For those concerned about CPU requirements

[Mihai_89]

So this is for those who are concerned about the CPU requirements.

Just relax bros - despite that it says 8 cores/16 threads it also says Zen 2

Zen 2 pretty much means older RYZENs can run it too like the RYZEN 5 3600 or RYZEN 5 3500 or RYZEN 3 3100 - yes they specify the 3700X but it will run on older ones because it's the same architecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_2

[Mihai_89]

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

Originally posted by Mihai_89:

There is also one other thing that i just remembered.

The core count will not matter and now im about 90% sure of that because think of it this way : if we look at something like the 7600X which also has 6 cores that would mean it would still be under the requirements and i know for a fact the 7600X outperforms the 5700X in terms of performance yet it is the CPU they recommend.

There is no way the game won't run on something like the 7600X because that's a really good CPU.

I believe the game will run on anything that is ZEN 2 and newer no matter the core count.

There's no question that it'll run. That's not the reason for caution imo. The caveat is how hungry for multithreading it is, and why.

The specific case you cite isn't apples to apples, because the 7600X generally outperforms the 5700X even in heavily multithreaded workloads despite having fewer absolute threads, because it benefits from a newer microarchitecture, newer memory architecture, and higher all core clock speeds. etc. (And we can't say for certain if that's true in this game's case, though I would expect it to be.)

The real comparison I want to see is the game running with otherwise identical hardware, but on something like both a 3700X and a 3600. That would be more revealing imo and more of an apples to apples contrast. Essentially identical clock speeds, similar cache sizes, same architecture, same RAM, with the sole difference being 12 threads and 6 cores vs 16 and 8.

Because it does kind beg the question for me, why they didn't list the 3600 as minimum spec instead of the 3700X if there's no appreciable difference? Particularly given that that core and thread count is maintained in all three use cases across the board.

Do I think it will have a significant impact? No, not really. As I said, I suspect this is just a vague target meant to provide players with plenty of overhead, and just a general ballpark kind of thing. Like all system requirements usually are.

But I'm not 90% confident in that as you are. More like 70% lol. I'd like to see specific benchmarks making those kinds of comparisons, or for them to touch on it explicitly and officially.

Hmm - i think your analysis is pretty accurate, if not insanely accurate.

I do have 1 other comparison i would like to make - let's take the 3600 and the 5600X so they are more closer, both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

The 5600X and 5700X are very close in terms of performance but the core count still remains 6 core for the 5600X - i really don't think they're trying to say the game won't run on a CPU like that if they put the 5700X at the recommended specs.

It would be nice if someone from Id Software could give us more accurate info on this.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

Originally posted by Mihai_89:

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

There's no question that it'll run. That's not the reason for caution imo. The caveat is how hungry for multithreading it is, and why.

The specific case you cite isn't apples to apples, because the 7600X generally outperforms the 5700X even in heavily multithreaded workloads despite having fewer absolute threads, because it benefits from a newer microarchitecture, newer memory architecture, and higher all core clock speeds. etc. (And we can't say for certain if that's true in this game's case, though I would expect it to be.)

The real comparison I want to see is the game running with otherwise identical hardware, but on something like both a 3700X and a 3600. That would be more revealing imo and more of an apples to apples contrast. Essentially identical clock speeds, similar cache sizes, same architecture, same RAM, with the sole difference being 12 threads and 6 cores vs 16 and 8.

Because it does kind beg the question for me, why they didn't list the 3600 as minimum spec instead of the 3700X if there's no appreciable difference? Particularly given that that core and thread count is maintained in all three use cases across the board.

Do I think it will have a significant impact? No, not really. As I said, I suspect this is just a vague target meant to provide players with plenty of overhead, and just a general ballpark kind of thing. Like all system requirements usually are.

But I'm not 90% confident in that as you are. More like 70% lol. I'd like to see specific benchmarks making those kinds of comparisons, or for them to touch on it explicitly and officially.

Hmm - i think your analysis is pretty accurate, if not insanely accurate.

I do have 1 other comparison i would like to make - let's take the 3600 and the 5600X so they are more closer, both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

The 5600X and 5700X are very close in terms of performance but the core count still remains 6 core for the 5600X - i really don't think they're trying to say the game won't run on a CPU like that if they put the 5700X at the recommended specs.

