System requirements

[radcapricorn]

Audio? Hardly!

Hah! Good on you then

The second main thread is the game universe simulation, including both local and far away objects. I explained why you can't just carve up the universe simulation into separate chunks in another thread...

I didn't mean quite literal division into "chunks" like that. More like:
- per-frame updates for some region around the player.
- less-frequent updates for all other regions.

Obviously, like I said I was theorizing, I've no clue exactly how the game world is represented in X4, and thank you for an insight!

[wrmiller]

Some of this stuff is quite complex, and a bit much for most normal people to absorb. Programmers are an odd bunch, or at least the ones I hung out with were.

I spent over 35 years designing/coding deterministic real-time operating systems (RTOS), 6-DOF motion control systems, and digital data storage systems. And even with that background I wouldn't touch game design with a 10' cattle prod.

While I'm far from normal, game design is a part of the multi-verse I am not familiar with.

[ballti]

On search r5 1600 vs i7 6700k YT first popup this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTt-S9DaO6g
r5 1600 is on 3400 MHz, i7 6700k is on 4.1GHz, both CPU can be OC for 400-700 MHz, This mean eny OC 4+4 Ryezen is more then enought for X4?
Unknown is 8gb vs 16gb. I hope 8gb will not do too big penalty on FPS, ram is wey to expenisve ATM.

[nemesis1982]

On search r5 1600 vs i7 6700k YT first popup this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTt-S9DaO6g
r5 1600 is on 3400 MHz, i7 6700k is on 4.1GHz, both CPU can be OC for 400-700 MHz, This mean eny OC 4+4 Ryezen is more then enought for X4?
Unknown is 8gb vs 16gb. I hope 8gb will not do too big penalty on FPS, ram is wey to expenisve ATM.

8GB is on the low side for just about anything now a days. What I remember from previous x games is that they're quite RAM hungry. I could be wrong though.

[ballti]

Funny thing is that im not choose games based on hardwere, and ATM 8gb is more then enought (Factorio, Frostpunkt... etc). Looks like X4 will force me on 2x8gb.

[ballti]

Im really looking into AMD Ryzen 2700X since i want to support them for stepping up in CPU arena and forcing Intel to raise their bar as well. Before ryzen intel last 5 year progress was depressing. Is there any info how OC-d Ryzen 2700X will work compared to Intel latest series?

Ryzen 2700 is still king.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I--zROoRws

[memxcom]

I think a lot of us are still wondering how their old PCs will perform with X4, my ageing Intel i5 2500k@4.4Ghz, 16GB ram, 8GB XFX RX480 OC Black Edition should play it fine in theory @1080p.

I'm debating if I should pre-order or wait and see how it performs from users/owners that buy X4 before I do.
I also bet I'm not the only one thinking about system requirements with older hardware.

I have no plan to upgrade until next year.

[Thufar]

I also bet I'm not the only one thinking about system requirements with older hardware.

You'd most assuredly win that bet.

Regards,
Thufar

[Alci]

Is there any info how OC-d Ryzen 2700X will work compared to Intel latest series?

Ryzen 2700 is still king.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I--zROoRws

Ryzen 2700X is only good (for a price) for multithread applications. It lacks the raw speed in single/dual threads, means most games really. Price being comparable to i5-9600k which is still stronger in games where CPU matters*.

Things to consider:

- X4 specifically won't utilize multicore. It will run better* on Intels

- Ryzen 2700X CANNOT be overclocked, that's downside of their Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 technology. Thing is, Ryzen "overclocks" itself based on real heat (unlike workload-based Intel's TurboBoost). If you overclock it you only rise the base frequency meaning it will consume more and heat more while doing nothing. But under stress it will go up the very same point as not overclock one as the heat will be the same limiting factor. (And in tests OC version performs worse, with a note it can't be OC beyond its max threshold it will become unstable even with more voltage.)

- (while i5-9600K can go up to 5.1GHz which makes it even stronger for single and dual thread apps, still won't do for multithread)

- Ryzen will work better with better cooling, not single thread, there is hard frequency limit AMD cannot overcome yet, but better cooling means more threads can run at boosted frequencies for longer

- and the same downside .. tests are a bit "unprecise" for 2nd gen Ryzen. It will have tendencies to slow down with time as the temperature rises, on CPU and more important in case. It will always perform slightly better in first 3 minutes tests then in 8h long gaming sessions (2+threads; single thread will always run at max as any cooler with handle that; the target temp is supposed to be around 60°C).

*) the real difference between CPUs in games is only measurable if GPU is not bottleneck which it is for 99% of people. If you have anything worse then GTX 1080, CPU doesn't matter at all. If you have GTX1080 only for resolution below 1080p CPU matters. And so on. So don't waste too much time deciding which $350 CPU is better if you don't have $1500 GPU. And if you do, you can afford more for CPU as well I guess. Games like X bothering CPU more then average are rare unless you are serious 4X player.

