Forged Alliance Forever

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-21T03:38:50+02:00

When I say that stuff, I get flamed at.

Maybe I need to be less direct cause I tried saying just the above with like two sentences.

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 21 Feb 2014, 03:38

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-21T01:23:51+02:00

The only thing I think needs to change is that somewhere, something needs to emphasise that the important thing is an even spread of scores. It doesn't matter if your CPU is scoring 50 or 500, in the big games where CPU rating matters at all, even the 50 score ones will eventually slow down, they'll just do so later.

In other words, a game with 8 players with CPUs ranging from 300 to 450 will be fine, because they will all slow down at very roughly the same rate, and nobody will be really dragging the rest down. Likewise, a game with 8 players with CPUs from 50 to 150 will do the same. However, if you join a lobby where 7 people have CPU scores from 50 to 150 and yours scores 450, expect to be booted because these players KNOW that you will slow down long, long before they do. Likewise, if you have a score of 200 and join a lobby full of players from 400-500 CPUs, expect to be slowed down much faster than normal and notice it well before they do. Don't complain, you joined the game.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 21 Feb 2014, 01:23

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-21T00:13:56+02:00

I think the CPU rating should be something meaningfull to players, or they will create meaning for themselves (ie. everyone slightly above average will be kicked).

Statistics: Posted by Aurion — 21 Feb 2014, 00:13

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-20T19:41:12+02:00

processors released in 2014 are easily slowed down by this game.

the speed at the end of the day, is irrelevant relative to the recommended specs.

someone will be slowing down the game. if you are the slowest, it will be you. its that simple.

having said that, your specs don't seem to be that bad, but the cpu, strangely enough isn't all the difference, it has been shown that ram speed also has a quite reasonable effect on sim speed

but even so, the only way to see if your score is being displayed correctly, is to play a setons or similar map, and check your sim speed (try ren_shownetworkstats or something) and see how it compares to other players. if its lower/lowest, your score is correct

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 20 Feb 2014, 19:41

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-20T19:18:30+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
OS background load is higher, modern AV program load is higher, and silicon degrades over time (CPU will be a bit worse now). Also, people today are assholes and have much higher expectations thanks to i7 and i5 being commonplace, so even if you can run the game, you can't run it AS WELL AS some other people, who will shun you.

The game spec for recommended says -
Intel or AMD 3ghz processor (I have a 3ghz dual core, but the one core used matches that)
1gb Ram (I have 4gb)
8gb hard drive (Mine is 500gb)
Nvidia 6800 (I have nvidea 460)

My cpu is 3 years old and the game wasnt designed for windows 7 or 8.

Statistics: Posted by Herbert — 20 Feb 2014, 19:18

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-20T19:13:24+02:00

When a game uses 1 core then its how many calculations per second that 1 core can handle. Dual, quad, hex and oct don't make any different to your performance under these circumstances. So at 3ghz why I have been downgraded to a rating of 430-450???

I'm quite sure 99.999% of people arent rendering in Autocad when playing FA lmao.

Statistics: Posted by Herbert — 20 Feb 2014, 19:13

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-20T18:19:15+02:00

OS background load is higher, modern AV program load is higher, and silicon degrades over time (CPU will be a bit worse now). Also, people today are assholes and have much higher expectations thanks to i7 and i5 being commonplace, so even if you can run the game, you can't run it AS WELL AS some other people, who will shun you.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 20 Feb 2014, 18:19

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-20T15:28:14+02:00

Can I ask what is the recommended spec for this game?

Because I'm pretty sure my old AMD Athlon Dual core 3800+ was above it. Now I'm on a AMD Athlon Dual core 6000+ and yes my cpu rating has gone haywire. It used to be 370 and now its 430 - 450.

AMD Athlon 6000+ Dual Core 3ghz.
4 gb ddr3 ram
Nvidia Geforce 460 with 3gb ddr5 ram.
Windows Vista 32-bit (patched to allow full 4gb of ram)

The only time my game used to slow was on Setons after about an hour when there were loads of units on all sides. This new rating of 430-450 expels me from games I have no problems with coping which is most of them. It seems the goodness or badness of cpus is being amplified distorting the capabilities of peoples machines. Instead it needs to reflect if your machine is up to the game.

I dont understand why the sudden jump in ratings because its not like there's been a huge patch released demanding more processing power for the game. The game is over 5 years old and my cpu wasn't even on the marker when it was released.

