Returnal PC port recommends 32GB of RAM

midian182

Posts: 9,662   +121
Staff member
In brief: PlayStation 5 title Returnal jumping to the PC was one of many big announcements at last week's game awards. It confirmed months-long rumors that the well-reviewed shooter would get a port, and now that its Steam listing is up, we know what system specs the developers are recommending: a whopping 32GB of RAM and at least an RTX 2070 Super / Radeon RX 6700 XT.

Third-person roguelike Returnal arrived on the PS5 last year to praise from critics and consumers alike, earning several nominations and prizes from various video game ceremonies. A Steam DB listing in May hinted at the game losing its PS5 exclusivity, and the port was confirmed at the Game Awards a few days ago.

But those who plan on getting the best out of Returnal will need a fairly beastly rig. The game's Steam page, which popped up straight after the PC-version announcement, lists an RTX 2070 Super / RX 6700 XT as the recommended graphics card. That's comparatively high-end, though we've certainly seen more demanding GPU recommendations, such as the RTX 3070 for A Plague Tale Requiem. However, Returnal also suggests players have 32GB of RAM.

The good news is that those recommended specs (they also include an Intel i7-8700 / AMD Ryzen 7 2700X) are likely required for pushing the settings up to max with ray tracing enabled at 4K. The Verge notes that both Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales and Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered ask for 32GB of RAM only for their Ultimate Ray tracing settings (4K/60fps).

According to the latest Steam survey, 13.38% of participants pack 32GB in their systems, and only 2.6% use a 4K monitor as their primary display.

Thankfully, Retunal's minimum specs are much more forgiving: an Intel Core I-6400 / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, GTX 1060 / Radeon RX 580, and 16GB of RAM. An SSD is a requirement in both sets of specs, as is 60GB of available space.

You can watch the entire Game Awards show right here.

Returnal minimum and recommended specs:

MINIMUM:

  • OS: Windows 10 64-bit (version 1903)
  • Processor: Intel Core i5-6400 (4 core 2.7GHz) AMD Ryzen 5 1500X (4 core 3.5GHz)
  • Memory: 16 GB RAM
  • Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB) AMD Radeon RX 580 (8 GB)
  • Storage: 60 GB available space
  • Additional Notes: SSD Recommended

RECOMMENDED:

  • OS: Windows 10 64-bit (version 1903)
  • Processor: Intel i7-8700 (6 core 3.7 GHz) AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (8 core 3.7 GHz)
  • Memory: 32 GB RAM
  • Graphics: NVIDIA RTX 2070 SUPER (8 GB) AMD RX 6700 XT (12 GB)
  • Storage: 60 GB available space

Permalink to story.

 
32GB of RAM on a game that's Single player only, WTF is it doing?!

I remember about 5 years ago there was talks that 8GB of RAM was no longer enough for PC gaming and 16GB was recommended for better experience. How have we now entered the need for double again already?
 
Last edited:
32GB of VRAM on a game that's Single player only, WTF is it doing?!

I remember about 5 years ago there was talks that 8GB of RAM was no longer enough for PC gaming and 16GB was recommended for better experience. How have we now entered the need for double again already?
Read it again. 32 gb of RAM, not VRAM.
 
32GB of RAM on a game that's Single player only, WTF is it doing?!

I remember about 5 years ago there was talks that 8GB of RAM was no longer enough for PC gaming and 16GB was recommended for better experience. How have we now entered the need for double again already?
It is in the name. Double data.
Finally, after 4yrs, getting 32GB of RAM for my 9900K build, has a use!

...Just as I'm about to build a new PC, with 32GB of RAM.

Note to self: buying more than you need for 'future proofing' is a total waste of money.
Nothing wrong with a 9900K still, mostly. I got 16GB of DDR3 when 8 was recommended and used more than 8 very often.
 
32GB of RAM on a game that's Single player only, WTF is it doing?!

