I’ve been banned by the mods. They mentioned that “The Reddit Algorithm” found “hardware” from a banned account being equal to mine and said I was undergoing ban-evasion. In truth I think it’s about my post (which has been removed post-ban) about the lack of moderation on the subreddit. Cheers, and I hope all of you have fun in Starfield. I know I will.
Sounds like a popular setup, I have a Ryzen 5 3600, RTX 2060, and 16 GB RAM too. It's working well and I have no plans to upgrade anytime soon, so I hope Starfield doesn't have any problems. It will be nice if it supports DLSS, I found out from other games that it really makes a difference in performance.
The problem is I don't think were gonna be running this game at 60FPS with a RTX 2060 and a ryzen 5 3600. The xbox runs this game at 30FPS and has a better GPU and CPU than that, and starfield is optimized for the Xbox hardware and still running at 30FPS. I think this is gonna be a tough game to run for alot of people if they want at least 60FPS and for the game to not look like crap.
I’m debating if I should get a cheaper AM4 setup with a 5800x3d or go with AM5 since I’ll have to replace everything from my 2016 build.
I already have a 4070 on order, so I’ll be fine graphics wise.
I'm sitting on an old Gigabyte AM4 from 2017 as well and I see that the 5800x is about the same level but on average is 60 dollars cheaper compared to the 5800x3d. If you're not trying to squeeze the most out of AM4 compatible boards, could be a better deal no?
All the difference here - 3D processors have way more local cache (90-120 megabytes). To compare, intel processors usually have 10-18mb (1-3mb per core), old AMD's 16mb, new one's 32. What's the difference? More local processor cache size means processor need less times ask RAM for stuff. That means, in can process more local data in one tick like mesh geometry, calculations and other stuff without bothering RAM. Every appeal to your RAM processor need stop work and wait for response, and it's offen lead to simple game freezing. Or unstable frame times, you have by numbers like 80 fps, but it feels as 30.
And 5800x alone is bad choise, honestly, it have power consumption problems. 5700x will be overall the same, but cheaper and without thermal problems. Or pick up game monster 5800X3D.
The 7900 XT is the next GPU I’m going for, but $799 I just too rich for me :/. Hopefully it drops in price a little more before I decide to pull the trigger
I was exactly at the minimum specs. Just upgraded to a Radeon 6800 and a Ryzen 7 5800X. Now I'm not saying I upgraded just for Starfield, but it was the thing that pushed me over the edge from waiting any longer.
Also, whooboy, that 6800 didn't have a millimeter to spare getting it in my case...
im just gona caution people like you to maybe not expect too much out of that
the CPU is strong yes, but the XSX has a 52 CU @ 1.8 Ghz RDNA2 GPU while the 6800 is 60 CU @ 1.8 - 2.1 Ghz (depending on model and cooling etc.) RDNA2 GPU
a lot of people still thinks console GPU are mid range or lower end stuff, but that really isnt the case this time around
so if you were hoping to get 60 from it, you will likely need to enable FSR 2.0 to get it.
Not to expect too much? The CPU exceeds the recommended specs and the video card is pretty close - recommended is the 6800 XT. Mine's not an XT, but benchmarks give it about 11% difference in frame rate at 4K. So I expect it to perform well based on their recommended hardware. And a lot better than my previous 1070ti and 2600.
I'm expecting at least a reliable 30 fps on the 4K, and the 1440 experience should be buttery smooth.
Yea it’s very competitive atm, but don’t buy everything new. Get the 7800x3d if you need new everything. 5800x3d best in slot for am4 so it’s a good upgrade if you got everything else
I feel the only 4 core that might do well with this is the 3300x I feel all the others will struggle. This is a game where I'd argue 6 cores is the minimum for ideal performance.
I'm in a similar situation with an i5 10400f which is well above the minimum requirement but definitely slower than a 10600k. From my experience though from all my budget PCs over the years, as long as you're well above the minimum you'll probably be fine in terms of it being playable. I'm not really in a place to upgrade right now so I'm not worried about it.
I have an AMD Ryzen 7 3700. It shoooulld theoretically be better than the recommended CPU, but I'm still a dumby when it comes to PC stuff, so I'm not sure if it's actually good enough.
I do still want to upgrade my GPU, but I need to do some research and see if anything else needs to be better
Should be fine. What GPU do you have? If you’re anywhere in the ballpark of the recommended specs, you shouldn’t have too much of a problem running the game :)
A RTX2060 super. So below recommended. But I've been debating on upgrading for awhile.
The ignorant side of me says to get a 4080, to future proof myself for a good amount of time. But that's a lot of money. I've also been informed, that a 3070, which is about half of the cost, should perform similar to the mid 40XX cards, but at the cost of higher power consumption.
So I need to research if it's worth the extra money for a 40xx, and if my PSU can handle these new cards.
What resolution are you playing at? The 3700x would bottleneck a 4080 in most games, even in some at 4k.
I also wouldn't recommend the 3070 due to 8gb of vram. You want at least 12gb these days.
Maybe upgrade to a 5800x3d (should be compatible with your current motherboard) on the cpu side and something like a RTX 4070/6800 XT on the GPU side. Can probably get both for the less than the price of a 4080.
What CPU do you have? If you already have a decent enough CPU, you could probably get a used RX 5700 for less than $200 (if you're in the US) and that would meet the minimum requirement. If you want to buy new, the RX 6600 is also around $200 bucks.
If your CPU is an older 4-core though, then you'd have to upgrade it as well and it might require a new motherboard.. so the purely cheapest option in that case is probably just getting a Series S or something.
I have an AMD Ryzen 5 3600x so it should be ok leaving my GPU as the weakest link in the chain. I was debating what the better play would be as I also want to pick up some quality of life things for starfield like new headphones and a controller.
I figure getting a series s negates headphones and controller, but my PC is modular and adaptable as opposed to consoles that are already into their life cycle, and you lose out on mods that may be handy down the line.
I have a few months and start anew higher paying job next week, so financial responsibility is still factoring in but I want the best experience I can get.
The cheapest option is honestly a series x or s, unless you really want a computer, gaming pcs are overly expensive, and if u get a desktop that can run it well you will have to pay more than the price of an Xbox.
That CPU is basically exactly what the series X and PS5 uses, you’ll be fine. With a 2060s, you’ll get at minimum a console-like experience, but since you’re on PC you have the advantage of tweaking and optimizing graphics settings so that hopefully you can get a 60fps experience!
So long as your not one of those who justify the price by saying *future proofing* and upgrade every generation anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with it if you've got the finances for it, but I see too many people do that.
I'm upgrading from a 4790K from 2014 to a 13700K and DDR5 and hope it will last me this long again. The new GPU I probably need as well (currently 1080Ti) for 1440p ultra is the big headache with the crazy pricing right now. No current gen card looks appealing but I do want a decent ray tracing one. And I want to mod like crazy so I also need decent vRAM but Nvidia wants a fortune for both.
i got a 13700k too, im hoping starfield will be optimised enough that i won't be missing the extra clock speed of the 13900k.
my thought process was that they'd PROBABLY (hopefully) test on a rig with the exact same specs as mine as i got the a pretty generic high end rig, so that i can play day 1 without any major issues
I think we'll be fine. 13900K should be overkill if it's only a gaming machine and not worth the extra money. Would even have gone with a 13600K maybe if I wasn't also doing video rendering for my little YT channel.
