I went to RAGE Steam page and i saw this:

Minimum:
OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or Equivalent AMD
Memory: 2GB
Hard Disk Space: 25GB
Video Card: GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 4200

Recommended:
OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad or Equivalent AMD
Memory: 4GB
Hard Disk Space: 25GB
Video Card: GeForce 9800 GTX, Radeon HD 5550

http://store.steampowered.com/app/9200/

Is this legit? If it is... this game looks pretty optimized for AMD. Compare a 8800 to a HD4200 and a 9800GTX to a HD5500 is a bit weird. And wow 25GB for HD.
What u think guys?

I think it is legit as Carmack stated in the past that they worked closely with Intel to get Rage to run on Sandy Bridge graphics which is far inferior to AMD/nVidia.

Yes, those are legit.

Wow, that’s huge!

I thought some of my other games that take 16-18 where large. I have a 1 Terabyte hard drive but still.

The hard drive space issue is probably why Carmack says that idTech 5 would be a bad choice for an Elder Scrolls game.

Where is that interview?

Lower than I expected -- this game must be well optimized for AMD.

These are very low system reqs!
I guess my GTX 570 and Sandy Bridge 2500K are way more than enough. And I was worried a lot haha.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35125/E3_ids_Carmack_Willits_Happy_To_Be_Done_With_Engine_Licensing_.php%22

Hard drive space isn't the only issue, and I could be wrong about it being an issue at all. I hope I am, because I'd love it if Fallout 4 used an id engine.

Really glad to hear about these specs - now hoping I will get close to 60fps on my laptop.

Minimum

OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or Equivalent AMD
Memory: 2GB
Hard Disk Space: 25GB
Video Card: GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 4200
Recommended:

OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad or Equivalent AMD
Memory: 4GB
Hard Disk Space: 25GB
Video Card: GeForce 9800 GTX, ATI Radeon HD 5550

Let's simply observe the minimum graphics cards here for a moment, shall we? Id/Bethesda is implying that the 8800GT (The top of the line card at the time of it's release, and still quite capable today) is in the same class as a Radeon HD 4200...an onboard video chipset on many motherboards. It isn't even a real video card. I'm trying to wrap my head around it, like many of you.

Now, let's take a look at a simple hardware comparison between the 9800GTX, and the Radeon HD 5550: http://www.hwcompare.com/336/geforce-9800-gtx-vs-radeon-hd-5550/

By NO means are those two cards in the same class as one another, the same goes for the minimum requirements, but even more so. So, I ask Bethesda this: What the flying frak?

Maybe it has something to do with quantity of shader processors HD 5550 has 320 and GTX 9800 has 128 and this engine uses them differently.

Uh, no. That's not the way things work. Also, bumping this as I'd REALLY appreciate insight on this from the devs. I can't in good conscience buy a game with issues like this.

Is it true these requirements? Actually I have doubts.

Or is the recommended requirements make rage work in high quality at 30 fps? Will be true?

bliviongate: John Carmack is A wizard :mage: It's about the HD & OpenGL :shocking:

I agree Henderson, there is something very wrong with these ATI requirements. An integrated HD4200 chip just as fast as a Geforce 8800? No way! I doubt it can even run RAGE at more than 10 fps. Bethesda made a mistake here, no doubt.
And I've never seen the HD5550 mentioned as a recommended card. It's just not a common card among gamers. It's weird they mention it, instead of a HD5670 or even HD5570.

I was very suspicious my self , little surprise , it proved that this engine is well optimized and also well capable of running stable frames on low ends since it was graphically more or less in the range of beffed up consoles. just look the other thread how people wre worried if they can run it heheh ... most of that was just a preassumption of how good the game looked in trailers, but the requirements are substantially lower that what the community was estimating. Many times this indicates something bad as to not being engough graphically ... not here - this shows the opposite of what the community at large would think - it shows how freaking optimized this engine is.

The 25 GB space requirement is similar to what PS3 will probably have but ofcourse the quality on the PC will be better anyways no doubt about that. So ... X360 version without 25GB free space would be a bad idea to buy.

These are only the 1.0 specs as expected.

