The SSD is on the small side, but other than that it should run TS fairly fine, although maybe not at everything maxed
The answer is always yes. The question is usually how it runs and how much game you can actually use. In my case, my entire installation would not fit on that hard drive. That might be something to consider depending on how much you own and whether you use AP, ATS, and JT products..
The laptop will run it OK. You may have to turn some settings down a bit, as the Vega 8 graphics aren't amazing, but it will do OK. As others have pointed out, the limiting thing here is the small SSD. My TS collection wouldn't even fit on that drive, and once you start collecting DLC you'll quickly run out of space. Consider that that windows, and any any other application you may use will also have to share the same drive, you will be severely limited. Anything less that 1TB would be considered small these days, and 256GB is really quite paltry.
The SSD is small. Part for windows and TS you ll rapidly lack of space. Ofc you can always expand it later. RAM, is small again. Its OK for TS, but 16 would be more futureproof. Again can be extended later. Now processor and graphics wise, it up to you to décide, dont expect great fps. It will still be payable, particularly if you lower your settings. It dépends on the routes you play also. You can check on youtube and you willl find this exact configuration gameplay on TS, i let you decide if its OK. here : For my part, i would wait to have a litlle more money to get a better processor and more futureproof config.
On paper it should be OK, but that video is atrocious. Obviously on really low settings and around 12fps average. It may be because he's also streaming or recording it as well though,so I'm still not convinced it will be that bad. The single core performance of that CPU is faster than mine, as mine's a 12 year old second generation (Sandybridge) i7 and Train Simulator is pretty much reliant on one core for most of what it does due to it's age. The built in graphics on that CPU are not great though.... but still... shouldn't be THAT bad. Maybe the guy's just an idiot, and has a boat load of bloatware stuff running in the background. You never know. Here's a video of it doing much better with a wide range of games. This guy.... ...is getting more fps from it playing Cyberpunk 2077. Admitedly on low settings, but still...
Add-on to my previous reply: It does not seem to have separate graphics memory, that means the graphics operate off the system RAM. With 8gb RAM, that means you "lose" up to 2 gb for graphics. If you only run in 32-bit it's no problem (can only use 4gb anyway), but in 64-bit, that's definately an issue.
Still not a major issue for TS, as my GTX980 is only 4GB and I have no issues at 1440p. Something to consider for other titles perhaps.
Sorry but a I7 sandybridge (2600 for ex. ) seems a little more potent than the ryzen 3500u. Now the problem is that its difficult to use other, more optimised games, to comparé with TS. Just like FSX was a cpu killer and other benchmarks were not reliable. Maybe the OP should check more sources, i found that even on more recent Ryzens the FPS counters seems on the low side : Again we dont know the exact settings. But it give some clues.
I got started with TS2016 on an i3 laptop using integrated Intel HD graphics dating from 2015. I would say it was better than nothing which was the alternative so... With the right routes (those which are which are less detailed such as older routes or have are mostly countryside) it was quite acceptable and fortunately my favourite route was, still is in fact, The Weardale and Teesdale Network in the '60s which is largely rural and low speed- rarely more than 45mph. Results with the routes included with TS2016 were a mixed bag- Sherman Hill is also almost entirely rural and pretty driveable but Köln-Koblenz with its urban setting and busy electrified main line (that catenary adds to the load) would plod as would The Riviera Line in the '50s and those lovely steam loco's sometimes wouldn't draw properly or completely crash the system. This is all with most graphics settings turned down or off mind you. I think the same caveats would apply for the laptop in the link. Be prepared to turn down graphics settings and choose routes wisely- better than nothing in other words but if you can stretch to a machine with a dedicated GPU of almost any description, go for that instead. It should comfortably out perform my old i3 by a margin though- in particular AMD's integrated graphics seem to be superior to Intel's. I share concerns voiced about the size of the main storage- it should have plenty of room for a new install of TS and even a few extra routes but not a lot else.