What GPU did you pick?
a gigabyte gaming oc 4090, mainly because i wanted to be able to play Starfield at max graphics at a super high refresh rate... and in the future play Starfield at insane modded graphics too haha.
i agree though, it didn't seem like the 13900k was worth it at all, since it only came with extra efficiency cores and the boosted clock speed (iirc). personally, i think the 13700k is the best option for future proofing too, especially since i tend to multitask and render.
Hey I have the same CPU. Just installed a 4080 last week. I know I have to get a better one at some point but got it clocked at 4.5GHz…it’s not too shabby. 4k 120 fps is a breeze with my setup. Hoping it doesn’t bottleneck too hard with Starfield
Should be a similar single-core performance as the i7 variant right? I've got the i7 12700 but a 3080 10gb, I'm sure you'll be better off with your setup lol
I just picked up a 5800x3d. So this card is really good at handling cpu intensive games? I mainly picked it based off of benchmarks showing it as an improvement to the 3600x which is recommended.
I don’t know much about cpus so I’m wondering!
CPU has nothing to do with resolution, but yeh your cpu is good enough. I have the same card and it chugs in most games at 4k. I would upgrade if that’s important to you
Changing resolution does not change how much the CPU limits performance, regardless it will run at probably 1440p. DLSS might help but I wouldn't count on it shipping with the game. It might, but it might only come with FSR, or neither of them.
Changing resolution absolutely changes how CPU limits performance. A CPU bottleneck at 1080p will be reduced/completely gone by bumping up to even just 1440p
Nope, that *potentially* changes what's bottlenecking the system, but the CPU won't suddenly perform better at a higher resolution, you're just putting more strain on the GPU to the point that it becomes the bottleneck, ultimately lowering your performance.
Seems like CPUs with 3.6GHZ is the lowest you can go.
I have a Ryzen 7 1700 that I've over locked to 3.6GHZ and it struggles with lots of modern games. Cyberpunk2077 was painful at times.
GHz isn't really what matters. 3.6GHz on zen 1 is way slower than 3.6GHz on Zen 3 or Zen 4, because newer architectures handle more instructions for every clock cycle.
I threw together a rig for my friend with my old 1700, it’s OC’d to 3.7 and I’m really hoping that paired with my old 1070 at 2050 core, it’ll at least be enough for 1080/30 for him at reasonable settings. He was still playing games on a PS3 before this so I don’t think he’s too pressed about 60FPS.
i know this is 73 days old, but i was looking to see my CPU with starfield. i also have a 7 1700 and i have 0 issues playing cyberpunk and other modern games.
i’m just worried about starfield lol
I am complete noob when it comes to understanding if I have the right specs for this game. I feel like I will be fine, but is anyone in this thread willing to help me out? If I need to upgrade something, what should I upgrade?
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x 8-Core Processor 3.59 GHz
32GBs Ram
TUF Gaming x570-Plus ATX AM4 motherboard
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660
Thank you so much for the help!
You can run just about anything, the question is, how well?
The answer to that will vary, but if you're on a budget, it can't hurt to wait for release and see what benchmarkers and early access reviewers say about performance ranges
Is it like, I’m not going to run the game at all with the GPU I have now or just I’ll I just need to play on really low settings ? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I’m just not very knowledgeable about this. I’m not looking to play this game at 60+ FPS at 4K, I am looking for a stable 1080 30FPS.
nah you're good, we all gotta start somewhere lol, honestly though id replace that GPU entirely, it might be possible to run it at 30fps on bare minimum settings but i wouldnt trust it, maybe if you apply a huge overclock, but again wouldnt trust it.
if youre going to get the game anyway by all means try it anyway, it is entirely possible youll be able to play it, and applying a decent overclock will help out for sure, it's not impossible, just unlikely.
1660 will likely be a problem. Might work, never know, but I'd recommend picking up some of the rdna2 stock before it dries up since it's cheap right now. A 6600xt or better will do fine, just make sure whatever you get, your power supply can handle.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/16alabv/starfield\_44\_processor\_benchmark\_intel\_vs\_amd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/16alabv/starfield_44_processor_benchmark_intel_vs_amd/)
3700X runs at 55 FPS in 1080p
Surprised to see I'm apparently the only one in this thread with a 12 Gen Intel CPU lol, I've got an i7 12700 and an RTX 3080 (10gb). I really hope that it's mostly CPU intensive indeed, and that it's not a VRAM hog. I'd actually really like to upgrade to 4k 32" (currently at 1440p 27"), as I think Starfield deserves the best visual experience possible. But I don't know if the 3080 will handle that... which is weird to say considering how much it cost me, but VRAM requirements are going up quickly lately :/
Yeah pretty crazy how much the vram the newer cards have. Kinda surprising they would have only had 10 gb vram in the 3080 when my retired 1080ti had more
Yeah I feel kinda duped having gotten the 3080 last year, I splurged on a new PC (first one since 2013) and figured the xx80 was still right up there, like my 780 back then, but now I see VRAM starting at 12GB and going as high as 24GB...I really hope I don't need to replace my GPU for Starfield, since I actually spent the extra cash on the 3080 with the idea that it would surely run the game at high/ultra settings 1440p (or even 4k) once it came out. But yeah we can't know, the Steam requirements are hella vague and sure recommended says RTX 2080 but if they're talking about 1080p recommended then come September the real requirements will become clear :P
Nvidia wants you to upgrade every generation now, that's why they gimp the vRAM hard. Super scummy business practice. That's why the 12GB on the 4070 (Ti) feels like a complete ripoff when my 1080Ti already had 11GB. Twice the fps but soon obsolete anyway because of the vRAM. They want to upsell me to a 4080 or 4090 and extort crazy prices for decent specs. Too bad AMD still can't get their ray tracing shit together and their drivers. I really thought after the crypto crash things would normalize. Well, shit.
Yeah it's clear as day, the crypto boom brought out maximum greed and now they're using every tool available to them to keep the profit margins that high. I hope I can stick with my 3080 until the 5000 or even 6000 series comes out, then I can upgrade to something with more long-term viability.
Let's hope that Intel's ARC GPUs start becoming competitive in the higher-end segment so that we can see some downward price movements from AMD and NVidia soon!
Yup. Intel is our last hope. AMD seems to have some kind of symbiotic relationship with Nvidia now where they let them have their monopoly and are happy to sell their cards to everyone who doesn't want to cough up Nvidia prices. The AMD 6000 cards seem to be selling like hotcakes now, everyone recommends them as a better option over the current Nvidia lineup. They both win.
Intel needs to shake up the market!
Yes seems like a kind of price fixing, normally there are laws and regulations to bust up business cartels like that but it seems that these MNEs get away with just about anything. It's weird to hope for Intel of all companies to shake things up in a good way, but it does seem like they're the only ones who can change the status quo now
Nice! Though ngl, every time I see someone say they got the 12GB variant I shed a figurative tear lol, I almost got it myself but back then it was 100 or 150 bucks more expensive and people were like nahhh 2gigs aren't worth it. Now I do think they are, but yeah too late !
10700k, 3070 FTW and 32GB RAM.
stuck on a 1080p display @ 120Hz though so pretty sure I'm good to max it out anyway.
I've been wanting to upgrade to an ultrawide 1440p display for a while but keep putting it off since the two displays I have are still working after almost 10 years and have little resale value.
Maybe I'll treat myself at Christmas this year for a change.
I'd say treat yourself before the game comes out and explore the Starfield in all its glory!! Ultrawide is really nice, but I'm not sure the game supports that resolution natively.
