Here are Wolfenstein 2’s system requirements

wolfenstein-2-specs

Popular nazi-killer B.J. Blazkowicz will be back to his old shooty-shooty ways this Friday with Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus. Today publisher Bethesda have taken a break from their piggy-backing marketing long enough to post the PC system requirements along with details of uncapped framerates and aspect ratios. Here they are.

Here’s the important part, the system requirements:

Minimum:
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770/AMD FX-8350 or better
GPU: NVIDIA GTX 770 4GB/AMD Radeon R9 290 4GB or better
RAM: 8 GB
OS: Win7, 8.1, or 10 (64-Bit versions)
Storage: 55GB

Recommended:
CPU: Intel Core i7-4770/AMD FX-9370 or better
GPU: NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB/AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB or better
RAM: 16 GB
OS: Win7, 8.1, or 10 64-Bit
Storage: 55GB

Additional Requirements:
Steam account and broadband internet connection for activation and installation
AMD GPU drivers no longer support Windows 8.1

They’ve also pointed out that idTech 6, used by developers MachineGames, allows for an uncapped framerate (don’t worry, your eyes will cap it for you) and that the Field of View slider goes from 70 to 120.

On top of that they’ve included colourblind modes for Protanopia, Deuteranopia and Tritanopia, which jigger with objective markers and crosshairs and so forth. You can see all the rest of the technochat in the post on the game’s official site.

62 Comments

  1. Madvillain says:

    Intel i7 is considered a minimum spec now? Fuck me.

    • Stevey says:

      Well, it is a 5 year old CPU

      • Jokerme says:

        Not much happened in the last few years in CPU front. So it’s pretty much bullshit.

        • grrrz says:

          absolutely, I have an about 6 years old dual core i3 with a recent GPU and every game I’ve tried so far run smoothly, with graphics on high most of the time (also you do need to have 8 GB of Ram nowadays) Not sure how much the CPU can be a bottleneck here.

      • ulix says:

        Are you for real?

      • Premium User Badge

        laiwm says:

        2 things that are true:

        1. This game is significantly more graphically advanced than Crysis
        2. This game will almost certainly be playable on an i3

      • Stingy McDuck says:

        Did you reach the “Welcome to the Jungle level”? I had an core i5 3330 and that level ran terrible at most settings except low. Just because of the grass that required an core i7.

      • Ericusson says:

        Core i7 is not one processor but a whole common nomination of different generations of processors, all quad core.
        They are all considered medium-high end in their marketing denomination.

    • Torgen says:

      Yeah, my i3 is a Haswell. I’d need a new CPU, mobo, system RAM, AND a new video card.

      Guess I’ll have to kill Nazis the old fashioned way.

    • ulix says:

      I don’t trust these requirements. I often see requirements of CPUs newer and better than my 6 year old evergreen i5 2500k, yet combined with a GTX970 I can usually play these games in Full HD, with high details and at a fluid 30 fps.

      We will see I guess.

      • Whelp says:

        You consider 30fps fluid?

        • Nolenthar says:

          Well, it certainly seems to make the console crowds happy, I’d say that’s a very optimistic (and cheap) way to see PC gaming. Aim for 30fps, and everyone can run 4K !

        • Infernal Pope says:

          It’s been good enough for television for about 65 years now. And movies have been standardized at 24 fps for 90 years.

          And speaking from the perspective of someone who’s usually been at least five years behind the hardware curve, 30 fps beats the hell out of ten.

          • Nolenthar says:

            Oh, I’m not going to argue against that. If one enjoys games at 30 fps, it’s a win win scenario. Cheaper hardware, or higher quality at the same price point.

          • Bishop says:

            24 fps for movies is totally different. They capture a whole seconds worth of information, chopped up into 24 bits. Computer games give you an infinitely thin slice of time in 60 bits (if you’re at 60 fps of course). That’s why movies don’t look jerky but games at 24 frames are awful.

        • Premium User Badge

          phuzz says:

          30fps used to be something to aim for back in the day. I’m pretty sure the first time I played Doom it was at about 10-15fps and it still blew my mind.

