good luck running it 
hopefully in a couple years you'll be earning and able to support yourself and get a new lappy
hopefully in a couple years you'll be earning and able to support yourself and get a new lappy
VRAM questions
- Thread starter cole98
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm disabled so I can't really work, guess I just need to save up the disability payments. Considering I ran arma 3 too I'm willing to try it on the laptop .
As long as it runs I'm golden
As long as it runs I'm golden
Would love to see an official response. I myself also only have a gtx 260 with a vram of 8192MB. So I hope it's still playable even on slow settings.
Then again, I have bought the game anyways already.
Then again, I have bought the game anyways already.
I know that some people may find it strange that people are questioning the minimum VRAM specs. However, not everyone has the luxury of easily upgrading their computers including those that are stuck with more proprietary designs such as laptops and iMacs. In fact I have a thus far unanswered question regarding the minimum Mac specs because for the recommended specs they are obviously referencing a current iMac because of their AMD R9 390M GPU selection. However, for minimum specs it is more uncertain because Apple never officially offered an ATi Radeon 6750 nor Nvidia Geforce 320 with 1Gb of VRAM. The closest equivalent video cards that were officially from Apple offered as base on 2011 iMacs only have 512mb VRAM. Outside of Mac Pros Apple has never offered anything beyond that in base specs until the Retina display models came out.
I know someone who is interested in trying the game with their 2009 iMac who specs go well beyond the minimum except in one regard. And that regard is a real pain to upgrade to when working on an iMac. So what do people think of these specs which are harder to deviate from?
Intel I7-860 2.8Ghz
8Gb RAM (planning to upgrade to 12Gb)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 512mb DDR3 VRAM
I know someone who is interested in trying the game with their 2009 iMac who specs go well beyond the minimum except in one regard. And that regard is a real pain to upgrade to when working on an iMac. So what do people think of these specs which are harder to deviate from?
Intel I7-860 2.8Ghz
8Gb RAM (planning to upgrade to 12Gb)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 512mb DDR3 VRAM
Last edited:
I believe that nowadays "Minimum requirements" doesn't mean "the bare minimum you need so the game can actually load" as much as it means "a reasonable minimum so the game runs well enough that the customers cannot complain too much".
Meaning, if you are willing to put up with a bit of lag and generally sluggish performance, as you seem to be, you should be just fine for now.
Meaning, if you are willing to put up with a bit of lag and generally sluggish performance, as you seem to be, you should be just fine for now.
Unfortunately that's really different from game to game.
Especially VRAM and OS requirements should be taken seriously.
One example: With my GTX 260 I cannot play Fallen: A2P protocol. And while they only list a Intel HD 4000 as requirement, it's unplayable with a GTX260 which is normally twice as fast because the VRAM requirements (which aren't listed) are high. And with unplayable I mean 0.3-1.0 FPS.
If there is one requirement which you just don't meet, like a hard VRAM minimum or a 64bit system, you just cannot play. At all.
They've put up their official specs, and that's what they'll stick to. The spec is intended to provide a 'playable' experience for the vast majority of users within the 'normal' parameters of the game. So as long as you meet the specs, you should be able to play a 1000 star galaxy at medium speed without it lagging on you.
That said, if an individual user is willing to be flexible with their definition of 'playable', they should be able to go below spec and still play the game - e.g. restrict themselves to a 200 star galaxy and play it on the 'slow' speed setting. However, Paradox will never officially endorse that, because you just know there'll be some fool with his Walmart special:
Fool: You said I could play this!
P.I. Well, yes, if you stick to a small galaxy and...
Fool: YOU SAID I COULD PLAY THIS!!!11 So I should be able to fire it up in ultra quality, mod it to allow 2000 stars, and it should run smooth as silk! Now I'ma gonna spam reddit & twitter & youtube & everything and tell everyone your game sucks!
So yeah. That's why they don't respond to these 'can I run it threads' (well, that I've noticed).
- 1
that's tough. budgeting aint easy. maybe you could get a decent second hand pc.