Statistics: Posted by Herbert — 20 Feb 2014, 15:28

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-18T21:02:59+02:00

E8400-CV wrote:
"I build it myself"

Hey! Building your own custom CPU is quite a feat!

(Yes I know what they mean.)

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 18 Feb 2014, 21:02

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-18T08:00:54+02:00

E8400-CV wrote:
The nonsense some people come up with when I ask them to run the test again and ask them "What CPU you have?"

at least your attempting to discuss with a player before booting them, which is far better than most hosts do respect earned for that.
tho yeah, some people do give some bizarre reasons.
eventually, playing a ton of Setons, you start getting a feel for which regular names you can trust.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 18 Feb 2014, 08:00

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-18T07:05:44+02:00

The nonsense some people come up with when I ask them to run the test again and ask them "What CPU you have?";

"It's custom"
"6 core"
"Make and model doesn't matter, there's not much difference"
"I build it myself"
"AMD Athlon 6-core"

Anyway, thanks to the CPU test, I was able to play a full night of Seton's w/o slowdowns.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 18 Feb 2014, 07:05

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-18T02:20:24+02:00

"Same for me, was ~390 and now it's 600.
Pentium D @3,4Ghz (yeah I know...)
(it's dual core if you dont know)"

To put it kindly, pentium d was considered subpar even in 2008. You can't expect tolerance and understanding from enraged and ignorant teenagers. For some people their cpu is like some part of their body. They will brag about it more than the quality of their gameplay, and by kicking someone like you, they feel special. Even in 2008 you could see titles of games "only fast cpus" "only quad core or fast dual" and by quad they meant q6600, and by fast dual an overclocked core 2 duo, lol.

You can still play ranked without everyone shouting at you and you can play to 10x10 maps, probably not all variations

. You definitely can't play setons. You wouldn't want to play such games; because it's one thing to play them to the end and a whole different thing to start them. You will long be dead before you manage to start one.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 18 Feb 2014, 02:20

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-18T01:06:45+02:00

Bily wrote:
SAKO_X wrote:the test changed, and i think that its completely reasonable that your numbers changed too, to reflect the "true" values more accurately.

For some of us the new numbers are obviously not more accurate, because they do not reflect the actual situation and are simply unreasonable. Like I said, my rating is showing a number which is greater than the supposed maximum (what's the deal about that?) and consequently, the bar is completely filled up. This implies a cpu unable to run a game - at least with no further explanation about the test, which is the case I believe. And this is just not true, it can run a game, it did run it couple of hundred times. I can't be any more clear.

Give this a go.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3046

Fairly sure this rolls back the ASF change to the benchmark should still work.

So I got...

0:30 = 0:32
1:00 = 1:05
1:30 = 1:45
2:00 = 2:41

My CPU rated 193 while I had Lego marval in the background. (Also there during the benchmark cause I forgot about it.)

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 18 Feb 2014, 01:06

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-18T00:45:20+02:00

shabbathai wrote:
errorblankfield wrote:No one is forcing you to use the CPU test anymore than we force you to play the game. Don't like it, don't use it.

Now everyone else seems to be just fine. (Hint hint, this might be a you problem.)

Again, your 9 year old CPU isn't inline with everyone who's been keeping up with the market.

How is this even remotely surprising?

You are the one trying to force everyone to abandon the metric. As the one with the low score, it's your job to convince people your score won't lag a game. It's not anyone else problem you are having a hard time with this. (Another hint, a million people with equally bad CPUs say the same thing -people don't forget when they realize these CPUs do slow down the game.)

Oh, and your little 'my friends with equal AMD/Intel CPUs but the Intel CPUs are scoring better' story doesn't mean much without mentioning what CPUs your referencing. I'm guessing they aren't as close as you say. Moreover, Intel CPUs are better. AMD is the cheaper alternative. You can still get good CPUs from AMD, but Intel makes the best right now. :/

Bah, this is getting annoying.

Buy a new CPU or deal with it.
The system is fine and you're not proving their to be any flaw in it.

1st, i didnt start the topic, im just one of many who wants answer to those couple of questions. 2nd, get your facts straight before u talk. My proc came out in mid 2007. ..so thats not 9y ago. Whats "inline" today has nothing to do with anything. Only whats suitable for this game. I dont think you even read what is all about, but for your sake i'll tell you again. sth happened 2 weeks ago with the test and we're all wondering what and why, cause it obviusly wasnt done right. Why are you guessing at sth that you have no clue? I got facts and you're guessing.. i dont see the point. Also the fight between AMD and Intel has allways, allways, been a matter of personal opinon, which again has nothing to do with this. Especialy when you're talking about now and not when these procs came out..