      • TheSplund says:

        30FPS? With my i5-2500K and GTX970 I’m generally seeing 60FPS (with dips to low 50s) on most recent titles (GTA V, Far Cry 4, Doom, the last Tomb Raider, Hitman, Prey, Wolfenstein :The New Order, etc) with the highest setting, or maybe with one or two items dialed down.
        I think good/fair use of the Steam refund policy will be useful.

        • Daymare says:

          Same specs here. Also running most games on High/Ultra aat 60 FPS with some performance hogs turned lower, or sometimes off if I don’t care about ’em at all.

          Loved TNO and its DLC, been missing a good old rompy shooter in a cool setting for a while. High hopes for the new Metro game, too, whenever that comes out.

          • CaptainDju says:

            I didn’t realize there were so many people with the same setup, i5-2500K with GTX 970 here too, and I have no issues playing recent games at 60FPS without having to dial down the settings that much.

            Granted the CPU is OC to 4.3GHz but still, it was a beast of a CPU it seems :-)

          • Daymare says:

            Mine was OC’d, but isn’t even anymore. Because the one cheap motherboard I could get that let me plug in both somehow didn’t feature enough voltage. Wattage. Whatever. Not enough juice, to OC.

            Still no problem playing Dishonored 2 on High/Very High at ~55 FPS, esp. after the first fixes. And people whined for months how badly that game ran.

        • ulix says:

          I can also play MOST games at 60fps. There are exceptions however, like Witcher 3 at high details or more recently Original Sin 2.

      • ulix says:

        It depends on the game. But yes, of course 30fps is fluid. I wouldn’t want to play the new Doom at 30fps (which ran fine at a solid 60fps with high details at 1080p, and this game has the same engine).
        But for Wolfenstein with its much slower gameplay it seems reasonable.

        I have no problem playing Divinity Original Sin 2 or Witcher 3 at 30fps. Why would I? Some people prefer framerate over details, but unless it’s a very fast game I rather prefer high details.

        Divinity 2 for example runs with 45-55 frames on my PC. I’d rather have a solid 30fps than dropped frames at a higher framerate.

        • ulix says:

          I can confirm that, like Doom, it runs butter smooth on my non-overclocked 2500k with a GTX 970 at 60fps in 1080p on Ultra.

          There’s the occasional lost frame (dipping to 59 fps) which isn’t really noticable.

          • ulix says:

            Have to correct myself. After the initial segments it dipped to 40-45 frames in certain situations. So I set the details to high instead of ultra, and now I’m on 60fps 99% of the time.

            And like in most games you don’t see much of a difference between high and ultra, unleass you are really scrutinizing the graphics.

    • Darth Gangrel says:

      It’s odd that this game’s minimum requirements is equal to or higher than the recommended requirements of some upcoming AAA releases, like Destiny 2 and AC Origins. Those aren’t the type of games which cut down on graphics or anything.

      I don’t know if Wolfenstein 2 has awesomely intense/spectacular graphics or if it’s just severly unoptimized (I’d bet the latter). The most unusual thing is that they’re being so upfront about this. A game’s min req is usually accused of being too low, to lure people in with less beefy PC:s. That’s not good, but this isn’t good either.

      • ulix says:

        It’s idTech6, which was probably the best optimized engine on PC in recent years.

        You could get a very fluid 60fps with high resolutions and ultra details on very reasonable hardware, and the game looked amazing.

        That’s kind of why I’m wondering about the requirements for this game.

    • Stingy McDuck says:

      This is an AMD sponsored game and their Ryzen CPUs are famous because they have better multicore performance than the intel equivalent. So I guess this is a way of saying “Yes, you can run this game on intel CPUs, but you will need an core i7 at least”.

      Those are my 2 cents about the situation.

      • fish99 says:

        I don’t think so, it’s just the usual case of the people who do the system requirements not having a clue about hardware.

