Max Payne 3 PC System Specifications

Operating System:

Windows 7 32/64 Service Pack 1, Windows Vista 32/64 Service Pack 2, Windows XP 32/64 Service Pack 3

Processor:

Intel Dual Core 2.4 GHZ -  i7 3930K 6 Core  x 3.06 GHZ / AMD Dual Core 2.6 GHZ - FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ

RAM:

2GB - 16GB

Video Card:

NVIDIA® 8600 GT 512MB VRAM – NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680 2GB VRAM / Radeon HD 3400 512MB VRAM - Radeon HD 7970 3GB VRAM

Sound Card:

100% Direct X 9.0 compatible – Direct X 9.0 compatible supporting Dolby Digital Live

HDD Space:

35 GB 

Then the title is entirely accurate. If you run it on Max, you will experience Payne. Also, there's a 3 in it.

35 gigs? are they serious? I refuse to believe it.

 Lol, have fun downloading THAT off steam!

That seems odd. 35 gigs I don't mind so much, but the rest is kinda strange. 

Rockstars recent track record with PC games make me Infinitely not care about the PC version. I'm calling bad optimization no way in hell does this look better than witcher 2 on Max settings.

Some people.......

I guess it's optmized really badly. Visuals aren't too great. A single model in Shogun 2 has more detail than what I am seeing here.

I'm rocking a I7 3930k @ 4.5 ghz, 32 gb ram, 2x GTX 580, 2x 240 gb SSDs I use for gaming. So correction, I WILL be playing max settings. Also you will not need that high of specs to run that considering the fact that no videogame that will be made in the next 5 years will use 16 gbs of ram, and 6 cores/12 threads.

HDD space =/= download size. Anyway, that's just a PC from 5 years ago as minimum and then the best you can buy right now. So it's saying it will run on almost every gaming PC.

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have that much space to spare for a 10 hour game.

16gb ram wut...

@themangalist said:

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have 35GB to spare.

that's not really the problem though, it's that internet speeds aren't good enough. Well, in some places, I mean. It took me 20 hours to download LA Noire, and that was half that size.

I guess it's optmized really badly. Visuals aren't too great. A single model in Shogun 2 has more detail than what I am seeing here.

I can run Witcher 2 on Ultra. Why wouldn't run an uglier game? No reason, unless it's badly optimized, of course. As for the 35gb of disk space, wtf? Is it 30 hours long?

35GB? STOP IT GAME DEVELOPERS.

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

I guess it's optmized really badly. Visuals aren't too great. A single model in Shogun 2 has more detail than what I am seeing here.

well at your honest about the guessing

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

@matthias2437 said:

I'm rocking a I7 3930k @ 4.5 ghz, 32 gb ram, 2x GTX 580, 2x 240 gb SSDs I use for gaming. So correction, I WILL be playing max settings. Also you will not need that high of specs to run that considering the fact that no videogame that will be made in the next 5 years will use 16 gbs of ram, and 6 cores/12 threads.

and yet you have 32 gigs of RAM in your gaming rig?

@Demoskinos said:

Rockstars recent track record with PC games make me Infinitely not care about the PC version. I'm calling bad optimization no way in hell does this look better than witcher 2 on Max settings.

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

Guys, read AlexW00ds comment, you have it all wrong.

@AlexW00d said:

HDD space =/= download size. Anyway, that's just a PC from 5 years ago as minimum and then the best you can buy right now. So it's saying it will run on almost every gaming PC.

They are just listing the range of PC's you can play it on, not that you need the best of the best to play it at minimum.

Shame on you guys, you should know better!

@Animasta said:

@themangalist said:

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have 35GB to spare.

that's not really the problem though, it's that internet speeds aren't good enough. Well, in some places, I mean. It took me 20 hours to download LA Noire, and that was half that size.

I have the opposite problem, I could download that in like two hours, but it would cost me $70 to download since I'm always over my data cap, and in corporate Canada the monopoly of Rogers likes to charge $2 per gig for overage.

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

@Metal_Mills: Yeah, just started thinking about that. Since Rockstar have been completely awful at optimizing that before, it could explain the ridiculous processor requirement.

edit: Man is it gonna suck if I have to turn down the thing that does look amazing - the animations and physics - because I "only" have a quadcore 2500K @ 4,5 ghz.

Why does a Max Payne title need almost the same amount of a huge MMORPG? 35GB is insane. Maybe it is a typo, as in 5GB or 3,5GB.

The Diablo 3 beta told me that I needed 35GB of free space (so did Shogun 2 expansion) yet it installed about 2GB.

@Jayzilla: Not only used for gaming, actually gaming is a very small part of what I use it for. Mainly used for 3D game development and some video editing. Also I built it about 2 weeks ago and when I saw how cheap ram is now so I just filled all my slots. $200 for 32GB of memory blew my mind, and was cheap enough so that I now have it and if I need it then I won't have to worry.

