My view (since no one asked) -> Intel is better than AMD.
I have used both. I went from <a bulldozer type AMD chip overclocked to the point of instability and then back just a hair> to a bone stock ivy bridge 2500k.
The result? a +3 in sim speed and a better job in day to day tasks. I did pretty much exactly what a previous thread mentioned and I call bull.... I shut down all but two cores for lower temps and then clocked till I lost stability (around 4.8 ghz, not that terribly much I know) and then ended up around 4.3-4.5ghz for running this game. My Intel chip is only running 3.6ghz and it is STILL +3 speed over the AMD.
As a side note, I bought the new cpu+mobo for around $250, so not that bad.... recouped about $100 of that reselling my AMD setup.
From my understanding an intel has far more ops per clock in addition to having better architecture.
Just my two slightly uninformed cents
Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 16 Sep 2013, 02:02
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
No, CPUs do not run those programs equally fast.
Intel's Core-iX range is an astonishingly good architecture. In general terms, the reason they are more expensive than AMD CPUs is because for the majority of applications they are a darned sight faster than them. Now, if you are happy to encode that video in 45 minutes instead of 15, then buy AMD because they are better value for money, but if that extra half hour DOES matter to you, then you have to pay for the extra performance. Note that while I defend and encourage buying an AMD if all you need it for is playing SupCom, my own main machine uses an i7!
Supcom's SImSpeed is a different matter. Since most of the engine is piled into one processing thread, the thing which makes the biggest difference to SimSpeed performance is sheer GHz. Having any more than 2 cores really won't do much. From what I have seen, AMD's CPUs seem able to overclock higher, a result of their Bulldozer architechture being designed from the ground up to persue a high-GHz processing theory (Intel did this with the Pentium 4, but discontinued it because Dual-Core proved better. However, we are now at a point where multi-core is beginning to be held back by how hard it is to make software work on all those cores. AMD predicted that in the next 5 years we will need more GHz again), and thanks to this, Bulldozer Overclocks very nicely, which means that a GHz dependant process like SupCom's SIM thread runs very nicely, which means that for SupCom alone I believe AMD are the better choice, regardless of how much you spend. If you want a faster overall computing experience, there is no doubt that you should get an i5 (For general use) or an i7 (For the nutters).
Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 16 Sep 2012, 03:15
]]>
If you go back and reread the thread, you'll see that yes, while processors have, on the whole, gotten faster, but there are a lot of other things that go into today's CPUs, and not all of them make for good play on large FAF games.
Statistics: Posted by Doompants — 15 Sep 2012, 17:47
]]>
I think that's where I stopped reading. But thanks for your opinion anyways
Well I'm just trying to illustrate a point here that with today's software application, you don't have to spend an arm, leg and your friend's arm and leg to get a good CPU.
I have an AMD Phenom II X4-940, 3GHZ processor for three years. Darn processor is not in production anymore due to it being out-of-date. I'm still waiting to have a lag problem when I play multiplayer games no matter if it includes one person or 10 other people with me.
Statistics: Posted by greatgm — 15 Sep 2012, 00:15
]]>
greatgm wrote:
I don't know about all this simspeed stuff that everyone is talking about.
I don't know about all this simspeed stuff that everyone is talking about.
I think that's where I stopped reading. But thanks for your opinion anyways.
Statistics: Posted by Doompants — 14 Sep 2012, 23:48
]]>
Having said that, it tells me again that today's software requirements are enough that the speed of the CPU has become a moot point. If I'm not wrong at least and I stress at least 75 percent of CPU's meaning AMD or Intel are able to run the latest software without hiccups. Now understanding this, I ask this question and I will put in bold.
Why? Why spend a ton of money on an Intel Processor when you can get an equally good or sometimes better AMD CPU for cheap?
That is the big question here. Now if some of you people want to look like big orange suckers or imcompetants spending money on overpriced Intel CPU's than that is you. Knock yourself out. If you want to be a "tech sucker" and fall for that silly fairy tale and insulting falacy of the second generation Intel Dual Core processors are just as good as some current quad, 6 or 8 core processors, and you are willing to pay a ton of money for that, than knock yourself out.
This is what makes me disrespcet what Intel does. I give it to you Intel knows how to market their product to the point they can make the most tech savy individual look like the biggest tech dummy on the planet. All this simspeed this and simspeed that is good. However ask yourself, is knowing all about this simspeed this and simspeed that even relevant if even the latest software application does not require it? It has to be a moot point. Since it is a moot point, I believe a tech savy individual will begin to look at the price of a CPU as opposed to the name and make a clear choice of what is the better deal. As of right now the better deal is AMD.
