According to the word of German marketing in social media Capcom, Monster Hunter Wilds has a fresh, generally less extravagant set Computer system requirements Before launching February 28. There is also an independent comparative tool that can be downloaded from the game Steam pageSo that you can see yourself how Best-Biffing RPG will work on the equipment.
Theoretically, these are great achievements. Lower requirements mean a more available game, and the comparative tool-which covers a good six minutes of combined films and simulated free roaming-spannia assurance and accountability to this otherwise hype-relica period. Unfortunately, there are two problems. First of all, the reference point confirms that Monster Hunter Wilds will act like Stagnant Goulash on low -class computers, and secondly, to which I am not sure if the changed minimum specifications are even reliable.
In addition to an unusual decrease from 140 GB to 75 GB of required SSD space – Dr. Weird would confirm – New mines are usually toned by their processor, and the graphics card asks one step. For example, the minimum NVIDIA graphics processor has fallen from GTX 1660 Super to the standard GTX 1660 and apparently you can escape with Intel Core i5-10400 instead of the previously mentioned Core i5-10600. Cool! Except for the conditions, it remains that they will only manage 1080p only when using both height and generation of RAM, which Wilds supports in NVIDIA DLSS 3 and AMD FSR 3.1 varieties.
Generation of frames should be used in general. Because it requires a high “base” of usually rendered frames for inserting interpolated frames, as well as balancing the added input delay, the real employ of Frame Gen is to take games that already work well and make them look correct, bleeding silky. Relying on him, to artificially push PC-Meltter after 30 frames per second, is uncomfortable, because he will continue to feel, due to the lack of input reaction, as if it worked for 20 frames per second or 15 frames per second or anything else. Which, when it comes to “real” frames, it is.
The MHW comparative tool shows this in action. Because I don’t have GTX 1660, I was a bit insolent and instead I tested the GTX 1060, although left in the overwhelmed core of i9-13900K of my test set to support create a difference. At 1080p with the lowest setting set and FSR working on the (hideous) ultra-performance mode, I finished with an average of only 26 frames per second, with lasting drops to 17-20 FPS during bits in the open world. By generating the frame, on average, it increased to 45 frames per second, but in the actual game scenario that would seem nonsense, because the input of the controller or mouse/keyboard record only half of the observable frames.
What’s more, the GTX 1660 is only a bit faster than the GTX 1060 on a good day, so even if you follow the minimum specifications, with your own acceptance tool tool tool, you will receive these painful drops below 30 frames per second. There are also bad news for the steam deck: the benchmark works, but on the same lowest/FSR ultra performance combination was on average 27 frames per second. Which again puts him beyond the executable support of generating frames.
If this is an advantage, it seems at least as MHW scales well with newer graphic processors. RTX 4060, the most affordable from 3 useful DLSS NVIDIA stationary cards, obtained 62 PP cages worthy at 1080p with both high graphics and the effects of tracking high ray (plus a hand from increasing DLSS quality on quality). Adding RAM genes, which makes much more meaning at this type of performance level, raised it to 98 frames per second. And at the opposite end of the spectrum of the set, the fresh RTX 5080 pumped 72 FPS at 4K, using the maximum ultra graphics mix, high -ray tracking and high quality DLS. Do it also 110 FPS with a gene frame, although it does not seem that this is supported by DLSS 4 multi -class generation.
I will try to give a full game more comprehensive tests when it is ready to run; It will be intriguing to see what exactly you will need for 30 frames per second or 60 frames per second at 1080p without generating a frame in the thumb in the scales. Which is not nippy again, even if such early comparative editions are often in the concept. Upscale, such as DLSS, are already a bit too immense, as well as compensation for excessive technical requirements in recent games, and it would be a shame to see how Frame Gen will go in the same way.
