HI Will my pc play X4

Terran Jupiter · Post by **Terran Jupiter** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 17:22

Hewlet-Packard

Windows 10

System type 64 bit x 64 based processor
Ram 8.00 GB
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU N3700 @ 1.60 GHz
Graphics Intel(R) HD Graphics

I alrady play XR, Elite and Dangerus sins of a solar empire, and suprem ruler on this system do you think that will be enouph?

Post by **CBJ** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 17:31

As we've already said, it's too early to say what the system requirements will be; however, frankly I think yours may struggle.

Terran Jupiter · Post by **Terran Jupiter** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 17:42

only issue I have in XR is gas clouds and asteroid fields tend to slow me down a bit. For example I like to set up in Molten Arcon I think its called and Lava Flow is the only zone that slows my frame rate down.

Will there not be options to help people who can not afford hundreds of pounds for new pc to maybe reduce the intensity of these things so that PC's like mine can run it iv followed the series since X2 but not going to shell out hundreds just to play 1 game.

Post by **CBJ** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 17:44

Unlike most games, X series games simulate the full game universe. This makes them quite CPU-intensive, and isn't something that can be turned down like you can with graphics options.

Spaceman Sublime · Post by **Spaceman Sublime** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 18:23

I think what Terran Jupiter is asking for is something akin to a "particle density and/or detail" option/slider

Post by **CBJ** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 18:29

Again, particle density and detail option sliders are purely graphical tweaks. They have little or no effect on CPU usage, which is mostly taken up with universe simulation. With many PCs, especially lower-end ones, being entirely CPU-bound in X series games, graphical tweaks won't make any difference.

Spaceman Sublime · Post by **Spaceman Sublime** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 18:43

in that case, if you dont want to spend money, the most you can do is set your processor to its max frequency (if locked) or a higher freequency (if unlocked), considering you cooling is good enough for that, close as many other processes as possible when playing, and set x4 to a higher resource priority

csaba · Post by **csaba** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 19:43

Intel graphics cards tend to fall off quite hard as they age. The game simply might not recognize it if it comes out let say 2 years from now.

On the CPU side even if you can run the game in a relatively playable state on a lower end system, you're hardware will still have to run at its absolute maximum as long the game is on. While newer builds will have times where they can cool down or they run cooler to begin with.
The longer you play on an old system like yours the more likely you'll damage it. I burnt an older notebook while playing XR because it couldn't handle the strain anymore and lost it's dedicated video card in the process. It was like a heater during play sessions.

koyuka · Post by **koyuka** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 20:02

This may have been covered previously, apologies if so. But how is X4 at using multiple cpu cores? Considering getting a Ryzen 1600 (6 core 12 threads) and just wondering if it is worth it or whether I should look for a Quad core intel with higher processor speed.

I think I read somewhere that X4 will use one cpu core for processing scripts etc, another for something else/sound? and so will only use 2-3 cores at the most. The rest will be useful for Windows and background tasks out of the game but other than this more than 4 cores wont have little benefit.

Is this correct? Thanks

Slashman · Post by **Slashman** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 20:13

Watch youtube streams of Lets Plays is likely your best bet.

I honestly don't get the attitude of not wanting to upgrade a PC "for just one game". Every other game you play will benefit from the upgrade. Your old system will eventually die anyway...then lack of available parts will force an even more harsh upgrade path in all likelihood.

I finally upgraded my rig that I had been running for almost 7 years a couple months ago. The stuff STILL runs, I just wanted to get onto a hardware base that I could find parts for. Sold my stuff to a friend who is gaming just fine. That old i5/Gigabyte board got me through so many hours of gaming it isn't even funny. Including 160+ hours of Witcher 3.

You do NOT have to upgrade often if you build a decent rig in the first place. Then you can still offload your old stuff for cash toward new stuff when the day finally comes. Build smart, not uber cheap.

csaba · Post by **csaba** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 20:13

koyuka wrote:This may have been covered previously, apologies if so. But how is X4 at using multiple cpu cores? Considering getting a Ryzen 1600 (6 core 12 threads) and just wondering if it is worth it or whether I should look for a Quad core intel with higher processor speed.

I think I read somewhere that X4 will use one cpu core for processing scripts etc, another for something else/sound? and so will only use 2-3 cores at the most. The rest will be useful for Windows and background tasks out of the game but other than this more than 4 cores wont have little benefit.

Is this correct? Thanks

I think it's probably too early to say how the game will be optimized. However I'd say a good Quad would be a better bet. 6 core processors ain't something everyone can buy at the moment and if you want to make you're game profitable you have to make it available to a relatively wide audience.

