A look back at the PC specifications for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 launch year titles

50 GB HDD Space, 6 GB RAM, 64bit — Are we heading to a new standard specification for PC hardware? We take a look back at multiplatform titles of Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and see what PC specifications they required in order to run on a PC — and how they compared to the hardware at that time.

[Convas]

A GTX 780 for Call of Duty: Ghost is some unmitigated BS.

That said, I am happy to see us progressing from 2005 era Dual Cores, DX9 and 32-bit OS.

Progress is good! Here's to the next 8 years of gaming on PC. It will be glorious.

[MadLad]

I really feel I bought in at a good time. With the talk of a gaming specific OS and, possibly, the ability to make much more usage of the overall power of my CPU/GPU in the future . . .
It really is a fun time to be a PC gamer.

[Bebedora]

Has any of you PC guys a take on Steam OS, Valve's attempt to get a better env. for PC-devs and gamers?

Hmmm..I am thinking, maybe I would consider this.

[OrangePowerz]

What would have been more interesting would have been a comparison of PC game requirements 6-12 month before current gen came out and compare it with the requirements after the release.

[DarkLordMalik]

That's certainly a nice idea :)

[BLAKHOODe]

This is why I prefer consoles over PC. Not only do consoles offer a level playing field, but keeping up with the minimum requirements to run a game on PC can get expensive.. really expensive!

[dcj0524]

Not really....... upgrade every 4-5 years or so.

[TechMech2]

I own a mac. That's why I choose consoles

[Hassassin]

lol at the mac guy

[CGI-Quality]

Keeping up with the minimum requirements doesn't get expensive at all. In fact, most of the time, the minimum requirements for games isn't very different from one another. It's rare cases, like this one, where things change.

[Jovanian]

Level playing field comes at the expense of a capped skill ceiling.

Keeping your PC updated is about as expensive as investing in one console every generation, assuming the costs of paying for online multiplayer, the increased price of console games, the price of having hardware failure or upgrading to a slim or bigger hard-drive model at least once

[MadLad]

This is very true.
The only thing actually expensive about PC gaming is the initial buy-in.

[Irishguy95]

Nah, it really doesn't. 8800GTX lasted since 2006 for me up until Battlefield 3. And IF the minimum specs require a 8800GTX, then the Minimum settings on the game have better graphics than any console game.

[LordDhampire]

8800 gtx and gts, were monsters when they came out one of the biggest advances in gpus

[Volkama]

yup 8800GTX and an Intel Q6600, years of gaming in those.

Incremental upgrades aren't a necessity, new tech releasing so often just means that you can choose to get exciting new hardware any time you want.

[xKugo]

If the 780 requirement for COD is true, then next to nobody is going to be playing that game on PC and they would lose a massive amount sales. However, it is nice to see a big leap in minimum requirements for PC games. Means that consoles aren't going to be any where near Ultra on PC and separation between the two platforms will once again be more than just resolution and frame-rates.

[Pandamobile]

That was the recommended, not required.

Required was a GTX 550 I believe.

[MadLad]

A 780 for a CoD game with no real jump in visuals is still a joke in general.

[KontryBoy706]

I don't believe those specs at all. Based on the gameplay we have seen... the game looks like a polished MW3. Where is all this GPU usage going towards? Poor optimization thats where

[cunnilumpkin]

a 3 year old mid-spec gaming pc is far more powerful than ps4 or xbox1, a high end pc from 2 years ago blows the ps4 and xbox1 out of the water

a modern gaming rig with a gtx680-780 and a high end I-7 with 16 gb ram absolutely crushes xbox1 and ps4 into oblivion

it is literally already a full generation beyond anything the ps4 or xbox1 could ever hope to accomplish

this is evidenced by games like bf4 running at lowly medium settings in sub-1080p on the ps4, which is the more "powerful" of the two systems

1080p is a 10 year old resolution for pc gaming, that's last gen, and the "next gen" consoles cannot even deliver that

high end pc gaming is 1200p, 1440p, 1600p, eyefinity, and 4k

consoles are always a gen behind, its just normally when they launch, the are at least mid-high end, this gen they are generationally very far behind

[Qrphe]

>consoles are always a gen behind

Undeniable fact taquito, however, a 3 year old mid-spec gaming PC won't be playing games from two years from now while the PS4 and X1 will.

[CrusRuss]

Best post I've seen. These next gen consoles are struggling to do 1080p when most pc gamers and tv content is moving to 2k+ res. 2k monitors are getting cheap now. AMD really sold them some junk chips.

[kingduqc]

All those stupid comments make me realise how people are clueless about pc gaming really.

They just don't realise that yes you've spend a bit more on hardware and that yes you upgraded you gpu once in 8 years... But you saved hundreds(if not in thousand) in games alone in those years, you saved up like 350$ on online fees, you played a tons more of nice and cheap indie games, you've played all the mutiplats game that looked just WAY Better then the console version, you played games that are just impossible to get on consoles, that was smoother and you got tons of mods that are just ton of fun.

To me the only valid reason of owning a console was that it was plug and play and if you didn't get much time it was a good way to game... But with patches every months, freaking instal disk, crappy framerate on all game (even major one like skyrim and gta) AND that pc gaming improved on that point on so many level it's really just 3 click and you are ready to play any of the 3 000 games on steam.

Console platform is just so much inferior in anyway now, the only thing that keep em alive just like cod is the fanbase and retarded consumers.