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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I have i5-3570k and Sapphire Radeon R9 390 Nitro 8GB VRAM, aswell as 8GB RAM (much better specs at the end). I can't play this game on max graphics. Well I can but the FPS will be pretty low around 10-25 FPS closer zoomed in (depending on speed 1-3). Now imagine this with worse specs as above, I doubt it is playable.
Also, the bigger the city, the more performance is required.
If you buy or want to build a PC just for Cities Skylines, all you have to do is make sure to have a very powerful CPU because this is what this game demands mostly.
Milage varies depending on how you'll play it.
First, I'd recommend a desktop PC if you can play it at home. Laptops always cost more for the same features.
This game is a resource PIG if you subscribe to a lot of assets and mods. The memory requirements go up dramatically.
The vanilla game really runs fine with 4GB of video ram. Those on a tight budget can probably make do with 2GB of Video ram but if so, stay away from adding lots of asset mods. Conversely get 8GB of video ram if you can afford it. (or 16GB of video RAM if money is no object) then the restrictions on what mods you install will be much less.
My core 6 processor at 3,2GHz is fine but of course better is always better. As you approach larger cities and if you use processor intensive mods (like the Traffic Manager ones)
you might see some slowdown or even crashes that more processing power might solve.
A Solid State hard drive as the system drive may well help with both of the above issues. I've still not been sucessful in getting my SSD installed.
Like previous commenters have said, it really depends on what you do in the game. If you make small vanilla towns, recommended system requirenments is more than enough, however, if you're running a lot of mods and are making massive cities, you may want to look into a better rig. It also depends on how much money you can spare for a new computer. If you can, get a better one and it should last you a long time, not to mention if you're into gaming, a decent rig is worth it
Don't ever think a laptop will do. The one that will is more expensive that the desktop you want.
I you like the full experiance you need I7 with 16 or 32 gb, windows and steam on a ssd drive and a nice 8 gb videocard.
a decent amount of mads/assets will use 6-8 gb. With less that total 16 gb, were would windows and supporting software and the game live ?
If it were me, I'd shop for the components and build my own computer.
If you want to buy one off the shelf though, then these are the specs you most need to consider:
A good cpu. It doesn't have to be the best, but it does need to be good. An Intel i5 series or i7 series, but not an i3.
A decent graphics card. Again, it does not need to be the best, nor do you have to consider using two cards. An old GTX750Ti is relatively cheap and does the job.
The RAM will certainly need to be 16GB or more if you intend to use a substantial amount of custom content. 16GB should be able to cope with around 800 assets to give you a ballpark figure.
SSD for your OS and Steam is nice but not necessary when a regular disk drive will do. The difference being only in loading time of the game.
Or if you prefer here's one via Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Centaurus-Helios-Gaming-Computer-Quad-Core/dp/B014BTPV5Y/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1473448886&sr=1-3&keywords=gaming+pc&refinements=p_n_feature_seven_browse-bin%3A3012495011%2Cp_n_feature_five_browse-bin%3A13580790011%2Cp_n_operating_system_browse-bin%3A12035945011%2Cp_n_graphics_type_browse-bin%3A14292273011%2Cp_n_feature_fourteen_browse-bin%3A2057441011
I got this dell XPS system for my dad for $999.99 USD.
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/cty/pdp/spd/xps-8930-se-desktop?~ck=mn
I'd recommend upgrading RAM to 32GB if you plan on building big city with the workshop. 16GB minimum and you could add another 16GB later.
It comes with a GTX 1050 Ti and would be minimum. I'd prefer the GTX 1060 6GB just for other games that have nice graphics detail. But the GTX 1050 Ti should be fine for this game at 1080p resolution.
If you post a budget, we may could show you the best bang for your buck.
I have an i5 4670k (stock-clocked), a GTX 980 and a 'mere' (for this game), 8Gb of Ram. Although old now, it's a pretty optimised system with the OS sitting on its very own SSD with another for my 'main' games, alongside a ton of spinnning rust for long-term and backup storage. I could have done better, but at the time I suddenly felt the need to play Elite: Dangerous and bunged this machine together out of bits I happened to have on hand. The life of the amateur PC builder eh?
Anyway, this lot is outputting to a 2560 x 1440 IPS monitor and so generally sees fps in the 10 - 20 range and I'll be perfectly honest: it runs fine with everything maxed out graphically. Sure, as someone more interested in the mechanics of the city than the out and out 'view', I'm not bothered one way or the other. But......
Question: does the game benefit from a 'fps chase'?
I burned through nearly three grand in an epic battle for supremacy with a horribly optimised (read: barely optimised at all) title called ARMA III a few years back - son-face was a fan - hence the 'parts on hand' for this build. The resulting machine is still kicking the you-know-what out of the latest triple A releases four years after it was built.
I'll go through it again, but, and it's a big 'but', aside from obviously needing to quadruple my RAM-count, I'm not feeling the need to upgrade otherwise.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Mike