Mass Effect PC requires 'processor,' 'memory' and 'video card'

by Ludwig Kietzmann { Apr 16th 2008 at 9:00PM }

While scouring the Mass Effect forums for a guide on how to place our girl, Beyoncé, into BioWare's space epic (found one!), we stumbled across the "system requirements" of the PC version. Not only will you require a PC, but one filled with the following rams, gigabytes and geforces:

Minimum System Requirements

Operating System: Windows XP or Vista
Processor: 2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD
Memory: 1 Gigabyte Ram (XP); 2 Gigabytes Ram (Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better); ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)
Hard Drive Space: 12 Gigabytes
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers

Recommended Real System Requirements

Operating System: Windows XP or Vista
Processor: 2.6+GHZ Intel or 2.4+GHZ AMD
Memory: 2 Gigabytes Ram
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or higher; ATI X1800 XL series or higher
Hard Drive Space: 12 Gigabytes
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers – 5.1 sound card recommended

Mass Effect PC is out on May 28th.

Gallery: Mass Effect (PC)

Tags: BioWare, EA, Mass-Effect, RPG, Sci-Fi, Specs

Related From Joystiq

Magic: The Gathering - Tactics tapped for PC and PS3 release
8 days ago
Final Fantasy XIII character progression system explained
9 days ago
The Force Unleashed PC requirements prompt trip to Tosche station
18 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Isaac @ Apr 16th 2008 9:04PM

I'm sorry.

Is that a fucking joke?

jefffff @ Apr 16th 2008 9:42PM

I know whats witht he extra 3 gig requirment? It's on a 9 Gig DVD right now on 360.

StuScotsLazyEye @ Apr 16th 2008 10:07PM

Low res 1280x720 console textures FTL!!!!

High res 1920x1200 PC textures FTW!!!!

DangerMouse @ Apr 16th 2008 10:26PM

Is it impossible to compress data on a DVD then uncompress while running the game on the 360?

Tiptup300 @ Apr 16th 2008 11:21PM

Such tiny requirements for my precious...

ItsInTheCave @ Apr 17th 2008 2:36AM

@ DangerMouse

That's exactly how the 360, and it's father the XBOX, work. Compressed on the disc, uncompressed on the fly.

Lorben @ Apr 16th 2008 9:06PM

That's not nearly as bad as Assassin's Creed's requirements

Isaac @ Apr 16th 2008 9:06PM

Uh, actually the final updated assassins creed requirements are not that terrible. My friend runs it great on his mac book pro.

Lorben @ Apr 16th 2008 9:19PM

The finalized minimum processor requirements for Assassins' Creed are the same as Mass Effect recommended. In my mind, that's a pretty darn chunky requirement.

Also Macbook Pros cost $2K and up, it better be able to play new video games.

Slayer @ Apr 16th 2008 10:03PM

The processor requirements aren't even that high. You can buy a dual core processor Amd/Intel at dirt cheap prices if you know where to look.

Fernando Rocker @ Apr 16th 2008 9:06PM

I have seen multiplatform PC games on full settings, and even if the resolution is higer, I prefer the quality of the 360 games, at only 720p or 1080p.

I prefer a big screen TV than a smaller screen with higer resolution.

tmacairjordan87 @ Apr 16th 2008 9:30PM

exactly. The setup for console gaming is just >>>>>>>>>>>>> than pc gaming. I'll take relaxing in a soft chair over a hunched, cramped back any and every day.

propanol @ Apr 16th 2008 9:35PM

And I'll take my $700 office chair over a couch which doesn't prop me up properly and hence gives me back pains. Also, dual screen 24" TFTs @ higher than 1080p > LCD TV.

arrakisman @ Apr 16th 2008 10:08PM

I have my gaming rig hooked up to me TV. Works great. A 25$ laptop table from IKEA even makes the the keyboard and mouse comfortable to use on the coach.

Jeff @ Apr 16th 2008 10:10PM

If 360 games actually ran at 1080p, your argument would have merit. But time and time again, games have shown that this console generation just isn't powerful enough to pump out the new hottness at 1080p AND 60 FPS.

If you want true HD and 60 FPS, you're going to need a PC... which you can plug into your huge HD-TV.

