45 replies to this topic

[Mavairo]

Did any of you guys, come from a quad and go 6 core or 8?

If so, did you notice any big gains?
(Vishera core group specifically here)

I'm going to be looking at a processor upgrade in the very near future, and I've heard alot of games haven't utilized 6 or 8 cores yet.

How well does mechwarrior utilize these processors?

I'm coming from the old X4 line. So I imagine regardless I'm going to see a pretty big jump.
I've already got the GPU and Ram (GTX 650 TI boosted, 8 gigs of corsairs 1600 Vengeance. I know my CPU is bottlenecking both). According to fraps on more or less med specs I'm playing at 70 to 100 fps depending on the map right now since UI 2.0 released. However Recording is still a paltry 25 to 30 fps!

So, worth the extra 20 to 30 to get the 6 or 8 cores, versus the quad core vishera? Or just get the quad?

[Catamount]

I think this topic has been discussed pretty much ad nauseum here, and the consensus has long been that while MWO demands four cores for decent performance, it sees no benefit of note from any further cores. It likes four and doesn't care beyond that.

If you're asking whether it's worth getting an 8350 vs, say, a 4350, then the answer depends on what you play. If you only play MWO, then I would say no. If, however, you intend to play a reasonable assortment of new games when they come out, then I'd thing that you'd more than likely benefit in the long run from the additional cores. Software is becoming more and more threaded, and games are no exception. True, few use more than four cores, but only a few short years ago, few games used more than one core, the last major release like that probably being Skyrim, so if the trend continues, you're bound to benefit. The fact that the new consoles use 8 cores will probably push more and more titles to take advantage of that until it becomes enough the norm that even non-console titles make that change.

Edited by Catamount, 12 February 2014 - 04:42 PM.

[RiceyFighter]

Right now gaming is reduced to 2-4 core optimization. This game particular uses up to 4 cores and the other cores tend to idle or be barely used.

AMD in perticular has very weak performance per core and they make up for it by having more cores. While Intel has very high performance per core and most of the I5 I7 line is quad core or quad core with hyper threading.

Yes you will see a performance boost if you went with FX 6300 or above, but if you want to chip in an extra 100 bucks then go with i5 3750k or i5 4570k

[Durant Carlyle]

Yeah, once you hit four cores, MW:O responds better to raw clock speed (GHz) than it does to more cores.

Some players here have 12-core 2.0 GHz Xeon processors, and their performance in MW:O sucks. A 4-core 3.5GHz i5 CPU would eat the Xeon's lunch in MW:O.

You want 4 cores and (especially with AMD processors) the highest possible clock speed for MW:O to perform well.

[Goose]

When I was an i7-920 (2.8Ghz) I'd regularly see 5 threads with some kind'a activity, some more then others, but I just didn't have the hz to get a steady 45 fps without settings Particles to low, making the game ugly.

I'm an i7-990x now, at 4,288hz, and I can run things purrdy, but I'm shore there's a set of core affinities I haven't found yet that would be better yet … But my loads now are an ~80%, two high 30s, a pair at ~10, then everything else is5% or less.

I don't know know how Cryengine takes to Steamroller, what with it being, more or less, two 386s sharing a 387 math-co, per module …

There is this one thread (sys_physics_CPU? ca_thread0Affinity?) that demands 4.0+ Ghz if you aren't a Sandy Bridge of ~3.8Ghz (IPC is a real thing to it), so plan accordingly …

[Smokeyjedi]

Well seeing as 8350's are instructed as if they are 4 cores............1 instruction set, per 2 threads(SMT**), I have used a program called Priffinity2 and it seems to make better use of the more dormant threads.....Mind you I cannot peg all 8 threads with a super healthy usage % (55+ on 6 or more cores) like crysis 3 can, but hey having leftover, extra threads to run your OS, background apps,virus/firewalls and overhead processing costs would clearly improve overall performance.......not as much as overclocking the vishera will improve, but in a world of frames per second some improvement is better than none.

