Valorant Official System Requirements show that the game can pretty much run on anything

Written by Neil Soutter on Tue, Apr 28, 2020 3:00 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

Valorant is currently in a closed Beta, and whilst many of us are desperately watching Twitch streamers in hopes of getting a key, Riot revealed the official PC system requirements for their new competitive multiplayer shooter. And it looks like Riot has made sure that this game can pretty much run on anything as long as you can hook up a keyboard and mouse to it.

Now the requirements are a little strange compared to the usual spec reveals, instead of just 2 blocks of minimum and recommended system requirements text, there’s just a base recommended hardware block, a minimum requirements for 30 fps, a recommended requirements for 60 fps, and some high-end requirements for 144+ fps.

Valorant Hardware Recommendations

  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • RAM: 4GB
  • GPU RAM: 1GB
  • HDD: 7.9GB

Valorant Minimum Requirements

  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
  • GPU: Intel HD 3000

Valorant Recommended Requirements

  • CPU: Intel i3-4150
  • GPU: Geforce GT 730

Valorant High-End Requirements

  • CPU: Intel Core i5-4460
  • GPU: GTX 1050 Ti

So at a glance we can see that Valorant is probably one of the least demanding games out there at the moment, which is especially helpful for a highly competitive multiplayer shooter. Regardless of all the controversy surrounding Valorant and Riot Games right now, the developers have done an excellent job of optimizing Valorant even for lower-end specs.

A GeForce GT 730 at 1080p is a pretty low requirement for 60fps gaming, and considering the most popular graphics card among Steam users is a GTX 1060, most players will be able to reach much higher frame rates than 60fps even up to that coveted 144fps. Plus the low RAM requirements and small download size means that Valorant is a pretty easy game to download and get running at a playable performance, even on low-end systems or laptops.

Unfortunately it seems that the official system requirements here are skewed in favor of Intel specs, so you can check out our Valorant System Requirements page for our pick of equivalent AMD specs.

As ever, remember you can always check out how well your PC can run the Valorant System Requirements here, where you can check benchmarks and performance from other users. Compare your graphics card to the Valorant GPU benchmark chart and we also have a Valorant Frames Per Second system performance chart for you to check.

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:04 Apr-28-2020

If there is something I respect about this game it's the graphics. Simple, functional, cheap graphics, as games should have. I'm not saying all should have a cartoony art-style, not at all. I'm saying that they should be simple, easy to make and cheap, while being perfectly functional.


Nowadays 90-95% of the budget of a AAA video game goes into the visuals department and AAA games cost $75-200 million or more and 90-95% of it is visuals(3d models, textures, animations, motion capture, lighting, effects, etc, etc), that's just absurd... it's a video GAME, not a movie with controls. Imagine if games costed 5-25 million like in the early 2000s. They would still actually focus on improving gameplay and mechanics, along with level design, AI and enemies and giving us tons of content for 60$.

4
Rep
80
Offline
admin approved badge
17:27 Apr-28-2020

i get what you want to say, but if game dosnt look good everyone will trash it

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:02 Apr-28-2020

True.

0
Rep
57
Online
19:33 Apr-28-2020

I prefer my AAA games looking good, no thanks :)

3
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:06 Apr-28-2020

I guess you also prefer DLC, Micro-transactions, Loot boxes, simplified games, with less and less content, and more and more paywalls. I thought so :P

2
Rep
57
Online
21:41 Apr-28-2020

I never said that...

2
Rep
57
Online
21:44 Apr-28-2020

Also dlc's are not bad if done correctly and fair.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:53 Apr-28-2020

That's what good graphics lead to. If AAA games costed 5-25 million like back in the day, we wouldn't have to deal with all these monitizations.
Also DLCs are bad, expansions are good(and yes I know technically expansions now are DLCs as you download them, but you get the point)..

0
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
09:16 Apr-29-2020

I think part of the problem here is inflation which is related to economics. Just my guess here but It's most likely a big part of the problem along with investors (shareholders).


All that stuff you mentioned (DLC, Micro=transactions, Loot boxes, etc.) stems from the problem of many companies seeking to please their investors more than consumers which from my understanding is where most of their money comes from.


