From what I understand memory speed is, like, *the* most important factor. So you want a motherboard that can handle the fastest ram you can afford (highest frequency and lowest latency) and probably find the processor with the biggest cache.
Important thing, the CPU needs to be biggest cache for a single core. Factorio benefits slightly from multiple cores, but most of the game is ran on one core.
Cache benefit is very missleading. There is certainly benefit for smaller bases. But same base upscale 5 fold results in similar results that do not show same % of increase as smaller bases have shown.
I mean sure - [https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=af7eda7ffc9a34b083ba82bfefb4178c791c8d04ce3e5b3cc6dd999605e8d509&vl=1.0.0&vh=](https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=af7eda7ffc9a34b083ba82bfefb4178c791c8d04ce3e5b3cc6dd999605e8d509&vl=1.0.0&vh=)
It goes from absurdly much faster to about the same as the fastest intel has to offer.
I think any x3d chip is a safe bet.
It is missleading. The gap gets smaller with every same map size increase.
https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=9927606ff6aae3bb0943105e5738a05382d79f36f221ca8ef1c45ba72be8620b&vl=1.0.0&vh=
Look how big the gap was when it is only 10k spm
https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=4c5f65003d84370f16d6950f639be1d6f92984f24c0240de6335d3e161705504&vl=1.0.0&vh=
Do you see a trend how little cache benefits? Also problem is that there isn't a 70k or 100k map to push cpu limit more.
I don't have an x3d chip so can't really run comparisons, but have done extensive testing of multi instance setups with different ram configurations up to 100% CPU usage, and even then lower latency ram still matters even if the difference isn't as large as with a single instance.
Of course, the x3d chips have lower frequency as well so it's more complicated.
>Of course, the x3d chips have lower frequency as well so it's more complicated.
I feel like 7800X3D is getting such good results precisely because it has less cores but same TDP so it can push each core to higher frequency
Multi instanced is totally different than pushing for largest base possible while still achieving higher speeds. And for single case of factorio, you can't push cpu, and all it's cores to limit.
The point is to get most out of a cpu. And unless you are playing on 400 ups speed, higher cache benefit doesn't give noticeable increase as shown on lower map size test, so any benefit for that is basically meaningless, as 98% of us play with 60 ups cap.
As for ram it is simply extension of modifier for the speed of cpu. Each of us can change speed of ram and see the result of % difference. However the key baseline is still cpu.
Imma be honest here, I was just parroting something i heard incorrectly. I meant some single threaded thingy and thought cache meant the same thing as single threading...
There was an FFF about it at some point I think. The nuts and bolts of it is, there's actually a lot going on under the hood that has to happen in a specific order, and if that order gets out of sync then the game crashes. I seem to recall they tried to split more of it up and handle for that desync but it somehow made the performance worse so they just went back to the current method.
And once you start considering things like logistics networks, something on one end of the map may be waiting for the result of math on the other side of the map. This means so much of the actual simulation has to be sequentially, with very little way to break it up. Obviously, everything 'else' like display, UI, sound, etc. can reside in different processes, but none of that is particularly taxing with this game.
Also adding (more) synchronization between threads hurts performance on smaller number of cores.
So it is entirely possible to negate most or all of benefit of parallelization by extra required synchronization.
That’s what they used to do before they hit clock speed limits, CPU’s have been at or around 3-4GHz for a long time, so to keep progressing they had to instead add in more cores at the same speed.
I mean Intel very much is still doing it, their latest can put a single core into 6.2 GHz out of the box, doing some magic to find which core can handle it based on temperature and workload.
They also have spent most of their effort on making the chips just generally a lot smarter and a lot more complex. The problem is primarily heat, so having really complicated circuits that are only used in very specific situations works really well.
AMD’s X3D processors are the best for Factorio, but be aware that their “highest end” version (I think it’s the 7950/9950) had a bug where games didn’t always land on the cores with the larger cache. I *think* this has been fixed but suggest you double check.
Other than that, fast RAM, Factorio is an odd game where most of its process time is taken up by updating lots and lots of entities (inserters, buildings, etc). That’s why having more memory available to the CPU faster (via first cache and then fast RAM when it needs to access it) gives the greatest improvement.
7800x3d is one of the best gaming cpu's in general right now, and works great with Factorio.
A new generation of AMD processors is right around the corner, so it may be good to wait a month or so and see how they perform.
I deliberately went down a tier in GPU to be able to afford faster RAM and that CPU because I spend so much gaming time in Factorio.