Not that I care what other people prefer or do, your argument just annoys me. What you're saying is "I prefer big screens to little screens" except somehow you're making it sound like that means PCs are inferior.

rv @ Apr 16th 2008 10:10PM

UNLESS YOU HAVE A FUCKING VGA PORT which most hdtvs have. This argument is extremely flawed.

DangerMouse @ Apr 16th 2008 10:20PM

I really wanted to pick up 360 last summer, but i'm glad i held off since most of the games that i've been interested in have come or are coming to the PC, sans Halo 3 (but it's only a matter of time, i presume). For me anyway, Microsoft trying to bully there way through the PC gaming market may have backfired somewhat.

Jansperus @ Apr 17th 2008 1:23AM

$2,000+ for slightly higher resolutions FTW!

Einhanderkiller @ Apr 17th 2008 2:34AM

You know you can hook up a PC to a TV, right?

Playing Crysis on my 60" Sony HDTV is pretty damn awesome.

Burn2 @ Apr 16th 2008 9:10PM

That isn't even outragous by todays standards. Most people are packin far higher resources than that.
http://www.burnedbytheman.com/politics/the-gamestop-conspiracy-the-final-solution/

Lupo @ Apr 16th 2008 9:26PM

"I hunted down one of the old darker workers" , thanks for the link, unrelated, but i'm going to use it for my African studies class, type it up on my pc that cant run mas effect

Arttemis @ Apr 16th 2008 9:27PM

"most people"!?!?

Where the hell do you get that idea? Out of 6 of my closest friends, I have the 2nd-most capable computer... and I'm using an AGP X800 Pro video card.

Markez @ Apr 16th 2008 10:08PM

"I hunted down one of the old darker workers" Cringe inducing.

Even if the author meant that as some kind of humor, it's still, just, eh, cringe inducing.

What an idiot. Did you write that? Please say no.

Tiptup300 @ Apr 17th 2008 3:20PM

Computer Makers are destorying the PC game market. Since all their non "gaming" machines come with the most terrible 5 dollar graphics cards. And the "gaming" machines cost about 160% more than they should.

Liquid Ocelot (call me Liquid) @ Apr 16th 2008 9:10PM

This MUST be a joke. Your telling me my computer (Radeon HD 2600 is the MINIMUM? F*CK YOU, BioWare. Still buying your game, but f*ck you.

Fandel @ Apr 16th 2008 9:19PM

Sorry, but the HD2600 was never a really good videocard to begin with (at least for games). In fact, I would say that it's considered a low-end card -- even when it was released last year.

The problem is that current ATI cards simply suck for gaming at the moment.

Liquid Ocelot (call me Liquid) @ Apr 16th 2008 9:25PM

Hate to tell you this, but i have AGP only, which means this is the best graphics card money can buy for my 5 year old system. How sad....my ps2 worked BETTER after 5 years....

Fandel @ Apr 16th 2008 9:35PM

Actually, it's not the best AGP card you could have bought. The ATI X1950 PRO is a lot faster than the HD2600. Sure, it's a DX9 card, but honestly, that HD2600 is far too weak to take advantage of DX10 anyway.

Rul of thumb: It's always better to buy a high-end last generation videocard than to waste money on a low-end "newer" generation card like the HD2600

Liquid Ocelot (call me Liquid) @ Apr 16th 2008 9:46PM

and where were you when i was planning all this?

(where were you, when they built the stairway to heaven.....)

Jackal @ Apr 16th 2008 10:16PM

Liquid Ocelot,

Like others have said, the HD 2600 XT was never really that good of a videocard; I remember reading something to the effect that it had the same number of texture mapping units as a Radeon 9800 (the R300 architecture came about in 2003-2004). Essentially, it'd be a killer card if it were released a half decade ago. Most of the people that bought them did so for their HTPCs since the HD 2600's had UVD, something the HD 2900 XT didn't.

Now, if you still want to stay with AGP, you have two really good options (if you can find them). The first is the Radeon X1950 Pro; it's roughly on par with a Geforce 8600 GTS (a little slower or faster depending on the game). That particular one's pretty hard to find now since few ATI partners want to continue producing a 90 nm chip (everything's now 55 nm) and they tend to go out of stock quickly when they are available. The second option is a Radeon HD 3850 (yes, there's an AGP version). For AGP, it's an absolute screamer of a card.

