lol I was expecting to see an i7 3970x OC to atleast 4.5 and SLI 690GTX. That's doesn't look like a "monster" PC.
Gee, it runs just about EVERY OTHER GAME fine. When i got it in 2010, it was rather high end, and a good, cheaper alternative to the i5s out at the time.
"Every other game" isn't a netcode heavy MMOFPS. You were able to get away with a low grade component up until now simply because most other games rely more on the GPU rather than CPU.
Regardless, you act like a phenom II is a piece of junk. It's not. You can still buy them as a midrange/budget processor. It's no i5/i7, but as I said, it runs everything else fine.
Because it is. The performance of the Phenom II series is actually below what Intel has had on the market more than 4 years ago. If you ever get into a situation where you're using a CPU dependent app or program (like PS2), your performance will suffer and you won't get your $$$'s worth out of the rest of your system. Any self respecting PC owner will shell out an extra $20-$30 on a $600+ computer and get the better processor.
Do you really wonder why a 4-year-old low-end budget CPU does not run the same as a high-end Ivy Bridge? AMD is per clock cycle a lot slower than Intel. I'd love you to see how it actually runs demanding games, such as Supreme Commander, Hearts of Iron III, Digital Combat Simulator: A-10C Warthog, ArmA 2, and hell, Universe Sandbox. The games you think are "demanding" are seriously gimped in design to allow them to run on low-end ancient computers. (SOE attempted the same with PS2, but failed majestically.) The Phenom II lineup is slow, out-dated and out-performed CPU architecture.
So I'm overclocked up to 4.3 now, which seems to be the max the cpu will handle at full load without overheating, even with liquid on it. Given that that's up from 3.5, that's pretty good. That's made a large improvement in the overall gameplay. It stays between 20 and 30 now in platoon sized fights, but I haven't gotten a chance to test in something massive yet, so that will be the be all end all. I have my doubts still. This isn't a CPU brand thing, for those of you who think AMD makes bad cpus. This is a developer thing. Sure, Intel gets better per core speeds, but AMD speeds aren't that much worse and when you have 8 cores to process with, well that is a LOT of power. The problem lies with development at SOE. They've made a game which utilizes 2 cores, at best. Most pc's out today have 4 cores or more. They should have developed this game to dynamically scale and use all cores a system has to offer. Whether they did this as a suck up move to Intel or are just short sighted in development, is unknown to us all. Also, ignorance doesn't help anyone, so try to keep the "ERMAHGERD u has AMDs wut u tinking ur sistem suks" to a minimum. I will say that my next gaming rig will probably have an i7 in it. There's no point arguing that Intel has more powerful CPUs, but that doesn't mean that my system isn't powerful. It's a lot better than most.
I have an i7 3770k 4.6ghz on the corsair h80 with viper fans. im PERMA GPU bound on sli gtx 580's that's right 2 in sli mode yet it still get down too 30 fps in amp stations, why? soe codeing that's why. but the fact your amd cpu has more cores but less per clock speed means the engine isent fully using your cpu at its strength that's all it is. p.s the sli config is fine both cards at 100% useage at warpgate 140 fps. Big fights 30 fps but with 60% useage on both cards GPU bound still.
That's true. Intel technological superiority can't explain why do I have 50-60 fps when I run around Allatum and it drops to 25 if I only look at the base I have AMD FX-8120 and next week I'll receive a new cooler Thermaltake Big Typhoon 120 so I'll overclock the CPU and I'll see if I manage to get a better fps. But honestly it sucks, I didn't want to do that but I feel forced to overclock my CPU to get decent performance.
Except I got my phenom II several years ago and at the time, intel's CPUs were only 10% better, if that, in most benchmarks. It was a pretty high end CPU when i got it, and my rig cost way more than $600 at the time. I'll admit that right now, yeah, intel blows AMD away, but at the time, my choice was between the phenom II and the i5, and the i5 cost $60 more while only providing minimal performance over the phenom II. It's also on par with the high end Q9000 series CPUs, so it's not like it always sucked. The fact is, every other game runs fine on the phenom II. Not necessarily optimal in most other games, but fine. This one is the only one that actually gives me serious trouble, and all AMD CPUs seem poor with it. Whether it's the CPU or the game remains to be seen, but seriously, the phenom II used to be a very good processor, much more worth it than intel's more expensive offerings at the time for the money, so I don't know what you're talking about when you go on about how it was so inferior 4 years ago. Because honestly, the difference was only 10%. If I got 30 FPS in a game, intel would give me 33. Big deal. Benchmarks from 2009: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/16 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-965,2389-8.html Intel came out ahead in the odd game or two, but mostly, considering how much cheaper the phenom II was, it was worth it. I admit, it aged poorly compared to intel, but yeah, it's not a piece of junk, and never was at release. Even now, PS2 is a bit of an exception for how the phenom II handles. A modern i5 gets what, 60% over a phenom II? Yet the frames are how much different in this game? And let's not forget OP is using an FX CPU, which is a bit newer. Just face it, this game doesn't like AMD CPUs at all.