It would be nice if someone from Id Software could give us more accurate info on this.

It will virtually certainly run. But that's what I'm saying. Why the 5700X and 3700X specifically? Why not simply list the 5600X and 3600? Like i said I don't expect this to matter much ultimately. I'm just curious as to their rationale, or if there even is any rationale other than, "Let's list something very conservative for headroom purposes," and, "This is what we have to internally test on, and is a good enough ballpark." (Which is usually the case.)

[Mihai_89]

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

Originally posted by Mihai_89:

Hmm - i think your analysis is pretty accurate, if not insanely accurate.

I do have 1 other comparison i would like to make - let's take the 3600 and the 5600X so they are more closer, both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

The 5600X and 5700X are very close in terms of performance but the core count still remains 6 core for the 5600X - i really don't think they're trying to say the game won't run on a CPU like that if they put the 5700X at the recommended specs.

It would be nice if someone from Id Software could give us more accurate info on this.

It will virtually certainly run. But that's what I'm saying. Why the 5700X and 3700X specifically? Why not simply list the 5600X and 3600? Like i said I don't expect this to matter much ultimately. I'm just curious as to their rationale, or if there even is any rationale other than, "Let's list something very conservative for headroom purposes," and, "This is what we have to internally test on, and is a good enough ballpark." (Which is usually the case.)

Hmm - could it be just a simple mistake on their end ?

Maybe someone from Id Software could give us an answer and this way actually make reassure a lot of people in the process with older CPUs.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

Originally posted by Mihai_89:

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

It will virtually certainly run. But that's what I'm saying. Why the 5700X and 3700X specifically? Why not simply list the 5600X and 3600? Like i said I don't expect this to matter much ultimately. I'm just curious as to their rationale, or if there even is any rationale other than, "Let's list something very conservative for headroom purposes," and, "This is what we have to internally test on, and is a good enough ballpark." (Which is usually the case.)

Hmm - could it be just a simple mistake on their end ?

Maybe someone from Id Software could give us an answer and this way actually make reassure a lot of people in the process with older CPUs.

It could simply be, as I said, that those are the procs they've internally tested on and verified their performance targets on. Sometimes it's that simple. System requirements are never exhaustive.

[Mihai_89]

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

Originally posted by Mihai_89:

Hmm - could it be just a simple mistake on their end ?

Maybe someone from Id Software could give us an answer and this way actually make reassure a lot of people in the process with older CPUs.

It could simply be, as I said, that those are the procs they've internally tested on and verified their performance targets on. Sometimes it's that simple. System requirements are never exhaustive.

Yes, that is correct - I remember encountering multiple times when I thought a game might not run at all for me and still had no issues with it, for example with INDIANA JONES like I wasn't really sure 16 GB RAM was gonna be enough since they had 32 GB listed, but i had no problems with that one.

[Comp_Lex]

I think they directly translated console hardware to PC hardware requirements. The PS5 and Series X have 8 cores / 16 threads, Zen 2, 16 GB RAM, etc. It's because of the consoles that the system requirements are like that. That's all they did. Just add in some example CPUs and GPUs.... and done! Don't expect any extensive testing with hundreds of different PC hardware configurations. You guys are talking about how the game may run on a 6-core CPU, but we don't really know that at this point and I don't think they know it either.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

Originally posted by Comp_Lex:

I think they directly translated console hardware to PC hardware requirements. The PS5 and Series X have 8 cores / 16 threads, Zen 2, 16 GB RAM, etc. It's because of the consoles that the system requirements are like that. That's all they did. Just add in some example CPUs and GPUs.... and done! Don't expect any extensive testing with hundreds of different PC hardware configurations. You guys are talking about how the game may run on a 6-core CPU, but we don't really know that at this point and I don't think they know it either.

Hard to say. I think that's probably the basis they aim for, and that that accounts for the broad outline of the specs, but consoles and PC's aren't apples to apples comparisons. They have their own low level API and SoC designs and different software environment considerations.

What I do agree with - as I've said - is we don't know and should wait for benchmarks.