[Alci]

I think a lot of us are still wondering how their old PCs will perform with X4, my ageing Intel i5 2500k@4.4Ghz, 16GB ram, 8GB XFX RX480 OC Black Edition should play it fine in theory @1080p.

I have the same CPU with GTX1080. It will run, that's all that matters, resolution doesn't matter might slow down with growing Universe (but we can always play Thanos and wipe out half of the galaxy to easy the burden )

However I'm in the process of serious consideration of CPU upgrading and the jump is actually much higher then anticipated (mostly from chipset, DDR4 and M.2). Now it's all about Ryzen 2700X vs i5-9600K with Intel's leading so far. It's dedicated gaming machine I've never done anything else there in years.

[ballti]

Is there any info how OC-d Ryzen 2700X will work compared to Intel latest series?

Ryzen 2700 is still king.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I--zROoRws

Ryzen 2700X is only good (for a price) for multithread applications. It lacks the raw speed in single/dual threads, means most games really. Price being comparable to i5-9600k which is still stronger in games where CPU matters*.

Things to consider:

- X4 specifically won't utilize multicore. It will run better* on Intels

- Ryzen 2700X CANNOT be overclocked, that's downside of their Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 technology. Thing is, Ryzen "overclocks" itself based on real heat (unlike workload-based Intel's TurboBoost). If you overclock it you only rise the base frequency meaning it will consume more and heat more while doing nothing. But under stress it will go up the very same point as not overclock one as the heat will be the same limiting factor. (And in tests OC version performs worse, with a note it can't be OC beyond its max threshold it will become unstable even with more voltage.)

- (while i5-9600K can go up to 5.1GHz which makes it even stronger for single and dual thread apps, still won't do for multithread)

- Ryzen will work better with better cooling, not single thread, there is hard frequency limit AMD cannot overcome yet, but better cooling means more threads can run at boosted frequencies for longer

- and the same downside .. tests are a bit "unprecise" for 2nd gen Ryzen. It will have tendencies to slow down with time as the temperature rises, on CPU and more important in case. It will always perform slightly better in first 3 minutes tests then in 8h long gaming sessions (2+threads; single thread will always run at max as any cooler with handle that; the target temp is supposed to be around 60°C).

*) the real difference between CPUs in games is only measurable if GPU is not bottleneck which it is for 99% of people. If you have anything worse then GTX 1080, CPU doesn't matter at all. If you have GTX1080 only for resolution below 1080p CPU matters. And so on. So don't waste too much time deciding which $350 CPU is better if you don't have $1500 GPU. And if you do, you can afford more for CPU as well I guess. Games like X bothering CPU more then average are rare unless you are serious 4X player.

i5 9700k not going on 4.7Ghz on 95W TDP, test was fake, you need 200-300e MB for all core 4.7ghz and much bigger TDP + cooler. It is not proper 8 core CPU, too fat for now and wey too expensive.

[memxcom]

I think a lot of us are still wondering how their old PCs will perform with X4, my ageing Intel i5 2500k@4.4Ghz, 16GB ram, 8GB XFX RX480 OC Black Edition should play it fine in theory @1080p.

I have the same CPU with GTX1080. It will run, that's all that matters, resolution doesn't matter might slow down with growing Universe (but we can always play Thanos and wipe out half of the galaxy to easy the burden )

However I'm in the process of serious consideration of CPU upgrading and the jump is actually much higher then anticipated (mostly from chipset, DDR4 and M.2). Now it's all about Ryzen 2700X vs i5-9600K with Intel's leading so far. It's dedicated gaming machine I've never done anything else there in years.

Well hopefully the new Ryzens will be out next year so I'm trying to hold out until then, the 9700k, 9900k are way overpriced ,typical Intel and the 9600k is not a big jump over 8600k so again nothing special, Ryzen 2700x gets stronger from what I read with regards to resolution ie higher you go the less the bottle neck is with the cpu but more the GPU.

We really need some reviews with different CPUs as benchmarks, hopefully next month that will make thinks clearer, however I still would like the next gen Ryzen next year if that becomes a reality, guess time will tell. Another option is upgrade to the lastest Ryzen/4xx boards then change CPU next year.

Amazing how long my 2500k cpu has lasted since 2011 .

[Alci]

i5 9700k not going on 4.7Ghz on 95W TDP, test was fake, you need 200-300e MB for all core 4.7ghz and much bigger TDP + cooler. It is not proper 8 core CPU, too fat for now and wey too expensive.

i5-9600K (I don't even consider 9700K nor 9900K. I don't really care about synthetic tests and there is nothing i7 or i9 can offer in games for the price), the one for same price as Ryzen 2700X (literally the same, even boards are the same).

Not sure what test you are referring to. It seems everyone who tested it has the same results. They can be all OC to the 4.9-5.2GHz levels. 200-300€ MB is what Z370/Z390/X470 always costs. For Intels and AMDs the same. No surprises there. And for 9600K you can go away with Z370 without blink of an eye, except I want AC on board (USB ACs sucks and I don't have spare PCIe slot).