Grimble Crumble @ Apr 16th 2008 10:50PM

Actually, the best AGP card on the market is the Radeon HD 3850, but that is approaching the $200 area, which is way too much for its performance.

Jackal @ Apr 16th 2008 11:53PM

Grimble Grumble,

While I agree with your price assessment, the cost of the AGP HD 3850 makes sense. There are very few ATI partners interested in continuing support for a slot standard that essentially died 4 years ago (NVIDIA or its partners don't bother making AGP products at all) and the actual market for AGP solutions is very slim; most of the people interested in buying discrete graphics solutions want new or newer technology and that usually means buying exclusively for the PCIe standard (unless you're trying to replace a very old videocard).

There's only one partner I can think of (don't remember the company's name) that actually makes AGP compatible HD 3850's and it's only making them in small numbers. The AGP X1950 Pro line is hard to find because no one wants to continue producing 90 nm chips when all of ATI's current products use 55 nm technology. Besides, is there any point to an AGP compatible HD 3850? Most people that have AGP equipped motherboards are using single core processors (or older dual core processors); their CPU would be so severely bottlenecking their system while playing a modern game that A) the HD 3850 would have difficulty outperforming the cheaper X1950 and B) the framerates would so low as to make the game downright unplayable.

tmacairjordan87 @ Apr 16th 2008 9:14PM

hmm I remember when I had it how easy it was to just pop the disc in my 360 and start playing. As for the technical issues, I had none except for the pop-in..really the pop-in was pretty bad. Other than that it ran perfect.

FezMan88 @ Apr 16th 2008 9:15PM

12 GB...

are they for real? i know it's gonna be running at beyond hi def for most people, but seriously...

Einhanderkiller @ Apr 17th 2008 2:38AM

12GB means the least amount of hard drive space you should have free prior to installation, not how much the game will take up. Crysis recommends 12GB of hard drive space, but takes up 7GB on your hard drive after installing.

capt_carl @ Apr 16th 2008 9:18PM

Twelve gigs of hard drive space is a lot. The requirements aren't THAT steep though. If you think about it, any hardcore PC gamer has a rig that meets those recommended requirements.

Geist @ Apr 16th 2008 9:30PM

I raised an eyebrow at the really high specs, but jesus, 12 gigs? Why do these console ports take up so much damn space? Didn't Tomb Raider: Anniversary (or Legends, forget which) take up like 9 gigs?

Mr Khan @ Apr 16th 2008 9:40PM

Recall that the games are ported straight from DVD9, and the PC version usually has more space-hogging baggage coming with it, from DRM watchdog programs to extra content to other things

capt_carl @ Apr 16th 2008 9:53PM

Kahn hit it on the head. A good example of this is Orange Box for PC. That was two DVD9s. Orange Box on 360 is one disc.

DangerMouse @ Apr 16th 2008 10:09PM

Gears of War PC takes up 12 GB's. And it took an hour and a half to install. Granted, i'm running a p4 2.4 ghz, 768MB ram, ATI Radeon 9700.

Jeff @ Apr 16th 2008 10:14PM

Are you guys serious?

HDs are cheap as hell nowadays. I'll take even higher resolution textures and audio, thank you very much.

Farseer (GDI) @ Apr 17th 2008 12:34PM

Dude, an OEM Seagate 500Gb 3Gb/sec 7200 RPM SATA HD is right at $100. If you're hurting for disc space, head to Newegg and throw a second drive in your box.

Lupo @ Apr 16th 2008 9:21PM

well i was planning to upgrade for DoW2

Cephas @ Apr 16th 2008 9:24PM

I'll have to get me one of these so-called 'processors'.

dcrooks @ Apr 16th 2008 9:36PM

I find it hilarious that people are surprised given that it's a port of an Xbox 360 game (like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed...). What, you thought your Radeon 9800 is about as fast as the 360's GPU? And that the developers will profit enough off of the PC version that it was worth justifying crippling the look of the game to get it to run on your 4 year old PC? Give me a break.