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

Here is your answer.

The correct metric is more accurate. People choose to interpret it how they wish. If you don't like their perceptions, buy a new CPU or play with other people.
END OF STORY.

I've said this repeatedly but you wanna whine more -okay, fine. Let's go.

I looked it up on wikipedia for five seconds and thought it came out with all the other AMD Athlon 64 X2. My mistake, they saved the 6000+ for two years later.
Your CPU is only 7 years old, that's only slightly less ridiculously old in CPU years. Only 1.5 times past moore's law.

What's "inline" [sic] DOES matter. (Why in the world did you quote that? It's spelled right and is a word. Bold/underline if you need to "emphasize" something or it looks just as silly like I just did.)
You are playing a time-based simulation with real people who generally keep their CPUs up to date. The better CPUs allows them to play real-time with more units around and other options that are simply unavailable to those that choose not to. Just because the game is fairly old doesn't mean an old CPU still cuts it. Perhaps new min specs are needed, but again, the status quo is all that matters. If everyone is playing with i7's and I'm rocking an i3, damn right, my score should show I'm behind the curve. I wouldn't get in a tizzy because a metric is merely reporting my inferior CPU. That's it's job.
I'll may take fault with the people saying I can't play any game with my CPU, but I know the metric is right. People are just reading it wrong.

I had to google 'sth' cause that's not even remotely a word... it means 'something' I'm told. Okay so "sth[sic] happened 2[sic] weeks ago with the test and we're all wondering what and why, cause it obviusly[sic] wasnt[sic] done right. Why are you guessing at sth[sic] that you have no clue? I got facts and you're guessing..[sic]" should translate to "Something happened weeks ago with the test; we are all wondering what and why (something happened), cause it obviously wasn't done right. Why are you guessing at something that you have no clue about? I have facts and you are guessing...". Sorry I have to hit below the belt at grammar here, but you are a pain to read and resorted to insulting my intelligence when that is your take on a sentence.

To the point, er... what point are you trying to make? 'Something happened' being the update to the CPU rating system to make it more reflective of your computers ability to play the game. The one that clearly said some scores will increase and some will decrease? Did you think the change would show that all CPUs are shockingly better than first thought and thus an across-the-board point reduction was warranted? Cause that's just silly!

The algorithm was refined to improve accuracy. From all the evidence I've seen -even yours- I have to say that it was successful in it's goal to improve rating accuracy.
If you take fault with this, THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO RETORT. Saying 'but my CPU runs the game fine' doesn't mean anything. Prove it. Find someone with a like rating, show how much better your CPU is at rendering some replay. It's an easy thing to refute, but your unwillingness to do so speaks volumes.

And the 'fight' between intel and AMD has allways[sic] been price. Across the board, AMD's processors are weaker but much, much cheaper. This isn't up for debate, high-end CPUs are Intel's niche. If we weren't talking about such computers, I'd be pushing for AMD cause they are very inexpensive in comparison. But if you want top of the line, get intel. And I didn't even say you need to get intel. I'm just saying if there are two CPUs in the same class, the intel chip is likely a hair better at double the cost. Get a new AMD. You clearly (no offense) don't want to pay for top range CPU and that is fine. But insisting the metric is rigged cause your seven year old chip isn't scoring amazingly compared to modern tech is ignorant and offensive.

"Some high and mighty quote but someone that died a long time ago which has no relevance to this debate but I wanna piggy back of his fame."
-Storm Trooper #219 (The one that missed.)

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 18 Feb 2014, 00:45

Re: new CPU rating

2014-02-17T23:18:53+02:00

SAKO_X wrote:
the test changed, and i think that its completely reasonable that your numbers changed too, to reflect the "true" values more accurately.

For some of us the new numbers are obviously not more accurate, because they do not reflect the actual situation and are simply unreasonable. Like I said, my rating is showing a number which is greater than the supposed maximum (what's the deal about that?) and consequently, the bar is completely filled up. This implies a cpu unable to run a game - at least with no further explanation about the test, which is the case I believe. And this is just not true, it can run a game, it did run it couple of hundred times. I can't be any more clear.

Statistics: Posted by Bily — 17 Feb 2014, 23:18