Steam Specs

Sam L.R. Griffiths · Post by **Sam L.R. Griffiths** » Fri, 9. Aug 13, 16:13

It will be nice to see if it will stretch my setup:-

AMD FX 8350 (8 Core/4.0-4.2 GHz)
16GB DDR3-10600 (1333MHz)
GeForce GTX 770 4GB

laminblake · Post by **laminblake** » Fri, 9. Aug 13, 16:24

time for a graphics card upgrade

Tommety · Post by **Tommety** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 00:25

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:It will be nice to see if it will stretch my setup:-
AMD FX 8350 (8 Core/4.0-4.2 GHz)

16GB DDR3-10600 (1333MHz)

GeForce GTX 770 4GB

You have no hard disk, therefore it will not work.

...I'm going to bed, this is too silly even for me...

theeclownbroze · Post by **theeclownbroze** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 00:54

My specs,

AMD PH-II x6 1100-t B.E clocked at 3.3 ghz

Geil 1333mhz 4 GB ram

Amd Radeon 7970 Ghz.E

500GB hard disk (plenty of space)

any suggestions?

Zloth · Post by **Zloth** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 02:09

randomuser wrote:are the "rcommended" specs enough to run it at >30 FPS after some ingame days?

or will we need the hidden "optimal" specs for that?

I translate "minimum" to mean "if you can't get to this level for every part of your computer then we recommend that you don't buy the game." Companies typically don't tell you to avoid their product unless there's a very good reason. "Recommended" I translate as the point where you can get through the game pretty much as designed. Maybe you won't be able to turn the graphics all the way up to maximum but you'll be able to play comfortably with reasonable settings.

"Optimal" doesn't mean much to me. Wouldn't that always be the best money can buy? I guess there's a point where the game will no longer have any use for extra power but that's going to be sky high (e.g. having enough memory to run the game off a RAM drive).

Inverness · Post by **Inverness** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 04:51

I don't think I'll have any problems running game on my setup:

Intel Core i7 2600K @ 3.4 GHz
8 GB DDR3 2133 (PC3 17000) RAM
2GB EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

I'm surprised the game takes so little hard drive space though.

Zealot644 · Post by **Zealot644** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 05:22

Game might be okay on dual core - we'll have to see, right?

As for 64 bit... There's really no excuse now. RAM is dirt cheap, and having 8GB of it is such an easy task.

giskard · Post by **giskard** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 05:25

All X games have pushed the hardware of the day to their limits. I would expect X Rebirth to be running on Average settings on 80% of your computers. In 2 or 3 years time when you upgrade, X will still look stunning.

That is how it has always been.

The one surprise I see in those stats is they still use the ancient Directx9, I would have thought they would have got for DX10 or DX11 since the features in 10 and 11 are great for space games.

Plus DX9 games ancient these days.

Having said that, Directx is just rewritten code that devs can use to make their games. There is nothing to stop devs writing their own code to do similar or better things than Dx10 or 11 could do.

Stardocks MD explained how DX10 and 11 + 64bit hardware was going to change our games forever now its an option to use them. He was very excited about it and I was too.

notaterran · Post by **notaterran** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 05:54

Nice to finally see some specs. I've bought my computer parts mostly from Newegg and CompUSA, but perhaps as the release date approaches we can post links to stores where the people here can get good deals and be able to upgrade. It really looks like XR is going to be MUCH more effective using the computer's resources.

BillyBoyFloyd · Post by **BillyBoyFloyd** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 06:26

I am amused that everyone trying to decide whether their hardware can handle X:R has sofar failed to mention what screen resolution they are trying to run at.

Am I to assume everyone is targeting 1920x1080? Is this what Egosoft is assuming for their published minimum and recommended system specs?

I myself target 2560x1440 with Ultra settings, and frequently fail with my i5-2500K and dual 560ti 2gb SLI, but not by much.

I'd love to hear from devs or other insider if I am alright for X:R at 2560x1440 Ultra, or should I start shopping for a 770 or 780? I was really hoping to delay until prices dropped a touch.

I'll never run SLI again on a future setup, too many games out there crap out with SLI, Far Cry 3 being the most recent.

StarSword · Post by **StarSword** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 06:37

My problem is, my tower needs parts (quite apart from the fact it won't stay booted up for some reason, the graphics card belongs in a museum) and I'm broke. On the other hand, my laptop has 8GB RAM, a GTX 630M, and a 2.3GHz i7 quad core.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 08:29

DaddyMonster wrote:Is 32 bit likely to be a showstopper?

