Shadow of the Tomb Raider PC System Requirements Released

[VSG]

Square Enix's upcoming game title, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, is due for public release on September 14, less than 11 days from the time of this news post, and has grabbed attention already thanks to that being the first game to be out that also promises support for NVIDIA's RTX real-time ray tracing. Based on preliminary tests, this appears to have even the upcoming GeForce RTX 2080 Ti struggle to maintain a solid 60 FPS even at 1080p so time will tell how the rest of the game fares on hardware both old and new.

In the meantime, we look forward to seeing the third of the rebooted Lara Croft series that has been received positively in general- including for a good PC port, as tested by TechPowerUp before. Shadow of the Tomb Raider is slated to run on a system with a dual core CPU, a GeForce GTX 1050/Radeon HD 7770 equivalent and takes up 40 GB of system storage. As for recommended settings, Square Enix via developer Eidos-Montreal suggests a quad core CPU (Intel Haswell and newer, or AMD Ryzen R5 1600 and newer) paired with an NVIDIA GTX 1060 or AMD Radeon RX 480. Interesting also to note here is the use of the 6 GB version of the GTX 1060, so it may be a case of the game needing a minimum of 4 GB VRAM at 1080p under their recommended settings. Let us know in the comments if you plan on picking up the game early, and also what system you are going to be running this with.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[StrayKAT]

I suspect it'll kick my system's ass, like Mankind Divided (the other TR's run very well though).

 

[ExV6k]

Once again, the specs that devs give are completely nonsensical. How can you suggest a GTX 660 "or" a GTX 1050 when the latter is almost as fast as a GTX 680.. And it's even worse if you mention the HD7770 as the 1050 trades blows with the HD7950.

 

[Arjai]

What was your point? Pointing out deficiencies in the System Requirements?

"it's even worse if you mention..." Really?

You seem pretty knowledgeable, use it for good.

 

[Fouquin]

What was your point? Pointing out deficiencies in the System Requirements?

"it's even worse if you mention..." Really?

You seem pretty knowledgeable, use it for good.

Because the GPUs they have specified for the minimum requirement are practically on opposite ends of the performance spectrum. The Radeon HD 7770 and the GTX 1050 are so far apart in performance it's not even funny, so why would a game with a minimum requirement of a GTX 1050 also run on a HD 7770? That makes very little sense.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Because the GPUs they have specified for the minimum requirement are practically on opposite ends of the performance spectrum. The Radeon HD 7770 and the GTX 1050 are so far apart in performance it's not even funny, so why would a game with a minimum requirement of a GTX 1050 also run on a HD 7770? That makes very little sense.

Because a game made for consoles isn't going to run bad on low end amd GPUs is it? but the 1050 is what's required in Nvidias older(now older not older then the 7770) now less optimised tech.

It does seam an extreme difference maybe async computes involved.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They usually list cards based on what was tested by their QA department.

 

[Arjai]

So, again. @ExV6k @Fouquin The point? As @FordGT90Concept and what @theoneandonlymrk , was trying to say, is this:

The game developers, producers and probably paid people, run the games and that is how they get their recommendations.

So, what seems senseless to you, is not. So, your point is to point out your opinion of what they do for a living is senseless.

My point is, use your knowledge for good. Use it to help, not denigrate people for NO reason.

That, is the very definition of senseless.

Thank You and Goodnight.
:mike-drop:

 

[Fouquin]

They usually list cards based on what was tested by their QA department.

This is a very anticipated title that has two very well known developers attached to it. Their QA department(s) should have access to hardware that is not over half a decade old for their qualification testing, as evidenced by the inclusion of the GTX 1050, GTX 1060, and RX 480 in their requirements lists. The Radeon HD 7770 appears to be a carry-over from the previous title's minimum requirement despite the minimum nVidia suggestion being upgraded substantially.

So, again. @ExV6k @Fouquin The point?

I thought I was fairly clear on my point.