[Fang01]

I love my 8350 but I came from a core 2 duo so I doubt that helps much

[Shamous13]

With my 8350 oc'd to 4.2ghz and 2 7870's crosfired im getting between 55 - 65fps on ultra high settings. MWO isn't set up to utilize more then 4 cores rite now although cryengin3 has the ability too, this is because of their programing.

[Mavairo]

thanks guys!
I wound up going with the 6350 Vishera processor.

Edited by Mavairo, 16 February 2014 - 10:36 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

right out da box you'll like that bad boy!

[Mavairo]

I hope so

This phenom II X4's finally hit the end of it's useful life *L*
It's slowing down my graphics card and ram!

yeah, I'm going to try the vishera out of the box first.
I'm shooting for med/high settings and 45 fps while recording on fraps.

[SevenFolds]

Mavairo, on 12 February 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

However Recording is still a paltry 25 to 30 fps!

What do your Fraps video encoding settings look? I would suggest using GeForce Experience though - http://www.geforce.c...rience/download . The encoders support NVidia CUDA or something like that, all I know is that I take little-to-none performance hit with GeForce Experience or MSI Afterburner (x264VFW) or Bandicam (NVidia CUDA encoder) on my i5-4670K and GTX 770 rig.

Video recording is a very hungry process, don't strain your computer more than need be. Use a more effecient encoder.

Edited by SevenFolds, 16 February 2014 - 12:28 PM.

[SaltBeef]

I have a 4 core and a AMD Radeon card and Windows 8 in my laptop and it gets horrible FPS I play with the settings on Low just to achieve 22 FPS it will go as low as 12 in River city night or Frozen City. Computer is less than a year old.

[Durant Carlyle]

Laptops are automatically lower-performance than their hardware suggests, due to design/power/heat considerations.

Setting your Power Options to High Performance helps with laptops, but that will drain battery much faster while gaming.

[Burned_Follower]

I've read/started posts like this a lot of times here on the forum. I personally own the FX8350 and It runs great! But since MWO is what my PC is build specifically for, even I can't give you a clear answer.

I made the decision to get the FX8350 8 core because I have no idea how demanding this game will be when DX11 comes out...and since I plan on playing this game on three screens when DX11 is out on maxed out settings I decided to get the 8 core just to be safe. If I still went overboard on CPU power when DX11 the worst that has happened is that I "future-proofed my pc". I'd say get the FX8350. I'm happy with it.

[cSand]

SaltBeef, on 20 February 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

I have a 4 core and a AMD Radeon card and Windows 8 in my laptop and it gets horrible FPS I play with the settings on Low just to achieve 22 FPS it will go as low as 12 in River city night or Frozen City. Computer is less than a year old.

Well, depending on which 4 core and which Radeon you have, that might be par for the course man

[I 0____o I]

MWO uses 4 cores but uses each core VERY inefficiently. The game will be bottlenecked by whatever is running on the one or two cores that get maxed out. Therefore higher clocked Intels are doing better in the game, to my dismay as the owner of a Phenom II x6.

DX11 could change this as it's supposed to offload a lot of processing to the GPU. We'll see what happens in March.

[Ridersofdoom]

Quote

extra 100 bucks then go with i5 3750k or i5 4570k

a bad joke with extra 100 bucks



http://www.cpubenchm...h_end_cpus.html

[Goose]

Yeeeah http://www.tomshardw...ing,3451-8.html

About that http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-6.html

[Durant Carlyle]

Ridersofdoom, on 24 February 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

a bad joke with extra 100 bucks

lol

The 3.2 GHz Turbo-speed quad-core Intel CPU (3632QM) beat the 4.2 GHz Turbo-speed hex-core AMD CPU (FX 6350).

In other words: Even with two extra cores and a 1.0 GHz speed advantage, the AMD CPU still couldn't win.

Gotta love it...