Also unlike Intel, AMD does not insult its tech savy customer base with stupid and insulting claims that they have so-called new second generation dual core processors with more performace. To me that is a lot of baloney.
Look don't get me wrong. Intel makes great CPU's. However I'm not going to spend a ton of money when I can get an equally good CPU with good overclocking ability from AMD for a way cheaper price. Finally, making a so-called what...second generation dual core processor claiming it is going to be faster by just adding a few more connection pins for better fit on motherboards is so irrevelant. It is astounding that tech savy people are falling for this con. It is a con people that Intel is pulling off by using their name.
Statistics: Posted by greatgm — 14 Sep 2012, 18:47
]]>
Also, an overclock like that raises questions about voltage used, noise, heat and power consumption.
Bloody tonnes lol, but for some reason he doesn't care. I do, hence my rather more serene clock levels
Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 14 Sep 2012, 09:48
]]>
commanderdrvr wrote:
start, run, then what? mmc?
start, run, then what? mmc?
No, uber means in-game console. Use ~ to open it then type ren_shownetworkstats and check simspeed. Good chance there was someone with a slower cpu but a stock 860 can still lag so you might need to overclock it.
ShadowKnight wrote:Well, you seem to increase the number by one because FX-4100 is about the worst cpu you can advise for FA. First, Bulldozer is integer optimized arch and guess what: FA likes floating point. Second, it's more like a dualcore than a quadcore so if you disable a module you're left with a semi-single core cpu. Third, IPC is really bad. Superpi is actually a good benchmark for FA. A stock 3570K does 1M a little under 10 seconds. You need to overclock a Phenom II to about 6.5GHz to get that. Bulldozer has worse IPC than Phenom II so you need about 7GHz. Good luck.
Machine downstairs, 8 players, Setons, every player over 500 units, simpeed -1. Uses a Phenom II 720 (The tri-core) at 4.0GHz.
My main machine, same game, [email protected], simspeed -4
Brother's machine, FX-4100 @ 5.8GHz, simspeed +4
Friend's machine, [email protected], simspeed +2
Another friend's machine, [email protected], simspeed -6
All machines have 8GBs of RAM and SSDs.
SupCom uses two threads, any extra cores are simply wasted. This game is almost purely GHz dependant.
You can throw benchmarks and theories at me all day, I recommended the FX-4100 because it performs better than anything else I have seen for a lower price BY FAR than the others. The only offerings from Intel in that price bracket are i3s, which can't get anywhere near the performance required.
Ok, I admit I'm very surprised by those results. I expected a lot worse from the FX-4100 even with that stupid high overclock. But now I want to play a game with you guys (well, except the i3 guy) in which we built nothing but asf, 1000 unit limit and see what happens. Also, an overclock like that raises questions about voltage used, noise, heat and power consumption.
Statistics: Posted by rabidradish — 13 Sep 2012, 18:54
]]>
Anaryl wrote:
Saying "not as fast as a bulldozer" is kind of pointless - there are a few differnet processors. The Fx8150 clocks pretty close to the 1100t although not quite as well. The thing is the bulldozers were never going to have the massive performance gains over the Phenoms. It's an entirely new architecture. The piledrivers being released over the next year promise to have some much better performance gains.
Saying "not as fast as a bulldozer" is kind of pointless - there are a few differnet processors. The Fx8150 clocks pretty close to the 1100t although not quite as well. The thing is the bulldozers were never going to have the massive performance gains over the Phenoms. It's an entirely new architecture. The piledrivers being released over the next year promise to have some much better performance gains.
This. People were disappointed because they were not really much faster, but AMD achieved exactly what they wanted to with the lower power requirements and better OCing.
Anaryl wrote:
I'm biased against Intel, mostly due to their business practices, but that said, if you want to play with the big boys (i.e Debris, without dropping sim speed) you're going to have to go high i7 or go home.
Meh, I recommend CPUs based on real world performance that I have first-hand experience of. After all, I built all the machines in my previous post
I also think that yes, if that Water-Cooled i7 in my friend's were clocked a bit higher, it would beat the FX, but it isn't, because it cannot go any higher and still be stable. Fact is that it has 3 entire hyperthreaded cores which aren't being used at all by FA, all making more heat so the used cores cannot go as high.Anaryl wrote:
FA is not entirely CPU dependent btw, switching from onboard graphics to a dedicated gfx will net you some performance gains as well. If you want to just play 1v1s, 2v2s or small map 3v3s I was getting by fine with my e6600.
This is for two reasons:
1 - With dedicated GFX, the CPU is no longer under load doing some of the calculations modern cards can do but modern onboards cannot.
2 - Switching frees some of the system RAM up by transferring data to the dedicated RAM.
Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 12 Sep 2012, 00:19
]]>