Yes, please write in every post you make which cpu you or your roomate has. Neither I or other people will read all your posts. If you write 2.7GHz, then type a few extra letters to specify which cpu you are discussing, 2.7GHz on an unknown cpu is meaningless. There is no excuse to write 2.7GHz without specifying which cpu. If you don't write which cpu you have, I will assume you are intentionally being ambiguous or disingenuous. Look at how much time both of us has wasted so far by arguing, when all you had to do was simpy state which cpu you are talking about. You still have not clearly explained which cpu is running at 2.7GHz. Is it is the Q6600? Or do I have to guess? Keep in mind, when you post on this forum, it is not only for your own benefit, it is for the benefit of other people too. Be clear and precise and not ambiguous or disingenuous.
Well I have been thinking about this and it is either that the 4.1/4.2 in the original Core i series is poorly implemented or something is preventing it from working. Also he is running an i3 which is a dual core chip, meaning depending on what else he has running or even Windows background processes they will eat his performance. As he cannot offload them to another core. I also do not remember him saying what his settings are, what GPU he has and what resolution he is playing at.
Dude idk how the fk else to tell you this I have a mother ****** Phenom II X6 1045T at stock clock speed as I stated already 4 times in this thread. If you are not going to read the thread do not post in it. The Q6600 is at stock clocks. The i7 940 is at 3.8 I believe and my room mates ****** i5 2500K is at 4.2 GHZ and his laptop is 2.4GHZ Quad core i7 Sandy Bridge (Idk the exact model, its stock clock look it up). There, are you happy now? Stop QQ.
How many? Because I have been reading all the FPS issue threads over the last week and I have seen very few people with 2nd Gen + Core series complaints aswell as very few complaints from people running Bulldozer (AMD FX) Processors. Most of the posts come from people with first gen Core i series or from people with Phenom II or Athlon II which is both K10 (Starz) architecture.
Second gen core is the Sandys, and they do have those instructions. Edit: From PC Wizard on my own machine, just in case lappys have weird Sandys. Instructions : IA-64 Technology :No Intel64 (EM64T) :Yes AVX :Yes FPU128 :No SSE5 :No SSE4a :No SSE4.2 :Yes SSE4.1 :Yes S-SSE3 :Yes SSE3 :Yes SSE2 :Yes SSE :Yes AES :Yes
Fair enough, its important to be scientific about this. So have to be looking for falsifiers. Indeed here as yuo note, it being 2 core only. Could also explain the fps. However, I suggest you keep an eye out on the forums. For whilst I promise you I've seen people with a fair few people with 1st and 2nd gen i7's, a few with 3rd gen i7's complaining. If that were the case, that would indeed be a falsifier. As far as I can tell, in order to get the game to 'run properly' atm. Which I would define as (I think this is modest) stable mid 30fps in large battles (200-400 people battles, the big ones, I think the humungous 3 side 800-1000 man pile in which happen every now and again, thats just understandable at 20-30, even occasionally dipping to high teens fps). You need a cutting edge i5/i7, a good mobo, an ssd. 8+ gigs of ram, a upper mid, high end graphics card. As minium. For bonus points O.c the **** out of your processor and tie a bunch of graphics cards together. also the gods must be smiling upon you. The fact every coder who's mentioned it agrees, there is a loads of optimisation to be done, and SoE's own president also tweets about it. Pretty much confirms they know something is going wrong at the basic code atm. And that its not meeting their exceptions based on a familiarity with the engine. whats not being said is that it was put to market in this state, for fairly understandable. if not p.r friendly reasons of economics and public relations more than being 100% ready. But given the ambition fo the project and the fact it work at all so far. I'm willing to overlook a bit of 'unoptimised' code and wait for this supposed 'big optimization patch' that looks as if there pushing to get out decemberwise. If after that, no real improvement.. well.. They'll be getting no money from me and dayz standalone will eventually capture my attention. If I start seeing mid 30'ies, hell even 40fps in the big battles (I do intend to upgrade my ram to 8 gig anyway), then I might drop some cash now again on a gun or two or camo or something. I think the game is really breaking boundaries in the 'massively mutliplayer online' market. But I can't invest money in a game I suck at due to general lag or my fps (with the newest patch :C ) jumping down to 14,8 or 2 occasionally in fights (yes.. 4 real). So SoE my money on a semi-regular basis for the next couple of years (even 2025, if you keep adding content without forcing me to upgrade to play it, ill do that when im good and ready. Thank you.) is entirely yours to play for. But careful, us gamers are a fickle and impatient lot. A rational approach to optimization, what you guys think?
With 2nd gens, 20-30. Double perhaps 3x that for first gens. With 3rd gens, perhaps 10. 20 on the outside. I've been obsessively skulking on this subforum since day 2. again proving this would be possible, as SoE keep deleting threads. All I can do is promise you I have no interest in slandering intel, they are better heh. If I'd paid butloads for a i7 with crazy nitrogen cooling just for doing ps2, i'd be raging right now if I wasunt getting 60fps in the massive fights. Of course, with computers for all we know every one of these people is part of a botnet or something and that's whats doing it, hard to eliminate all the variables.