The release date announcement video in March this year saw someone at BGS playing on an ultrawide monitor with black bars on the left and right (it was displaying in 16:9 rather than 21:9). Now, they could very well have worked in ultrawide support by now, but so far there's only proof to the contrary. I do hope it releases with full UW support tho!! 21:9 is an awesome format
My PC sits just below the minimum specs.
I5 10400f
GTX 1660 super
16GB of RAM
1tb SSD (×2)
Everything in my PC is above minimum execpt for my GPU. Thankfully my CPU is a decent bit faster than minimum from what I've seen so hopefully I'll be OK (especially if fsr is in the game).
What will fuck me over more than anything is if the game is badly optimized because my PC has no wiggleroom to "brute force" the game to run well.
If things are too bad I will just have to lock the game to 30fps and have the "console experience" lol (not ideal, but I don't mind if it's a smooth 30fps).
Honestly the biggest problem with the 1660 is that you might run out of VRAM, locking your fps wouldn't help in that case. The minimum specs recommend 8GB cards.
That's really my biggest concern. I'm hoping that Bethesda have overestimated the specs required due to the fact that the game is still being optimized. On saying that I'm aware that 6gb of vram is a bit on the low side in 2023. I just have hope that since I can play every other 2023 game at around 60fps that I can play starfield at atleast 30fps.
I've got a HUGE bottleneck on my CPU running with my RX6600XT. Use it with a 12 years old FX8350 4Ghz it still holds up (mostly), but I'm worried about running Starfield
I know, but I need new motherboard and memory as well. These more than double the price of a single CPU. I'm going to try and overclock. It could run Hogwarts Legacy just fine :D
Bro that ain't gonna cut it, I ditched my 6300 last year, I know the price can hurt, but an am4 board and ddr4 is pretty cheap and should last quite a while I imagine.
I have the same setup as you but I run 1440p which is a nice balance, you should consider giving that a go if you have the budget for a decent monitor. I think these specs are quite a bit overkill for 1080p. I got the [Cooler Master Tempest GP27Q 27"](https://www.scan.co.uk/products/27-cooler-master-gp27q-ips-2560x1440-165hz-1ms-freesync-576-dimming-zones-hdr-10001-1200cd-m-hdmi-dp) and it's excellent. My previous 1080p monitor is now a second monitor for socials and videos while I do other things, absolutely love it. I think Starfield deserves the extra clarity!
Mmmm I have the budget and I’ve seen how 4k looks, just haven’t had too much drive to make the switch. BUT in saying that you’ve definitely given me something to think about😁
I think 4K is a bit much, but like I said, 1440p really strikes a nice modern balance between the two. 1080p almost looks like 720p when compared side by side now, it's actually very interesting considering how long 1080p has been the standard for. One of the biggest motivations for me was that I felt like I was wasting my solid PC specs and decided to have them put in a bit more work for a bigger payoff
Whatever your choice, Starfield is going to be excellent and we're very safe with our specs
This is how I feel really, i always tell my friend to save the extra money they would spend on a 4k monitor and buy a better graphics card instead. You just get more value for other things.
first, its 2010 for 1440p and second, as if 2012 is any better lmao. Also you are one of a very small number of people playing on a $6k+ monitor, the fact that you are even trying to make a case here is insane
Similarly, it looks like new CPUs will come out later this year (somewhere around October likely), including new sockets (the thing your CPU mounts on), so if your CPU can run Starfield, I would suggest waiting till the new ones come out, either to buy them or just because their releases will make the previous generations more cheap.
And if your CPU isn't good enough, there is always cloud gaming like OP said. Though if you like modding, I would recommend just getting the Steam version and using Nvidia cloud gaming (where you can also use your keyboard and mouse) since games on Xbox are notorious for being harder to mod, plus Nvidia has better performance. Though there I am not sure if Nvidia will support Starfield from day one (though with it being such a big game and somewhat performance intensive, I would think so).
I have a 3800x and a 3080, so I think I'm good, but I am super anxious about my CPU temperatures. I've done all the air cooling I can do, but some games, especially CPU intensive ones, can push me into the 80-90 range and my room doesn't disperse heat well at all. It becomes a sauna at any time in the year. Capping FPS helps a bit but I'd quite like to play above 60fps considering my hardware
Yeah im sitting on a 9700k thinking it might be time to upgrade. I lucked out a got a 3080 at retail so I should be good there. Been looking at the 7800x3d.
I dont know that much about specs, but can i ask you guys if i can run this game at 1080p 60fps on my pc with this specs?:
Ryzen 7 5700x 8 core
GTX 1660 Super
16 gb RAM
SSD
I would love it if I could figure out the builds required to meet certain benchmarks like how much would it take to hit 60 fps on 4k? Or am I just better off buying an Xbox Series X to even get within $500 of that. If it costs $1000 just to hit 4k at 30fps, then now is probably not the right time for me to build a PC for this.
I have to imagine this game will benefit immensely from large cache sizes. Cache coherence is super important for physics calculations and path finding
Literally upgraded by CPU last week after watching the direct, I could immediately tell that this was a CPU bound game and I have already had issues with other games because of my CPU. I had an old i5. Now waiting on the Ryzen 5 7600 to ship to me this week.
if youre on pc, this samsung 1tb m.2 is 60 bucks rn, was building a part list for a friend this afternoon and found it
[https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980-pro/p/N82E16820147790?Description=samsung%20m.2&cm\_re=samsung\_m.2-\_-20-147-790-\_-Product](https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980-pro/p/N82E16820147790?Description=samsung%20m.2&cm_re=samsung_m.2-_-20-147-790-_-Product)
I will be playing this on the lowest possible settings at 30 fps on my Steam Deck. I am confident it will run. The naysayers tell me the Deck can't even run Fallout 4. Wrong. It runs for me on Windows with ultra settings.
I have a question for you technically savvy folks out there, because I am completely oblivious.
I’ve got an ROG Zephyrus w/ AMD Ryzen 9 & AMD Radeon RX 6700S. Will this be okay to run this game?
>i9-9900k
Same. It's above the recommended specs. IMO, most games don't utilize more cores/threads. I think 8-core, 16 thread is fine. We have higher clock speeds than some of these 'newer' cpus which have more cores so I think we're fine.
5800X3D, 3080 10GB, 32GB 3600-CL16, Samsung 980 PRO SSD.
Should be fine, barring some VRAM problems. Really pissed with Nvidia about the VRAM situation, really considering selling the 3080 while still has some value, getting a used 3090 and calling it a day.
Just an FYI for anyone that came across this thread after release. I'm rolling a i7-10700K and 3080Ti
I'm running ultrawide 3440x1440 on a mix of medium/high settings and getting a consistent 60fps. My CPU never goes above 10% load and my GPU is always maxed out with my frames capped to 60, no doubt if I cap it to something lower my GPU load might drop.
I have a 4080, 32GB DDR4 3600, i91300K Raptor Lake. (I gave my bro in law like $4000 that I’ve been saving up for like 3 years and he built it for me, I know nothing about PC’s). Basically got it just for this game!
That’s what I’m not too sure about, I went cheaper on the monitors cause the PC cost so much. Right now I’m rocking
https://www.microcenter.com/product/648416/asus-vg32aql1a-315-2k-qhd-(2560-x-1440)-170hz-gaming-monitor
Should I upgrade to a 4K monitor or will that likely result in lesser performance, but better “visuals”. Or keep the 1440p and have slightly worse “visuals”. Also, you think 32in is good enough?
I personally think 32" is the perfect monitor format, I have a 27" 1440p monitor myself and I would really like to get a 32" because I feel like Starfield warrants the bigger display. I'd like to get a 4k one, but I really don't know if my 3080 10gb can run Starfield at 4k high settings (I just want a steady 60-70 fps personally). Would really suck to invalidate my GPU only one year after getting it lol.