The GTX 1050 is roughly twice as fast as a Radeon HD 7770. This is pretty well known. If the absolute bare minimum system requirements to run this game calls for a GTX 1050, than why would the suggested equivalent from AMD be half as fast and 4 years older? The senselessness of the recommendation lies in the extreme performance difference between the two GPUs suggested. Even if we exclude the GTX 1050 and refer back to the GTX 660, that card too is 1.7x faster than a 7770. Why would they not instead suggest a more modern, and much more equivalent, RX 560?

So, what seems senseless to you, is not. So, your point is to point out your opinion of what they do for a living is senseless.

My point is, use your knowledge for good. Use it to help, not denigrate people for NO reason.

I'm curious as to how questioning a discrepancy in the minimum requirements list of a video game in any way constitutes a direct attack on the people in employment of Square Enix, Crystal Dynamics, or Eidos Montreal. ExV6K in particular did question the devs because it was stated in the article that Eidos Montreal were the ones who supplied the system requirements for publication. They did not directly attack anyone employed there, nor their choice of employment. I don't know what things you see when you're reading between the lines, but I assure you with great sincerity that they are NOT being said, indirectly or otherwise.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is a very anticipated title that has two very well known developers attached to it. Their QA department(s) should have access to hardware that is not over half a decade old for their qualification testing, as evidenced by the inclusion of the GTX 1050, GTX 1060, and RX 480 in their requirements lists. The Radeon HD 7770 appears to be a carry-over from the previous title's minimum requirement despite the minimum nVidia suggestion being upgraded substantially.

They still list the 660 yeah? They just added the 1050 to their minimum testing because it's a common card. They maybe should have added a newer AMD card too for fairness but...top 3 cards are GTX 1060, GTX 1050 Ti, and GTX 1050. Minimum testing the GTX 1050 covers a lot of bases. HD 7770, being GCN based and GCN not changing a whole lot since then, they likely didn't feel they needed to test anything newer.

 

[Fouquin]

They still list the 660 yeah? They just added the 1050 to their minimum testing because it's a common card.

For Rise of the Tomb Raider a GTX 650 2GB is what they suggested, that was upgraded to a GTX 660 for this title.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

This is a very anticipated title that has two very well known developers attached to it. Their QA department(s) should have access to hardware that is not over half a decade old for their qualification testing, as evidenced by the inclusion of the GTX 1050, GTX 1060, and RX 480 in their requirements lists. The Radeon HD 7770 appears to be a carry-over from the previous title's minimum requirement despite the minimum nVidia suggestion being upgraded substantially.




I thought I was fairly clear on my point.

The GTX 1050 is roughly twice as fast as a Radeon HD 7770. This is pretty well known. If the absolute bare minimum system requirements to run this game calls for a GTX 1050, than why would the suggested equivalent from AMD be half as fast and 4 years older? The senselessness of the recommendation lies in the extreme performance difference between the two GPUs suggested. Even if we exclude the GTX 1050 and refer back to the GTX 660, that card too is 1.7x faster than a 7770. Why would they not instead suggest a more modern, and much more equivalent, RX 560?



I'm curious as to how questioning a discrepancy in the minimum requirements list of a video game in any way constitutes a direct attack on the people in employment of Square Enix, Crystal Dynamics, or Eidos Montreal. ExV6K in particular did question the devs because it was stated in the article that Eidos Montreal were the ones who supplied the system requirements for publication. They did not directly attack anyone employed there, nor their choice of employment. I don't know what things you see when you're reading between the lines, but I assure you with great sincerity that they are NOT being said, indirectly or otherwise.

Fine wine

 

[enxo218]

No I will not be getting it, the wounds of the lack of actual tomb raiding, the redundancy of abilities in skill options, the eternal colectathon, unchanged gameplay, unexplained erratic graphic performance and aggressive desexualisation of lara are still too fresh . Also still don't have a 10 series card so no max details on my 970 (will there be a performance review on tpu?) so there is that as well.

/rant over

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For Rise of the Tomb Raider a GTX 650 2GB is what they suggested, that was upgraded to a GTX 660 for this title.