PC guys should wait for super quality texture packs and super quality level pack. They will not be your sunday merry-go-round patches , these packs will still need high-to-enthusiast grade hardware. For some people the release date of those packs could understandably actually be the release date of the game on PC ... so i hope they hurry up but also don't rush and skip/fail on something

Yeah ... esentially the PC version is sadly not looking a whole lot better in terms of texture resolution and terrain texture cover map ratios.

Somebody at Bethesda doesn't know s*** about AMD products. They don't even mention the name of their CPU's and in the recommended specs is a AMD gpu that's slower than the Nvidia in the minimum-specs. Great job Bethesda! Hopefully the Skyrim specs will be more informative than this....

I agree ... sloppy job for AMD which is at the top for like a year with their GPU lines ... marketing departments are always nvidia sheples as obviously this company pays a lot of money for bribes and hype of the brand ... ofcourse that doesn't help at all when their chips are barbecues.

Also ... i wasn't surprised at 25GB ... i was even thinking of more since carmack said they were still negotiating about the size on the PC (noting the PC superiority) ... by the looks of it, it's not cut down from what they originally wanted on consoles ... a solid 25 GB ... but it's obviously not anything close to the high PC standards ... at it's launch it probably won't be a PC benchmark or rival against Crysis in terms of graphics fidelity but still the art quality is amazing and the sheer detail diversity and when that hits the super-high resolutions it'll be very good ... can't wait , and that will make some good competition against Crytek to step their next game up from this almost-disaster(HD pack came 3 month later ... that really couldn't fix the crappy gameplay) recently.

It will obviously fill the engine performance benchmarks at release , namely input response. For that i can say it's a winner already - no competition here. That's raw performance that doesn't get impacted from the size/fidelity of the assets ... it's the most importantly shooting event when the engine must process the input and make a gun shot before creating animations, sounds , and effects. I hope it will feel that good it'll rake credit off the increasingly annoying COD mindless-shooting-console-kids gameplay. But still it'll be the best on PC ... ID software can't make it better than the X360 is able to receive input and the shaky buggy firmware on there to take that to the game - ID Software is a kind of company that's able to pressure companies to fix their crappy hardware and they did good job but carmack didn't mention exactly this or anything with microsoft.

I don't understand how GPU qualifications work.

I have a Radeon HD 6750. Is that better or worse than a 5550???

I can rip apart a pc and put it back together easily, I can write in four different languages, and design and normalize databases to 3rd form... but when it comes to comparing GPUs I feel like a (censored) mother (censored) (censored) (and another string of censored words) idiot.

If I can only pick one, should I upgrade my GPU or my CPU? I have a dual-core right now and I'm not upping to quad if I don't have to.

So you are now crying because requirements are not insanely high, you should be happy that most of the people will easily max out the game.
If it were the opposite, most of you would cry how high the system req's are and how you will not be able to play it, I guess that's just in the human nature? Right?!





It's very easy man, you have for example series 4XXX, 5XXX and 6XXX.
Then you have models in the series for example 4870 and 4890 same goes for 5 and 6.
So the higher the series 4,5,6 and the higher the last two numbers, example of series 6, 6950 or 6970 the better the GPU.
That is not ALWAYS the case, but 90% of the time it is.
I said it's not always the case because there are some older models that are OC'ed and can surpass the newer models in processing power.

With Radeon cards this sheme is going on:

1)First number (i.e. 4XXX,5XXX,6XXX,) shows which series are the newest.The bigger the number,the newer the card. So 4000 series came out first,then 5000 series,then 6000 series.
2)Second number (i.e. X5XX,X7XX,X8XX) shows a card's class.The bigger the number,the stronger the class. So a 5850 is faster than a 6550. No matter 6550 is newer.
3)Third number (i.e. XX5X,XX7X,XX8X) shows which model of a given class is more powerful. So a 6890 is more powerful than a 6870.

So since you have a 6750,you got a newer stronger card than 5550

My PC surpass the minimum requirements.
For the recommended,my Graphics Card is OK,I miss 2 gbs of Ram but Ram is cheap so it isn't a big deal,I'll get them before Rage comes out.
But I don't have a 4core processor. I have a latest generation fast 2core instead.

Sweet. Now it makes sense!

Thanks guys!

Requirements are nice, I like. Thanks to the optimization many will be able to play even on modest machines.