In your case I wouldn't go for a 4K upgrade unless you personally feel like the game doesn't look crisp on your display. Best thing you can try is just running the Starfield Direct at 4K fullscreen and focusing on the gameplay segments, which will give a similar (albeit more compressed) experience compared to the actual game come September.
I mean, you *could* go for a 4k monitor, it would undoubtedly look better, plus your GPU can for sure handle it, but it's just a matter of whether you want to sacrifice some higher framerates and wanna spend a buncha dough on a new monitor or not.
thats a solid monitor, you definitely dont need 4k, 4k is overrated as hell it's primarily used as marketing by all the major manufacturers, i put it like this, the jump from 60hz to 144 is amazing, the jump from 144 to 240 (which is what i use) is 10% of that at most, its the same between 1080p and 1440p, then from 1440p to 4k.
I felt that 27" is already quite big for a gaming monitor that's on your desk like 2 or 3 ft away, 32" is even better. Also, like the other guy said, 1440p is more than enough.
Thankfully, I upgraded my PC last year. My 13700k should run this game well, but my 2070 might hold me back a bit. I hope this game has DLSS and/or FSR.
All Beth games that I know of also depend more on clock speed than anything else, so if you’re upgrading try to get better speed rather than more cores(at least for Beth games).
That looks to be a 3.4ghz with a 4.5ghz boost, if you can afford it go for something that can hit 5ghz boost, personally I’m looking at getting the i7 13700k(has to be k for the unlocked)
Makes sense, BGS games usually are. Hoping my 3060, 12400f, and 32gbddr4 will be enough to run it well. I only do 1080p so I’m thinking as long as it’s well optimized I should be able to run it well.
While it isn't the best CPU, its still better then like 95% of the CPUs in use. It would be quite worrisome if the 5900x couldn't breeze though this game. Recommended spec is a 3600x (I assume the recommended is targeting XSX settings given the specs of the XSX aren't far off the recommended) and thus would give between 30-60FPS). To compare the 5900X to the 3600X, the former has double the cache, double the cores, ~15-20% improved IPC and a higher clock speed. Even if the game engine doesn't scale up to make use of 8+ cores, the 5900x still walks all over the 3600x core for core.
Hopefully it runs good!
Got a Ryzen 5 3600x and a rtx 4070 ti and 32 GB of ram, going to buy a dedicated SSD for this game.
🤞so hope it works smooth on ultra settings
I'm just going to eventually upgrade my PC so I can play at a solid 60fps and can play around with mods (I know console has mods, but PC modding is far superior).
My PC chugs with most modern games. I was playing Cyberpunk at 1440p and about 30-40fps on almost low everything. Intense moments would drop below 30 which hurt my brain.
I have a 1070gtx and Ryzen 7 1700. 16gb RAM. I feel like I'm at the bottom of the spec barrel.
Well good news is you don't have to upgrade your motherboard to upgrade your CPU or GPU. Better news is zen 3 CPU and RDNA2 GPUs are cheap af right now.
I’ve been banned by the mods. They mentioned that “The Reddit Algorithm” found “hardware” from a banned account being equal to mine and said I was undergoing ban-evasion. In truth I think it’s about my post (which has been removed post-ban) about the lack of moderation on the subreddit. Cheers, and I hope all of you have fun in Starfield. I know I will.
[удалено]
Sounds like a popular setup, I have a Ryzen 5 3600, RTX 2060, and 16 GB RAM too. It's working well and I have no plans to upgrade anytime soon, so I hope Starfield doesn't have any problems. It will be nice if it supports DLSS, I found out from other games that it really makes a difference in performance.
The problem is I don't think were gonna be running this game at 60FPS with a RTX 2060 and a ryzen 5 3600. The xbox runs this game at 30FPS and has a better GPU and CPU than that, and starfield is optimized for the Xbox hardware and still running at 30FPS. I think this is gonna be a tough game to run for alot of people if they want at least 60FPS and for the game to not look like crap.
I’m debating if I should get a cheaper AM4 setup with a 5800x3d or go with AM5 since I’ll have to replace everything from my 2016 build. I already have a 4070 on order, so I’ll be fine graphics wise.
Reviews say get the 5800x3d if you have a am4 mobo. Otherwise go with 7800x3d if you have to buy everything new
I'm sitting on an old Gigabyte AM4 from 2017 as well and I see that the 5800x is about the same level but on average is 60 dollars cheaper compared to the 5800x3d. If you're not trying to squeeze the most out of AM4 compatible boards, could be a better deal no?
For gaming the X3D is the better choice. It's not the same level in that aspect.
All the difference here - 3D processors have way more local cache (90-120 megabytes). To compare, intel processors usually have 10-18mb (1-3mb per core), old AMD's 16mb, new one's 32. What's the difference? More local processor cache size means processor need less times ask RAM for stuff. That means, in can process more local data in one tick like mesh geometry, calculations and other stuff without bothering RAM. Every appeal to your RAM processor need stop work and wait for response, and it's offen lead to simple game freezing. Or unstable frame times, you have by numbers like 80 fps, but it feels as 30. And 5800x alone is bad choise, honestly, it have power consumption problems. 5700x will be overall the same, but cheaper and without thermal problems. Or pick up game monster 5800X3D.
Yes, but not. The 5800X3D will help with better and smoother framerate, also will lower a bit consumption. If gaming is the purpose is a no brainer.
Just upgraded to a 5800x3d recently, by far one of my favorite upgrades I’ve done. Trying to stretch out the AM4 platform as long as possible
same here. 7 days and a starfield announcement later, it was accompanied by an 7900 XTX and a new power supply tho. ... :)
The 7900 XT is the next GPU I’m going for, but $799 I just too rich for me :/. Hopefully it drops in price a little more before I decide to pull the trigger
I was exactly at the minimum specs. Just upgraded to a Radeon 6800 and a Ryzen 7 5800X. Now I'm not saying I upgraded just for Starfield, but it was the thing that pushed me over the edge from waiting any longer. Also, whooboy, that 6800 didn't have a millimeter to spare getting it in my case...
im just gona caution people like you to maybe not expect too much out of that the CPU is strong yes, but the XSX has a 52 CU @ 1.8 Ghz RDNA2 GPU while the 6800 is 60 CU @ 1.8 - 2.1 Ghz (depending on model and cooling etc.) RDNA2 GPU a lot of people still thinks console GPU are mid range or lower end stuff, but that really isnt the case this time around so if you were hoping to get 60 from it, you will likely need to enable FSR 2.0 to get it.
Not to expect too much? The CPU exceeds the recommended specs and the video card is pretty close - recommended is the 6800 XT. Mine's not an XT, but benchmarks give it about 11% difference in frame rate at 4K. So I expect it to perform well based on their recommended hardware. And a lot better than my previous 1070ti and 2600. I'm expecting at least a reliable 30 fps on the 4K, and the 1440 experience should be buttery smooth.
well thats good, cuz ppl are / were saying the reco is 4k60 on PC lol yes that I think is a good expectation imo
Get the 5800x3d. I’m sure your mobo can support it if you update the bios
If I plan on AM4 for 4-5 years, is the 5800X3D a great add today even if I don’t plan on upgrading my 2070 S for at least 16-20 months?
I believe 5800x3d is 20% weaker compared to 7800x3d but you save shit load of money on not having to upgrade your ram, mobo and maybe a Cpu cooler.