But most games are 32 bit, which only supports around 2.4GB of memory which is why unless Rockstar is using some ground breaking technology and has the most un-optimized game made then the game will not use more than 4GB at most.

Those minimums are actually fairly low. And how is hard drive space a concern for anyone who owns a PC? It could be 1 terabyte in size at this point and I'd be like "all set" (unless it's a download. That might take a few months or some negotiating with my ISP.. but seriously, anything short of 100 GB today isn't noteworthy).

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

what do you mean 'presentation wise'

Just saying, I'll be playing this on max probably.

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

what do you mean 'presentation wise'

@Bell_End said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

@Bell_End said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Bell_End said:

@Ertard said:

Judging from the PC screens released, this is really fucking horribly optimized. It looked about 5 years behind BF3 ultra, which has quite a bit lower requirements for 60 FPS..

which screens shot are you talking about?

http://www.giantbomb.com/max-payne-3/61-23398/hi-rez-pc-screenshots/52-595054/

nice. they look great

Looks pretty terrible to me presentation wise.

what do you mean 'presentation wise'

The vegatation looks like something from Tomb Raider 3. The textures look painted on with no sense of depth to them. Lots of sharp edged geometry.

About the only thing worth complimenting is the gun model. Doesn't look very great.

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: Your monitor is shit.

You never know. The Force Unleased was a legitimate 30gb download because the developers were to lazy to properly reuse assets and just threw everything in multiple times.

@Jayzilla: Don't bother him. He's too busy showing off his e-cock.

@Hunkulese: I remember downloading that over about 3 days during a steam sale. All those 1080p FMVs really added up. AND it was a really bad game.

@BigChickenDinner said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: Your monitor is shit.

I have Viewsonic 120hz 3d monitor. It's pretty good. For comparison, here is (or was prior to patch) a Dx11 strategy game that has to renders thousands of units on screen at any given time.

And Max Payne 3.

Can't say i'm impressed considering all the buzzword DX11, super max spec talk. Looks eh.

I'll still pick it up, mind. The game itself looks good.

They gotta be compressing whatever that is for the 360 version right? That's like more than 3 discs even if they use dual layers....

@MikkaQ said:

@Animasta said:

@themangalist said:

In an age where terabytes are dirt cheap, I see no problem in 35 gigabytes. But I'd be lying if I said I have 35GB to spare.

that's not really the problem though, it's that internet speeds aren't good enough. Well, in some places, I mean. It took me 20 hours to download LA Noire, and that was half that size.

I have the opposite problem, I could download that in like two hours, but it would cost me $70 to download since I'm always over my data cap, and in corporate Canada the monopoly of Rogers likes to charge $2 per gig for overage.

It's the same bullshit with videotron... "oh so you give me 120GB monthly data cap? That is mighty generous but why are you giving me enough speed to reach this cap in 10 hours?" I hate this place.

I'm pretty sure it's gonna be no where near a 35BG download. Plenty of games download the data and only install it after and so need double the space. Like Space Marine did "Hard Drive: 20 GB space free (10 GB free after install)". Taken from the steam requirements.

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: I'd just like to point out that when you zoom out to render "thousands of units at any given time" your computer does not render those models at that level of detail.

@BigChickenDinner said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: I'd just like to point out that when you zoom out to render "thousands of units at any given time" your computer does not render those models at that level of detail.

Thats cause it's optimized.

@Klei said:

I can run Witcher 2 on Ultra. Why wouldn't run an uglier game? No reason, unless it's badly optimized, of course. As for the 35gb of disk space, wtf? Is it 30 hours long?

Well, the cutscenes alone are four hours and ten minutes long so...

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: No its because the units are so fucking small there aren't enough pixels in a .5cmX1cm box to show that much detail.

@altairre said:

@Klei said:

I can run Witcher 2 on Ultra. Why wouldn't run an uglier game? No reason, unless it's badly optimized, of course. As for the 35gb of disk space, wtf? Is it 30 hours long?

Well, the cutscenes alone are four hours and ten minutes long so...

Doesn't the Witcher 2 also have hours worth of cut-scenes?

Either way disk space isn't a problem for me. Or likely most people who game or use a pc extensively.

@BigChickenDinner said:

@whyareyoucrouchingspock: No its because the units are so fucking small there aren't enough pixels in a .5cmX1cm box to show that much detail.

The game changes level of detail for optimisation. From very long distance the units will turn into 2d sprites. This is mostly un-noticable.

This is off topic anyway, the point is, it is had a great presentation thats makes use of pc horsepower, Max Payne 3 it appears, does not. It looks average at best. The Witcher 2 is another (and probably better) example. I don't really play that though, so I used this as an example.

After GTA IV and LA Noire, I definitely won't be getting Max Payne for anything other than the 360. Rockstar's games as of late have had terrible PC optimization.