The funny thing is that the i5 10400 gets to land on the “recommended” configuration, while the 8700k, being exactly the same chip, but 400mhz faster, but gets listed as “minimmum”.
ebrownzzz
GoW has low CPU requirements because it had to run on PS4
kilsta
Been in and out of the Loop for a while. Are the Star Wars folks trying to promote their Game as a modern-day “I can run Crysis” thing?
banzai_420
Haven’t played either, but shout out to the 8700k for being an absolute goddamned workhorse for me for years.
Easy 5.0ghz OC, reasonable (compared to today) temps, zero problems in ~5 years of use.
I bought my 13900k because of how much I loved my 8700k. Crazy how times change.
OptimusPrimeRib86
….. Ones also significantly older then the other… I can run if StarCraft on my 1998 ibm but can’t run mw3 why?
YeDead
Most GPUs work wonderfully with the exception of a bad update or manufacturing error. This is as usual an optimization issue with the game itself
stdfan
A new AAA game runs poorly on a 7 year old CPU. I’m shocked.
beersandbacon
The 8700k came out in 2017 and Ragnarok was made to run on a PS4. There is nothing surprising about this.
sillybonobo
Lol a 7-year-old CPU performs better on a PC port of 2-year-old linear action game than a new release Open world game… Color me shocked
7orly7
more like the duality of optimization
the CPU is doing it’s job on both cases but the devs on the second game clearly didn’t
firedrakes
what with this week of gamers thinking their know more then game dev?
koordy
2017 CPU in a game that was designed with PS4’s tablet-like CPU in mind vs a 2024 next gen only game.
Yeah, surprising.
TechieTravis
Well, Ragnarok was made for PS5, which is considerably less powerful than a modern gaming PC.
14 Comments
More like bad optimization of ubisoft games
The funny thing is that the i5 10400 gets to land on the “recommended” configuration, while the 8700k, being exactly the same chip, but 400mhz faster, but gets listed as “minimmum”.
GoW has low CPU requirements because it had to run on PS4
Been in and out of the Loop for a while. Are the Star Wars folks trying to promote their Game as a modern-day “I can run Crysis” thing?
Haven’t played either, but shout out to the 8700k for being an absolute goddamned workhorse for me for years.
Easy 5.0ghz OC, reasonable (compared to today) temps, zero problems in ~5 years of use.
I bought my 13900k because of how much I loved my 8700k. Crazy how times change.
….. Ones also significantly older then the other… I can run if StarCraft on my 1998 ibm but can’t run mw3 why?
Most GPUs work wonderfully with the exception of a bad update or manufacturing error. This is as usual an optimization issue with the game itself
A new AAA game runs poorly on a 7 year old CPU. I’m shocked.
The 8700k came out in 2017 and Ragnarok was made to run on a PS4. There is nothing surprising about this.
Lol a 7-year-old CPU performs better on a PC port of 2-year-old linear action game than a new release Open world game… Color me shocked
more like the duality of optimization
the CPU is doing it’s job on both cases but the devs on the second game clearly didn’t
what with this week of gamers thinking their know more then game dev?
2017 CPU in a game that was designed with PS4’s tablet-like CPU in mind vs a 2024 next gen only game.
Yeah, surprising.
Well, Ragnarok was made for PS5, which is considerably less powerful than a modern gaming PC.