Update the Hardware Requirements to Have Real Data

[SylenThunder]

Currently the requirements are listed as follows.





 


Minimum


Recommended






OS


Windows 10 or higher (64-bit)


Windows 10 or higher (64-bit)




CPU


2.8 Ghz Quad Core


3.2 Ghz Quad Core or faster




RAM


8 GB RAM


12 GB RAM




GPU


2 GB Dedicated Memory


4 GB Dedicated Memory




Storage


15 GB available space


15 GB available space








This information is extremely vague, and misleading. It has resulted in a large number of people thinking their archaic hardware would be OK to run the game, and then ending up extremely disappointed in their purchase.

I would suggest that since this game is primarily CPU-bound and relies a lot on quick disk access and RAM, that the hardware requirement be updated to be a LOT more specific. Much like 90% of the other games on Steam list theirs.

I'm going to throw some stuff here as an example. This is based mostly on my own testing and people I have assisted in the past.





 


Minimum


Recommended






OS


Windows 10 or higher (64-bit)


Windows 11 or Linux




CPU


Intel Core i5-6600, or AMD Ryzen 5 2600


Intel Core i7-8700, or AMD Ryzen 5 3700x




RAM


8GB


16GB




GPU


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2 GB
or AMD Radeon R7 360 2 GB


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
or AMD Radeon RX 570 8 GB




Storage


20 GB available space on SSD ¹


20GB available SSD, and OS/save on SSD ¹

¹ Note that the game client is 19.3GB, but you will need additional space for save games and downloading the client.​

 

[SylenThunder]

Also note that "broadband internet" in the US now means 100Mbps download and 20Mbps upload. If uncapped the game will use 10Mbps upload when sending map data. 

The previous standard was 25Mbps/3Mbps.

 

[Old Coot]

Good job!  Esp. the need for more ram.  

 

[zztong]

I find the CPU requirements to be vague. An "Intel Core i5-6600" has several properties to compare to other CPUs.

It is 3.3 GHz, has 4 Cores, is a 6th generation CPU, and an "Average CPU Mark" of 6,046.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-6600+%40+3.30GHz&id=2594

My 10-year old work computer at the office is an Intel Core i5-4570, 3.2 Ghz, 4 Cores, 4th generation, and a benchmark of 5,224. It looks really close, but it would struggle mightily with 7d2d.

Somebody will look at an i7-6600U and conclude an i7 beats an i5, and be completely wrong. The "U" version is low-power, so 2.6 GHz, 2 Cores, 6th generation, and a benchmark of 3,443. But hey, it only draws 15W instead of the 65W of the i5 you list.

 

[Riamus]

It used to be that you could easily know what CPU is better based on the name.  These days, there are so many versions of each iteration that you need to research everything to have any idea.  It is the same with GPUs these days as well.

 

[SylenThunder]

Bumping this up since it will be more critical when the game releases as 1.0.

 

[SylenThunder]

Updated specs in relation to V1.2

 

[Suxar]

Also note that "broadband internet" in the US now means 100Mbps download and 20Mbps upload.

It's a bit strange to read about such channels in 2024. I haven't heard of any provider providing a channel with different incoming and outgoing speeds for the last 10 years. ADSL died quietly, everyone switched to either optical cables or ethernet.

 

[zztong]

It's a bit strange to read about such channels in 2024. I haven't heard of any provider providing a channel with different incoming and outgoing speeds for the last 10 years. ADSL died quietly, everyone switched to either optical cables or ethernet.

Fiber to the home arrived in my small town, 1G symmetric. Out in the country away from town they don't even have that 100/20 option. Lots of folks out there are trying to cope with cellular internet. In some spots there's DSL available in those rural areas around here. We're sort of all over the map depending on your proximity to a city, despite state efforts to improve things in rural areas.

 

[zztong]

Minimum: CPU Intel Core i5-6600, or AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Recommended: Intel Core i7-8700, or AMD Ryzen 5 3700x

I looked up these two CPU and their benchmarks as I suspect this information leads to better comparisons, though I'm certainly NOT a CPU expert. I get benchmarks from the PassMark Software website ... www.cpubenchmark.net ... which I hope is reliable.

An Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.3 GHz has 4 cores, 4 threads, a Multithreading Rating of 6065 and a Single Thread Rating of 2259. It is a 6th generation CPU from 2015.

An Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.2 GHz has 6 cores, 12 threads, a Multithreading Rating of 12818 and a Single Thread Rating of 2638. It is an 8th generation CPU from late 2017.

 

[Suxar]

I looked up these two CPU and their benchmarks as I suspect this information leads to better comparisons, though I'm certainly NOT a CPU expert. I get benchmarks from the PassMark Software website ... www.cpubenchmark.net ... which I hope is reliable.

An Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.3 GHz has 4 cores, 4 threads, a Multithreading Rating of 6065 and a Single Thread Rating of 2259. It is a 6th generation CPU from 2015.

An Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.2 GHz has 6 cores, 12 threads, a Multithreading Rating of 12818 and a Single Thread Rating of 2638. It is an 8th generation CPU from late 2017.

There is one nuance with the processor. In addition to the processor itself, you need to look at the motherboard, and here there are options. Just as a chain cannot be stronger than its weakest link, so the performance of a computer cannot be greater than its narrowest point. About 80% of the data flying through the processor is either written to RAM or read from it. Accordingly, the bandwidth of the bus, the type of RAM and its operating mode (1 channel, 2 channels or 4 channels) are very important. I have never seen laptops with 4-channel mode, even with 2-channel it is a huge rarity.

 

[SylenThunder]

It's a bit strange to read about such channels in 2024. I haven't heard of any provider providing a channel with different incoming and outgoing speeds for the last 10 years. ADSL died quietly, everyone switched to either optical cables or ethernet.