And yet, people are still buying them new like they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. The truly sad part is that AMD's FX lineup is no faster than the Phenom II lineup was 4 years ago, and AMD fanboys keep wanting to ignore that fact.
I wouldn't exactly call this a monster PC. I have a FX-8350, a R6970, 16 gigs of Vengeance RAM, I do not consider it in any manner to be a monster. Just cheap and effective. That said I also have a PC with a decent i7 in it and it's a POS in everyday computing compared to the 8350. My AMD/ATI system chugs through Far Cry 3 and other modern games fine. PS2 is not a modern game, the ForgeLight is a piece of crap, designed to eat your digital dollars, not provide you with a great experience. If they had any intentions of making a good, well running, game instead of a dollar farm to support their next Everquest failure, this game would have been designed for, at least, a 2010 PC. With the capability of taking advantage of 64-bit systems, the latest DirectX, both Processor and GPU flavors, and it would have understood that the majority of systems are multicore and have large quantities of RAM.
I recently switched from an FX 8320 (OC'd to 4.3) to an i5 3550 (I meant to order a 3570K but got a 3550 shipped), and the game runs MUCH better even with the same GPU and hard drives. I was also playing on an Phenom II X6 1090T for the past 4 months while on the road, I wanted to pull hair when getting 12fps in biolabs! I'm an AMD fanboy myself, it's time I stopped caring about AMD... at least until Steamroller comes around.
No actually they aren't because unlike Apple fanboys making claims based on marketing propaganda Intel customers have hard data. The simple fact of the matter is that Intel for nearly 7 years now has pounded AMD into the ground when it comes to single threaded performance and this difference is hugely noticeable in games which are typically CPU bound. I do however agree with your statement that "its the game", I strongly feel that if this game is to look the way it does it should run a helluva lot better.
The sheer mass of idiocy here is impressive. I'll just quote myself since clearly nobody read the post: Intel vs. AMD is irrelevant here. If OP was whining about ~30 fps, it would be a valid albeit very dead-horse-beating argument. An i5 gets 40 fps, OP gets 5fps. Newsflash to the idiots: Intel chips are not 8x as fast as AMD chips. They are ~20-40% faster per core which OH HEY explains the 40-45 (Ivy/Sandy i5/i7) versus 30-35 (FX) gap. How revolutionary of a concept: basic math! Again since it apparently refuses to sink through impeccably thick skulls: New AMD chips are not even close to weak enough to get 5fps. They tend to get ~30. There is another problem at play here. With all the energy spent arguing something that isn't even directly relevant, you all probably could have come up with a solution for him. What a ridiculous waste of time... I must also point out again that my cue was perfectly on target. OP if you're still around and have not been scared off by the wave of stupid: any luck figuring it out?
If you just play games on your PC then Intel is the choice right now, most of the big titles runs better on Intel than AMD (BF3 is irrelevant since it's mostly GPU bound, which is why Anandtech took BF3 off the benchmarks list) but if you search on Anandtech, Tomshardware and a few other sites you'll see an i5 3570K head and shoulders above the FX 8350 in some of the games. My FX 8320 is going to be a video converting and primary MS Office PC now... until Steamroller comes around.
I dont know if you're mistaking me as an AMD fanboy, I recognize that the phenom II is only midrange nowadays, and I know intel blows AMD away in today's day and age. FX CPUs are a little better clock for clock than the phenom IIs (the second gen ones, not the first gen), but yeah. They're not the best solution for gaming. They're still decent, and as I said, run every other game out there well still, but they're not high end any more. I'm well aware of their limitations. The thing is, in most games, a newer i5 is only like 60% better. In Planetside 2, the difference is MUCH larger. This leads me to believe the game simply doesn't work well with AMD architecture. Actually, BF3 is very CPU heavy. The benchmarks really underestimate it. The thing is, for BF3 benchmarks, they use that one level where you fly in a jet, because it brings about the best consistency. However, it barely touches the CPU. If you play BF3 online, with 64 players, I notice a CPU bottleneck with my phenom II. Mainly because when I went from a 5850 to a 580 I did not notice a major difference in frames, and I still dip down to 35-40 in some very demanding maps (particularly those in B2K, CQ, and AM) at times. I actually get almost the same frame rate on minimum as I do on a variation of very high. That's definitely a CPU bottleneck.
