Lol, 'on this game' Intel CPUs are only necessary for this game. Because this game offloads server tasks to the client side (and is not optimized, admittedly so by SOE themselves) There are plenty of games that dont utilize multithreading optimally - but PS2 is the only one that I have issues with. Running a sub-100$ CPU doesnt affect gameplay in any other title, or any other game engine. Just PS2. Now, this CPU is clocked at 4.06ghz - but even at stock speeds of 3.2 it never broke a sweat playing other modern titles. Are Intel i-series CPUs better? Obviously so. Are they something that every gamer should go out and buy simply because they are? Heck no. Unless someone else is buying your hardware or you have a large amount of disposable income, its rather stupid. Me, I have bills to pay and a family to support. Running out with fistfuls of cash to buy the best CPUs on the market for a single game (that is still a WIP) simply does not make any sense at all. My kids play their games on Athlon II x2 CPUs/9800 GT 1Gb cards still, and even those systems perform just fine for every other game they have. While I dont expect those rigs to keep up with PS2, I do expect the game to be coded well enough for a Phenom II x4 with clocked as high as it is to get at least 30fps in the largest of battles. I can top an i7 920 in a few benchmarks with the overclocking Ive achieved - and yes, Im well aware that synthetic benchmarks do not provide accurate real world data. They are however, good to give you an idea of the processing capabilities of your PC. Im hoping that since the PS4 runs on an 8 core 1.6ghz low power chip that some of the optimization can be transferred to the PC. After all, the chip the PS4 runs on is a successor to the Bobcat chip, which was meant to compete on the level of an Intel Atom CPU.
Its not like other modern titles, other modern titles don't have to keep track of hundreds of player entities. These emtities are unpredictable thats where a lot of the problems come from. Remember ironforge auction house, first year of WoW, thats a good example of the problem at hand. how well you can play far cry 8 or cod: eletric boogaloo is irrelevant. 'Amd's problem, has next to nothing to do with the actual architecture of its cores/modules. And a lot to do with the fact that the client has several key processes involving keeping track of these player entities that do not mutlithread easily.
Well, luckily they HAVE to put in the effort to multithread properly with the PS4 version. Hopefully it'll be worth it in the end. It's so sad to see 1 core being used 80%, but the rest 5-10. XD
Its very relevant. Because who builds a rig that costs twice as much as they need for one single title? A Free to Play title at that. This is what Im talking about here: Quite honestly, even if I did have the disposable income, I still wouldnt go buy a new Mobo and CPU and quite possibly RAM to build a new rig just to play PS2. Thats just absurd, and I do take my gaming seriously. When I start having problems running other games too, thats when its time to upgrade. And thats why it is quite relevant as to how other games run. Only a fool would go build a new Intel PC just for Planetside 2. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted." AMD's problem IS the architecture. Intels is far superior. AMD's choice was to cram more cores in to equalize their not-as-efficient architecture. Where do you think the better per-core performance comes from? An FX series 8 core clocked at 5ghz still doesnt beat an Intel i7 3770k clocked slower. Because the Intel is simply a more efficient chip.
You perception of value for money in a custom rig or whatever does not change any of the constraints of software engineering. Sorry. The kind of tasks PS2 are doing are hugely demanding and far more so than pretty much any FPS you care to mention. If creating a coherent game world in real time and in FPS for hundreds of players was anything close to easily doable, the market would be full of games like PS2. reason they are not, reason why its been tried at most 4 times before, one of them being PS1. None of which approch even 2/3rd's PS2's current scale. And nearly every MMO has similar issues and normal skips around it by limiting the number of players you can perceive at anyone time in crowded areas. Eve is the only example I can think of that doesn't and gets around it largely by intentionally introducing lag and having a very server dependent combat system. Everything else, 64 players max, though this rarely plays well. 128 at a push, but doubly so on the performance. Most MP FPS games tend to hover around 30 odd people being involved. And allmost all of PS2's problems with FPS kick in when the number of players reaches the 'platoons' mark. Which is at least 60 people. Often double and at times triple that. As i've said, it the sheer amount of unpredictable entities that have to be tracked that is the fundamental problem. Its not just the computational load, its that every time someone does something 'unpredictable' like turning and running at 46 degree's, the resources and 'work' being put into tracking that player, has effective start from scratch. Now times that by dozens at any moment in one of the games even minor battles. Frankly if they ever get it to run 60fps on anything i'll be blown away and would LOVE to view the source code to see how they are doing it. Trying to downplay this issue is coinstansive with not understanding it. Great. I love it when people make claims about architecture without actually referencing the architecture. Or even any figures, well you kinda reference the megahertz myth, well done there. Yes AMD does have more Megahertz. Thats never really mattered you know, and the performance 'gulf', is normally in the 10-15% range. If really are mr. value for money, I think you need to reassess what your define as 'far'. Conclusion, I don't think you know what your talking about. By all means regale me with benchmarks. Chances are i've seen them. I stand by the statements i've made.