Let me be clear because it seems you dont fully understand me. We dont need to know everything about your cpu, your roomate's cpu, your dog's cpu, or whoever plays PS2. All the info you just gave is useless. Why? because you did not match it with any other useful info such as frame rate. You are clogging this thread with a bunch of useless info. And yes, this post which I am making right now is also useless (for most people), but I am doing it to help you to avoid making future useless comments. When you make a post, please restate which cpu at which speed and match it with useful information. I am sure, me and other people, do not want to spend time reading all your comments to figure out exactly which cpu you are talking about. Be clear and be precise, every time you post.
I can imagine SOE devs ROFLing while reading threads like this, where software developers and cmos experts are raging that procs with extended instruction sets are faster than those without. "Just optimize my Athlon already you dorks!!111"
Legacy support nah because then all the older machines would run it blazingly fast. Like CSGO and BOII.
If you read my posts then you will know exactly what I am talking about. Maybe you have an issue reading English because I was pretty damn clear in my posts about which computers were getting which FPS. I know you are lazy and don't want to read (if you are capable of reading English) but this is a forum and if you wish to participate the best way is to read the posts so you can make a clear and concise response or contribution instead of QQing at the OP and others about what you feel to be a lack of information in one of their posts.
well http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD Phenom II X6 1045T if you look at the benchmark it falls behind the 2600K which was released in the same year (2 quarters after the AMD) and it is ~ 40 - 45% slower that it. also because stock the phenom is stock 2.7 and turbos to 3.2 GHz you can quickly see why you arent getting much out of the game. basically use the CPU benchmark charts as a guide. i.e lets look at the 2600K and the 1045T in comparison when gathering rough data on how it will perform with a lesser load i.e 1 cpu worth of load you take the score then divide by the number of cores. so in reality the 1045T looks even worse then. (keep in mind this method is not accurate by far but i use it as a rough guide) from that you can see that the CPU just doesn't have the computational prowess of the 2600K which were released in the same year. just remember bang for your buck for gaming is not the same as listed by the posting charts. even though the 1045T is better bang for your buck it falls short for gaming purposes. lastly consider the fact that the reason why the other CPUs you listed have had a performance boost is based on the CPU charts again. the other CPUs are doing less work compared to their maximums where as for the 1045 it has less headroom before it reaches its ceiling. oh now for the smart **** part....I'm not even a programmer...
That list is judging on things other than games you know. Its a good rough guide. What it is not however is a slide rule for absolute quality.
I know all about the CPU benchmark website. But the 2600K is so fast because of its higher clock speed and its hyper threading. The thing is that from 1 core to 1 core the CPU's performance is about 25-30% more. Even if it were 100% faster, my room mates 2500K (not 2600) has 400% the performance of mine in this game.
I don't like to wade into threads full of these kinds of odd heated debates, but enough has gone on I felt it was time to say something. The original post is interesting but basically incorrect in most of it's assumptions about the engine. I will also simply direct those of you interested in some more details to the following thread (with a few comments by me) that some users are using to track the progress of multi-core optimization. http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/multicore-optimisation-tracker.54706/ Thank you, and please remember to be civil and clear in your posts.
Well CyclesMcHurtz, your post explains nothing. Also the thread you linked to also explains nothing. I get the exact same FPS if I use the affinity function to set the game to use 2,3,4,6 cores. its actually slower with 6 cores since Windows is dumb and tries to process intensive stuff on cores that are already doing things. I have done extensive logging to show that it only utilizes 2 cores no matter how many you give it. While the work is sometimes distributed, never does it fully utilize all the cores its given. Also what is the explanation as to why only the newest CPU's which are overclocked (most of the time) can get good FPS? Since you say my assumptions are wrong, please tell me what kind of optimizations you are using as far as SSE? Can you explain why my room mates Core i5 2500k @ 4.2 GHZ can get 100FPS easy w/ Dual GTX 560 Ti's but yet my friend has a 1090T @ 4.2GHZ w/ Dual Radeon HD 6870 1GB Editions and He gets 50FPS? Sandy Bridge is not anywhere near the realm of 100% faster clock for clock than a Phenom. Infact it is about 15-40% faster depending on the types of instructions being executed.
Very simply - we don't discuss the internal workings of our engine to that detail. We are still working with AMD to ensure the crossfire drivers are optimal, and we have previously said that we are not happy with the state of multi-core usage because we don't fully scale across all cores yet. We do, however, have work on all cores. We have more work to do and this means ensuring optimizations we do are stable across all platforms and don't negatively impact other users. To this end, we need to pick and choose the optimizations we roll out carefully. Please feel free to debate this yourselves, I will not be commenting further on this thread.
Legacy machines a few gens back have performance proportionally "less worse" than the top of the line gaming rigs. The fact that they are not "blazingly fast" is suggestive of the fact that legacy machines tend to run by people who can't afford to upgrade, have less RAM, etc. In the PS2 Mac thread on General Discussions there's a guy running a 2008 Mac Pro, dual socket Penryn Xeons who apparently is doing quite well FPS-wise. And god knows Penryns are old...
