Is your PC ready for Starfield? The game's PC system requirements are here!
Starfield, can you run it?
Published: 11th June 2023 | Source: Starfield Steam |
Here's the hardware you'll need to run Starfield on PC
Microsoft and Bethesda Softworks have revealed Starfield's release date, confirming that the game will be launching on both PC and Xbox Series consoles on September 6th. Additionally, Starfield's PC system requirements have been revealed through Steam, letting PC gamers know what hardware they will need to run the game at launch.
Starfield is launching on PC though the Microsoft Store and Steam. On day-1, Starfield will also be available through PC Game Pass, Microsoft's PC gaming subscription service.
Sadly, these system requirements do not reveal the framerate, settings, and resolutions that these new system requirements target, but they do confirm that Starfield will be a DirectX 12 game on PC, and that the game will require SSD storage.
On PC, Starfield's storage requirements are on the high side, with the game's PC system requirements asking for 125GB of available SSD space. Additionally, both the game's minimum and recommended system requirements ask for 16GB of system memory, and both the game's minimum and recommended system requirements list 8GB graphics cards.
CPU-wise, Starfield's CPU requirements are not overly high, with AMD's Ryzen 5 2600X and Intel's i7-6800K being the game's minimum processors. On the recommended side we have AMD's newer Ryzen 5 3600X, and Intel's i5-10600K. All of these CPUs are 6-core processors, which means that this game is not expected to run well on older quad-core CPUs and run very well on modern 8+ core CPUs.
At a minimum, PC gamers are expected to have graphics cards that are equal to or better than AMD's Radeon RX 5700 and Nvidia's GTX 1070 Ti graphics cards. Both of these GPUs are 8GB graphics cards. To play Starfield optimally, AMD's Radeon RX 6800 XT is recommended, as is Nvidia's RTX 2080. Nvidia's RTX 2080 is an 8GB graphics card, suggesting that 8GB GPUs will be able to run Starfield without any major issues.
MINIMUM:
OS: Windows 10 version 22H2 (10.0.19045)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 2600X, Intel Core i7-6800K
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 5700, NVIDIA GeForce 1070 Ti
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 125 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Required
RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows 10/11 with updates
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, Intel i5-10600K
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 125 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Required
You can join the discussion on Starfield's PC system requirements on the OC3D Forums.
Most Recent Comments
|
Originally Posted by meuvoy
Surprisingly reasonable requirements, and it doesn''t look half-bad from the trailers
|
|
Originally Posted by AlienALX
The engine will be about 5 years old at this point. All of their games are like that, because RPGs take so long to create.
|
Remember, it's not only bethesda RPGs that take a while to develop, aside from Ubisoft and EA that have literal step-by-step guides glued to the wall behind the desks of every employee on what they should do in what order to get the most eficiency out of every single thing they might be doing nad they have a separate one for everything, most other companies will instead struggle for years when developing a game.
But honestly, it is interesting to think about it this way, if you think about it, what other modern game with great graphics had a reasonable system requirement? The one I think of is Metro Exodus, and it also had a very long development cycle, is that becuase they had more time to optimise? Or is it just that developers making games for modern platforms have seen they don't need to put half the work they used to in optimising their games to run on the last gen consoles and now they are really just brute forcing everything and the result is 2023 games that somehow look the same as some of 2015 games.Quote
|
Originally Posted by meuvoy
Yes but that's not what's limiting them, they could make it very heavy if they didn't try to optimise it, and we will surely be seeing mods that will make RTX 4090s cry with this game.
Remember, it's not only bethesda RPGs that take a while to develop, aside from Ubisoft and EA that have literal step-by-step guides glued to the wall behind the desks of every employee on what they should do in what order to get the most eficiency out of every single thing they might be doing nad they have a separate one for everything, most other companies will instead struggle for years when developing a game. But honestly, it is interesting to think about it this way, if you think about it, what other modern game with great graphics had a reasonable system requirement? The one I think of is Metro Exodus, and it also had a very long development cycle, is that becuase they had more time to optimise? Or is it just that developers making games for modern platforms have seen they don't need to put half the work they used to in optimising their games to run on the last gen consoles and now they are really just brute forcing everything and the result is 2023 games that somehow look the same as some of 2015 games. |
Metro Exodus was not down to optimising, dude. It was down to very small and incredibly linear levels, made to look much bigger than they actually were. The more open areas were very barren and hardly anything was in them. If you take a look at something like Wolfenstein 2? it suffered from the same issues. Looked fantastic, but the levels were extremely linear and absolutely tiny with long load times between them.
Open world games? are always very hard to run when they come out. Even Fallout 3 was, and it was not for about four years after it came out that a GPU with enough grunt and VRAM could run it with the actual HD texture pack Bethesda quietly released for it shortly after it came out. Even my GTX 280 struggled to run that well.
There are ways around it of course. Like doing what they have done in PUBG. IE, make everything at about 8x scope range look like play doh. They also did that in Fallout 3, and Fallout 4.
The problem is GPUs are not progressing enough. Ampere? was not the whole GPU tech. The 4090? is far from the largest it could be. And with AMD choosing not to even try to compete? they won't release the full sized one either. Why bother when you can charge £1800 for 2/3 of it?
And that will not change any time soon. It is compounded more and more by the lowly and mid range GPUs costing more and more and more. The 4060Ti costs a lot more than the 3060Ti did, and is no faster at all. How are games supposed to progress when that is happening?Quote
|
Originally Posted by AlienALX
And that will not change any time soon. It is compounded more and more by the lowly and mid range GPUs costing more and more and more. The 4060Ti costs a lot more than the 3060Ti did, and is no faster at all. How are games supposed to progress when that is happening?
|
That's also where I say YES! It is ALL about optimisation, we always get ever more graphically impressive games each year in each console generation, eeen though the console hardware doesn't change, there's a lot of ways one can go trying to squeeze the very last drop of performance in a system, the "open world game is harder to run" argument I won't say it's false, but it also isn't like that, open world games ultimately have to rely on cheaper lighiting, making indoor lighting look bad unless the game puts a loading screen in between, also they don't render everything and all open world games do make use of render distance.
I said this before, 2023 is the first year where I can see in the near future I just stop investing on PC gaming and turn myself into console gaming, with NVIDIA pulling like this there's no point in spending ever more money on GPUs that get ever more ty, plus I can get all those Sony and Square Enix games on a PS5 that would only get a "bad" PC port a couple years later.
Thi si a complex topic and we could go weeks here talking about how it would get better if DEVs would use SSDs right, or how they need to account for different PC hardware etc, but really I guess my point here is: this is an open world game, in fact an open galaxy game, and it does look great, if only a little surreal, yet, it has very reasonable system requirements, and that is unexpected and in this day and age, it kinda looks impressive considering how much other modern games ask for, the fact that it started development a long hwile ago doesn't change the fact it has modern visuals, way more than I expected for a Bethesda game at least.Quote
CSS Valid