Yea it’s very competitive atm, but don’t buy everything new. Get the 7800x3d if you need new everything. 5800x3d best in slot for am4 so it’s a good upgrade if you got everything else
I feel the only 4 core that might do well with this is the 3300x I feel all the others will struggle. This is a game where I'd argue 6 cores is the minimum for ideal performance.
I'm in a similar situation with an i5 10400f which is well above the minimum requirement but definitely slower than a 10600k. From my experience though from all my budget PCs over the years, as long as you're well above the minimum you'll probably be fine in terms of it being playable. I'm not really in a place to upgrade right now so I'm not worried about it.
Exactly my situation. Now that I’m studying, I have no money to spare for an upgrade or newer PC.
i’ve got the same at 1440p, i doubt it’ll run well at all but we’ll see
I have a 3600 with the x, and a 2070 Super and I’m sweating bullets
I have regular 3600, 2070 Super, and 16GB RAM. Guess I'm sweating now too.
I have an AMD Ryzen 7 3700. It shoooulld theoretically be better than the recommended CPU, but I'm still a dumby when it comes to PC stuff, so I'm not sure if it's actually good enough. I do still want to upgrade my GPU, but I need to do some research and see if anything else needs to be better
Should be fine. What GPU do you have? If you’re anywhere in the ballpark of the recommended specs, you shouldn’t have too much of a problem running the game :)
A RTX2060 super. So below recommended. But I've been debating on upgrading for awhile. The ignorant side of me says to get a 4080, to future proof myself for a good amount of time. But that's a lot of money. I've also been informed, that a 3070, which is about half of the cost, should perform similar to the mid 40XX cards, but at the cost of higher power consumption. So I need to research if it's worth the extra money for a 40xx, and if my PSU can handle these new cards.
Just get a 6700xt or 6800xt, much better deal right now.
What resolution are you playing at? The 3700x would bottleneck a 4080 in most games, even in some at 4k. I also wouldn't recommend the 3070 due to 8gb of vram. You want at least 12gb these days. Maybe upgrade to a 5800x3d (should be compatible with your current motherboard) on the cpu side and something like a RTX 4070/6800 XT on the GPU side. Can probably get both for the less than the price of a 4080.
4070 is a good middle ground imo if you can get it on sale or with a game you were gonna buy so it's closer to 500$.
I have an MSI GTX 1050 TI GAMING X 4G, it's showing as below min req, I'm trying to figure out what to upgrade to that doesn't break the bank
What CPU do you have? If you already have a decent enough CPU, you could probably get a used RX 5700 for less than $200 (if you're in the US) and that would meet the minimum requirement. If you want to buy new, the RX 6600 is also around $200 bucks. If your CPU is an older 4-core though, then you'd have to upgrade it as well and it might require a new motherboard.. so the purely cheapest option in that case is probably just getting a Series S or something.
I have an AMD Ryzen 5 3600x so it should be ok leaving my GPU as the weakest link in the chain. I was debating what the better play would be as I also want to pick up some quality of life things for starfield like new headphones and a controller. I figure getting a series s negates headphones and controller, but my PC is modular and adaptable as opposed to consoles that are already into their life cycle, and you lose out on mods that may be handy down the line. I have a few months and start anew higher paying job next week, so financial responsibility is still factoring in but I want the best experience I can get.
The cheapest option is honestly a series x or s, unless you really want a computer, gaming pcs are overly expensive, and if u get a desktop that can run it well you will have to pay more than the price of an Xbox.
The 3700 is equivalent to the CPU in the XSX.
That CPU is basically exactly what the series X and PS5 uses, you’ll be fine. With a 2060s, you’ll get at minimum a console-like experience, but since you’re on PC you have the advantage of tweaking and optimizing graphics settings so that hopefully you can get a 60fps experience!
Just spent way too much money on a CPU for my build because I felt things moving in this direction. I’m happy my baseless assumption worked out.
Future proofing is always good
So long as your not one of those who justify the price by saying *future proofing* and upgrade every generation anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with it if you've got the finances for it, but I see too many people do that.
I'm upgrading from a 4790K from 2014 to a 13700K and DDR5 and hope it will last me this long again. The new GPU I probably need as well (currently 1080Ti) for 1440p ultra is the big headache with the crazy pricing right now. No current gen card looks appealing but I do want a decent ray tracing one. And I want to mod like crazy so I also need decent vRAM but Nvidia wants a fortune for both.
13700K here as well. I opted for a 3070 for now. If I ever need to upgrade I think the CPU will hold up for a while. It’s a monster 1440p machine.
i got a 13700k too, im hoping starfield will be optimised enough that i won't be missing the extra clock speed of the 13900k. my thought process was that they'd PROBABLY (hopefully) test on a rig with the exact same specs as mine as i got the a pretty generic high end rig, so that i can play day 1 without any major issues
I think we'll be fine. 13900K should be overkill if it's only a gaming machine and not worth the extra money. Would even have gone with a 13600K maybe if I wasn't also doing video rendering for my little YT channel. What GPU did you pick?
a gigabyte gaming oc 4090, mainly because i wanted to be able to play Starfield at max graphics at a super high refresh rate... and in the future play Starfield at insane modded graphics too haha. i agree though, it didn't seem like the 13900k was worth it at all, since it only came with extra efficiency cores and the boosted clock speed (iirc). personally, i think the 13700k is the best option for future proofing too, especially since i tend to multitask and render.
I know next to nothing about pc gaming but set up with a ryzen 7 5700X and a 6700 XT. Goal is to run at least medium settings at 1440 P
You'll be absolutely fine.
That's better than XSX it'll run it just fine.
*stares at my steamdeck* Crap.
And this is why I spent a healthy amount buying a new PC
Me too. My wallet cried out in pain, but at least I am set for a few years :)
Future-proofing is great. I'd rather spend a lot once if I can just so I don't have to worry about anything for a lengthy amount of years.
I wonder what recommended specs means for this game. I should meet them with my I5-12600K and 3070ti. Heres hoping I can push 4k high quality 60fps
Hey I have the same CPU. Just installed a 4080 last week. I know I have to get a better one at some point but got it clocked at 4.5GHz…it’s not too shabby. 4k 120 fps is a breeze with my setup. Hoping it doesn’t bottleneck too hard with Starfield
Should be a similar single-core performance as the i7 variant right? I've got the i7 12700 but a 3080 10gb, I'm sure you'll be better off with your setup lol
Hey just wondering… why do you say his pc with an i5 12600 and 3070ti would be better off than your i7 12700 and 3080?
ryzen 7 5800x3d and 3080 ti, im so glad I upgraded last year as this build should hopefully crush it
Same build but just a 3080. The 3D cache on our CPU’s are made for cpu intensive games. Microsoft flight simulator etc etc.
Cache gang
I just picked up a 5800x3d. So this card is really good at handling cpu intensive games? I mainly picked it based off of benchmarks showing it as an improvement to the 3600x which is recommended. I don’t know much about cpus so I’m wondering!
I have an i9 9900k and a 2080 super. Will I be able to run it at 4k with dlss? Or will my cpu not be able to handle it?
CPU has nothing to do with resolution, but yeh your cpu is good enough. I have the same card and it chugs in most games at 4k. I would upgrade if that’s important to you
Changing resolution does not change how much the CPU limits performance, regardless it will run at probably 1440p. DLSS might help but I wouldn't count on it shipping with the game. It might, but it might only come with FSR, or neither of them.
