AMD Preps Ryzen 7000 CPU Starfield Game Bundle

News
By
published

The way it's meant to be run?

Ryzen 7000
Ryzen 7000 (Image credit: AMD)

AMD recently announced its collaboration with Bethesda for the highly-anticipated sci-fi RPG Starfield game. What better way to celebrate the partnership than to release a new gaming bundle? According to Newegg, AMD is seemingly preparing a Starfield bundle for the company's Ryzen 7000 lineup, encompassing some of the best CPUs for gaming.

The minisite titled "AMD Starfield Game Bundle Promotion Store" confirms that all Ryzen 7000 SKUs, spanning from the entry-level Ryzen 5 7600 to the flagship Ryzen 9 7950X3D, are eligible for the promotion. AMD hasn't officially announced the bundle yet, so the terms and conditions of the promotion remain a mystery. The game was originally set to come out on November 22 launch, but Bethesda has pushed Starfield to September 6, 2023. It's logical to assume that AMD's announcement will come soon to give consumers time to make Ryzen 7000 purchases before the title launches.

AMD's previous Star Wars Jedi: Survivor game bundle for Ryzen 7000 processors concluded on June 30; therefore, the chipmaker is preparing a follow-up to continue enticing consumers to purchase the company's Zen 4-powered chips. It's uncertain if AMD will extend the promotion to the brand's Radeon RX 7000-series graphics cards. We did a quick search on Newegg, but nothing showed up so far. With the prior Resident Evil 4 game bundle having recently ended on July 1, the RDNA 3-based products may need a small push to maintain sales.

(Image credit: Newegg)

Starfield features many AMD technologies, including FidelityFX Super Resolution 2 (FSR 2), on day one, so it makes sense that AMD would want to promote the title. Unfortunately, AMD's exclusivity didn't bode well with some gamers since Starfield, being an AMD-sponsored title, will lack support from rival upscalers, such as Nvidia Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) and Intel Xe Super Sampling (XeSS). One renowned modder (PureDark) has pledged to implement DLSS 3 support into Starfield, in the early access, at least.

The minimum system recommendations for Starfield are similarly demanding as Star Wars Jedi: Survivor. The game requires a hexa-core chip, such as the Ryzen 5 2600X or Core i7-6800K, 16GB of memory, a Radeon RX 5700 or GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, and 125GB of solid-state storage as a minimum. Given the nature of the game, it'll be interesting to see if it'll leverage Microsoft's DirectStorage technology for faster loading times. Now that Microsoft owns Bethesda, there's a good chance that we may see the feature in Starfield.

Starfield is up for pre-purchase on Steam for $69.99, while the Digital Premium Edition will set you back $99.99. No one will purchase a Ryzen 7000 chip just for the game since the Ryzen 5 7600, at $223, is the cheapest Zen 4 SKU. Nonetheless, it's a nice added plus for consumers that plan to upgrade to the Zen 4 platform. For others who don't intend to buy a Zen 4 chip or are interested in owning the game permanently, Starfield will also be available on Microsoft Game Pass, starting at $9.99 monthly on the PC.

See more CPUs News
Zhiye Liu
Zhiye Liu
News Editor and Memory Reviewer

Zhiye Liu is a news editor and memory reviewer at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

12 Comments Comment from the forums
  • -Fran-
    Considering the known game engine shortcomings of Fallout, it'll probably run best with a 3D CPU from AMD, LOL. That "the way it's meant to be played" jab may not be too far-fetched xD

    AMD better come clean here. It is definitely not a good look on this DLSS debacle, even if I still consider it a stupid thing to complain about.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    AMD making the right moves, I also agree with @zhiyeliu that they should offer fresh GPU and game bundles.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    -Fran- said:
    Considering the known game engine shortcomings of Fallout, it'll probably run best with a 3D CPU from AMD, LOL. That "the way it's meant to be played" jab may not be too far-fetched xD

    AMD better come clean here. It is definitely not a good look on this DLSS debacle, even if I still consider it a stupid thing to complain about.

    Regards.
    I honestly don’t see a problem here. AMD has sponsored the game and they were kind enough to make FSR2 compatible with all gpu brands. If anything, you should be complaining about the Nvidia sponsored titles that leave all AMD and Intel GPU’s at an artificial disadvantage by using proprietary Nvidia only enhancements.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    The Historical Fidelity said:
    I honestly don’t see a problem here. AMD has sponsored the game and they were kind enough to make FSR2 compatible with all gpu brands. If anything, you should be complaining about the Nvidia sponsored titles that leave all AMD and Intel GPU’s at an artificial disadvantage by using proprietary Nvidia only enhancements.
    It's a different thing to say "we're blocking developers from using other tech" than "developers choose FSR2 over XeSS and DLSS without our intervention/incentive".

    I most definitely do not want AMD (or any other Company) blocking studios from using what they want due to exclusivity.

    I wish AMD would come clean on this issue once and for all, instead of just giving evasive answers.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    -Fran- said:
    It's a different thing to say "we're blocking developers from using other tech" than "developers choose FSR2 over XeSS and DLSS without our intervention/incentive".

    I most definitely do not want AMD (or any other Company) blocking studios from using what they want due to exclusivity.

    I wish AMD would come clean on this issue once and for all, instead of just giving evasive answers.

