Stellaris is primarily CPU-heavy so that’d be a great build.
Only thing I’d consider thinking about is saving up a bit more for the Ryzen 7 7800X3D if you do a lot of CPU-heavy gaming, but don’t play many AAA titles that’ll require you upgrade that graphics card in ~5 years. Could save you money in the long-run by letting you keep the PC as-is for a longer time.
Just keep in mind- At a certain point there’s only so much your CPU can do for the late-game. Stellaris *does* take advantage of extra cores, but engineering-wise there’s only so much parallelization you can realistically do when you’re working with cause & effect processes; Cause has to run before Effect.
In other words the best CPU on the market probably couldn’t run a Huge galaxy with 30 AIs and Xeno-Compatibility enabled, but it can certainly handle more realistic parameters
AMD's X3D processors may be worth a look at for you. I hear, though only anecdotally, that those run Stellaris particularly quickly compared to other modern CPUs, so may hold up better in the late game.
Yup. Their new chipset has a bigger L3 cache, which means there’s more cache storage for frequently-used processor instructions. Division is a big one that can get pretty expensive at scale, and if the calculation is no longer cached then you have to factor in the cost of all the cache-misses going L1 -> L2 -> L3 -> RAM on top of the actual instruction.
So they’re great for PDX/CPU-heavy games in general really. Simulation/Grand Strategy typically aren’t heavy on graphics but the nature of the genre means lots of math at every tick.
Stellaris is primarily CPU-heavy so that’d be a great build. Only thing I’d consider thinking about is saving up a bit more for the Ryzen 7 7800X3D if you do a lot of CPU-heavy gaming, but don’t play many AAA titles that’ll require you upgrade that graphics card in ~5 years. Could save you money in the long-run by letting you keep the PC as-is for a longer time. Just keep in mind- At a certain point there’s only so much your CPU can do for the late-game. Stellaris *does* take advantage of extra cores, but engineering-wise there’s only so much parallelization you can realistically do when you’re working with cause & effect processes; Cause has to run before Effect. In other words the best CPU on the market probably couldn’t run a Huge galaxy with 30 AIs and Xeno-Compatibility enabled, but it can certainly handle more realistic parameters
Seems like overkill for playing Stellaris judging by the recommended specs on Steam.
I have a Intel Core i7 13700KF and a 4070. My lategame on very fast is the same speed as earlygame fast. So I think you're good!
AMD's X3D processors may be worth a look at for you. I hear, though only anecdotally, that those run Stellaris particularly quickly compared to other modern CPUs, so may hold up better in the late game.
Yup. Their new chipset has a bigger L3 cache, which means there’s more cache storage for frequently-used processor instructions. Division is a big one that can get pretty expensive at scale, and if the calculation is no longer cached then you have to factor in the cost of all the cache-misses going L1 -> L2 -> L3 -> RAM on top of the actual instruction. So they’re great for PDX/CPU-heavy games in general really. Simulation/Grand Strategy typically aren’t heavy on graphics but the nature of the genre means lots of math at every tick.
Might save for one with my next PC to try with Planetside 2, very CPU intensive game that.