[Cruentu]

US SIX CORE BROS ARE DOOMED :(

[Comp_Lex]

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

Hard to say. I think that's probably the basis they aim for, and that that accounts for the broad outline of the specs, but consoles and PC's aren't apples to apples comparisons. They have their own low level API and SoC designs and different software environment considerations.

What I do agree with - as I've said - is we don't know and should wait for benchmarks.

They are indeed not apples to apples comparisons. Let's say not 100 % apples to 100 % apples, but it's pretty close I think. It's much closer than it ever used to be. It could be close enough that you can just pick and match off the shelf PC hardware components and then say that's the PC equivalent of the consoles. At least much easier than in the past.

It would be different if we were talking Switch 2, which may receive a port as well. Because it's ARM over there instead of x86. But the funny thing is that, if you use Vulkan for development, then you can build something for PC and Switch, but not for the other consoles. But that's all a different story and off topic for here.

[SHREDDER]

Originally posted by Mihai_89:

Originally posted by Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

It could simply be, as I said, that those are the procs they've internally tested on and verified their performance targets on. Sometimes it's that simple. System requirements are never exhaustive.

Yes, that is correct - I remember encountering multiple times when I thought a game might not run at all for me and still had no issues with it, for example with INDIANA JONES like I wasn't really sure 16 GB RAM was gonna be enough since they had 32 GB listed, but i had no problems with that one.

me too i dont have problems with games who redomend 32 gb andi have 16. the two spiderman games for example that releaed in 2022 recomend 32 but i played them with ver y high graphics and very high ray tracing 1440p 60 fps with FSR and didnth ave any problems. That because for games the graphics card is more important and since ihave apowerful card(rx 6700 xt 12 gb red devil) i still run evrything maxed 1440p 60 fps.

[ShotgunHobo]

they mean console specs. consoles are the minimum. Ryzen 3700 downclocked or ryzen 2700 even. gpuwise. any rx6700xt ll run it. ps5 is rx6700 with more vram so.... expect at least a wave of gtx1060 complaining poors why they cant run the game. same for cpu´s. if you still have a ryzen 2000 in 2025, YOU are the problem, not the system requirements. what you bought 6 core parts years after the consoles came out? your own fault ,but shouldnt matter, IPC and singlethread care more.

[ShotgunHobo]

Originally posted by Cruentu:

US SIX CORE BROS ARE DOOMED :(

no you are not. they list console specs, but doesnt mean 12 threads arent enough. they will be. just expect less multithreading fps performance in high refreshrate scenarios and your cpu to get hot from being used alot.

[SHREDDER]

i agree with shotgun if somene still has 6 core cpu in 2025 is their problems and not the games. I GOT MINE RYZEN 7 1700 8 core in 2017 and since 2021 i runa ll games maxed 1440p 60 fps which means that they shouldnt have bought 6 cores then .

[Mihai_89]

Originally posted by ShotgunHobo:

they mean console specs. consoles are the minimum. Ryzen 3700 downclocked or ryzen 2700 even. gpuwise. any rx6700xt ll run it. ps5 is rx6700 with more vram so.... expect at least a wave of gtx1060 complaining poors why they cant run the game. same for cpu´s. if you still have a ryzen 2000 in 2025, YOU are the problem, not the system requirements. what you bought 6 core parts years after the consoles came out? your own fault ,but shouldnt matter, IPC and singlethread care more.

No, that's not really accurate, some CPUs like my RYZEN 5 3600 are still pretty good even today - GAMERS NEXUS actually made a video on this not long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRK30P9_Tvg

[Mihai_89]

Originally posted by SHREDDER:

i agree with shotgun if somene still has 6 core cpu in 2025 is their problems and not the games. I GOT MINE RYZEN 7 1700 8 core in 2017 and since 2021 i runa ll games maxed 1440p 60 fps which means that they shouldnt have bought 6 cores then .

Ok, uh SHREDDER - like i'm not trying to be rude but the RYZEN 5 3600 outperforms the the RYZEN 7 1700X even if in general, it's not just about core count at 6 cores vs 8 cores between them, it's also about the raw performance. LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uir_u2YRH50