Again, I don't care about synthetic tests so why would I even want to have 6 cores@4.7GHz (or 16 cores ) ? That never was a target. Having one@4.9GHz is my target. That makes two@4.6GHz. I'm playing quite a few games and I've never met a single one using more then 2 cores. Never. The very few I know of using more are not among those I play.

It's not even needed now but considering how long my current CPU holds I may use it eventually. One day it will be paired with GTX2380 And I know almost for sure that more cores is not where gaming will go. Won't happen. 4 uni-cores is enough. I expect they will start creating specialized cores instead. It's already a waste to have 16 cores all capable of doing full scale of instructions "slowly" while you could easily get 128 specialized cores for very specific tasks and nothing more.

[mr.WHO]

I think Egosoft already stated that 4-cores are optimal (because most of calculation will be done on 2 or 3 cores). Beyond that it will give you only marginal performance boost. 6-cores might be OK, but 8 or 16 cores is just overkill.

So aparently it's better to have powerful 4 cores, than weak 8-cores.


Still possibly with later upgrades Egosoft can improve core usage and then 8+ cores will make a difference, but it might take 2-3 years in which your precious multi-core monsters will become cheaper.

[nemesis1982]

Thing is because the single and quad core performance of high core count CPU is far lower then their quad core counterparts. 8 cores > wi'll probably perform worse.

[ballti]

i5 9700k not going on 4.7Ghz on 95W TDP, test was fake, you need 200-300e MB for all core 4.7ghz and much bigger TDP + cooler. It is not proper 8 core CPU, too fat for now and wey too expensive.

i5-9600K (I don't even consider 9700K nor 9900K. I don't really care about synthetic tests and there is nothing i7 or i9 can offer in games for the price), the one for same price as Ryzen 2700X (literally the same, even boards are the same).

Not sure what test you are referring to. It seems everyone who tested it has the same results. They can be all OC to the 4.9-5.2GHz levels. 200-300€ MB is what Z370/Z390/X470 always costs. For Intels and AMDs the same. No surprises there. And for 9600K you can go away with Z370 without blink of an eye, except I want AC on board (USB ACs sucks and I don't have spare PCIe slot).

Again, I don't care about synthetic tests so why would I even want to have 6 cores@4.7GHz (or 16 cores ) ? That never was a target. Having one@4.9GHz is my target. That makes two@4.6GHz. I'm playing quite a few games and I've never met a single one using more then 2 cores. Never. The very few I know of using more are not among those I play.

It's not even needed now but considering how long my current CPU holds I may use it eventually. One day it will be paired with GTX2380 And I know almost for sure that more cores is not where gaming will go. Won't happen. 4 uni-cores is enough. I expect they will start creating specialized cores instead. It's already a waste to have 16 cores all capable of doing full scale of instructions "slowly" while you could easily get 128 specialized cores for very specific tasks and nothing more.

You miss the point, 9900k is 8 core power hungry owerclock koffe lake, nothing new.
Smart gaming developer will not optimize game for OC CPU last generation, if we are talking about futureproof, this generation of CPU is not what we are looking for, single thread performance is old few years + power hungry + price, faill on multiple level.

[StoogeR]

There are already more than enough games which will use more than 4 cores. Iirc some Egosoft dev said years ago XR will use as much threads as you can give it (def more than 4).
Battlefiled 1 is crap on any 4 core cpu. 64 player matches can use 100% of no matter how OCed i5's, it will drop fps to 30-40. I have i5 2500k@4.4ghz, my friend has ivy bridge i5@4.6ghz and haswell i5@4.5hghz. They all struggle in bf1. Even hyperthreading of i7 with 4c/8t helps a lot for your min fps in bf1. And I bet new BFV will be more demanding than bf1.
Most games wont need more than 2-4 cores but there are more and more games that will use more and some that need more.
Thats why ryzens are good performance/$. Enough single core performance (less than intel cpus but enough), more than enough multithreaded performance and good price. 6c/12t ryzen 2600 is ~50% the price of 8600k and in most cases it's performing not much worse and sometimes on par with the intel cpu.

[Alci]

You miss the point, 9900k is 8 core power hungry owerclock koffe lake, nothing new.

yeah, I probably don't. I have no idea why you are bringing 9900K here or what that "optimization" of yours mean. You use the CPU computing capacity for some task. The more you get the less bottleneck it will be. Noone is "optimizing" anything for any specific CPU (well, except consoles, they are HW locked for decade). (And a side note, X games in history always bottlenecked CPU no matter which you have. The game has no limit on grow, so the assumption is the more you can get...)

I don't fight some holy battle who has the biggest e-peen or highest CB score. Don't care. What matters to me is how it serves my needs. And my needs for gaming PC are games and my will to pay for premium is below average. And for that Intel is getting more points so far. Waiting for AMD announcement today, but without tests it probably won't change anything.

[Alan Phipps]

Play nicely people! Let's not get too intense about hitting a still undefined target.

[vukica]

The word "probably" is probably misused in this thread.

There's so many variables to multi-core games such as X4, that I don't think even the "single-core" score is particularly relevant.