I'd say 4 cores is what the standard will be in 2-3 years so look in that direction and if you can wait with a purchase (because you specifically want it for this game) then wait until before release when you'll have better options since there is still a lot of time until sales start.

cutterjohn · Post by **cutterjohn** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 20:50

CBJ wrote:Unlike most games, X series games simulate the full game universe. This makes them quite CPU-intensive, and isn't something that can be turned down like you can with graphics options.

I'd like to say that you guys can PROBABLY at LEAST give a GENERAL guideline as to the lowest end, e.g. quad core and maybe whether or not hyperthreading is useful to X4's engine.

I'm going to guess that e.g. my system AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 32GB, w10x64pro, 1070 FTW is PROBABLY at least MID? range although I expect by the time that this is released to be on a 1950X(or whatever replaces it w/Zen+ @ most likely 64+GB and something between a vega 56 and oh probably a 1080 TI dependent upon price, availability etc, but bear in min I tend to max CPU and sit on that while everything else tends to upgrade over time as I GENERALLY expect desktop builds to last 5+y ESPECIALLY given today's CPU design environment, i.e. minimal IPC improvement, frequency, etc. leaving still memory AND GPU best abng-for-the-buck updates as of right now).

Anyways, just saying, and now that I look at even what Intel is doing probably hex core would be minimal as quad is looking to rapidly becoming low end BUT w/Intel you'd also have to specifiy CPU instruction set 'features' as Intel REALLY LIKES to further artificially gimp their CPUs when segmenting.

Post by **CBJ** » Thu, 7. Dec 17, 20:51

koyuka wrote:This may have been covered previously...

Yes.

koyuka wrote:Is this correct? Thanks

Not quite, no.

As with X Rebirth, X4 will use two cores pretty heavily for its primary activities (simulation and rendering) and as many other cores as are available for other peripheral tasks (such as path-finding and asset loading). Drivers and APIs used by the game, such as Vulkan, may also be able to make use of more than one core. Overall, the game is likely to work best on a system with at least 4 cores, and the benefits of more than that will probably tail off fairly rapidly.

As csaba pointed out, though, the Intel on-board graphics isn't going to help matters, not only in performance terms but also because their driver support tends to lag behind NVidia and AMD.

heyhellowhatsnew · Post by **heyhellowhatsnew** » Fri, 8. Dec 17, 02:49

by the time the game comes out, you will already have a better computer!

nemesis1982 · Post by **nemesis1982** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 12:21

Wow I'm surprised XR is usable on that proc with that graphics chipset!

Intel graphics chipsets aren't really meant for gaming.

If/when you upgrade I would advise making a non low end upgrade. For instance:
I just upgraded from a i7-2700k, 16GB RAM, 570TI and intel SSD build 7 years ago. It still runs just about anything on mid quality settings. Upgraded because I got a 4k TV (and the missus demanding something smaller, the huge silver tower didn't fit well in our living room

). Which will now be replacing my friends (and my previous) system with a Athlon 64 X2-4200+, 8GB RAM and dual 7800GTXs which runs Windows 10 and even some less demanding games (the system is 12 years old, only thing to be replaced is the 10K dual disk array with an SSD), the 12 year old system still runs better than budged systems I've seen some buy.

Now I have a i7-7700k, 32GB RAM, 1080TI, new high speed Samsung 1TB SSD and water-cooling for both CPU and graphics. All packed nicely into a small HTPC case with the water cooling blocks behind it. I expect I will be using the new system for many years to come and am not expecting any issues with X4

One tip though! DO NOT BUY ATI! A good NVidea card will last you much, much longer since they will keep the driver support. ATI will drop driver support for any card that is older than 3 or 4 years and rely on the MS drivers.

@koyuka: Assuming the threading profile does not change much from XR I would recommend a quad core since their single thread performance is higher and most work is done on the 2 main threads. Of course it would be best to wait

@Number of cores: Really depends on the application. What you will be using it for.

@cutterjohn: Giving a minimum spec is very tricky. What if they give a minimum spec and for some reason it won't run on it? They'll get many, many angry fans.

@heyhellowhatsnew: Let's hope ES learned from XR

Scoob · Post by **Scoob** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 22:39

CBJ wrote: Not quite, no.

As with X Rebirth, X4 will use two cores pretty heavily for its primary activities (simulation and rendering) and as many other cores as are available for other peripheral tasks (such as path-finding and asset loading). Drivers and APIs used by the game, such as Vulkan, may also be able to make use of more than one core. Overall, the game is likely to work best on a system with at least 4 cores, and the benefits of more than that will probably tail off fairly rapidly.

As csaba pointed out, though, the Intel on-board graphics isn't going to help matters, not only in performance terms but also because their driver support tends to lag behind NVidia and AMD.

In my own observations, X Rebirth generally spreads its self very evenly over all 8 of my threads - 4 Cores with HT. Some of those 8 threads were slightly busier than the others, but not hugely so.

