Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Your confusing RAM with VRAM. 32gb of ram is overkill, 16 is still totally fine. 8gb of vram is what will likely be the issue for anyone wanting a 1440p 60+ fps experience, maybe even at 1080p with textures on ultra.
Nvidia really f”d everyone with the 30 series vram unless you got a 3060 or 3090
what about a i7 9700k? 5 years old now, but above minimum specs (though has less threads as an 8/8 cpu)
The "Recommended" requirement for Starfield is 16GB of RAM.
I'd be surprised to find Starfield using more than two cores.
The OP has 8GB of VRAM, definitely enough to run 1080p. On what settings remains to be seen and nobody has any idea. I personally wouldn't upgrade until after I installed and played the game with that system.
You're right this won't use 8 cores but it sure will need strong singlecore performance and that can be seen by a 30fps lock on the consoles. The CPU in the consoles is about 30% stronger singlecore performance.
I mean if OP want to wait and see the inevitable slideshow before upgrading it just means he'll need to wait longer to play the game.
Overall getting a new comp is probably the best bet. A r5 7600 or i5-13400 with some mid range card with good price/performance right now would be the best bet. Their current graphics card might be able to handle it with lowered resolution and upscaling techs.
Also for everyone else, don't do console comparisons apples to apples, it doesn't work like that. Consoles run oses with very little overhead and shared ram banks, so their efficiency with their limited resources is very high. However it rests upon the devs to leverage that potential efficiency well.
i tweaked a lot in ini file to make it run okeish...
windowed 800*600
extra low with many tweaks to make it even lower.
and even then had some frezzes for half a minute in special places.
...
same time witcher 3 came out.
also windowed,800*600
streaming of models and textures.. as little as possible..
funny to run in a city.. where houses only 20 meters away
They always list slightly higher specs than required, so they get as few refunds due to poor performance. This is nothing new, devs been doing this for ever. 4cores 8 threads is fine to run just about everything today, within acceptable limits. That cpu clocks between 4 and 4.4ghz which is not bad even today. It's old, yes, not ancient. You'd be surprised how often older parts can still run modern things.
The creation engine from fallout and skyrim also tended to draw the gpu more than cpu, so knowing bethesda coding, it's likely going to be the same.
Anyway, check out https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri "Can I run it". it scans your hardware and sees what kind of performance you can expect.
https://www.box.co.uk/best-pcs-for-starfield
I have a GTX 1660 and they suggest that this will work on low settings.
Da ♥♥♥♥, my 2011v3 Rampage V /Ed.10 with 6950X burnt 3 days ago -.-
Not enough time to build up a new system in 4 weeks. So i got my grandpa PC up to running again. Last day installed Dualboot W10 & 11. I´m still surprised, that this ♥♥♥♥ is running witout UEFI.
And of course... I´m very happy -.-
I would like to have all your worries now
Maybe i should do a vid from this^^