Well the title is the question.Can anyone share opinion/experience? I'm specifically asking for Planetside 2.
Definitely worth it for Planetside. Faster, cooler and more efficient. Though I don't have concrete numbers.
I had an old PC.. crashed PS2 every 15-20 minutes.. could never go anywhere near battles over 24 players.. got my new i5-4590 in September.. NO graphics card.. just the built in Intel HD4600 Windows 7, 8Gigs of RAM I LOVE this PC.. I capped the game at 60FPS.. run it all on low (fine for me), big battles 98+ on both sides, no crashes.. I can play until my hand hurts from holding the mouse.. runs great for me. I also run Razer Cortex.. formerly Game Booster for it.. not sure if that helps, but it works. Good luck to you.
Grabbed my fx-8350 for $140 on black friday. 4.3ghz turbo 8 cores. I have no issues running planetside at 1600x900 100% render ultra textures and high setting. I think effects are on medium. All of that with a gtx650. Of course intel is "better" but why spend the money? How much are i5s these days anyway. Edit: $190 on newegg. So its about the same price as a 4.3 8core amd... i know you all can argue why amd is worse than intel but the price.....the PRICE!!!
About the same price for something thats better. Yeah choose the 8 core that performs worse than a quad core why?
I have an Intel Core2Duo E8500 I purchased in 2008 for $120. Six years later I'm still using the same processor -and- if it wasn't for planetside 2, I would have no desire to upgrade. In fact, if you take a peak at CPUBoss.com, my E8500 performs better than most 4+ year newer AMD processors. You can buy a E8500 for $22 right now and it will perform better than most newer AMD cpu's. However, it won't run planetside worth a damn. I'm at 20 fps w/ 96/96 fights... It hurts my brain, but I push through I'm currently saving pennies and panhandling for an i5 4670k - But you could save $50 for a 4670 if you don't intend to OC. Anything less is stupid to buy if your main interest is Planetside 2. This article should help...http://www.hardwarepal.com/planetside-2-cpu-benchmark/
I had a Phenom II X4 955 and upgraded to a 4670K, best thing I ever did for my planetside experience in my opinion. Framerates went from 20-40 to 50-60 at the absolute lowest. In my opinion yes it is worth it, absolutely.
E8500 cant compare to new AMD CPUs shut up man. I had E8500 and now i have AMD FX 6300... i OC-ed E8500 to 4.5Ghz and yet it is slower than AMD FX 6300 at 4.2GHz ... Also planet side 2 is basically made for dual cores. those benchmarks ... man PLANET side 2 use 2-3 cores... yet you see huge difference between FX 6300 and FX 8350. There is no site that you can trust with benchmarks. I just played PS2 large batlle 200 player yet i didnt drop under 40 FPS with FX 6300. OP yes go for it.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Duo-E8500-vs-AMD-FX-8350 Single-core performance difference is negligible between a stock E8500 and a stock FX8350. It does squeeze ahead, but overclock the E8500 to 4.2 like I have mine, it'll blow that fx8350 out of the water in single-core performance. I know. I ran the same benchmark software (CBR) on mine a few months ago and scored higher. Of coarse it's going to do better on multi threaded applications because it has six effing cores. Long story short, you're right on one thing... The OP should go for it (Intel from AMD that is)
Yeah benchmarks... games are different. E8500 4.5 was slower than mimic FX 6300 4.5 (2 cores 1M) while mimic i7 3K 4.0 (2 cores) was way ahead. pretty much that depends on game of course that E8500 is faster that 1 module yet it is not faster it is not faster in single core performance against FX. Still i know that haswell has at least 50% cores than FX or phenom
With the current x4 965 (clocked at 4GHz) i get about 38-60fps, all set to High (shadows are on medium). Today i did a bit of testing. My GPU is 7850 1GB, playing at 1920x1080. All set to the lowest i get average of 68fps (benchmarked with Fraps for 10 mins of playtime).CPU was always at 80% usage, GPU not so and was using about 600mb of VRAM. The game was showing i was CPU bottlenecked. Then i set all to Ultra. Average FPS was 43. CPU was at about 60% usage and the GPU was at about 90% with 860-979mb VRAM i use.Interesting enough the game was still showing i was CPU bottlenecked.
WHY? Shadows! Shadows are poorly optimized... if i put shadows off FX usage goes up to 70-80% in large battles and yet i dont get fps drops... soon as i put shadows to ultra my cpu usage goes down. Phenom / FX and old CPUs have 128 bit FPU - this is the main problem. Pentium G3258 (sandy/haswell or ivy) all of them have 258bit FPU. But problem with pentium is to low integer performance (so if you play with low/medium shadows it is better to have 4 cores) ... so basically you need i3 or i5. Next year you will get Battlefront 3 from dice .. you will see much better performance in large battles. (BF4 shadows are offloaded to GPU)
always keep shadows low or off as well as set flora to off. gets much better fps unless your getting great performance anyways
Not always so. A well set up, overclocked FX8350 and above can out perform a lower level I5. If the OP does want some bang for his buck and better performance though, I would suggest an i5-4690K at the moment as the way to go. You can get a good board such as the ASRock Z97 Extreme 4 with the processor for around $290 in the US right now.