The strange thing is that Crusader Kings 2, the first game to use the latest Clausterwitz Engine, also set the minimum graphics requirements at 1Gb VRAM. Yet the late Intel i7 iMac I was referring to with the 512mb VRAM Radeon Mobility 4850 was able to play that game fairly smoothly with some adjustments. I don't like saying this but I wonder if Paradox, at least as far as minimum requirement Macs are concerned, even test their games on base spec Apples or just assume it is a mirror of PC specs now? As I stated before there are no 1Gb VRAM Radeon 6750s and Geforce 320 that came standard with Apples. Here is a list of all the graphics cards that came standard with Apple computers, where is a 1Gb Radeon 6750 or Nvidia Geforce 320?
So many games these days parrot 1Gb VRAM as a minimum requirement with mixed results, even Star Citizen did so originally despite the fact that many found it came down to the shader and other specs of the video card itself. Many people came to the conclusion that recommending at least a 2Gb VRAM video card to play smoothly a the minimum settings is a better guarantee. Of course Star Citizen being a Crysis Engine based game is like comparing apples to oranges with Stellaris. The point is there are still older high end graphics cards out there that still give newer generation mid-tier ones a run for their money. Especially if a game such as Stellaris that doesn't seem to recommend anything above a video card that can run DirectX 9.0c or OpenGL 2.x shaders. That is why I for one would like some solid verification on this.
So many games these days parrot 1Gb VRAM as a minimum requirement with mixed results, even Star Citizen did so originally despite the fact that many found it came down to the shader and other specs of the video card itself. Many people came to the conclusion that recommending at least a 2Gb VRAM video card to play smoothly a the minimum settings is a better guarantee. Of course Star Citizen being a Crysis Engine based game is like comparing apples to oranges with Stellaris. The point is there are still older high end graphics cards out there that still give newer generation mid-tier ones a run for their money. Especially if a game such as Stellaris that doesn't seem to recommend anything above a video card that can run DirectX 9.0c or OpenGL 2.x shaders. That is why I for one would like some solid verification on this.
It's not on the latest engine, either is EU4
According to a Wiki on Paradox development they claim Sengoku was the first to use version 2.5. Also thanks for quoting me misspelling Clausewitz for posterity.
While development on Stellaris indicates that they are using a variation of the engine which indicates there are changes that have been made there is no announcement that there has been a complete update as far as I know of. So my point on how well an iMac that ran CK2 fairly well can take on Stellaris still stands.
I get the feeling, looking at the requirements across the platforms and the min/recs, that they only tested for 1GB cards.
I am fairly sure cards that are up to snuff but have 512MB vram will be able to run this game.
I am fairly sure cards that are up to snuff but have 512MB vram will be able to run this game.
The engine alone doesn't really has to say much about the hardware requirements, btw.
So only because CK II runs well, it doesn't mean Stellaris will as well. In terms of graphics Stellaris seems to be a considerable step up to CK II or EU IV which were hardly more than large maps.
So only because CK II runs well, it doesn't mean Stellaris will as well. In terms of graphics Stellaris seems to be a considerable step up to CK II or EU IV which were hardly more than large maps.
Exactly, but Stellaris has different planets and far more effects during stuff like large space battles that is completely absent in CK II or EU IV.
Of course I can't be sure if Stellaris needs more graphic power than the older games, it would be logical though, in my opinion.
that is true, go over to the hoi4 forum and search for posts from podcat where he talks about what version fo the engine HOI4 uses
While that is certainly true both EU4 and CK2 also list almost exactly the same minimum specs for graphics as Stellaris. Only key difference is the noticeable bump for recommended for Stellaris. However, even that bump in chipset generation still keeps the minimum 1Gb VRAM requirement and not only that Windows recommended system specs include a AMD Radeon 6850 and Nvidia Geforce 560Ti which is about two generations behind the Mac OSX's AMD Radeon R9 M390 that only comes in the most current iMac model which shows they definitely did test it on that rig.
that is true, go over to the hoi4 forum and search for posts from podcat where he talks about what version fo the engine HOI4 uses
Alright so HOI4 uses Clausewitz 4.0, but that still doesn't answer specifically what Stellaris uses. Interesting fact about Clausewitz 4.0 is according to minimum system requirements they tested and found it works on 512mb VRAM video cards.
Last edited: