Total War: Warhammer 2 system requirements confirmed

With Total War: Warhammer 2 [official site] now only four weeks away, launching on September 28th, developers The Creative Assembly have settled and announced the fantasy wargame’s PC system requirements. They are, unsurprisingly, about the same as the first Twarham’s requirements but very slightly raised so folks with sluggish PCs will want to check ’em out. And for folks with silicon-snorting framecrushers, beefy boxes bulging with ribs and oozing sauce, or chip-crunching cybermaws crammed with Datadeglovers™, they’ve detailed the sort of rig you’ll need to slam 60fps.

I do like that Creative Assembly take a stab at the performance and resolutions we can expect from each specification. It’s broadly understood that a game will kinda suck on the lowest spec but devs tend to shy away from stating that. Anyway, jam these numbers in your DIMM slot:

PC Recommended Specifications:

Expected around 45-55 FPS on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to “High”, running at 1920×1080

Operating System: Windows 7/8.1/10 64Bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-4570 3.20GHz
Install size: 60 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 2GB | AMD Radeon R9 270X 2GB @1080P

PC Minimum Specifications:

Expected around 25-35 FPS on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to “Low”, running at 1280×720

Operating System: Windows 7 64Bit
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz
Install size: 60 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GTX 460 1GB | AMD Radeon HD 5770 1GB | Intel HD4000 @ 720p
*PC integrated graphics chipsets, e.g. Intel HD series, will require 5GB system RAM

PC 60fps+ Specifications:

Expected 60 FPS+ on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to “Ultra”, running at 1920×1080

Operating System: Windows 7/8.1/10 64Bit
Processor: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0 GHz
Install size: 60 GB
Video Card: Nvidia GTX 1070 8GB

And for people who pleasure themselves vigorously over graphics options menus, Creative Assembly have also detailed the quality presets. Mash this to see ’em. I can’t embed that table myself because it’s weird to include niche erotica.


  1. FurryLippedSquid says:


  2. Turin Turambar says:

    They still don’t have the Dx 12 renderer working as it should?

    FXAA for Ultra? Disgusting!

    • Sakkura says:

      That antialiasing line saying off/off/off/FXAA is just sad.

      • Imaginary Llamas says:

        TBH I found the FXAA implementation in TW:W to be really horrible and blurry, such that I preferred no AA to FXAA.

    • Imperialist says:

      What exactly is wrong with DX12?

  3. TotallyUseless says:

    So errr apparently we need a top of the line video card just to get a stable 60 fps on 1080p with high settings?

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      It’s basically just a mega expansion for the first game, and that ran fine–with decent AA–without a top of the line card at 1080p at Ultra Settings (except for Unit Size, since the game seems balanced around Medium). Unless they’ve done something insane, I can’t imagine actually needing what they are advocating here.

      • Landiss says:

        It’s a strategy game with pause. 30+ FPS is quite comfortable really. (Oh horror, did he really write that?)

    • Banks says:

      To be fair this is probably the most graphically demanding game that there is on the market, despite not being specially pretty. Apparently the engine is quite old (same since empire) and CA is working on a new one but it won’t launch until whatever comes after the Warhammer trilogy (TW:Mythology!).

      They have updated the lighting on this one and the improvement is really noticeable, so there is that. It’s far better than WH1 from what we’ve seen so far.

      Still, Steel Division is proof that you can make a super detailed huge scale game that looks pretty both from up close and from afar that doesn’t require a 500€ GPU to run properly.

      • Zenicetus says:

        It may be an iteration of the same engine (Warscape?), but they did make the move from 32-bit to 64-bit with the Warhammer series. That has to be a big help in performance, especially for turn lengths on the campaign map.

        Being stuck in 32-bit mode is one reason why Paradox games like Stellaris bog down so much at the end game.

        • Banks says:

          Indeed, Warhammer runs a lot better than Attila and Rome 2 on similar hardware.

      • Landiss says:

        Steel Division? You are joking, aren’t you? The detail level of graphics in those games cannot even be compared, as well as the scale (the amount of models on the screen is several orders of magnitude smaller in Steel Division).

        • Landiss says:

          Also, for the record, in my humble opinion TW: Warhammer (1) was the best optimized game in the series.

    • Imperialist says:

      When did a 1070 become “top of the line”? That is more mid-high range.

      Also, not sure if you noticed, but there are literally thousands of highly detailed models thrashing about at any given time. Did you expect anything less than a mid-high range card to run that at 60FPS?

      Regardless…the game is more CPU intense anyway. Hence why it has a 4790k for the 60FPS spec.

  4. DarkLiberator says:

    I like how they add what kind of fps range you’d expect from requirements.

    Of course if we’re a frame or two short we can sue right?

  5. DelrueOfDetroit says:

    I think RPS just gave us the go ahead to preorder this.

  6. biggergun says:

    For me the first game ran perfectly well (1080p, all ultra, no AA, 40-45 fps) on a pretty weak setup (older i5, 270X 2gb). The benchmarks for newer processors suggest you’d be fine with even weaker CPU. So, all in all, good optimization.