At the time I posted that, it was the most common available bandwidth standard in the US.

Not everyone gets to live near a big city that has fiber availability, and most of those are stuck on cable, wireless, satellite, or whatever the phone company offers. In most of the country you don't get 1000Mbps both ways as a basic service.

 

[bdubyah]

Yeah, my local phone company(only real option for internet where I live) only got fiber to my area about 2 years ago. Before that we were stuck with their DSL plan, which got me around 13Mbps/.5Mpbs. It couldn't run the max they offered of 20Mpbs/1Mpbs due to being old copper lines. We were on that DSL for the better part of 15 years. Small town, pretty rural area so no other options. Even when Spectrum came through a few years before the local company started their fiber push, we couldn't use Spectrum as our house was deemed too far off the road, and they wouldn't run their lines that far. And this is a common thing in lots of the US.

 

[SylenThunder]

Yeah, my local phone company(only real option for internet where I live) only got fiber to my area about 2 years ago. Before that we were stuck with their DSL plan, which got me around 13Mbps/.5Mpbs. It couldn't run the max they offered of 20Mpbs/1Mpbs due to being old copper lines. We were on that DSL for the better part of 15 years. Small town, pretty rural area so no other options. Even when Spectrum came through a few years before the local company started their fiber push, we couldn't use Spectrum as our house was deemed too far off the road, and they wouldn't run their lines that far. And this is a common thing in lots of the US.

Yep, pretty much the same here. 
Phone DSL with a direct line (no T's or anything because I had them do that when we had issues) to the CO that is less than 100meters away. Best I can get is 22Mbps/3Mbps.
Wireless internet is 40/40.

Cellular is 250-480Mbps/120-150Mbps (varies depending on signal strength, which fluctuates a lot here in the country.)

Satellite/Starlink ranges from 50mbps to 250Mbps download, and caps at about 20Mbps upload on all.

Comcast Cable max for residential is 1200Mbpx/30Mbps. Though I currently get 1450/45. Runs about $140 a month without any cable TV subscriptions.

And what really sucks is that several years ago AT&T even ran fiber through the town. Ran it along all the poles in the Village. And only ever hooked it up at the CO, and don't offer fiber service in the area.

 

[bdubyah]

Yep, pretty much the same here. 
Phone DSL with a direct line (no T's or anything because I had them do that when we had issues) to the CO that is less than 100meters away. Best I can get is 22Mbps/3Mbps.
Wireless internet is 40/40.

Cellular is 250-480Mbps/120-150Mbps (varies depending on signal strength, which fluctuates a lot here in the country.)

Satellite/Starlink ranges from 50mbps to 250Mbps download, and caps at about 20Mbps upload on all.

Comcast Cable max for residential is 1200Mbpx/30Mbps. Though I currently get 1450/45. Runs about $140 a month without any cable TV subscriptions.

And what really sucks is that several years ago AT&T even ran fiber through the town. Ran it along all the poles in the Village. And only ever hooked it up at the CO, and don't offer fiber service in the area.

Similar to here then, yeah. I also forgot to mention that when Spectrum ran their lines, they didn't even come down our road anyway, just the main road ours connects to. So we weren't gonna get them ever I don't think, but we'd heard others on that main road that were about as far off the road as us couldn't get it anyway, so that wasn't gonna be an option for us. The local phone company would at least run like 400 feet for free, and then charge something per foot after that with no real limit to distance.

But yeah, that 13Mbps costed $113 for years, and was $130 for a while due to the company requiring a $25/month phone line, even if you didn't use it. Went to the $113 after they finally removed that stupid requirement. And to compare, the 500/500 I have now with their fiber costs the exact same $113. They offer up to 1Gb/1Gb which I ran when I had the first year discount, but that went to around $180 a month after that and I just wasn't gonna pay that much. So over all it's much better now, but we still pay quite a bit more than bigger areas or other countries it seems. Internet in the US is just way behind the times in general, especially in more rural areas.

 

[zztong]

Though I currently get 1450/45. Runs about $140 a month without any cable TV subscriptions.

Yeh, that's what it would be like if I were on Spectrum and was an established customer. Verizon came through my town 1-2 years ago with fiber and is just clobbering Spectrum on price and performance. ($80 for 1G up/down.) Spectrum had been reliable, but they're just not being competitive here.

There is one nuance with the processor. In addition to the processor itself, you need to look at the motherboard

I agree completely. I've not seen anyone list game specs for a motherboard before and it can sure take some digging when buying one.

 

[Suxar]

Though I currently get 1450/45. Runs about $140 a month without any cable TV subscriptions.

Expensive. My tariff includes a cell phone, 50 Mbit wired internet both ways and 80 TV channels. This costs about 20 dollars.

Although Sputnik provides a good download speed, it has delays, which make it not very comfortable to play on it.

I agree completely. I've not seen anyone list game specs for a motherboard before and it can sure take some digging when buying one.

Motherboards have a very wide range of characteristics and the choice is simply huge. A game manufacturer simply cannot test them all. I remember a test on Tom's Hardware when they tested motherboards for the first version of Pentium. The difference in speed between the first and the last was threefold.

 

[Dead Smarty]

Inspite of having decent internet for years and always using ethernet, PSN was always the bottleneck. Speedchecks on a PS4/5 had a decent download but a severly capped upload, like 40/5 while my ISP was >50/25 on VDSL or 150/150 on fiber. Only recently Sony has improved so it is now roughly 90% of the nominal capacity.
Our ISP is kind of budget fiber, there are options for 2000/2000 but to be fair I see absolute no use for that since it is only for private use and not for businesses.