As for what I want? I prefer a 50/50 balance between graphics and gameplay. Something Nintendo tends to do extremely well.


A perfect example of this? Super Mario Odyssey.


The game both looks and plays amazing!

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:33 Apr-29-2020

Still at 60$ per AAA game, back in 2005-2008 that was a freaking steal for them. Why? Because AAA games costed 5-25$ million dollars to develop on average. Don't forget that the company takes only 27-32$(depending on taxes and cuts) out of 60$.


Keep in mind that they have to make their money back within a Quarter, NOT 1 year or 10 years. The majority of AAA games don't make enough money within a Quarter. For example the last Tomb Raider Trilogy(2013-SotTR) wasn't profitable for SquareEnix. Hitman 2012 wasn't either.

0
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
09:18 Apr-29-2020

@Gerulis20


You say that, but even if the game looks good, even you would trash a game if it was boring as hell.


Good graphics =/= Good Game


and you know it.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:34 Apr-29-2020

@NeoPGX
A video game company needs to make at least 50-100% profit on their video game, first, because the next game is going to cost more, second to compensate for any failed games, third because video game companies start and cancel many, many projects, fourth because they will have to expand their staff, fifth because they have to please investors. Now when it comes to Net profit, they don't need more than 10% net profit every year.

0
Rep
16
Offline
14:38 Apr-29-2020

Almost all correct, aside from the fact that a game MUST pay at least half of the sequel, and for the "investors" they normally ask for a 6/8% interest, so a game with a total cost of 60 000 000, must have a gross income of 110 000 000, now for every copy of a game that cost 59€ the publisher/dev, get around 37, so a game that big must sell at least 2.5/ 3 000 000 copies. 15 to taxes, 5 to investors, 30 to the new game and 60 to pay the original game.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:35 Apr-29-2020

no the game must pay more to have more money due to the sequel and gaming companies have at least 10x more projects than games, they constantly develop things to try out new stuff, or come up with new IPs, or ideas for the future games, etc, etc and most get canceled or when done have to be re-applied. On top of that if a game flops and they don't have reserves it can tank the company. Case and point Crytek.


Also they don't get 37 euro. 30% goes to steam/ps/xbox, 15-20%(20% in europe pretty sure) goes for Taxes, and if they use a 3rd party engine, then it's 7-15%. So that leaves them with 27-32.2$ per game sold. And then you need to take into a count investors.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:37 Apr-29-2020

Also no AAA game has costed 60 000 000 since 2013. AAA stands for the budget of games, not for anything else. And since the launch of the PS4, Xbox One, a AAA game is 75-200 million dollars, but most are well above 100 million dollars, and of course some EXCEPTIONs cost above 300 million dollars. You can just look at the credits of a game and you'll see that AAA games takes hundreds, if not thousands of people to make and 95% of them have a very high paying job.

0
Rep
16
Offline
01:15 May-01-2020

If you speak of steam yes, but i'm considering "solid copies" too that is why i told you 37, and i am talking of a specific dev that 90% use their own engines, and is the only one i can talk about, as i work for them and don't know/don't want to know about the rest, the games we do have an average cost "per chapter" of 65 mil, plus dlc but "post release team" included, with some games that went to 130/140, as we did it from scratch 3 times. in the past we used Plarium games for some cutscenes they are in Ukraine so they are a lot cheaper this reduce the cost.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
13:57 May-01-2020

Physical copies have a 20-25% price cut for the store. Also yes with DLC and micro-transactions in games that have them, they do make their money, but I'm talking about pure sales of the base game. If they costed up to 20-25 million a AAA game, then 60$ would be pretty much more than ideal.
Call of Duty BO4 costed a couple hundred millions to make, same with MW 2019. MW2 back in 2009 costed 50 million to make. Now granted that's call of duty, so they will always make their money back, but most AAA games don't sell nearly as much as CoD.
And I'd say that the majority of indie developers use 3rd party engines from what I've seen, unless it's a very basic game.
Also often times developing your own engine costs more than giving a 7-12% price cut of your game.

0

Can They Run... |

Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2070 Gigabyte Windforce 8GB 16GB