Elden Ring's 'Minimum' system requirements were briefly revealed, then removed

Polycount

Posts: 3,013   +589
Staff member
Highly anticipated: FromSoftware's next RPG epic, Elden Ring, is on the way with an expected launch date of February 25, which is just a couple weeks from now. It's coming to PC, and fans have been eagerly waiting for the developer to release Elden Ring's official system requirements. That patience was finally rewarded yesterday when the studio updated the title's Steam store page with the Minimum and Recommended specs.

But that's where things get a little strange. First of all, the requirements were unusually steep for a FromSoftware game -- Sekiro, a beautiful title by just about any standard, can run on a GTX 760 or a Radeon HD 7950, whereas Elden Ring apparently requires a GTX 1060.

According to Steam's annual hardware surveys, that's a fairly common card. Regardless, gamers with lower-end components worried their rigs wouldn't be able to handle the game at a playable framerate, even on the low settings Minimum requirements usually account for. It's by no means unprecedented for a game sequel to require better (sometimes substantially so) hardware, but still -- it was odd.

Here are the alleged minimum requirements, if you're curious:

  • OS: Windows 10 or 11
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-8400 or AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
  • RAM: 12GB
  • GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060 3GB or AMD Radeon RX 580 4GB
  • DirectX: DX12
  • Storage: 60GB

You'll notice that we didn't include the "Recommended" requirements above, and that's because FromSoftware didn't upload them at all. In fact, even the Minimum requirements were quickly taken down, and if you visit the game's Steam page right now, all you'll see is a generic "TBD" under the Additional Notes field (which is typically reserved for small clarifications).

So... What's going on here, exactly? My theory is simple (and seems to be shared by several others): I think some intern at FromSoftware accidentally uploaded Elden Ring's Recommended requirements into the Minimum field, and simply forgot to include the other set of specs entirely.

Maybe Elden Ring is just a more demanding game, and a GTX 1060 really is the absolute minimum you'll need for a 30 FPS gaming experience (at low settings), but that just doesn't seem very likely to me.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. Elden Ring launches in less than two weeks, and FromSoftware will likely reveal the full requirements before then. You probably don't need to stress out about upgrading your rig before then, especially in the current era of overpriced hardware and never-ending scalping.

Permalink to story.

 

Skjorn

Posts: 693   +561
970 equivalent?
Could be 4GB isn't enough but you would think it should be for 1080p low. Maybe the 960 doesn't have enough bandwidth or power to maintain over 30fps. The 6GB 1060 and 3.5GB+.5GB 970 are similar if games can get by with 3GB of VRAM or less but as soon as they go over that threshold the 970 eats dirt. I can see why they have 1060 min. It might the cheapest card when released that has enough VRAM. 980 might have enough but it's usually faster than a 1060.
 

GamerNerves

Posts: 175   +108
Graphics don't look that much improved from Sekiro, but draw distance is way longer and enviroment detail is likely increased in the process, like foliage. Since GTX 1060 6 Gb is a little bit slower than Xbox One X's GPU, then it would make sense that the game runs either 30 or 60 FPS on low/medium settings at 1080p on that. I doubt current gen consoles aim any further than 60 FPS at 1440p on best settings. Obvious is that the experience is not going to either look too pretty or run that great on GTX 1060 nor on the last gen machines. We'll see if From Software will show this time any love for enthusiast PC gamers.
 
Last edited:

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Is a GTX 1060 minimum steep? It's 6 years old.
Nope and in a year or two it will be a 2060. The hard realities of the video card market will take its time to hit us but one by one we are all going to need to upgrade and when we do we face an enormous bill.

I use an RX480 and it’s already unable to hit 60 in a few games with reasonable settings at 1080p. It’s due a replacement but if I spend the same as I did 6 years ago I get something that performs worse.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,655   +2,872
TechSpot Elite
Nope and in a year or two it will be a 2060
See I thought kind of the same thing, but I have wondered if the 3050 or 3050 TI could become the 1060 min. specs. replacement. Assuming the prices stabilize of course. Though this really isn't something I know much about, but if the 3050 TI comes in under $300 that could be big because that is near what the 1060 price was.
 
Last edited:

dirtyferret

Posts: 774   +1,062
See I thought kind of the same thing, but I have wondered if the 3050 or 3050 TI could become the 1060 min. specs. replacement. Assuming the prices stabilize of course. Though this really isn't something I know much about, but if the 3050 TI comes in under $300 that could be big because that is near what the 1060 price was.
I wouldn't put too much thought into game requirements. Most often developers go with popular hardware to help cover the broadest amount of users. If you really want actual hardware requirements your best bet would be independent reviews once a game launches.
 

BigRedPDX

Posts: 284   +200
A GTX 1060 isn't steep. Maybe these days, but if we go back to MSRP, that's real basic. I would still try on my laptop's GTX 1050. It'll run Battlefield 5 at medium quality just fine, along with some custom adjustments. I mainly use that laptop
 

Skjorn

Posts: 693   +561
Using my fingers and toes I was able to calculate that three is less than four so 4GB should be enough for low.
Well they were removed so they maybe getting edited. I'm just speculating, ya know, with my brain. If 3 is enough why not write in the 970 instead? It's same performance. It's older. It'd be a better write in fit for min. Unless of course maybe 3GB isn't actually enough.