None of this is pertinent to the fact that I refuse to barge into the nearest PC components store with two fistfuls of cash, frothing at the mouth, screaming about Intel i7s and the like. Im not sure how I can make it any clearer to you. No one is downplaying any issues here. Is quite obvious even to a first time player that the more people you put in a base, the lower your frames. None of it changes that fact that its completely idiotic to go build a PC just for this game. That said, it is adorable how you make these lengthy posts, explaining things that no one is even talking about. Unfortunately, it doesnt make you look smart. This is quite possibly the most ironic thing I have ever seen posted on these forums. Standing by your statements no more makes them right than standing in a garage makes you a car. P.S. This isnt even a word.
Then don't. If you don't want to build a PC for this game, don't. It's really that simple. Btw, <3 the part in your sig that claims you don't get into forum arguments. Note what you're doing. You don't want to buy Intel parts. Fine - again, don't. Whether or not you want to spend the extra money is your issue, not ours. I've read the same "I won't buy Intel because money and family and blah" plenty of times. I still don't care. What you buy is your business - likewise if people want to spend a little more for more power it's their money to spend. AMD is great. Intel is better but more expensive - undebatable. Upgrading from a Piledriver FX to an i5/i7 would be stupid. Someone who wants to upgrade from an Athlon or Phenom should certainly consider it if they are willing to spend some more. An additional note: unless people plan to use the new PC for PS2 alone then melt it down rather than ever play another game on it, it's not just for PS2.
Just because I have open eyes and clearly admit the superior choice here, doesn't mean I'm a fanboy. I cater to whoever offers the best performance. Have fun knowing you'll always have sub-par gameplay experience.
Sorry don't try to sound smart when you mess up grammar in the first sentence. There are a couple of games besides PS2 such as Arma. Well the fact is, people NEED to upgrade their AMD solutions sooner because of the GPU bottleneck. I mean a 3770k stock clock bottlenecks SLI 690s for christ sake. How far will it be before the FX-8350 becomes a hindrance? Next 2 generations of GPUs?
I run this game fine at 40 fps with a AMD 970 Black Edition stock on ultra. It's a quad core 3.5 ghz. My GPU is a nVidia EVGA GTX 680. There is something wrong on your end.
Read reviews and you'd probably not write that post. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=697 The i5-2400 is priced the same as the FX-3850, is 1.5 years older, and offers better performance in games while requiring less power. After looking at those benchmarks, I don't want to own an AMD.