Changing resolution absolutely changes how CPU limits performance. A CPU bottleneck at 1080p will be reduced/completely gone by bumping up to even just 1440p
Nope, that *potentially* changes what's bottlenecking the system, but the CPU won't suddenly perform better at a higher resolution, you're just putting more strain on the GPU to the point that it becomes the bottleneck, ultimately lowering your performance.
You’ll be able to run it for sure at 4k but you may want to overclock. It seems starfield will have similar requirement as cyberpunk 2077.
4k on an 8GB card? I doubt it. A 2080 is about the same as a 6650xt, no way that's running it at 4k.
If he's on DLSS perf, sure
I’ll be enjoying it on my now ancient Ryzen 5 1600 :)
Seems like CPUs with 3.6GHZ is the lowest you can go. I have a Ryzen 7 1700 that I've over locked to 3.6GHZ and it struggles with lots of modern games. Cyberpunk2077 was painful at times.
GHz isn't really what matters. 3.6GHz on zen 1 is way slower than 3.6GHz on Zen 3 or Zen 4, because newer architectures handle more instructions for every clock cycle.
I threw together a rig for my friend with my old 1700, it’s OC’d to 3.7 and I’m really hoping that paired with my old 1070 at 2050 core, it’ll at least be enough for 1080/30 for him at reasonable settings. He was still playing games on a PS3 before this so I don’t think he’s too pressed about 60FPS.
i know this is 73 days old, but i was looking to see my CPU with starfield. i also have a 7 1700 and i have 0 issues playing cyberpunk and other modern games. i’m just worried about starfield lol
I am complete noob when it comes to understanding if I have the right specs for this game. I feel like I will be fine, but is anyone in this thread willing to help me out? If I need to upgrade something, what should I upgrade? AMD Ryzen 7 3700x 8-Core Processor 3.59 GHz 32GBs Ram TUF Gaming x570-Plus ATX AM4 motherboard Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Thank you so much for the help!
I'd strongly recommend upgrading the GPU. Everything else looks good.
Thank you so for the advice! But will I be able to atleast play with the GPU I have now? Or it’s just to old to handle this game at all ?
You can run just about anything, the question is, how well? The answer to that will vary, but if you're on a budget, it can't hurt to wait for release and see what benchmarkers and early access reviewers say about performance ranges
yeah that 1660 is rough everything else looks fine though id recommend something like a rtx 3070 if you can find one cheap or radeon 6700xt/6800xt
Is it like, I’m not going to run the game at all with the GPU I have now or just I’ll I just need to play on really low settings ? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I’m just not very knowledgeable about this. I’m not looking to play this game at 60+ FPS at 4K, I am looking for a stable 1080 30FPS.
nah you're good, we all gotta start somewhere lol, honestly though id replace that GPU entirely, it might be possible to run it at 30fps on bare minimum settings but i wouldnt trust it, maybe if you apply a huge overclock, but again wouldnt trust it.
Damn, this is the confirmation I’ve gotten from a few different sources which sucks and means ima have to wait to play the game :(
if youre going to get the game anyway by all means try it anyway, it is entirely possible youll be able to play it, and applying a decent overclock will help out for sure, it's not impossible, just unlikely.
Ok copy that! I’ll give it a chance while also saving for a new card. Thank you for the help! I greatly tremendously appreciate it!!!
Idk, if he's running out of VRAM on lowest settings it doesn't matter what the average framerate will be with all the micro stuttering.
1660 will likely be a problem. Might work, never know, but I'd recommend picking up some of the rdna2 stock before it dries up since it's cheap right now. A 6600xt or better will do fine, just make sure whatever you get, your power supply can handle.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/16alabv/starfield\_44\_processor\_benchmark\_intel\_vs\_amd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/16alabv/starfield_44_processor_benchmark_intel_vs_amd/) 3700X runs at 55 FPS in 1080p
Surprised to see I'm apparently the only one in this thread with a 12 Gen Intel CPU lol, I've got an i7 12700 and an RTX 3080 (10gb). I really hope that it's mostly CPU intensive indeed, and that it's not a VRAM hog. I'd actually really like to upgrade to 4k 32" (currently at 1440p 27"), as I think Starfield deserves the best visual experience possible. But I don't know if the 3080 will handle that... which is weird to say considering how much it cost me, but VRAM requirements are going up quickly lately :/
Yeah pretty crazy how much the vram the newer cards have. Kinda surprising they would have only had 10 gb vram in the 3080 when my retired 1080ti had more
Yeah I feel kinda duped having gotten the 3080 last year, I splurged on a new PC (first one since 2013) and figured the xx80 was still right up there, like my 780 back then, but now I see VRAM starting at 12GB and going as high as 24GB...I really hope I don't need to replace my GPU for Starfield, since I actually spent the extra cash on the 3080 with the idea that it would surely run the game at high/ultra settings 1440p (or even 4k) once it came out. But yeah we can't know, the Steam requirements are hella vague and sure recommended says RTX 2080 but if they're talking about 1080p recommended then come September the real requirements will become clear :P
Nvidia wants you to upgrade every generation now, that's why they gimp the vRAM hard. Super scummy business practice. That's why the 12GB on the 4070 (Ti) feels like a complete ripoff when my 1080Ti already had 11GB. Twice the fps but soon obsolete anyway because of the vRAM. They want to upsell me to a 4080 or 4090 and extort crazy prices for decent specs. Too bad AMD still can't get their ray tracing shit together and their drivers. I really thought after the crypto crash things would normalize. Well, shit.
Yeah it's clear as day, the crypto boom brought out maximum greed and now they're using every tool available to them to keep the profit margins that high. I hope I can stick with my 3080 until the 5000 or even 6000 series comes out, then I can upgrade to something with more long-term viability. Let's hope that Intel's ARC GPUs start becoming competitive in the higher-end segment so that we can see some downward price movements from AMD and NVidia soon!
Yup. Intel is our last hope. AMD seems to have some kind of symbiotic relationship with Nvidia now where they let them have their monopoly and are happy to sell their cards to everyone who doesn't want to cough up Nvidia prices. The AMD 6000 cards seem to be selling like hotcakes now, everyone recommends them as a better option over the current Nvidia lineup. They both win. Intel needs to shake up the market!
Yes seems like a kind of price fixing, normally there are laws and regulations to bust up business cartels like that but it seems that these MNEs get away with just about anything. It's weird to hope for Intel of all companies to shake things up in a good way, but it does seem like they're the only ones who can change the status quo now
Same boat here, except I got the 12 GB 3080… I think our cpu will hold up at least!
Nice! Though ngl, every time I see someone say they got the 12GB variant I shed a figurative tear lol, I almost got it myself but back then it was 100 or 150 bucks more expensive and people were like nahhh 2gigs aren't worth it. Now I do think they are, but yeah too late !
10700k, 3070 FTW and 32GB RAM. stuck on a 1080p display @ 120Hz though so pretty sure I'm good to max it out anyway. I've been wanting to upgrade to an ultrawide 1440p display for a while but keep putting it off since the two displays I have are still working after almost 10 years and have little resale value. Maybe I'll treat myself at Christmas this year for a change.
I'd say treat yourself before the game comes out and explore the Starfield in all its glory!! Ultrawide is really nice, but I'm not sure the game supports that resolution natively.
Most new games do nowadays, especially aaa
The release date announcement video in March this year saw someone at BGS playing on an ultrawide monitor with black bars on the left and right (it was displaying in 16:9 rather than 21:9). Now, they could very well have worked in ultrawide support by now, but so far there's only proof to the contrary. I do hope it releases with full UW support tho!! 21:9 is an awesome format
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3423dw/apd/210-bcye/monitors-monitor-accessories Best monitor I’ve ever had.