        Games are notoriously bad at utilizing multiple cores, often only using 2 or even 1, and intel chips still offers the best gaming performance per core. Also an i5 can nearly match an i7 in gaming performance.

        As I said below, if the game needed an i7-3770, there’s no way it could run smooth on the current consoles with that jaguar APU.

  2. Rich says:

    Yeah, but it’s not a very helpful minimum. It would be helpful to know what the minimum i5 would be, since that’s what pretty much everyone has.

    • Hartford688 says:

      Agreed – if it really does need an i7, that’ll bite into their volumes hard.

      But no doubt some marketing effort to hype up how cutting edge it is. I guess (hope) it’ll run fine on a recent i5 also.

  3. muki0 says:

    how the fuck is an i7 considered minimum? is this real life?

    • Azhrarn says:

      It will depend. If they actually went and properly multi-threaded the game, then you’re going to need a CPU with a minimum number of cores to process things properly.

      Assuming they didn’t (which is likely, as Multi-threading properly is hard), then it’s mostly to do with the higher core clock speeds that the i7 line tends to have. So having a really fast i3 or i5 shouldn’t hurt too much.

    • ColonelFlanders says:

      is this just fantasy?

    • fray_bentos says:

      I’ve just accepted that I’m living in an alternate reality ever the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump.

      • Vandelay says:

        You are? Over here the EU referendum was a landslide with 80% voting to remain, with a decision to be more European and steal lots of their great attitudes to social policies.

        Over in the US, remarkably, the winner of the Presidential election was Michelle Obama. Everyone just individually decided to add her as an extra option.

        Sorry you drew the short straw on universes.

    • Nolenthar says:

      Given it’s running on the idTech 6 engine, how Doom runs on your current PC should be a fairly decent benchmark. And let’s not forget what the guys at Prey said before it was released. Steam has refund anyway, so demo it out, make sure you don’t play more than 2 hours !

  4. Premium User Badge

    laiwm says:

    Is this one going to work on AMD cards? Couldn’t play past the 3rd chapter or so of the original, which was a damn shame.

  5. AutonomyLost says:

    Wow, this release date seemingly crept up on me. I can’t wait to play this.

  6. RichUncleSkeleton says:

    Who even comes up with these requirements? A 290 and a 470 are practically identical. Ditto for those i7’s.

  7. colw00t says:

    I find it hard to believe that they actually need an i7. Surely that would be massively cutting into their install base.

    edit: Wolfenstein: The New Order supposedly “required” an i7 as well, but it certainly had no problem running on my i5-4690.

  8. Hao-Sen Lin says:

    It would be really cool to see the development studio’s take on cyber future Imperial Japan, I feel like Japan and Japanese occupied East Asia would work really well as a setting for a sequel. The mix of old fashioned imperial culture and futuristic tech would be neat.

  9. PiiSmith says:

    Some colossal system requirements. ;)

  10. fish99 says:

    There’s no way this game requires an i7-3770. If it did how on earth would it run on the Xbox One or PS4?

    Also in gaming performance an i5 can almost match an i7 at the same clock speed.

  11. RPSDwarf says:

    With my i5 3570k at 4.1Ghz and a RX480 I don’t usually have problems to run new games at max, at 1080p.

  12. Booker says:

    Has this been confirmed? It will really only work with 8 cores/threads minimum? I have an i5 (4 cores), so…

    It would be the first game to cut support for quad core CPUs.

    I really want to know if you can’t even start the game with less. :D

  13. Maxwell Walker says:

    This is retarded! Why is a Core i7 listed as a MINIMUM requirement, when I have an AMD Athlon X4 860K, 16GB RAM, and a GTX 1050 Ti 4GB and it runs games at 1080p at High or even Ultra (with performance hogs turned down or off) settings!! It’s stupid, plus the “minimum” requirements is not that accurate!! Come on, Bethesda!!

  14. Loucmachine says:

    “don’t worry, your eyes will cap it for you”… wtf is that supposed to mean? Does this guy really think 144hz monitors make no difference? Or is it to laugh at people wgo think this?

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>