And.. thats pertinent to what im saying, becuase? i7's wouldn't help anyway, your paying for hyperthreading by and large, which Ps2 and nearly every other game won't use. What are you even arguing about. I've been talking about what the engine realistically atm can and cannot do, which is allmost entirely separate from normal debates about buying gaming rigs. For the punchline is, its at least in its performance issues not like other games. Its not 'CPU heavy' or 'GPU hungry' - its struggling with the classic MMO problem of keeping track of people turned up to 11. Which there is no 'perfect build for' nor value for money in a rig. Indeed i'm not saying you have to build a PC or have an i7, this entire thread is about performance on AMD processors, I was trying to adress the miconception, often, often touted that AMD can't do the game and you need an intel to get good performance, because essentially 'AMD IS TRASHLOLOLOZ' I didn't build my PC for this game, for example, but if you did want to. I'd probably go with the set up I had now and wait, as its a fair bet they are putting a lot of effort into mutlithreading more processes and if so, more cores=more performance. Specifically a FX 8350 and a 660ti. Perhaps on this we do agree on some level, more than that is just throwing money away pointlessly. Not what irony means. I'm not expressing something contrary to its literal intention. Then refute them. Co-instansive, It is. It means occurring at the same time. Ah yes because grammar = intelligence. When forumside acts like a proper forum of the exchange of ideas, i'll run my posts through word. Until that day, deal.
Games not written to take advantage of its main design feature, the 8 cores. So no, if you want to play games from the last couple of years at 11% more pointlessly higher FPS. I wouldn't buy one either.
Such as PS2 and virtually every other game out there with the exception of Battlefield 3/4 (which the FX-8350 still fails to beat most quad core Intel CPUs in). Do you have any idea how long it's going to take for games to finally utilize more than 4 cores, much less give 8 core CPUs enough head room to finally beat quad core CPUs? Because I surely don't. So I'm going to spend my money in the wisest way possible - buying the part that has the most immediate benefit, then upgrade as necessary a year or two later.
Which is changing, and industry wide will have to change. If they want to be mutliplatform and thus sell to the far larger console market, they will have to be. Its a fairly good bet, that Steamroller chips, outsome time this year, will within a year or so be the best gaming chips around for current games.
That's not the point. The point is how embarrassing AMD is when a 1.5 year old i5 processor beats a "8 core". And pointless fps you say? There's a major difference between 49 and 58 regarding fluidity.. Do I have to mention 120 hertz monitors? Simple fact is AMD's "8 core" have a stupid architecture as well as sharing resources for every 2 cores. The only reason why you defend AMD's performance is because you probably have one. Same goes for every other person. Self-justification. Keep in mind I'm talking about performance only and not price. Because the thread is about frames not price. Do you know how much people have the mentality "I was blind but now I see." when coming from AMD to Intel? How about the other way around? Better a elitist than being ignorant and narrow-minded.
I also said I respond one time to posts, and if someone wants to bring new subject matter into the post, then I will respond to that. I bet you would prefer to get only one reply, bring some new stuff in and feel like you 'won' because there was no response though. Nice try bch, not happening. Dont flatter yourself thinking other people are telling YOU why they dont want to build new PCs; as if you were that important that someone needs your approval for their reasoning. You really arent that important. You're just another forum warrior who hangs out in the tech section waiting for the next argument. As a matter of fact, due to the cancerous nature of both you and Lord Moron, Ill block you both.
Increasingly less so. Either you write a game that can work on Jaguar's effectively and have PC, xbox and ps4 as a potential market. Or you make a lot less money. Realistically they only have to improve instructions per clock by about 20% to really catch up and maintain the edge in terms of cores. It all depends on how the first line of server focused chips preform really. AMD are forcasting 30% so thats me being skeptical. One big improvement they seem to have made is supposedly massively increasing the number of floating point units per core. 3 per core, as opposed to one per module. Things like this might speed things up considerably. Also depends if they go APU only. Which they might. Personally I don't think much of APU's. It beats an 8 core, because most of the game will be running on a single thread. Ergo the 8 cores are irrelevant. Yeah, I do have a FX, largely (though not even close to entirely, 8 cores suits my other purposes) because I was hedge betting about the future of games design having to exploit mutlithreading a hell of a lot more as actually improving the architecture of chips was probably not going to make many more leaps after the introduction of 3d transistors. A prediction so far looking pretty healthy. And lets not go into the 120hertz nonsense, in most of the benches there above 60 in both cases and thus at the limit of perceptibility in difference if noticeable at all. Even then my point is this, games benches are depenent on the engine's basic design, you can no more use them to argue the FX is crap anymore than you could argue winzip benches make the i7 crap.