HD 7700 is more powerful than GTX 650 and they probably found out GTX 650 was unbearable with the new game; hence, jumping up to GTX 660.

 

[StrayKAT]

No I will not be getting it, the wounds of the lack of actual tomb raiding, the redundancy of abilities in skill options, the eternal colectathon, unchanged gameplay, unexplained erratic graphic performance and aggressive desexualisation of lara are still too fresh . Also still don't have a 10 series card so no max details on my 970 (will there be a performance review on tpu?) so there is that as well.

/rant over

I can't deny the issues, but I still somehow enjoy them. Barring it being seriously bugged, I'll probably buy it

 

[Arjai]

Once again, the specs that devs give are completely nonsensical. How can you suggest a GTX 660 "or" a GTX 1050 when the latter is almost as fast as a GTX 680.. And it's even worse if you mention the HD7770 as the 1050 trades blows with the HD7950.

The senselessness of the recommendation lies in the extreme performance difference between the two GPUs suggested. Even if we exclude the GTX 1050 and refer back to the GTX 660, that card too is 1.7x faster than a 7770. Why would they not instead suggest a more modern, and much more equivalent, RX 560?



They did not directly attack anyone employed there, nor their choice of employment. I don't know what things you see when you're reading between the lines, but I assure you with great sincerity that they are NOT being said, indirectly or otherwise.

How about what I see, reading THE LINES.

 

[Fouquin]

So, your point is to point out your opinion of what they do for a living is senseless.

not denigrate people for NO reason.

How about what I see, reading THE LINES.

You are interpreting malice against other human beings from words that express no such thing. None of the words said are personal attacks, and any interpretation suggesting they are is a fit of mental gymnastics, nothing more.

Senseless - lacking common sense, wildly foolish

The usage of the word is in context of the article's subject. In a report of computer system requirements, where involved parties would have prior knowledge of computer hardware and their capabilities, it would seem senseless to offer two options as equivalents when they are, in fact, not so.

If you have any further issue with my use of the word in relation to the report of system requirements and not the people, employees or otherwise, please feel free to PM me. This has dragged on long enough for one thread.

 

[Vayra86]

This is a very anticipated title that has two very well known developers attached to it. Their QA department(s) should have access to hardware that is not over half a decade old for their qualification testing, as evidenced by the inclusion of the GTX 1050, GTX 1060, and RX 480 in their requirements lists. The Radeon HD 7770 appears to be a carry-over from the previous title's minimum requirement despite the minimum nVidia suggestion being upgraded substantially.




I thought I was fairly clear on my point.

The GTX 1050 is roughly twice as fast as a Radeon HD 7770. This is pretty well known. If the absolute bare minimum system requirements to run this game calls for a GTX 1050, than why would the suggested equivalent from AMD be half as fast and 4 years older? The senselessness of the recommendation lies in the extreme performance difference between the two GPUs suggested. Even if we exclude the GTX 1050 and refer back to the GTX 660, that card too is 1.7x faster than a 7770. Why would they not instead suggest a more modern, and much more equivalent, RX 560?



I'm curious as to how questioning a discrepancy in the minimum requirements list of a video game in any way constitutes a direct attack on the people in employment of Square Enix, Crystal Dynamics, or Eidos Montreal. ExV6K in particular did question the devs because it was stated in the article that Eidos Montreal were the ones who supplied the system requirements for publication. They did not directly attack anyone employed there, nor their choice of employment. I don't know what things you see when you're reading between the lines, but I assure you with great sincerity that they are NOT being said, indirectly or otherwise.

Its simple: market share. They list GPUs many people have so many people think they can run the game OK, and thus many people will buy it. Or people will see they have something faster than that from either an old or new gen and know they're safe too.

The point is to sell as many games to as many people as they can by not having specs that are a barrier to most potential buyers. That is also what games are optimized around - and even what GPU generations are aimed at. The common denominator. The 95%. It happens everywhere, even in clothing. 'One size fits all'.