My system specs are as follows:

2600k @ 4.4ghz
32gb DDR3 1600
GTX 1070
RAID0 SSD's (System and Steam, quite speedy!)
W10 Pro

I run at 1920x1200 with all settings maxed. I also run my main game quite heavily modded, so it's a little heavier than vanilla.

Note: there has been a lot of articles about DX12 and Vulcan allowing for better multi-threading CPU-side. It used to be that older DX11 and below titles would see one thread very heavily loaded vs. the others - this was the Direct X thread, responsible for all the stuff sent to the GPU.

Now, while DX11 and below stuff doesn't naturally multi-thread, hence the heavy load on one Core/Thread we'd see in the prior X games, XR shows a pretty even CPU load for me. Why? Well, NVidia put some "clever stuff" in their drivers allowing DX11 titles to multi-thread better - it's a driver open, enabled by default (Auto) and it can help a lot. This doesn't help with DX10 and below titles as far as I'm aware, but it does help DX11 titles make much better use of multiple CPU cores/threads.

I did some comparisons vs. a friend with an AMD card a while back, while he was seeing issues with one thread being heavily loaded - leading to a CPU bottleneck in essence, I was seeing a nice, even load over all my Cores and getting a MUCH smoother gaming experience in several newer (at the time) titles.

I've observed this both with Rebirth, as well as other titles such as Fallout 4. These observations and tests were undertaken a while ago now, so I assume AMD have now caught up nicely regarding multi-threading for the CPU-side DX workload. I'm not sure which families of GPU's can take advantage of this driver feature, my old 680's certainly did, so perhaps the 400 and 500 series can too, I don't know.

Scoob.

Skeeter · Post by **Skeeter** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 23:55

If ur computer can run x rebirth ok then it should run x4 equally as good if not better due to the faster vulkan api. So my i5 3570k at 4.5ghz and 8gb ram and a gtx 670 will probably max out x4 easy enough as it runs rebirth at a solid 60fps at 1080p maxed out.

elexis · Post by **elexis** » Wed, 13. Dec 17, 00:10

Skeeter wrote:If ur computer can run x rebirth ok then it should run x4 equally as good if not better due to the faster vulkan api. So my i5 3570k at 4.5ghz and 8gb ram and a gtx 670 will probably max out x4 easy enough as it runs rebirth at a solid 60fps at 1080p maxed out.

I wouldnt be so sure:

https://communities.intel.com/thread/109478 wrote:...there is no official information from Intel stating that a new driver will be release that supports OpenGL 4.5 and Vulkan, so in order not to provide false expectations there is no confirmation that the driver will be available for sure in the future.

The current Plan Of Record is that Intel® is not supporting Vulkan on Windows drivers. You might find drivers that were made available on Developer.com but those are intended for Vulkan developers.

That is for a more recent, more powerful gpu than the one in OP's pentium.

Skeeter · Post by **Skeeter** » Wed, 13. Dec 17, 00:33

I was saying based off players who runs rebirth fine will probably be fine with x4. And used my rig as my example.

People with onboard GPUs will struggle of course but if there's a demo out at least people can try it which egosoft sometimes do as in a separate benchmark, tho that doesn't usually push the CPU as much due to it not running a normal simulated game..

Worst comes to worse he can save 50 quid and get a 2nd hand decent GPU to put in like a 670 then it should run ok if CPU is strong enough too.

But the op said he can play rebirth except for a few gfx intense systems so can't see why he couldn't play x4 unless the onboard GPU doesn't work with x4 due to vulkan tho. But that's specific to him but my general reply in this topic was for the general forum users who are asking themselves if their computers can run x4.

Scoob · Post by **Scoob** » Wed, 13. Dec 17, 13:52

It's interesting you say your 670 ran XR so well. My 680 was totally unable to maintain a playable frame rate unless I turned a lot of settings down. This was at 1920x1200. When I popped a 1070 in there, everything became butter-smooth. Until that is the late-game issues kicked in and my FPS dropped along with both CPU and GPU load.

I'm hoping the switch to the Vulcan Engine will help - however doesn't XR VR actually reduce the amount of objects (stations, ships etc.) in Zones to help with performance too?

Of course, the change to Vulcan aside, Egosoft must address this issues with long-term games. This is NOT a case of the game using progressively more resources as time goes by, no, it's about the game using progressively less resources as time goes by and performance suffering hugely. It's almost like there's some sort of "wait" going as as something bottlenecks / glitches in the code, so PC resources remain untapped.

I've observed this situation in several long-term games - both vanilla and modded - and it very much breaks the late-game for me. Plus it's frustrating to my PC barely taxed when this occurs.

Scoob.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

HI Will my pc play X4

HI Will my pc play X4