The Cyberpunk 2077 "Minimum System Requirements" Gaming PC



Can you play CD Projekt Red’s latest open world adventure using the minimum system specs? Well today I’ve combined an Intel Core i5 3570k, GTX 780 and 8 gigabytes of ram to find out!

This is Cyberpunk 2077 running with the developer stated minimum system requirements.

Settings and test methodology used:
In today’s tests I used a mixture of native 1080p, dynamic 1080p and a static scale reduction which took the game as low as 1152 x 648. The preset remained at low, though the texture quality was left on high (as per the preset) as I found this made no difference in performance, and it’s no surprise considering the 3GB GTX 780 was hitting 100% usage a lot of the time anyway.

The gameplay was captured externally using another PC to avoid any performance loss that may have occurred when using internal solutions like Shadowplay.

The version of the game tested was the GOG version, as 100% of the proceeds go to the developers 🙂

Thanks for watching 🙂

Source

47 thoughts on “The Cyberpunk 2077 "Minimum System Requirements" Gaming PC”

  1. So I've put it in the description but I'll mention it again here. I used the low preset throughout but kept the high texture settings that the preset defaulted to. I found no performance difference when switching between the texture options. I'll also be following progress of patches and bringing you an updated video in a month or so to see how things change 🙂 (plus i'll test the 3000G soon haha)

    Reply
  2. Until I get the new Xbox in the next couple of months, my Ryzen 3700X and GTX 1660 is hovering around 60fps on medium settings 1080p. I'm happy so far minus the bugs( which are expected at this point).

    Reply
  3. Dang i still remember to lusting over gtx 750 ti right after selling my ps3 in 2014 when it got high praise by everyone glad I didn't bought it because i have highest morale doubt turns out to be right then couple years later 1050ti launched…

    This 780 were higher than gpu mentioned above now they're struggling like a dying rats in 2020!! While my saving doubles 200x now 🤣

    now with similar value there's even better performing gpu than both mentioned not just for a game but finally double as a workstation also!! hahaha tech progression is insane glad i skipped both

    Reply
  4. I have a 1050Ti and an i5 8300H (4c/8t) in my laptop, and it struggles to run above 30 fps. My guess is that it has more to do with running on an HDD l. I think that should be something you try to measure as well.

    Reply
  5. Just saying here for anyone who is stuck with the option: 30 FPS is fine, 60 or above is ideal but there's nothing wrong with being used to lower frames if you have no other option currently. People are saying this like 60 FPS has only recently become the standard but guys we've had 60 fps games since before the 2000s. Getting used to anything is possible given more than an hour lol.

    Reply
  6. Ta gra ma tak duże wymagania a Cała Polska w nią gra a tylko wy marudzicie że was niestać biedaki cebula już nie jest cebulą frajerzy idźcie do roboty i sobie zaróbcie na nowy sprzęt biedaki.

    Reply
  7. There is no head room for the cpu or gpu.
    If the card was better and it was on higher settings. The cpu load would be lessened.
    The better the gpu and the higher the settings lessens it.
    That’s always been my findings

    Reply
  8. Those official requirements though. 1440p, Ultra settings, Ryzen 3200G, 5700XT. lol what drugs where they taking when they wrote that shit up? My Ryzen 3700X, 5700XT tanks big time on all high settings at 1440p never mind Ultra.

    Reply
  9. this shows that consoles are not worth and are not for long time usage. ps4/xone from 2013 runs this game like barely 25-30fps on worse graphical settings. meanwhile here we have 2013 pc that can run the game better. however pc players can always upgrade unlike console pleb who hold every generation technology development

    Reply
  10. This game is pretty insane with how demanding it truly is. On my desktop, with a 3090, an i9 10900K and a 5120×1440 monitor, I can get 60 fps, aye, but not with RT fully maxed – and without DLSS I only get 20-30 fps. Have to use "Balanced" DLSS, turn off RT shadows and have RT lighting on medium. The game has some very annoying 32:9 format bugs though, so I'm going to try it at regular 1440p instead.

    Also tried it on my RTX 2080 (full size) / i7 9750H laptop last night, for giggles. Much to my surprise, it ran the game fully maxed, including all ray tracing options, at the Quality DLSS setting (at 1080p resolution). However, it fully loaded the poor 6C/12T CPU, running it at 100% almost constantly. On my desktop, the 10900K runs at around 50%, which is insane in itself. I am very happy to see a game with balanced CPU thread usage though, particularly after playing MS Flight Sim 2020 for so many hours, where not even the 10900K is enough due to shitty multi core support.

    Reply
  11. I've got pretty much the recommended reqs and it still feels like atleast 40 fps with high settings, I'm going to guess they don't have much of a standard for framerate.

    Reply
  12. so u use a 4 core single thread cpu an comfortably hit 30 to 40 fps without it hitinng even 80% load……… mine…….. 8 core single thread……. cant even reach fucking 30 fps comfortably and is 100% 90% of the time………….. wtf man……also my gfx card is 1660super and never goes above 30-40% usage

    Reply
  13. Setting Reflection quality to Off and Fog resolution to low allowed me to put everything else on high and get a smooth gameplay with around 45-50fps which honestly feels as smooth as 60fps using RX580 and Ryzen 7 1700

    Reply

Leave a Comment