So, I’ve been trying to figure this out. I’ve been wanting to step back into the fold for game creation for some time. I was really excited for UE4 with it’s subscription model. But I am wondering if my computer can even handle it. Epic says they recommend a quad core processor and a 6850. But would my AMD Triple-Core processor and my Radeon 7770 be able to use the program sufficiently? I am used to slightly longer rendering times and even some slight pauses when moving artifacts around…just wondering exactly how bad would it be? I do plan on upgrading sometime in the later summer or fall to a six core and an R9-270x, but would like to get a headstart on the engine. Thoughts?
Sadly one of the big downsides to UE4 is the sheer power it takes to use it. You can always try using the website ‘Canyourunit’ to test your system against video game specs that are similar to UE4’s specs. Try one of the later games that needs the same requirements as the engine. Simplest and quickest way to get your answer. 
What’s the clock rate for your CPU? You should be able to run the engine well enough to use it for lighter work, but it will chug if your levels become complex. Your GPU is pretty close to the 6850, which is only about 7% faster, the CPU is the more limiting factor. You can cancel your subscription at any time and keep using the version of the engine you have, so if I were in your shoes I would go ahead and get it, you’ll be able to use it and learn, then upgrade later if you want to have a smoother experience on higher graphics settings.
If you have one of the higher clocked Phenom II X3s it shouldn’t be that bad, the energy efficient Athlons might get to be a pain though. I find that when just working with the editor, it only stresses two of my cores (Intel i5).
Good idea, didn’t even think about doing that. I checked a few games, Battlefield 4, Titanfall (which I currently play at 1080p Very High at 45fps) and the upcoming Dark Souls 2. I was between minimum and recommended on both.
Good advice. I have the AMD A6 3500, 2.1ghz.
That changes things a bit, that model has a max turbo of 2.4ghz, which is really low. You would have pretty poor FPS in the editor, and you would probably find it insufficient. It’s still just $19 dollars, but the CPU really needs an upgrade.
Gotcha. I would mainly be working on systems and combat for the first month or so, and then start actual world building and rendering/meshes.
Like MuchToLearn said - you could always buy the license now and, worst case scenario, make use of it later. At any rate it’s down to you. I’d say take a leap - see how it pans out
I am running it with a pentium g3220 and a 770GTX… it is doable on the processor side with that one… but… it is NOT optimal. I take around 50% CPU when doing nothing unless I turn down max FPS.
In future I’d avoid buying something like that triple core processor (X3) - what you are actually buying is a defective Phenom quad core that would normally have been thrown away.
The Phenom 9500 / 9600 had very high defect rates, which is how they came to have enough crippled units to market as something else. I wouldn’t have bought that quad core either…
Way to make a guy feel bad
OP, you can run UE4, but you’ll crave for more.
Some of them, if demand is high enough (and it was) AMD will just disable functional cores and sell it as a cheaper SKU; this is how all but the top of the line chips are created. There were many Phenom II X2s and X3s that could have their cores enabled without any problems. Those tri cores didn’t have unusually high failure rates anyways, I would have no qualms purchasing one. All FX 43XX, 63XX, and 83XX CPUs are the same die, same with all Intel’s i lines. You have no idea if the i5 you’re buying had a bad core or if it was just fused off so that it could fill another price bracket. There will always be bad CPUs, it’s inherent in how they’re fabricated, but Intel and AMD don’t just throw them out, that would only result in higher prices, and they’re fine as a lower end product. The Early Phenoms had much worse issues.
In fact the only real difference between i5 and i7 is HT, which not many applications really take advantage of.
Sometimes, though only if demand is high enough. The 9500 / 9600 really did have issues though. I wouldn’t buy an i5 dual core either…
You misunderstood, a Haswell i3, a Haswell i5, and a Haswell i7 are the same die. They are all identically produced on the same wafer. All i3s and all i5s are created by disabling portions of the chip, i7s are left mostly intact. When you buy any i5, it’s “essentially” an i7 that was most likely intentionally crippled so that it could be sold as a cheaper, slower unit; some of them weren’t functional as i7s so they were reduced. Not all chips are created equal, quality drops the further it was created from the center of the wafer. Instead of chucking them they become i5s, i3s, or lower end FX parts. It’s much more expensive to design and fabricate different dies for every CPU, so it’s this way. There only make a couple different dies, the desktop parts are the same, all Xeons are the same, etc. Same thing with GPU manufacturers, although they might make a couple more because it becomes uneconomical once you start disabling a certain amount of the original GPU.