

No one says it maxes at 3 GHz or that it should stick to this frequency. 3 GHz is the base value - end of story. A CPU will drop below in low load and - if some kind of "boost" is provided - will go above the base under heavy load.
Boost idea is not a new one and certainly not exclusive to Zen. It always behaves like that.

A base clock that's never reached?
My i7 has a true base clock of 2.8 Ghz and will boost up to 3.8Ghz under optimal settings, but if they're not met it defaults to 2.8 Ghz. Ryzen 1700s n-e-v-e-r use the 3.0 Ghz frequency, their base clock is 3.2 despite whatever marketing oriented spec sheet says.