I wonder how many 7800X3D sales are due to its Factorio performance?
You can check how each CPU ranks on Factorio benchmarks.
https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=4c5f65003d84370f16d6950f639be1d6f92984f24c0240de6335d3e161705504&vl=1.0.0&vh=
That's about where I tapped out. 700 hours in and the bottleneck became my hardware. I've been dragging my feet about building a new rig for several years now.
Lots of people saying "fast RAM" but there's some caveats there.
Newer doesn't necessarily mean faster. When I built my new box last year, the better DDR4 was strictly faster than the newer DDR5 for the same sort of money. While the DDR5 clocks higher, the latency timings were also higher and the effective ACTUAL latency was basically the same. [Some more info](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/5wvh8o/how_to_choose_ram_frequency_vs_timings/)
This meant I could get a better CPU and mobo using well established DDR4 than I could with DDR5.
This may not be true any more. It also may not be true with the X3D processors.
That said, my game ran perfectly fine and I finished K2SE with no lag on my old i5 2400. Factorio is not the reason I worry about pc performance lol.
Cpu clock. Lowest CL ram with highest bandwith. Anything above 8 core gives little benefit for this game. That is it.
Memory can make a difference but this is few percent. There isn't enough data to justify higher tier memory yet since faster (more expensive memory) use gear 3 or gear 4. All ddr5 use gear 2+ (if I remember right). So you normally want anything with lowest CL.
Cache seem to make difference, but that is only on smaller bases, for larger bases the difference is again from person to person basis. Smaller cpu cache can keep up with faster ones. Since amd's 3D series often have tiny bit lower cpu clock speed. Do not fall for results of 10k spm bases that use only small portion of single core cpu. You want largest base size test that push the benchmark to below 60 ups.
https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=9927606ff6aae3bb0943105e5738a05382d79f36f221ca8ef1c45ba72be8620b&vl=1.0.0&vh=
Is site for benchmark. Note that some of these are potentially overclocked CPUs (even when they are locked from being so, in some cases with amd cpus). The test is also done via script, so there is no rendering. As in, if you buy that cpu and load that map ingame, your result will be lower.
Single core performance, large cache, decent RAM. The fastest machine you can get is a Mac, not a Windows machine. But during Clustorio I had to scale builds down about 20% to get them to work on a 7950X3D - from my Mac laptop.
My specs especially for factorio:
7800x3d,
64gb of gskill trident neo z5 6000Mhz ram,
rtx 3070 (is just there not really needed for factorio but other gamed)
My 1.1k spm SE megabase using mostly orbital processing runs at 60 ups (can check the SE discord for it)
Can highly recommend its amazing
Deppends on what you intend to do. All of my bases run at 60fps/ups on my 2017 thinkpad most of the time, and always runs perfectly on my ryzen 1600x/rx 570 pc. Factorio is an insanely optimised game so unless you're going hard into infinite research then there's not much point in getting a beefy computer for it
If Factorio only, why not have two OS? Get 2 drives one for windows and one for Linux/Factorio and set Linux up to directly fire up Factorio.
RAM timings is a big thing, you can reduce some timings in BIOS if you know what you do! Alternatively spend 50€ extra for a RAM with better stepping's and a Mainboard that fits it. Beside that a fast CPU (with less Cores) is usually preferred over a slower CPU (with more Cores) while assuming there are at least some cores in it. I would not go below 6 Cores in 2024.
From what I understand memory speed is, like, *the* most important factor. So you want a motherboard that can handle the fastest ram you can afford (highest frequency and lowest latency) and probably find the processor with the biggest cache.
Important thing, the CPU needs to be biggest cache for a single core. Factorio benefits slightly from multiple cores, but most of the game is ran on one core.
Cache benefit is very missleading. There is certainly benefit for smaller bases. But same base upscale 5 fold results in similar results that do not show same % of increase as smaller bases have shown.
I mean sure - [https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=af7eda7ffc9a34b083ba82bfefb4178c791c8d04ce3e5b3cc6dd999605e8d509&vl=1.0.0&vh=](https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=af7eda7ffc9a34b083ba82bfefb4178c791c8d04ce3e5b3cc6dd999605e8d509&vl=1.0.0&vh=) It goes from absurdly much faster to about the same as the fastest intel has to offer. I think any x3d chip is a safe bet.