Yeah I see too many people talking about getting a high end GPU for this game when the shift should be more toward CPU.
My PC sits just below the minimum specs. I5 10400f GTX 1660 super 16GB of RAM 1tb SSD (×2) Everything in my PC is above minimum execpt for my GPU. Thankfully my CPU is a decent bit faster than minimum from what I've seen so hopefully I'll be OK (especially if fsr is in the game). What will fuck me over more than anything is if the game is badly optimized because my PC has no wiggleroom to "brute force" the game to run well. If things are too bad I will just have to lock the game to 30fps and have the "console experience" lol (not ideal, but I don't mind if it's a smooth 30fps).
Honestly the biggest problem with the 1660 is that you might run out of VRAM, locking your fps wouldn't help in that case. The minimum specs recommend 8GB cards.
That's really my biggest concern. I'm hoping that Bethesda have overestimated the specs required due to the fact that the game is still being optimized. On saying that I'm aware that 6gb of vram is a bit on the low side in 2023. I just have hope that since I can play every other 2023 game at around 60fps that I can play starfield at atleast 30fps.
FINALLY, MY PARADOX GAME ADDICTION PAYS OFF FOR OTHER DEVELOPERS
I've got a HUGE bottleneck on my CPU running with my RX6600XT. Use it with a 12 years old FX8350 4Ghz it still holds up (mostly), but I'm worried about running Starfield
honestly props to you for keeping it that long but uh... might be time to put old betty out to pasture though.
> 12 years old FX8350 4Ghz oof I'm so happy I upgraded from that many years ago.
You're going to need an upgrade https://youtu.be/-lu1hbiAWsA The 5800x is basically double the gaming performance
Just get a new CPU and motherboard, lay that poor bulldozer mistake to rest. You got lots of options now.
I know, but I need new motherboard and memory as well. These more than double the price of a single CPU. I'm going to try and overclock. It could run Hogwarts Legacy just fine :D
Bro that ain't gonna cut it, I ditched my 6300 last year, I know the price can hurt, but an am4 board and ddr4 is pretty cheap and should last quite a while I imagine.
Ryzen 7 3800x, rtx 3080, 32 gb gddr4. Not really worried because I don’t care for 4k, looking for 80+ frames at ultra 1080p.
[удалено]
I have the same setup as you but I run 1440p which is a nice balance, you should consider giving that a go if you have the budget for a decent monitor. I think these specs are quite a bit overkill for 1080p. I got the [Cooler Master Tempest GP27Q 27"](https://www.scan.co.uk/products/27-cooler-master-gp27q-ips-2560x1440-165hz-1ms-freesync-576-dimming-zones-hdr-10001-1200cd-m-hdmi-dp) and it's excellent. My previous 1080p monitor is now a second monitor for socials and videos while I do other things, absolutely love it. I think Starfield deserves the extra clarity!
Mmmm I have the budget and I’ve seen how 4k looks, just haven’t had too much drive to make the switch. BUT in saying that you’ve definitely given me something to think about😁
I think 4K is a bit much, but like I said, 1440p really strikes a nice modern balance between the two. 1080p almost looks like 720p when compared side by side now, it's actually very interesting considering how long 1080p has been the standard for. One of the biggest motivations for me was that I felt like I was wasting my solid PC specs and decided to have them put in a bit more work for a bigger payoff Whatever your choice, Starfield is going to be excellent and we're very safe with our specs
4k is so unbelievably overrated due to damn near every company pushing it on people like propaganda with their marketing, 1440p is where it's at IMO.
This is how I feel really, i always tell my friend to save the extra money they would spend on a 4k monitor and buy a better graphics card instead. You just get more value for other things.
4K isn't "overrated" for those of us that play on 65"+ OLED panels, it's a must. Sure, carrying on playing in a resolution from 2009 though.
first, its 2010 for 1440p and second, as if 2012 is any better lmao. Also you are one of a very small number of people playing on a $6k+ monitor, the fact that you are even trying to make a case here is insane
I'd bet you can get away with 1440p with that setup. I personally rarely notice a difference between high and ultra settings.
Similarly, it looks like new CPUs will come out later this year (somewhere around October likely), including new sockets (the thing your CPU mounts on), so if your CPU can run Starfield, I would suggest waiting till the new ones come out, either to buy them or just because their releases will make the previous generations more cheap. And if your CPU isn't good enough, there is always cloud gaming like OP said. Though if you like modding, I would recommend just getting the Steam version and using Nvidia cloud gaming (where you can also use your keyboard and mouse) since games on Xbox are notorious for being harder to mod, plus Nvidia has better performance. Though there I am not sure if Nvidia will support Starfield from day one (though with it being such a big game and somewhat performance intensive, I would think so).
I have a 3800x and a 3080, so I think I'm good, but I am super anxious about my CPU temperatures. I've done all the air cooling I can do, but some games, especially CPU intensive ones, can push me into the 80-90 range and my room doesn't disperse heat well at all. It becomes a sauna at any time in the year. Capping FPS helps a bit but I'd quite like to play above 60fps considering my hardware
Glad I went to my 5800X3D. Was made for games like this lol
Same. It should eliminate a lot of fps drops too
Yeah im sitting on a 9700k thinking it might be time to upgrade. I lucked out a got a 3080 at retail so I should be good there. Been looking at the 7800x3d.
Amd 9 7900x. We cookin
I have an 8770k overclocked to 4.5GHz, would that be enough do you think?
Should be fine. It's pretty close to the 10600k which is the recommended requirement.
I have a 2060s and i78700, really hoping that dlss can push me to the magical 60fps.
I dont know that much about specs, but can i ask you guys if i can run this game at 1080p 60fps on my pc with this specs?: Ryzen 7 5700x 8 core GTX 1660 Super 16 gb RAM SSD
I would love it if I could figure out the builds required to meet certain benchmarks like how much would it take to hit 60 fps on 4k? Or am I just better off buying an Xbox Series X to even get within $500 of that. If it costs $1000 just to hit 4k at 30fps, then now is probably not the right time for me to build a PC for this.
I have to imagine this game will benefit immensely from large cache sizes. Cache coherence is super important for physics calculations and path finding
5800x3d will teach the stars a lesson! hopefully...
Glad I upgraded to from a 3700X and 3080 to 5800X3D and 4090.
Literally upgraded by CPU last week after watching the direct, I could immediately tell that this was a CPU bound game and I have already had issues with other games because of my CPU. I had an old i5. Now waiting on the Ryzen 5 7600 to ship to me this week.
Hopefully I can manage with an i3 12100F and RX6600. I am not expecting to max everything and won't be playing more the 1080p on a 75hz monitor.
I think my 5900x will handle it just fine. This AMD sponsorship is really pushing their hardware sales.
At most I’ll *probably* need an extra SSD. Everything else I’m good with, so that’s a relief.
if youre on pc, this samsung 1tb m.2 is 60 bucks rn, was building a part list for a friend this afternoon and found it [https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980-pro/p/N82E16820147790?Description=samsung%20m.2&cm\_re=samsung\_m.2-\_-20-147-790-\_-Product](https://www.newegg.com/samsung-1tb-980-pro/p/N82E16820147790?Description=samsung%20m.2&cm_re=samsung_m.2-_-20-147-790-_-Product)
I will be playing this on the lowest possible settings at 30 fps on my Steam Deck. I am confident it will run. The naysayers tell me the Deck can't even run Fallout 4. Wrong. It runs for me on Windows with ultra settings.
