By now every Tom, Dick and Harry has probably had the chance to play Steep thanks to the recent beta, and Ubisoft no doubt used all your testing to build some accurate system requirements. Hopefully, anyway. From December 2nd you'll be able to carve your way down a gigantic open-world mountain range with your buddies, using snowboards, skis, a wingsuit or even paragliding if you're particularly daft. Here's precisely what you'll need to do just that with the official Steep PC system requirements.
Steep Minimum System Requirements
- OS: Windows 7 64-bit
- CPU: Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz or AMD FX-6300 3.5 GHz
- RAM: 6 GB System Memory
- GPU RAM: 2 GB Video Memory
- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon R7 260X
- DX: DirectX 11
- HDD: 25 GB Installation Size
Steep Recommended System Requirements
- OS: Windows 10 64-bit
- CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz
- RAM: 8 GB System Memory
- GPU RAM: 4 GB Video Memory
- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 or AMD Radeon R9 Fury
First things first, just like a lot of you a partook in the Steep open beta a week or so ago and got a good feel for how it performed. I was using a GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, which is roughly equal to a GTX 980, and it absolutely tonked Steep when it came to performance. At 1080p / Ultra I was pulling in 60 frames per second, so that gives you a good idea where Ubisoft is heading with these system requirements. Minimum requirements are therefore likely to be for around 1080p / Low. If you're interested in what this means for you then we've got your covered with our Steep Low / Ultra graphics comparison sliders.
Overall these aren't a hugely testing set of system specs and we've seen in our benchmarks that Steep runs gloriously. The minimum specs require a GeForce GTX 660 or Radeon R7 260X, both mid-range cards getting on for 3 or 4 years old now. Likewise the minimum processors are really beginning to show their age. If you can't quite meet them then I doubt it's going to have a huge impact on performance, although it may be time to think about that upgrade soon.
The jump to recommended is a steep one (see what I did there), but I do believe this is excess hardware for those after a 1080p experience. If you're rocking the ever popular GTX 970 or the R9 290X then I can see both cards also being capable of 1080p / 60 FPS in Steep at Ultra.
As ever, remember you can always check out how well your PC can run the Steep System Requirements here, where you can check benchmarking and performance from other users. Compare your graphics card to the Steep GPU benchmark chart.
Login or Register to join the debate
Recommended specs are probably for higher resolutions.
The beta run fine at 1080p ultra settings with msaax2 at solid 60 fps, at 2k it dropped to 40-45 using only fxaa at ultra settings.
Works just fine on a GTX 770 ( 4GB version ) ultra settings, average of 45+ FPS. :)
A 970/980 for 1080p Ultra settings and pulling 60fps isn't really "steep" IMO. Think back to the likes of Witcher 3 that came out in 2015 and the same story happened more than a year ago already. Except that a 970/980 don't really max out the game at 60fps. So not surprised in the slightest.
like i said, it runs like c*** on ps4 ... and after i said it i got whole bunch of minuses on this fanboy-infested comment section
This lazines to optimize games properly for PC is going out of hand,more and more!
Summer of 2015 - Witcher 3 came out and a GTX 980 wouldn't pull 60fps at 1080p maxed out. This was a year and a half ago.
Forward to end of 2016 and you're complaining about a game that DOES actually pull 60fps maxed out on a 980/970? Come on...
Actually its just quite demanding, its an open world snowboarding game. Its not unoptimzied, i played it with an r9 390 on high with no problems, was above 50fps at all times and felt super smooth no issues. Outdoors means lots of trees. lots of tress means TONS of tessellation, harder on hardware.
lots of open terrain means lots of tessellation too.
the laziness of people to actually research what they are talking about is getting out of hand.
im tired of people treating high requirements as being unoptimized. developers are optimizing pretty well for having such a wide range of capable hardware. if they raised the minimum requirements, then that would mean it would be even more optimized but people would still complain. if they lowered the top end so more people could play because of trashy graphics, then people would complain.
Exactly how i feel. Theres a difference between unoptimized and demanding. Rise of the Tomb Raider is the EXACT same way. That needed a 970 and an r9 390 and i can tell you that an r9 390 doesnt run that game maxed out playably. I played the steep Beta and going from very high to high i noticed nothing. I even run 2xmsaa and it was totally above 50fps at all times and the game is GORGEOUS.
Smells like terrible optimization from the AMD side.
How? The minimal and recommended required AMD GPUs are both weaker than the Nvidia equivalents. If anything Nvidia cards are worse optimized for this game because they need more power to do the same thing.
I think it's fine if the recommended requirements are high as long as the minimum requirements are potato level. This just means the game has a lot of features to make your GPU cry, which is fun imo.