I remember about 5 years ago there was talks that 8GB of RAM was no longer enough for PC gaming and 16GB was recommended for better experience. How have we now entered the need for double again already?

So in 5 years the requirement has doubled? Given the pace of change that hardly seems extraordinary.
 
The game effectively runs at 1080p on PS5, a machine with something akin to a 6600XT inside it. That was what it was designed for unlike all these cross gen titles that have a much lower base line with previous generation consoles.

It has been upscaled to hell and back to give this 4K output for PS5, which means if you want 1440p native from however the game engine is set up on PC you're going to need more than what PS5 is packing. 6700XT sounds about right.
 
Why are PS ports such unoptimized messes? For every good port like God Of War there's 20 ports like this and Callisto Protocol.

I hope MS buys up all the studios so they can make good ports for PC.
 
Finally, after 4yrs, getting 32GB of RAM for my 9900K build, has a use!

...Just as I'm about to build a new PC, with 32GB of RAM.

Note to self: buying more than you need for 'future proofing' is a total waste of money.

Not really a waste of money unless you're upgrading every year or two. I built my rig almost two years ago with 32GB RAM because it was cheap and you can NEVER go wrong with having "too much RAM".
 
The game effectively runs at 1080p on PS5, a machine with something akin to a 6600XT inside it. That was what it was designed for unlike all these cross gen titles that have a much lower base line with previous generation consoles.

It has been upscaled to hell and back to give this 4K output for PS5, which means if you want 1440p native from however the game engine is set up on PC you're going to need more than what PS5 is packing. 6700XT sounds about right.

Sure. Also, they are going to miss potential sales from >90% of gamers (i5 2500K and geforce 1050Ti and 1060s, radeons 570/580s et c) and <10% might, MIGHT buy their port. So I really don't see how this was a wise investment by the studio. On the other hand, I am sure we wont see the end of this game in commercial video card reviews since they use majority of games no one (less than 50 million people, hell, 5 million if even that...including reviewers) really cares about anyway.
 
Sure. Also, they are going to miss potential sales from >90% of gamers (i5 2500K and geforce 1050Ti and 1060s, radeons 570/580s et c) and <10% might, MIGHT buy their port. So I really don't see how this was a wise investment by the studio. On the other hand, I am sure we wont see the end of this game in commercial video card reviews since they use majority of games no one (less than 50 million people, hell, 5 million if even that...including reviewers) really cares about anyway.

Sony paid them a ton of money to be exclusive. It only makes sense that as soon as they can sell to other platforms, they will sell to other platforms. As a person who played the game: A lot of PS5 exclusive hardware issues were critical to how the game felt (M.2 NVMe drive & The DualSense controller in particular). It will be very hard for even GPU powerful games to recreate this experience (because, it wasn't really about the graphical fidelity; as the OP stated, it was severely upscaled).

Btw, the developer had never made a AAA game before. So this was a huge deal and probably a massive $$$ maker for them.
 
Been using 32GB for 10 years. This was for photo editing and running simulations, not gaming reasons and certainly not a waste of money. Next system will have 64GB of DDR5.

Not interested in this game at all after watching a play-through.
 
Sony paid them a ton of money to be exclusive. It only makes sense that as soon as they can sell to other platforms, they will sell to other platforms. As a person who played the game: A lot of PS5 exclusive hardware issues were critical to how the game felt (M.2 NVMe drive & The DualSense controller in particular). It will be very hard for even GPU powerful games to recreate this experience (because, it wasn't really about the graphical fidelity; as the OP stated, it was severely upscaled).

Btw, the developer had never made a AAA game before. So this was a huge deal and probably a massive $$$ maker for them.
You are correct, tho, it doesn't change my mind about the product market performance. For their sake I hope I am wrong.
 
Why would people need to waste $1000 on upgrading their rigs to run a pretty ugly and unoptimized crap game? I mean, for those system specs I'd at least expect amazing graphics. And not..... that.
 
Back