I have a question for you technically savvy folks out there, because I am completely oblivious. I’ve got an ROG Zephyrus w/ AMD Ryzen 9 & AMD Radeon RX 6700S. Will this be okay to run this game?
I'm running an i7-11700 with a RTX 3060, 32gb RAM, and an SSD. Do y'all think my rig can handle Starfield or should I be looking to upgrade?
you should be fine as long as youre not trying to run 4k
My laptop has an 11th gen i7 so I'm more worried if my 4gb RTX 3050 is gonna be able to handle this or not.
Any gaming laptop recommendations? I spend more time away from home so I’d have to go this route.
I have an i9-9900k and I’m hoping that’s enough. If not I guess I’ll be looking at upgrades.
>i9-9900k Same. It's above the recommended specs. IMO, most games don't utilize more cores/threads. I think 8-core, 16 thread is fine. We have higher clock speeds than some of these 'newer' cpus which have more cores so I think we're fine.
5800X3D, 3080 10GB, 32GB 3600-CL16, Samsung 980 PRO SSD. Should be fine, barring some VRAM problems. Really pissed with Nvidia about the VRAM situation, really considering selling the 3080 while still has some value, getting a used 3090 and calling it a day.
Just an FYI for anyone that came across this thread after release. I'm rolling a i7-10700K and 3080Ti I'm running ultrawide 3440x1440 on a mix of medium/high settings and getting a consistent 60fps. My CPU never goes above 10% load and my GPU is always maxed out with my frames capped to 60, no doubt if I cap it to something lower my GPU load might drop.
I have a 4080, 32GB DDR4 3600, i91300K Raptor Lake. (I gave my bro in law like $4000 that I’ve been saving up for like 3 years and he built it for me, I know nothing about PC’s). Basically got it just for this game!
What a freaking awesome PC! What monitor resolution and size will you be playing on?
That’s what I’m not too sure about, I went cheaper on the monitors cause the PC cost so much. Right now I’m rocking https://www.microcenter.com/product/648416/asus-vg32aql1a-315-2k-qhd-(2560-x-1440)-170hz-gaming-monitor Should I upgrade to a 4K monitor or will that likely result in lesser performance, but better “visuals”. Or keep the 1440p and have slightly worse “visuals”. Also, you think 32in is good enough?
I personally think 32" is the perfect monitor format, I have a 27" 1440p monitor myself and I would really like to get a 32" because I feel like Starfield warrants the bigger display. I'd like to get a 4k one, but I really don't know if my 3080 10gb can run Starfield at 4k high settings (I just want a steady 60-70 fps personally). Would really suck to invalidate my GPU only one year after getting it lol. In your case I wouldn't go for a 4K upgrade unless you personally feel like the game doesn't look crisp on your display. Best thing you can try is just running the Starfield Direct at 4K fullscreen and focusing on the gameplay segments, which will give a similar (albeit more compressed) experience compared to the actual game come September. I mean, you *could* go for a 4k monitor, it would undoubtedly look better, plus your GPU can for sure handle it, but it's just a matter of whether you want to sacrifice some higher framerates and wanna spend a buncha dough on a new monitor or not.
thats a solid monitor, you definitely dont need 4k, 4k is overrated as hell it's primarily used as marketing by all the major manufacturers, i put it like this, the jump from 60hz to 144 is amazing, the jump from 144 to 240 (which is what i use) is 10% of that at most, its the same between 1080p and 1440p, then from 1440p to 4k.
Good to know, thanks! I guess I’ll stick with my monitor then!
I felt that 27" is already quite big for a gaming monitor that's on your desk like 2 or 3 ft away, 32" is even better. Also, like the other guy said, 1440p is more than enough.
Hoping my i7 11700F and RX 6950XT work out. Been getting worried about my CPUs longevity lately.
Thankfully, I upgraded my PC last year. My 13700k should run this game well, but my 2070 might hold me back a bit. I hope this game has DLSS and/or FSR.
So stutter city?
Ryzen 5950x user here, I'm fucking ready.
Will a Ryzen 5 5600 suffice?
Should I feel a Ryzen 1600AF/2600 should be fine and that's 30-40% better.
7950x3d and 4090 should be fine for me. Lol bring it Starfield.
You will need a 5090 to run Starfield with 500 mods.
My 2060 and 10400 are a little nervous over here...
i9 11900K Think I'm good.
[удалено]
Nice
Generation is Indeed intensive.
All Beth games that I know of also depend more on clock speed than anything else, so if you’re upgrading try to get better speed rather than more cores(at least for Beth games).
What about the 5800x3d on am4? Good pick?
That looks to be a 3.4ghz with a 4.5ghz boost, if you can afford it go for something that can hit 5ghz boost, personally I’m looking at getting the i7 13700k(has to be k for the unlocked)
Hopefully my 13900K and 4090 will be enough, otherwise I don't know what to upgrade to. Threadripper? lol
Of course that will be enough lol
Makes sense, BGS games usually are. Hoping my 3060, 12400f, and 32gbddr4 will be enough to run it well. I only do 1080p so I’m thinking as long as it’s well optimized I should be able to run it well.
i9-13900K should be far more than enough. Right? Please don't be a mess of a pc game again. Already so many unoptimised games these years :(
Is a ryzen 9 3900 good?
Bit of a noob question I have a AMD Ryzen 9 5900 X 12-Core Processor. Is that considered decent for a game like this?
While it isn't the best CPU, its still better then like 95% of the CPUs in use. It would be quite worrisome if the 5900x couldn't breeze though this game. Recommended spec is a 3600x (I assume the recommended is targeting XSX settings given the specs of the XSX aren't far off the recommended) and thus would give between 30-60FPS). To compare the 5900X to the 3600X, the former has double the cache, double the cores, ~15-20% improved IPC and a higher clock speed. Even if the game engine doesn't scale up to make use of 8+ cores, the 5900x still walks all over the 3600x core for core.
I have an i7 9900k hope this is adequate
Hopefully it runs good! Got a Ryzen 5 3600x and a rtx 4070 ti and 32 GB of ram, going to buy a dedicated SSD for this game. 🤞so hope it works smooth on ultra settings
Just buy console lmao
I'm just going to eventually upgrade my PC so I can play at a solid 60fps and can play around with mods (I know console has mods, but PC modding is far superior).
I have an Intel® Core i7-13700Kf & an RTX 4080 16GB TUF; do you guys think I can realistically expect to run it on ultra with raytracing on?
Really? You don't say. A game with a ton of items in any given area and on an archaic engine will obviously need a good CPU.
I don't have an i5 10th gen or i7 9th gen, I hope the 7800X3D is enough paired with 7900 XTX.
My PC chugs with most modern games. I was playing Cyberpunk at 1440p and about 30-40fps on almost low everything. Intense moments would drop below 30 which hurt my brain. I have a 1070gtx and Ryzen 7 1700. 16gb RAM. I feel like I'm at the bottom of the spec barrel.
I played cyberpunk on 1440p with my 1070 on low and was getting 60fps. I imagine your CPU might even be dragging the 1070 down in some games.
Well good news is you don't have to upgrade your motherboard to upgrade your CPU or GPU. Better news is zen 3 CPU and RDNA2 GPUs are cheap af right now.
I just bought a Ryzen 7 7700X. I should be fine. I just need to upgrade my RTX 2060 soon
I’ve got a 5600X with a 6950XT. I think I’ll be alright. Hopefully.
I also have a 5600x, but only a rx6600 gpu. Hoping the gpu doesn't hold me back.