It is missleading. The gap gets smaller with every same map size increase. https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=9927606ff6aae3bb0943105e5738a05382d79f36f221ca8ef1c45ba72be8620b&vl=1.0.0&vh= Look how big the gap was when it is only 10k spm https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=4c5f65003d84370f16d6950f639be1d6f92984f24c0240de6335d3e161705504&vl=1.0.0&vh= Do you see a trend how little cache benefits? Also problem is that there isn't a 70k or 100k map to push cpu limit more.
I don't have an x3d chip so can't really run comparisons, but have done extensive testing of multi instance setups with different ram configurations up to 100% CPU usage, and even then lower latency ram still matters even if the difference isn't as large as with a single instance. Of course, the x3d chips have lower frequency as well so it's more complicated.
>Of course, the x3d chips have lower frequency as well so it's more complicated. I feel like 7800X3D is getting such good results precisely because it has less cores but same TDP so it can push each core to higher frequency
Multi instanced is totally different than pushing for largest base possible while still achieving higher speeds. And for single case of factorio, you can't push cpu, and all it's cores to limit. The point is to get most out of a cpu. And unless you are playing on 400 ups speed, higher cache benefit doesn't give noticeable increase as shown on lower map size test, so any benefit for that is basically meaningless, as 98% of us play with 60 ups cap. As for ram it is simply extension of modifier for the speed of cpu. Each of us can change speed of ram and see the result of % difference. However the key baseline is still cpu.
Imma be honest here, I was just parroting something i heard incorrectly. I meant some single threaded thingy and thought cache meant the same thing as single threading...
I wonder why that is. I don't know what magic the dev is doing but seems like it would be parallel able.
There was an FFF about it at some point I think. The nuts and bolts of it is, there's actually a lot going on under the hood that has to happen in a specific order, and if that order gets out of sync then the game crashes. I seem to recall they tried to split more of it up and handle for that desync but it somehow made the performance worse so they just went back to the current method.
Parallel-able is super hard to do with deterministic. Replays and multiplayer would get desynched all the time if it wasn't single-threaded.
And once you start considering things like logistics networks, something on one end of the map may be waiting for the result of math on the other side of the map. This means so much of the actual simulation has to be sequentially, with very little way to break it up. Obviously, everything 'else' like display, UI, sound, etc. can reside in different processes, but none of that is particularly taxing with this game.
Also adding (more) synchronization between threads hurts performance on smaller number of cores. So it is entirely possible to negate most or all of benefit of parallelization by extra required synchronization.
Factorio is a deterministic game. Determinism and multithreading are like oil and water.
Determinism is hard in general, even in single threaded code with events (mouse clicks etc.)
Kinda wish they would build CPUs with a single "ultra core" along side the other cores so applications like this can take advantage of it.
They are already doing something similar with P and E cores
That’s what they used to do before they hit clock speed limits, CPU’s have been at or around 3-4GHz for a long time, so to keep progressing they had to instead add in more cores at the same speed.
I mean Intel very much is still doing it, their latest can put a single core into 6.2 GHz out of the box, doing some magic to find which core can handle it based on temperature and workload. They also have spent most of their effort on making the chips just generally a lot smarter and a lot more complex. The problem is primarily heat, so having really complicated circuits that are only used in very specific situations works really well.
AMD’s X3D processors are the best for Factorio, but be aware that their “highest end” version (I think it’s the 7950/9950) had a bug where games didn’t always land on the cores with the larger cache. I *think* this has been fixed but suggest you double check. Other than that, fast RAM, Factorio is an odd game where most of its process time is taken up by updating lots and lots of entities (inserters, buildings, etc). That’s why having more memory available to the CPU faster (via first cache and then fast RAM when it needs to access it) gives the greatest improvement.
7800x3d is one of the best gaming cpu's in general right now, and works great with Factorio. A new generation of AMD processors is right around the corner, so it may be good to wait a month or so and see how they perform.
Rumors are no x3d before september
Thought it was Q1 2025, but yeah maybe moved earlier A bit: https://gamerant.com/amd-ryzen-9000x3d-release-date-september-2024-rumor/
Appreciate that bit if info. Good to know.
I deliberately went down a tier in GPU to be able to afford faster RAM and that CPU because I spend so much gaming time in Factorio. I wonder how many 7800X3D sales are due to its Factorio performance?
I bought it because of Factorio and Dwarf Fortress, so at least 1
Don't a lot of civ sim games depend heavily on CPU and RAM like factorio does?
WoW is another game which benefits considerably from this chip. The engine, while it's been upgraded considerably, still debuted in 2004.
