June 19th, 2017

Dark Souls 3 PC new system requirements announced

Dark Souls 3 PC new system requirements announced

The official Japanese site for Dark Souls 3 (or the series in general, really) has put up some PC system requirements for the game. On Steam, the game has had a set of system requirements for a while, but it had often been speculated that these were placeholders.

Given that these are newer, and on the official site, they’re likely to be final. Here’s what FROM feel you’ll need to get Dark Souls 3 running, and get it running well. It’s already been confirmed to run at 60fps on PC.

Of slight concern to AMD users such as myself, there’s a prominent Nvidia logo lurking around the recommended specs on the Japanese site. As far as I know though, there’s no Gameworks business happening with Dark Souls 3.


  • Intel Core i5 2500 3.3GHz / AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz
  • 8 GB RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti / ATI Radeon HD 6870
  • At least 20 GB available space


  • Intel Core i7 2600 3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz
  • 8 GB RAM
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 or equivalent [so probably an R9 390 in AMD world, then]
  • At least 20 GB available space
Related to this article
  • Humble Monthly Bundle is Dark Souls 3 and more
  • Related to this article
  • Dark Souls 3 patch 1.14 details and release time
  • Related to this article
  • Dark Souls 3 patch 1.13 details, due 12 April on PC

    • Martín Síndrome Camargo

      Do system requirements carry any meaning for anyone, really?

      Right now I’m playing Fallout 4 on a GeForce GTS 450 with 1 GB of VRAM, a 3 GHz Athlon II X4 CPU and 4GB of RAM. That’s notably lower than the minimum required (Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0, 8 GB RAM, NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB), and yet the game runs perfectly fine; which is quite a feat considering my PC was mid-range in 2011 and I’m not even at the lowest settings.

      I wish developers would wake up and give us some actual information. For instance, I think it would be much more interesting and useful to know how deep we can customize all the visual crap in order to squeeze some frames. Just reciting a bunch of chip names and numbers really doesn’t help anyone.

      • Hussain Ali

        Well, the requirements generally target a consistent 1080p60 gameplay. Considering your card, I think you might be playing on 720p or something but yeah, many if not all are perfectly playable on lower than minimum hardware that is if you are willing to let some bells and whistles go.

        From developers POV, there are essentially limitless PC configuration so they have to go with best-case-worst-case scenario. The best they can do is include a textual description and performance cost of each and every setting (like Farcry 3) or a visual one (like GTA V) and hope for the best.

      • DrearierSpider

        What do you define as “running perfectly fine?” I ask because I know some people are okay with a game running at 20-25 fps, possibly lower. While I’m one of those people who aren’t okay with anything below 60, I know a lot of people are fine with 30. That said, I don’t think you could even begin to argue that something runs well if it ever goes below 30.

      • Martín Síndrome Camargo

        @Hussain Ali

        That’s what I guess too, they’re aiming at smooth 1080p60; but wouldn’t that be what “optimal” is for? Or something in between, like “recommended”?

        When I read “minimum”, I think “anything lower than this wont’ run the game at all” (like trying to play a DX11 on a DX9 card, or most mobile/integrated graphics chips) or at least “you’re bound to be dipping into single-digit frames for most of the game”.


        What I’m saying is that not so long ago, going so far below the minimum requirements meant insane chugging all the time (if I could run the game at all) –remember I’m using HALF the minimum amount of memory they recommend (both RAM and VRAM)!

        I’m definitively more forgiving than you with the framerate, but I
        agree that anything below 30 is unplayable, especially for a game that
        demands quick reactions.

        I’m certainly not going above 40-something fps most of the time, and I’m getting dips into the mid-20s eventually (at some oddly quiet moments, in fact), but I had a couple of pretty serious firefights on consistent 30+, which is a lot more than I was expecting. Again, remember that I haven’t upgraded any piece of the PC in 5 years, and it wasn’t even top of the line back then. Plus I took the liberty to crank up some visual stuff above the autodetected settings with no major issues. I mean, I’ve seen console gameplays that have it way worse than I do, and they can’t do anything about it.

        Bottom line, what I’m getting at is that, down where I live, a GTX 750 Ti is a really expensive card, and if I were to follow those recommendations, I shouldn’t even bother trying the game (or pretty much any game from the last couple years, come to think of it) until I could afford one and double my system RAM.

    • waswat

      290 and 290x are pretty close to the 970 as well, according to the toms hardware gpu hierarchy https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html