The specs on Steam all specify that 64-bit is a requirement, so if they're accurate, 32-bit is definitely a showstopper. You can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system, you can't do it the other way round!

Having said that, what CPU do you have in your machine? All processors have been 64-bit for a number of years now, and if you have a 64-bit CPU, all you need to meet the 64-bit requirement is an OS upgrade.

Sam L.R. Griffiths · Post by **Sam L.R. Griffiths** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 14:17

Tommety wrote:
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:It will be nice to see if it will stretch my setup:-
AMD FX 8350 (8 Core/4.0-4.2 GHz)

16GB DDR3-10600 (1333MHz)

GeForce GTX 770 4GB
You have no hard disk, therefore it will not work.

...I'm going to bed, this is too silly even for me...

Very funny... not much

IMO No point in even mentioning the HDD really but if you insist...

2 x 2TB WD SATA2 Green (not in RAID)
1 x 1TB WD SATA2 7200rpm
1 x 500GB Hitachi SATA2 7200rpm
2 x 250GB WD SATA (RAID0)
1 x 3TB External USB3.0

In other words: more than enough for my needs for a long time.

giskard · Post by **giskard** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 16:44

StarSword wrote:My problem is, my tower needs parts (quite apart from the fact it won't stay booted up for some reason, the graphics card belongs in a museum) and I'm broke. On the other hand, my laptop has 8GB RAM, a GTX 630M, and a 2.3GHz i7 quad core.

I see that lot when computers over heat. Sometimes its just the fans need cleaning out.

EmperorJon · Post by **EmperorJon** » Sat, 10. Aug 13, 16:49

I'm still running a Q6600, 3.5GB of usable RAM because 32bit, and a GeForce 9600GT so...

I'm looking at upping to an i5, getting a Gtx 660 maybe? SSD for the OS only, 8GB of RAM, should be good enough for a while.

DaddyMonster · Post by **DaddyMonster** » Mon, 12. Aug 13, 16:50

pjknibbs wrote:
DaddyMonster wrote:Is 32 bit likely to be a showstopper?
The specs on Steam all specify that 64-bit is a requirement, so if they're accurate, 32-bit is definitely a showstopper. You can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system, you can't do it the other way round!

Having said that, what CPU do you have in your machine? All processors have been 64-bit for a number of years now, and if you have a 64-bit CPU, all you need to meet the 64-bit requirement is an OS upgrade.

Thanks for reply. Yeah, step one is try to upgrade the OS to 64 - googled it and it's allegedly possible for my card type. If so, I'm just about min: 2.5Ghz dual, 4 gig ram - 1 gig gpu. Otherwise I guess six years is a long time not to replace my laptop... I'll build up to talking the wife round to a big expenditure...

Texhnolyzed · Post by **Texhnolyzed** » Mon, 12. Aug 13, 17:10

Also keep in mind: "These specs are still being determined." So the specs might not be finalized. I probably won't have big problems running the game anyway though.

danpaul88 · Post by **danpaul88** » Mon, 12. Aug 13, 17:34

BillyBoyFloyd wrote:Am I to assume everyone is targeting 1920x1080? Is this what Egosoft is assuming for their published minimum and recommended system specs?

1680x1050 here... two of them to be exact, but I'd be happy if it ran well on just one of my monitors, dual screens would just be a bonus.

I'm hoping my current setup will handle it since it's not that long since I upgraded... running an Ivy Bridge i5 at 3.4 GHz and a GeForce 560-Ti currently with 8GB of RAM (and spare slots to push it to 16GB if it looks like that would be of benefit...)

ACID SCOUT · Post by **ACID SCOUT** » Mon, 12. Aug 13, 23:20

We'll have to play and find out how the game performs on current systems but I am a bit worried, as a reminder:

X3:TC specs taken from Steam

Recommended:

OS: Windows 7, Vista SP1, XP SP2
Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo or AMD® equivalent at 2.0 GHz
Memory: 3 GB RAM
Graphics: 256 MB 3D DirectX 9 Compatible video card (not onboard) with Pixel Shader 3.0 support
Hard Drive: 10GB of free space
Sound: Soundcard (Surround Sound support recommended)

and my mid/high end system from last year runs into problems as the game progress (empire grows).

I wish the game will run as great after 1000 of hours into the game as in the beginning.

SirDeathwalker · Post by **SirDeathwalker** » Tue, 13. Aug 13, 03:22

ACID SCOUT wrote: I wish the game will run as great after 1000 of hours into the game as in the beginning.

if it does, would that mean it passes the ACID test?

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Steam Specs