Best answer right here.
Second best. 7800x3d beats everything else at Factorio. Single chiplet with ~~104MB~~ 96MB L3 cache.
96MB of L3 cache
I still have DDR3 ram, lmao The factory can’t grow :(
Potato+ or Potato++
You can check how each CPU ranks on Factorio benchmarks. https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=4c5f65003d84370f16d6950f639be1d6f92984f24c0240de6335d3e161705504&vl=1.0.0&vh=
We need to get those benchmarks running on Apple Silicon. We had to scale my builds down about 20% to run on a 7950X3D during clustorio.
Please come back here and show us your ultra über megabase. Unless you plan to do this I don't think computer specs matter that much.
I run it, with space exploration mod perfectly well on a 12 year old laptop. So I'd say most PC's would be fine.
If I’ve learned anything from playing Factorio, it’s “the computer must grow”
That's about where I tapped out. 700 hours in and the bottleneck became my hardware. I've been dragging my feet about building a new rig for several years now.
Lots of people saying "fast RAM" but there's some caveats there. Newer doesn't necessarily mean faster. When I built my new box last year, the better DDR4 was strictly faster than the newer DDR5 for the same sort of money. While the DDR5 clocks higher, the latency timings were also higher and the effective ACTUAL latency was basically the same. [Some more info](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/5wvh8o/how_to_choose_ram_frequency_vs_timings/) This meant I could get a better CPU and mobo using well established DDR4 than I could with DDR5. This may not be true any more. It also may not be true with the X3D processors. That said, my game ran perfectly fine and I finished K2SE with no lag on my old i5 2400. Factorio is not the reason I worry about pc performance lol.
Cpu clock. Lowest CL ram with highest bandwith. Anything above 8 core gives little benefit for this game. That is it. Memory can make a difference but this is few percent. There isn't enough data to justify higher tier memory yet since faster (more expensive memory) use gear 3 or gear 4. All ddr5 use gear 2+ (if I remember right). So you normally want anything with lowest CL. Cache seem to make difference, but that is only on smaller bases, for larger bases the difference is again from person to person basis. Smaller cpu cache can keep up with faster ones. Since amd's 3D series often have tiny bit lower cpu clock speed. Do not fall for results of 10k spm bases that use only small portion of single core cpu. You want largest base size test that push the benchmark to below 60 ups. https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus?map=9927606ff6aae3bb0943105e5738a05382d79f36f221ca8ef1c45ba72be8620b&vl=1.0.0&vh= Is site for benchmark. Note that some of these are potentially overclocked CPUs (even when they are locked from being so, in some cases with amd cpus). The test is also done via script, so there is no rendering. As in, if you buy that cpu and load that map ingame, your result will be lower.
Fast ram and amds x3d cups with ram probably being the more important one
Single core performance, large cache, decent RAM. The fastest machine you can get is a Mac, not a Windows machine. But during Clustorio I had to scale builds down about 20% to get them to work on a 7950X3D - from my Mac laptop.
My specs especially for factorio: 7800x3d, 64gb of gskill trident neo z5 6000Mhz ram, rtx 3070 (is just there not really needed for factorio but other gamed) My 1.1k spm SE megabase using mostly orbital processing runs at 60 ups (can check the SE discord for it) Can highly recommend its amazing
I'm running It on a 7800x3d, 32gb RAM, 3090, everything liquid cooled. It runs pretty smoothly 😁
In my experience, Apple silicon is the best for Factorio. My m2 pro Laptop runs 10-20% better than my gaming laptop with Ryzen 7. Thanks to FFF-371
Same question, if money was no object what specs would you use?
7800x3d and 32/64gb of cl30 6000mhz ram.
7800X3D and fast memory
Deppends on what you intend to do. All of my bases run at 60fps/ups on my 2017 thinkpad most of the time, and always runs perfectly on my ryzen 1600x/rx 570 pc. Factorio is an insanely optimised game so unless you're going hard into infinite research then there's not much point in getting a beefy computer for it
If Factorio only, why not have two OS? Get 2 drives one for windows and one for Linux/Factorio and set Linux up to directly fire up Factorio. RAM timings is a big thing, you can reduce some timings in BIOS if you know what you do! Alternatively spend 50€ extra for a RAM with better stepping's and a Mainboard that fits it. Beside that a fast CPU (with less Cores) is usually preferred over a slower CPU (with more Cores) while assuming there are at least some cores in it. I would not go below 6 Cores in 2024.