With the game two weeks away on PC, Ubisoft has put up a blog post with the PC requirements.

The requirements are:

Minimum

Supported OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10(64bit versions)

Processor: Intel Core i5 2400s @ 2.5 GHz or AMD FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz

RAM: 6GB or more for Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon R9 270 (2GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0)

DirectX: DirectX June 2010 Redistributable

Sound: DirectX compatible sound card with latest drivers

Recommended

Supported OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64bit versions only)

Processor: Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz

RAM: 8GB

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (4GB) or the newer GTX 970 (4GB) or AMD Radeon R9 280X (3GB) or better

DirectX: DirectX June 2010 Redistributable

Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers

Hard Drive: 50 GB available space

Technical note from the developer:For a recommended experience, the game requires a video card with at least 3GB of VRAM when playing at a full HD resolution. While we encourage you to fiddle with the advanced options to fully customize your gaming experience, please keep an eye out for the VRAM meter usage when you adjust these settings.

One thing I find interesting is that it calls for a GTX 760, or a GTX 970.

In case you're wondering, Unity recommended the same processors, but it asked for a GTX 780 or R9 290X.

My computer will be enough to run the game at high settings, and GMG was running a preorder deal for $38, so I'm all ready to go. But man, those are some high system requirements.

Wait are those really that high? 280x/970 as the recommended seems actually perfectly reasonable for a AAA game in 2015. Honestly it seems like they learned from the massive fiasco that was last years PC port, still going to wait on a proper port report though.

@noval: I am pretty sure this is the first time I've seen a GTX 900 card in the recommended list of graphics cards. I am aware that games are requiring more and more horsepower all the time, and there will come a time where more games will have 900s in the recommended list. Just seems a bit soon. Witcher 3 asked for a 770, the recommended card for GTA V is a 660.

Depends on optimization. I have a 280X & i7 920 and Unity ran at around 15-20 frames per second, regardless of how much I lowered the settings. This same computer went on to run Mad Max and MGSV, two much better looking games, at a solid 60.

It really is. That would take me weeks to download. What a time to be alive!

These things are so useless. What the hell does recommended mean? 1080/30? 1080/60? High settings? Ultra settings? I know why they don't want to be more specific, but these spec lists seems like something from a forgotten era where you had to look at the back of the box to see if your computer could play a game.

Going to be curious how this works with a 970 considering it was a pack-in game for the card. I expect good things, but who knows!

Unity was, and probably still is, the better looking game. I'm not surprised the recommended GPU specs are lower.

Oh wow apparently those specs are for 1080/30. That is a little bit high then after all.

Maybe DX12 will finally fix this massive overhead thing the PC got going on in terms of gaming. I don't know enough about these things to tell.

Gonna run like shit like all ubisoft games

So was Arkham knight.... :-(

So the PC version was released today and I'm seeing a few reports here and there. Apparently, it's nowhere near as bad as Unity. It looks like a normal PC version of an Assassin's Creed. It doesn't run great but it's not complete ass either.

Anyone got their hands on it yet? I'd love to give this game a shot.

That's the card I just bought and picked this game over Rainbow Six. It runs great in some places, well in others, hitches a little in big spaces. All the settings are maxed except I turned terrain from Ultra to High because otherwise it eats more VRAM than the video card has. It's a Ubisoft game, so it's not going to be the prettiest or the smoothest, but it works.

Do you have the Nvidia GameWorks stuff turned on? Early reports say that those effects really hurts your FPS. Like other GameWorks games, I imagine over time they'll optimize those effects, but for now, folks are saying to turn those off.

I didn't see any Nvidia specific options in the game settings unless they're just another level on the quality options. I did turn shadows down from super crazy awesome to pretty awesome and that freed up enough VRAM to max everything else. The framerate stopped stuttering and shadows still look like smooth blurry blobs, so I'm not sure what the visual impact was!

