i've checked on the internet for fallout 4 system requirements, for minimum cpu and memory i'm ok, (i have an intel core 2 quad q8300 cpu, and 7 gigs of ddr2 pc2 6400 ram) it's just the info i could find is the minimum gpu is all over the place but they all agree that you need a pcie 3.0 card (i have a amd hd radeon 6400 1 gig and it's pcie 2.1 my mobo doesn't have 3.0).

has there been any offical fallout 4 pc system requirements?

No there is no info. And I don't believe FO4 needs a GFX660... Skyrim had lower requierements than Witcher 2. So why should FO4 have higher requierements than Witcher 3? Don't sounds very plausible for me.

Requirements are probably going to be VERY similar to what Skyrim wanted. Its going to be pretty much the same game engine in any event.

It depends on how much eye candy you want to turn on. Todd said in the E3 demo that they've added volumetric lighting to the engine (which is largely responsible for how much better FO4 looks than Skyrim) and that can be very demanding.That eats frame rate quite a bit.

The specs for Skyrim's recommended settings are thus:

Intel Quad-core Processor

RAM: 4GB - 6GB

Video Card: DirectX9 video card with 1GB memory. GTX 260/Radeon 4890 or higher

That is to run Skyrim on HIGH. NOT on Ultra.

I would imagine that Skyrim's High requirements are what FO4's minimum requirements will be close to. But to run on minimum at a good framerate you are probably going to have to turn off the things that are making the demo look so good, like the the advanced lighting.

Personally I'd say for minimum, I'd go with a quad-core processor, same RAM requirements as Skyrim, and video card with at least 2GB of VRAM - probably at least a 400 series Geforce card. But it is all speculation at this point.

I have Core 2 Duo E8400, 4GB, HD4870 1GB and can run Skyrim almost maxed out. Meaning way above high but below ultra. In addition I have installed number of better textures. Runs fine at 1920x1200.

So IF Fallout 4 has similar requirements (which is possibility since it still uses Creation Engine), my ancient rig should run it at some settings.

Remains to be seen.

the engine fallout 4 is a modified version of the creation engine, my home built pc can run skyrim at high settings, my hp led monitor can go up to 1600 x 900.

maybe at most i'll be able to run fallout 4 at medium settings.

In the latest interview Todd mentioned tessellation being used for the weather effects. This would indicate that a directx 11 video card will be required.

I can run skyrim on ultra on my current machine, with excellent frame-rates, an it is a five year old build. I can live without some of the eye-candy stuff if I have to, but, I don't think I am going to have to.

I don't see FO:4 minimum specs being Skyrims 'recommended' specs either. The game has been in development for seven years, so the hardware it was initially developed on is older than what I am running now.

creation engine / gamebryo has always been extremely ressource friendly, and scaleable so you could always still run the games on even the biggest p.o.s. rig with graphic options turned down (a little hint: turning off vertical sync (obsolete for non-crc) for the game can in extremest cases up to double performance)

from my personal view, i currently run a 2,9 intel dual core with a geforce 730, runs skyrim flawlessly, so i think it might basically do for fo4 with not too high settings, but since the game will finally mean goodbye to my ancient and beloved xp-x64 os *sigh* (hey ms, if you want me to love you, update x64 and i wouldn't want to inflict 8.1 on my old man (or 10 on any machine from what i heard up to now), gotta work on that machine too..., so i think it'll be some i5 with a geforce 960 or stg by the end of summer...

i'm good there, my radeon 6570 1 gig is a direct x 11 video card.

upgrade to windows 7, you will not regret it.

i'm running windows 7 64 bit on my home built gaming pc.

i reserved my free windows 10 upgrade but i'm having second thoughts though.

sorry about going off topic.

Yeah, but, turning off V-sync, and getting framerates north of 60 FPS just played hell with physics....... Wonder if they fixed that too......

these specs totally leave out the screen res you play on. makes a HUGE difference. i run skyrim on my dualcore with all settings maxed, but rather low res (1360) for example

That's is AWESOME. That means they've really upgraded the engine's abilities. Volumetric lighting and tessellation are big steps up.

Though it is worth remembering these will probably be optional settings. Most games with tesselation have an option to turn it off if running the game on a Direct X 10 card that doesn't have Direct X 11 support.

EDIT:

True. I am assuming running the game in 1080p and getting at least 30fps for my estimates.

Hard to say what you need.

I think it is likely going to be closer to what Witcher 3 or DA:I needs to run at least for the minimum settings.

that's actually what was on my machine when i bought it, but it drew my nerves so bad i flushed it within less than a week. keywords being, no access to system files, start menue that makes me wanna puke (same with 8.1 though), couldn't access my mails anymore (still outlook express then), and worst of all, couldn't get vast parts of my software (photoshop and such) to run, which i depend on for work. so i "downgraded" to xp-x64, that turned out to be the best windows i've seen (which is the range from 3.0 to 8.1, including nt's). i'll spend a longt time crying bitter tears in memory of it in all the hours to come of getting annoyed by whichever of their darn blinky fairground windows versions

never noticed any issues with physX actually, what'd these have been?

My only problem with XP 64 was I could never find printer drivers....... Of the other issues you enumerate, I haven't had any problems. They system is basically a hyper-version of XP. Turn off themes and such, and you can make it look exactly like Win 98.

Any items that were Havoc enabled would get stupid with framerates above 60fps. Walk into a room, and items on a table would literally explode around the room. Not everyone had that problem, but, it was prevalent enough that capping the framerate became a standard trouble-shooting measure. Which happened to greatly reduce it..... if not eliminate it entirely.

I believe there has been no official word yet. I know my Radeon HD 6800 won't be good enough though, and will upgrade before November.

you could've used server 2003 drivers. xp x64 is basically server 2003 with xp gui, direct x and an onboard 32bit emulator

edit: and call me a freak, but i LIKE it to look like win 98. i LIKE minimal.

They always whined about "Not the correct O/S for these drivers." Or some such. I just gave up after a while, planted things I needed to print on another machine, running 32 bit XP, and printed from there. It wasn't necessary often enough to annoy me enough to start hacking files to fool them into installing.

I turned off EVERYTHING in XP that wasn't ABSOLUTELY required for the functionality I wanted. Picked up a fair bit of performance there. Seems to be less of an issue with 7, running on the same hardware. I get great performance from my games, and stability is good too.

I don't think it will be anything near Witcher 3... If I compare Witcher 2 and Skyrime which are both around the same time... I could play Skyrim on Ultra with my GT545 (I know it's bad...) but Witcher 2 was very bad... I so no way that FO4 is anything near to Witcher 3.

I know I should update with a GT545... but I don't have the money currently. I hope it will be enough to play Fallout 4 at least on low quality.

If thats the card you have, then id suspect low side of medium settings if not medium at all at your 1600x900 res. Not a very powerful card.

BTW, pci-e 2.1 or 3.0 card wont matter much if your board only supports 2.1. All backwards and forwards compatible. You may lose very marginal fps with the super high end 3.0 cards plugged in at worst.

thanks tigs, and yes my card is a hd radeon 6570 1 gig.