Indeed. If people had a higher IQ, or at least the initiative to read reviews, then they would know that a FX 8320 is a poor choice for gaming.
Its not. Fx 83xx chips can pull 'never blow 30fps' at the moment, if you turn shadows and flora down. In fact the line between them and i5 3570's is increasingly thin. I know this because I manage it on Miller. Ceres and Cobalt. I imagine the Op's problems stem from one of two things. 1) Crossfire being a *****. 2) His settings being extremely high re shadows, render distance and flora
This is so wrong, it's actually kind of funny. 1) A FX-8320 is priced at $175 or less, when a good quadcore CPU is sold at the exact same price point or higher. Common sense alone should tell you that there is something wrong with this. 2) When it comes to gaming, the FX8320 is actually SLOWER than an i5-720, which was released 4 years ago for less than $200. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=109 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29 3) The only time the FX series CPUs shine is when all cores are being utilized, which is extremely rare in the realm of gaming, and enables them to just barely match Ivy Bridge CPUs at best. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=701 These are all facts proven by cold hard numbers. Fanboyism has nothing to do with it. Don't be so sure of yourself. I run PS2 on ultra, render distance maxed, with 192 voice channels, and yet it never drops below 35fps even in BioLabs. This is with an i5 2500k slightly OC'd to 4.5GHz. More often than not, I see it in the mid to high 40's, if not low 50's. It's amazing what an extra $30 will get you.
The game benefits from "single thread performance", not multiple cores. * Your "cough" garbage processor "cough" is ranked 114th in single thread performance. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html AMDs eight cores meaning nothing, it was never designed for gaming but for other appliances in general. * Such as 3D design, where the eight cores would benefit. Here is a stock benchmark for the "FX-8350 and I5-3570K" http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701 Also with the I5-3570K costing 190 usd, I see no reason why people are whining.
And I allways find the smug 'I HAZ GOOD COMPUTERSZ' crowd pathetic. You allways seem to have the need to justify yourselfs even when your not prompted. And far more tribal than most political activists. Lets dance shall we. Price means next to nothing. There are i7's twice the price of the i5 3570k which perform at best marginally better than it in PS2. What do we conclude from this? And that's relevant to a discussion of minimum frame rate in PS2... because? And that's relevant to a discussion of minimum frame rate in PS2... because? Congratulations? Not sure how that invalidates my experience. Ultra will almost entirely be down to your GPU aswell. whats your despite conclusion of this: your just the best and he and I should feel bad because we are stoopid and bought AMD. Or is it a case of how dare he call his PC a monster? HOW DARE HE. HE MUST BE PUNISHED FOR HIS HUBRIS. I guess thats appropriate behavior in a thread in which a guy is asking for help. I know that CPU can perform in PS2 because I have the exact same basic chip (8350) at a higher clock spead, and it performs fantastically in PS2. QED.
Hey champ, you're the one that quoted my generic statement about a FX-8320 being bad for gaming. All I did is post facts to back me up. Shoot me down as much as you like, it won't change the numbers, nor will it change the fact that the FX-8320 is slower than a 4 year old mid range CPU of the exact same price point in the realm of gaming. It's such a sad world we live in nowadays, where everything is dictated by blind fanboyism rather than cold hard facts. OP is asking for help. We're giving him the best help we can give, which is telling him to drop a junk processor and get a CPU that's better equipped for gaming, especially when he's using a CFX system that needs the bandwidth that a FX-8320 simply does not have.
Because its wrong. 1) The evidence is inconclusive exactly how objective a lot of benches are is questionable. I cite that as the 8320 is merely at a lower clock speed. 2) I have the same chip at a higher clock speed. Run this game fine. Ergo, the problem is not the chip. You really think thats helpful? Buy a new chip? Not try tweaking your ini file? I refer you back to the statement about the I haz good components crowd.
[sarcasm]Woo! He benchmarked less than a handful of GPU intensive games and came to the conclusion that benchmarks are questionable!!![/sarcasm] I fail to see how this debunks earlier links showing an i5 3570k demolishing a FX-8320. I'm not about to believe the single black sheep that contradicts virtually every other reliable source of benchmarks. Also, is he SERIOUSLY testing for a CPU bottleneck at 1440p?
Since Planetside 2 is a 32bit application you can disregard most of your ram and being helpful... only a maximum of 4gb is needed for Planetside 2 the rest of the "monster" ram is simply helping with background and OS. Planetside 2 is CPU intensive always will be.. You should focus on buying the best possible processor and unfortunately... despite opinions Intel are a clear choice. If it is purely for Planetside 2 you should look into single core performance..
Nice time to begin playing overclocking, when the gains are going to matter so much. Good luck with that OP And you're not alone in being disappointed with PS2 currently running so poorly that overclocking becomes such a must for people like you and me. But then it's still in development, and I guess we can only wish them luck with the performance problems they face. Afterall they widen their audience with progress in this area, so I'd expect they're extremely motivated to get results for us.
way to de-rail a thread for a guy asking a response to his problem with critiques in regards to the processor he uses,i think the main focus should be telling the devs at SOE to focus on speeding up a liittle bit more to optimize the game to ensure that everyone who plays this game gets a consistent gameplay when the computer meets the optimal requirements,it's ok if some of you can play the game 60+ fps with whatever processor you chose but there's others who can't,so instead of commenting wich cpu is best to play, we should show our support and actually contribute to the community...
Well, congratulations. Your critical path is significantly slowing the process down on machines with resources to spare. That is multicore-optimized how?
Did you not understand what I mean when I said, the evidence is inconclusive? And all the guy wanted was some advice.
I understand that the evidence in your video is inconclusive. That's what happens when you use poor games and even more poor settings to benchmark a CPU.