@bocckob: This is from the Steam reviews. I won't get to check out the game until later tonight, but I've heard to use these settings from multiple places:

Great Performance on a GTX 980 and an i7 4790K with 8GB of Ram! Well I mean if you wanna max out Nvidia stile, well good luck maybe you'll acheive 60fps in 2016. The game will drop to 40fps in the first mission with GW on. So do yourself a favor. Use only HBAO+ because HBAO+Ultra takes 10fps, yeah you heard right. And Turn off PCSS/PCSS ULTRA. With PCSS you loose 20fps and with PCSS Ultra 35fps. So basicly I'm running the game with PCSS off, HBAO+ , 2xTXAA and everything else on max. Averaging 70-80fps with ease.

Ah, okay. That's weird, because the difference between HBAO+ and Ultra is like, 3fps running around this little market area thing for me. Changing the shadows from High to PCSS to PCSS Ultra alters it by around 15fps going by Uplay's fps counter. Though as far as I can tell, the visual quality is pretty much exactly the same regardless of those changes and I can't see any difference between 30fps and 40. Maybe it differs more depending on where you are and time of day in game, but the framerate dipping under 30fps is the only thing I can notice messing with all these light and shadow settings.

@brandondryrock: @bocckob: There is a new GeForce driver out now - 359.00 for Syndicate and Overwatch. nvda.ly/URbVs

From what I've seen around some reddit threads, game runs like garbage with Nvidia Gameworks and PCSS on. If you turn those off, it runs pretty good. Also, cloth physics simulation seems to run at 30FPS no matter your framerate is.

I played about the first 3 hours last night, and the game runs great on my machine (i5-4690K, GTX 980, 16 GB RAM). I turned ambient occlusion down to HBAO+ and shadows down to high. Everything else is maxed out. I get a steady 60 FPS at 1080p. Graphics are pretty great. Seeing all of London from high up is fantastic. I didn't play Unity, but for all the hate that game got for its performance on PC, it seems like they've done a better job with Syndicate.

EDIT: I forgot to install the new GeForce driver! I'll do that today and see if I get a bump in performance with the post processing effects.

2012's linear corridor shooter Max Payne 3 was 40-45 gigs. That was outrageous, but 40-50 gigs is probably the norm for most things now.

@justicejanitor: Hmm, will have to try that. It runs pretty terrible on my 970 at the moment.

Ah, it turns out that the game detected my plasma as a 24hz monitor. That would explain things a bit! Working fine now.

Well I caved in and got the game recently and after updating my video drivers it seems to run pretty good on my aging PC. I have a i7 920 overclocked at 3.2 GHz, 12 GB of RAM and a GTX 770. I set it to the High preset and everything runs pretty good (40-60 fps). I game Steam In Home Streaming a shot and no real performance hit there.

On my slightly more recent computer (i7 6600k, 970GTX), I can honestly say this is one of the best-looking games I've ever played. MGSV was pretty spectacular at what it did, but Syndicate has so much more detail in its environments that it's pretty easy to just stop and look around for a bit and be wowed by everything that's going on.

Well, I've been playing the game a whole lot more and once I hit the actual "open world" and not just the staring area, performance took a huge hit considering the amount of people to render. I had to take things down a few notches. I get that my PC is getting old and I'm surprised it's lasting me this long.

Is there a setting for population density or something like that?

Well I am late but I may add this to my top games of 2015 (even though i didn't play it last year lol).

As far as the Pc goes for me, my fx 8350 really tanks my performance in this game even with my 980. But once i figured out to just turn world detail to high (no real noticable diffence) i'm getting 60fps (no gameworks or msaa though as that tanks performance too for some reason).

I find a lot of the combat mechanics dated, and sometimes wish there was less of it, but man running around london with a grappling hook helping charles darwin and charles dickens is fucking wild lol.

I suggest anybody on pc to use some sweetfx, this is my personal favorite Sherlock Holmes Sweetfx. Just up the brightness a bit and took out the depth of field as it was way to glitchy and clashed with the cutscene's.