I still think that 3450g will be somewhat of an issue. It is only a 4 core CPU and this game loves cores and processing power if you want big armies and that is a big part of this games appeal, big armies. I do think that as long as he isn't going above 1080p and probably going more than 200-300 unit size for battles he could squeak by with a 1080 ti though.
Well I do have almost same setting on my laptop and im using whenever im away from home (mostly for uni) but as i said; Yeah it is working but can i say its flawless and fullfill my expectations? Na-ah not really, MP was more playable compare to SP thou(since from the creation of the beta they worked on MP not SPalso their SP devolopment less optimised since that time gap between MP access and SP access).
Even I could play it at lowest settings with (mostly) 60fps and a bit of stutter, Im waiting my ticket to head back home and play it on my desktop.
I have a pretty crappy PC.... It can run Warband 200v200 siege battle at around 40 fps, on average(maximum everything) but gets ALOT less frames when doing larger battles with the Viking DLC/ Expansion pack. I saw on the steam minimum system specs were pretty low but, my graphics card is integrated (I'm working on getting a 1080 ti) so, it won't run as well if I had an actual card.
Warband is amazing, but Bannerlord is better. I (based on my experience with triple A titles) recon I could get a a 50v50 medium settings at a constant 30, possibly 40fps
Those of you with more computer knowledge could help a lot
Thanks for your time if you put the effort in to read and answer this (:
Here's my PC (probably a rip off tbh but I don't have enough experience to build my own, or enough money to buy a better one)
AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 3350G
Radeon Vega 11 Integrated graphics
1 fan (was ripped off on that lol, said it had 3)
450KW (W?) Power supply
Can't remember the rest
Edit, Apparently it's not triple A.... I need to get my facts right
It'll play okay with the CPU but your graphics card needs replacing with a dedicated GFX card, you can get away with a mediocre card (e.g £70) on medium settings that way and 8GB of ram. That is if your happy playing at a respectable 30fps for most scenes. Last time i checked the minimum requirements you can use a intel 630 gfx card which my laptop has... so it is "doable" to some degree. If your really interested in the game and like what you see though, its probably worth buying and trying with your integrated card anyway - then make the call. You can limit the size of battles as much as you like as well.
If you want moar, like a lot of who expect nothing less than 50fps or 60fps and on higher settings, then look at other peoples suggestions. Hope that helps you dude - looking at the release date of your CPU, it isnt that old so I wouldn't want to be looking at upgrading it yet yet(?). Depends on your budget.
As for the people commenting about spending a lot of money to "invest into" and "start your hobby", complete nonsense. That's like saying you can't learn photography well enough to enjoy it without a DSLR camera. As for waiting until the game is ready, draw your own conclusion on that, I haven't played since 1.5.7 and - allegedly 1.5.8 has made a mess of things though (reading between the lines) - it was pretty good and enjoyable other wise but again if you have high expectations of the game, you may be disappointed - depends who you want to listen too.