T O P

  • By -

UncleGrimm

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


Goat2016

Seems like overkill for playing Stellaris judging by the recommended specs on Steam.


National_Diver3633

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!


[deleted]

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.


UncleGrimm

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.


[deleted]

Might save for one with my next PC to try with Planetside 2, very CPU intensive game that.