    Regards.
    I totally get why you would think this would be problematic but, like I said earlier, it would only really be a problem if FSR wasn’t compatible with all GPU’s. Besides, technology exclusivity is normal SOP in capitalism my friend and Bethesda were not forced to do this, they mutually agreed to the terms of the contract. Bethesda could have declined the offer. But instead they took the money knowing what they were signing up for. They are just as much at fault as AMD.
    To be honest, FSR, DLSS, XeSS are all gimmicks in my eyes, so I just don’t see this being a problem. But, when putting on your shoes, sort of speak, and analyzing why it could be a problem, my business experience brain blames Bethesda for agreeing to AMD’s exclusivity deal.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    The Historical Fidelity said:
    I totally get why you would think this would be problematic but, like I said earlier, it would only really be a problem if FSR wasn’t compatible with all GPU’s. Besides, technology exclusivity is normal SOP in capitalism my friend and Bethesda were not forced to do this, they mutually agreed to the terms of the contract. Bethesda could have declined the offer. But instead they took the money knowing what they were signing up for. They are just as much at fault as AMD.
    To be honest, FSR, DLSS, XeSS are all gimmicks in my eyes, so I just don’t see this being a problem. But, when putting on your shoes, sort of speak, and analyzing why it could be a problem, my business experience brain blames Bethesda for agreeing to AMD’s exclusivity deal.
    Exclusivity agreements are bad on the same principle that closed software is bad for consumers.
    You can't praise FSR for being open and ignore the fact that making a tech exclusive is also bad.

    I do get the point of "they're free to choose who's money they take", but I don't care about Companies choice; I do care about consumer choice and exclusivity agreements hurt consumers in the long run. Even in the short run at times.

    Let's agree to disagree on this one specific part. I do not think AMD pushing an exclusivity agreement on their tech favours consumer choice, at all. This is the same stupidity EPIC has been trying to push with their store and I hate it.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    -Fran- said:
    Exclusivity agreements are bad on the same principle that closed software is bad for consumers.
    You can't praise FSR for being open and ignore the fact that making a tech exclusive is also bad.

    I do get the point of "they're free to choose who's money they take", but I don't care about Companies choice; I do care about consumer choice and exclusivity agreements hurt consumers in the long run. Even in the short run at times.

    Let's agree to disagree on this one specific part. I do not think AMD pushing an exclusivity agreement on their tech favours consumer choice, at all. This is the same stupidity EPIC has been trying to push with their store and I hate it.

    Regards.
    I get it, that’s why I boycott apple products, consoles, printers, etc, etc. You can’t punish AMD for simply following precedent in the tech space. And you can’t absolve Bethesda of their anti-consumer sin either. My point is the irrational one-sided villainy of AMD when AMD did not force this on anyone. 2 sides mutually agreed to this anti-consumer behavior, and one would argue that developers have the power to tell AMD to shove their exclusivity deal by rejecting the deal, but Bethesda didn’t because they care more about the bottom line than maintaining a pro-consumer stance. You are placing your blame on one entity while absolving another of all its sins.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    -Fran- said:
    Exclusivity agreements are bad on the same principle that closed software is bad for consumers.
    You can't praise FSR for being open and ignore the fact that making a tech exclusive is also bad.

    I do get the point of "they're free to choose who's money they take", but I don't care about Companies choice; I do care about consumer choice and exclusivity agreements hurt consumers in the long run. Even in the short run at times.

    Let's agree to disagree on this one specific part. I do not think AMD pushing an exclusivity agreement on their tech favours consumer choice, at all. This is the same stupidity EPIC has been trying to push with their store and I hate it.

    Regards.
    I'm against exclusives as well, but neither what amd nor what epic does stops user choices, any PC user that wants to can still play the games either without that feature in the case of amd or just by being inconvenienced by having to install/use a different launcher, which is annoying but doesn't stop you.

    Only console exclusives are truly bad for consumers because you have to buy an expensive piece of hardware (the console) to play the game.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    TerryLaze said:
    I'm against exclusives as well, but neither what amd nor what epic does stops user choices, any PC user that wants to can still play the games either without that feature in the case of amd or just by being inconvenienced by having to install/use a different launcher, which is annoying but doesn't stop you.

    Only console exclusives are truly bad for consumers because you have to buy an expensive piece of hardware (the console) to play the game.
    And printers lol, only genuine ink cartridges work, 3rd party cartridges can now be sensed and the printer will refuse to print.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    The Historical Fidelity said:
    I get it, that’s why I boycott apple products, consoles, printers, etc, etc. You can’t punish AMD for simply following precedent in the tech space. And you can’t absolve Bethesda of their anti-consumer sin either. My point is the irrational one-sided villainy of AMD when AMD did not force this on anyone. 2 sides mutually agreed to this anti-consumer behavior, and one would argue that developers have the power to tell AMD to shove their exclusivity deal by rejecting the deal, but Bethesda didn’t because they care more about the bottom line than maintaining a pro-consumer stance. You are placing your blame on one entity while absolving another of all its sins.
    Don't get me wrong here. If AMD is indeed pushing exclusivity (as I said, AMD needs to come clean on this), the publishers and studios are also guilty of accepting such terms in my eyes. I'm not giving any involved party a pass, if it is the case.

    TerryLaze said:
    I'm against exclusives as well, but neither what amd nor what epic does stops user choices, any PC user that wants to can still play the games either without that feature in the case of amd or just by being inconvenienced by having to install/use a different launcher, which is annoying but doesn't stop you.

    Only console exclusives are truly bad for consumers because you have to buy an expensive piece of hardware (the console) to play the game.
    That's a fair point, but I have to say I still disagree on the premise that limiting user choice is justified because you can still "not use it". This is a principled take and less practical. A "moral high horse", if you like and I'll concede on that, but I won't concede on the nefariousness of it.

    Regards.
    Reply