According to Smed, we're gonna get improved multithreading

Which is why it might be considered 'ridiculous' to buy that CPU right now. Or any CPU with integrated graphics. Thats die space that could be used for a higher TDP. It's silly to buy a CPU with an iGPU when you know you're plopping it in right next to a beast *** dGPU. A waste of money, space, and energy imo.

That cpu won't fit on this board and the difference in price to get an older lga 1155 mobo isn't enough to warrant the future proofing getting this lga 1150 mobo will offer by getting me ready for the upcoming 14nm broadwell.

http://us.msi.com/product/mb/Z87-G45-GAMING.html

My current mobo is old as dirt (msi neocombo p35 platinum) but it was top of the line when I bought it which is why its still performing great and will make a worthy addition to my collection dating back to my ancient tandy 286.

Either way 4670k or 3570k it will blow my old c2d out of the water.

Talk to intel then as they don't make i5~i7 desktop cpu without on the chip graphics anymore..

Smells like deadlocks and coffee coming soon to a PS2 client near you...

Oh sweet. Looks like that integrated gpu will come in handy after all as the mobo ships with this.

http://www.lucidlogix.com/technology-virtual-graphics.html

I am not telling you multithread optimization is bad, it's in fact good but if you want to increment your performance, you not only have to think of CPU but also about GPU kicking in, sure, let them increment the very limit of their game but if they want to actually optimize this game to it's full engine potential both GPU and CPU must play an equal part of stress at average levels, this game lacks that.

All I see is this:

"We are optimizing this game so it can run better on console, you guys should feel lucky because we will end up optimizing you as well".

Pebbles.

Get an Iphone all the cool cats are doing it.

LOL, I can bet that will be their optimization, to make the integrated GPU run with cards as SLI or Cross.

Willing to bet?


APU ftw.

Skeptic person might say they only started preparing the multicore support after Sony finalized the hardware inside Playstation 4, so PC version's hardware performance was never a topic for them.

I would wish intel would realize this, i mean at least amd produces some half decent apu-s but seriously intel?
Desktop i7 with "Intel HD graphics xxxx"?

There are a few Intel chips without the IGP in them, the IGP is mainly for people who buy systems without a GPU much like for many years motherboards had the GPU onboard. I personally don't think it's a great idea for top end CPU's (i5 3570K and i7 3770K) to have one. I have built a few AMD APU systems and they have an incredibly good IGP for their price which can play many games but it can make the CPU unit get hot and overclocking is rather limited because of the used up space/voltage by the IGP.

I was hoping Intel would ditch that with Haswell but seeing as they're up on Newegg now, they still have the integrated GPU in them.

I'd have to agree with this one. Just like Battlefield 3 was made more for a console instead of its previous versions which were made for PC first (not counting Battlefield 1943), Planetside 2 was made with the same thought in mind. It was all planned from the start. Sony is beginning to take notes from Evil Agents-cough*-ahem Electronic Arts.

Got a quad and game runs terrible.

But as for your standard even with the economy's pace slowing down drastically the advancement of computer hardware has not and thus requirements and capabilities are kept pushing forward.

Which is why so many people now build their own systems, you can swap out the hardware as system specs evolve. Still the majority of the PC consumer base does not have the time or skills to put into a home assembled machine thus will just buy a whole computer from retailers. However they tend to have enough of an income to switch computers every 4 years or so which is sort of like the cycle for consoles.

improved does not mean proper.......glad it took a console system to get them off their ***** and try though......take note PC players....because this time next year your just along for a ride in the backseat.....we are nothing more than paying beta testers for the real cash cow.

As long as the real cash cow bring money to the table and get us a better game experience iam all for it , but i doubt the game will be as sucessfull on console that whats it is on pc

I think they migth be able to run like 1 servers NA and 1 servers EU and 1 Japan pass that i doubt it , MAG on ps3 was a exellant game , really good they sell over a millions copy but the actual players base was below 6000 and after few months get to around 2000 or 3000 active players so i think it migth be almost the same for PS2

Some consoles player really want massive scales games but most consoles player prefere casual FPS like COD

Thumb up for the sign llol

That program doesn't combine the power of the two gpu its only for powersaving when you are not gaming with a 3d app.

Basically all it does is figure out what you are doing then uses the gpu most efficient for the job. 3d game? Discrete gpu. Movies or browsing or flash games? On chip intel gpu.

Supposedly the built in intel graphics are better on mundane stuff like 2d and media encoding/decoding over a discrete 3d gaming gpu so if you are not a gamer then the built in gpu is all the common man will ever need.

But a common man doesnt need an i7, so it would be fine as long as only the i3s would get an iGPU
For laptops its ok because power consumption is a factor, but desktop?

By common man I mean not a gamer. Plenty of users who need an i7 for non graphics related work due to the superior multitasking the i7 has over the i5 due to hyperthreading which btw seems to be a concern for some gamers as there are many complaints about stuttering in games being playing on an i7 due to the hyperthreading but they play smooth as butter on an i5 without it.

Might even explain how some users with 'beast' i7 systems are having worse performance than my aging c2d.

And what i'm saying is that there is no opportunity cost. They are developing the game specifically for a 8 core x86-64 processor. this will have benefits to everyone with more than 2 cores.

Its something they were allways doing, but now its getting even more resources. I fail to see what the problem is.

As to the idea of a load being more evenly split between CPU and GPU, i'm sorry but I think your just getting the wrong end of the stick, most of the tasks that are heavily demanding on the CPU, simply cannot practically be offloaded to the GPU and in all likelihood even if they were (with significant resources), trying to split say the tracking of player entities across 50 GPU cores, would result in far worse performance than having it bundled in (as I imagine is the case currently) in the main thread on a single CPU core. GPU's are simply built to handle tasks like rendering a scene that are easy to split up. Tracking player entities, again the main reason for slowdown, because they are so unpredictable and resources constantly have to be recached for them. Cannot.

That makes sense, I know things have changed from what they used to be, perhaps it's harder to assign GPU these days, perhaps they suck, I am not a dev, all I know is that any form of optimization is welcomed to this game.