Google+

Mass Effect 3 PC requirements have arrived

Bioware has officially announced the level of beefiness a PC will require to run Mass Effect 3. The requirements are really quite light, which shouldn’t be too surprising, this is a five years old series running on Unreal 3, after all. As always, the requirements come in two flavors: “Minimum” and “Recommended.” Take a look:

Minimum Spec:

OS - Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1, Win 7

*Supported chipsets: NVIDIA 7900 or better; ATI X1800 or better.  Please note that NVIDIA GeForce 9300, 8500, 8400, and 8300 are below minimum system requirements, as are AMD/ATI Radeon HD3200, HD3300, and HD4350.   Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

CPU - 1.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (equivalent AMD CPU)

RAM - 1GB for XP / 2GB RAM for Vista/Win 7

Disc Drive - 1x speed

Hard Drive - 2.5 GB of free space

Video - 256 MB* (with Pixel Shader 3.0 support)

Sound - DirectX 9.0c compatible

DirectX - DirectX 9.0c August 2009 (included)

Recommended Spec:

OS - Windows XP SP3/Vista SP1, Win 7

CPU - 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (equivalent AMD CPU)

RAM - 2GB for XP / 4GB RAM for Vista/Win 7

Disc Drive - 1x speed

Hard Drive - 2.5 GB of free space

Video - AMD/ATI Radeon HD 4850 512 MB or greater, NVidia GeForce 9800 GT 512 MB or greater

Sound - DirectX 9.0c compatible

These requirements come from a post in Bioware’s official forums by Community Coordinator Chris Priestly. This news comes on the heels of Priestly’s announcement that ME 3’s PC version will require Origin activation to play.

Mass Effect 3 has a release date of March 6, and don’t forget to grab the demo when it drops on February 14.

We Recommend By ZergNet

56 comments

  • Jacko415 - January 20, 2012 6:42 p.m.

    Its not too late to shelve it til next generation...
  • jasoncarter - January 20, 2012 5:01 p.m.

    Did anybody happen to notice this and think it was a bit..... off Hard Drive - 2.5 GB of free space Really? Just 2.5 GB? ...... No way
  • Ivegotmyawesomepantson - January 21, 2012 2:35 a.m.

    I was just thinking that. ME2 came in at 11.5 GB, so it looks like they might be missing a 1 somewhere.
  • winner2 - January 20, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    I'm not really pc component savvy and I really don't feel like going through the learning process right now, so I have a question. My comp runs Witcher 2 at max settings pretty freakin fast, should I have any problems with ME3?
  • UberNoob - January 20, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    Wither 2 is pretty demanding. If you can run it with playable frames, ME3 will be no issue at all.
  • VooDooDevil1369 - January 20, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    I think having lighter PC specs are great. There are a ton of people out there who would love to game on the PC but don't have the money to build big expensive rigs. Having lower specs opens this game to a wider audience. I drop a grand on my PC almost every other year and have my specs cranked up but I also have a 360 and a PS3 AND a Wii and I enjoy games on all of them. Anybody disparaging anybody else because of the system they play games on is ridiculous. PC's look great and I can't think of a single game, regardless of specs, that doesn't look better on PC. Console gaming makes sure MORE GAMES are made and as long as MORE GAMES are made i'm happy and feel that it's pretty arrogant to blame consoles for "holding you back." If it WASN'T for consoles the games industry would be pretty dismal. #RANT
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    PC gaming was doing great before casual gamers. It would continue to do great without them.
  • comaqi - January 20, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    PC Gaming was great until we were all stereotyped as elitist ass holes.
  • ParagonT - January 20, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    Who exactly do you refer to as casual gamers? People say "casual" like that if they do not own 60 games, did not own an Atari, and is not at least the age of 20, they are not just gamers. This really intrigues me.
  • madmax21st - January 20, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    You stick to your peasant console piece of turd then. Let us superior beings take full advantage of our specs.
  • wicko - January 20, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    Is this honestly how you think?
  • Net_Bastard - January 20, 2012 9:09 p.m.

    This is the type of mindset that made the creators of the PC version of Just Cause 1 port the PS2 version to PC instead of the 360 version. Having low specs is a great thing, yes. But for fuck's sake make the max settings look nice if graphics are even a slight priority. Crysis 1 did this perfectly. The system requirements were low but the game was still amazing on max settings. Also, without top-of-the-line PC hardware pushing consoles along, console gaming would end up being pretty dismal as well. And before you pull that card; what I just said isn't elitist. IT'S A FACT.
  • StrayGator - January 20, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    ME3 Won't use Unreal engine, but the engine used for the PS3 version of ME2.
  • wicko - January 20, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Which was the unreal engine...
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 7:30 a.m.

    They are quite light. Almost as if the game were DESIGNED to run on a system whose hardware hasn't changed in around 7 years. What a shame. We could have a ME3 that looks and sounds better than BF3 if certain people weren't holding back the industry.
  • wicko - January 20, 2012 8 a.m.

    Eh, I wouldn't say consoles are holding them back - BF3 managed to look amazing on PC despite also being on consoles. I blame Bioware/EA for not putting resources towards the PC version.
  • BladedFalcon - January 20, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    Yes, boo hoo. Who cares if the game has great story, original characters, and well polished gameplay and varied quests. No, all it matters is that it looks as shiny and gorgeous as possible! and because it doesn't, it's being held back! BOO HOO!!! You're really are starting to sound like a broken record. An annoyingly shallow, whiny, selfish record.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    Yea, shame on me for wanting a game that has great story, original characters, well polished gameplay, varied quests, and looks like it was made this decade. I am such a horrible person.
  • comaqi - January 20, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    Admitting you're a horrible person is the first step to solving the problem.
  • BladedFalcon - January 20, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    Let's not kid ourselves. All you want is to rag repeatedly on console gamers and make a tantrum like a child because you think they are "holding you back". You're pretty much like a spoiled junior that has a custom ferrari, and is pissed because most other people can only afford something like a civic or whatever. The thing is, your ENTIRE argument against consoles "holding" gaming back hinges purely in graphics, nothing else. And frankly, consoles don't look THAT bad, yes, they look sub-par compared to a PC, but for anyone that's not a shallow graphics whore, they are more than good enough. And that's why most people have consoles, pretty much the main setback is lesser graphics, but in return we have a much cheaper, simple way of enjoying video-games. Consoles would really only hold TRUE gaming behind, if the PCs were able to do something GAMEPLAY-wise that the consoles just couldn't replicate. Except they just don't, there is not a single high end, PC exclusive game that has such a groundbreaking, innovative gameplay aspect that the consoles couldn't replicate. Thus, you're whole bitching is always revolving around graphics, and thus, you are a very fucking shallow person. And you can try to argue that any other way you want, but it's a fact, and I'm done being nice about it. So yeah, poor you that can't have shiny graphics that don't really affect the core aspect of a game at all. Sob and whine all you want while most of the world won't give a shit and will continue playing consoles without a care in the world.

Showing 1-20 of 56 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.