601 replies to this topic

[Smokeyjedi]

I sure hope that some of AMDs issues are addressed in this 64 bit client business. Maybe allowing 8cores to use the memory installed into your system will be better than 2gigs of max memory usage. I am sure both Intel and AMD see improvements.....Maybe clockspeed can come down now that instruction cycles don't have to wait for usable RAM.

sure like to see more than 2.7gigs usage total while playing MWO. (Win7 64 uses about 725-775MB to idle.

500MB DDR3 per core VS. 2096MB DDR3 per core should help me out atleast.

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 17 December 2014 - 09:11 PM.

[Catamount]

Well Bill, what would you like us to say?

The only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down. Your claims are contrary to the results we get on these forums and are unsubstantiated if you can't produce the data. As such, there's no way we can really accept them.

Edited by Catamount, 17 December 2014 - 09:13 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 17 December 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well Bill, what would you like us to say?

The only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down. Your claims are contrary to the results we get on these forums and are unsubstantiated if you can't produce the data. As such, there's no way we can really accept them.

That is my point... go to the forums.. go to the town hall and listen in on the one that just happened tonight. A player there has around a $2500 Intel rig setup... it is dipping into the low teens and he even claimed he seen single digits. I have heard other chatter on these forums, people very upset that their Intel gaming rigs are having issues like this as well as AMD users.

I have several gaming rigs, 5 to the point. 2 are Intel builds, and 3 are AMD, my main gaming rig being a AMD right now. I have never went into Config files, and I only over clocked my rigs regardless of Intel or AMD because I like to OC, and I have proper water cooling to do so. I have played this game when I first bought and built this rig, before I overclocked it, never had issues any different from my Intel rig that I moved on from as a full time gaming computer. I really don't know what to tell you guys, other then this is not a AMD issue for ALL AMD rigs.

I think the proof would be the question asked by the player with that very nice Intel rig tonight on the town hall meeting regarding plans to fix this issue with MWO. Funny the player didn't ask Russ, nor did Russ claim the low fps and unstable play was due to him having a AMD rig, or an Intel one. Its a known issue, and all systems are hit by it, not just AMD as claimed by others here.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 17 December 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Heres hoping I uncork all 8gb of Gskill sniper 2133 CL10 tommorow after patch'mas morning.......Leading to a colossal memory bandwidth increase......... I remember the day I went from 32bit win XP to 64 bit...........was good times......

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 17 December 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

Heres hoping I uncork all 8gb of Gskill sniper 2133 CL10 tommorow after patch'mas morning.......Leading to a colossal memory bandwidth increase......... I remember the day I went from 32bit win XP to 64 bit...........was good times......

Here is what kinda concerns me, and amazes me. I switched over to 64 bit windows OS like 9 years ago, same with Linux. Having my computer limited to 3 gb of ram is just not what I would call a performance machine. This game is just now switching over to a 64-bit on the back end, our end of things? Hmmmmm..... I would say this should make a really big difference for players that have mid through higher end systems, and big time. As for the guys still rocking out with 32 bit OS, or low end hardware, graphics cards with only 1 gb of ram, or only 4 gb of ddr2 low spec ram, its not gonna help them. I am kinda looking forward to tomorrows patch also. Good times

[Logan Hawke]

Okay, before this gets further into this argument, are we all agreed that this is a good build in combination with the parts I already have?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Zftxt6

[Flapdrol]

Not sure about the ECS motherboard, wikipedia says they produce a lot of acer computers, not exactly what you'd call quality. I stick with the big 4, asus, gigabyte, msi and asrock.

[Bill Lumbar]

Flapdrol, on 18 December 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

Not sure about the ECS motherboard, wikipedia says they produce a lot of acer computers, not exactly what you'd call quality. I stick with the big 4, asus, gigabyte, msi and asrock.

I would have to agree with Flapdrol on finding another mother board for your gaming rig. It is just as much the heart of the your system as a good quality PSU. One thing that I would be concerned about is customer support from ECS, then there is another pressing matter with them on top of a history of poor quality motherboards, and if I remember right they are very bad about not putting out Bios updates for their motherboards.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 18 December 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[Logan Hawke]

Ah, in that case I'm glad you mentioned it. So, in about the same price range(+/-40$) as the motherboard I already picked, what would you suggest to go with the rest of the stuff?

[Flapdrol]

dunno, something like this?
http://pcpartpicker....oard-z97gaming5

[Lord Letto]

Logan Hawke, on 17 December 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

Why the sudden jump in Processor power and all the fans?

Edit: The RAM I have is DDR3

Processor Power is for MWO, MWO is very CPU Hungry so the more powerful the CPU the better, it's a K Series with a good Z97 Mobo if you decide later on to learn how to OC it for better performance. fans are to help with airflow to help keep the computer cool to help keep performance up and prevent parts from heating up to much therefore the fans may help prolong the life of your parts, more so if you decide to OC later on, also the i5 -K Series are 3.3GHz-3.5GHz and no HT for a price of $220-247 while the i7-4790K is 4GHz and it got HT for when/if that helps, so $53-80 extra for 0.5-0.7GHz and HT, in MWO where GHz/Single Core Performance or whatever is most important, I think it's worth it.
IMO, that computer I came up with should do you good with the other parts you have for MWO and all other games out there and should last you Years.
Side Note: Cooler Master Hyper 212 is one of the Best Air Coolers you could get and it's only around $20-30, only one that better IIRC is some high end Noctua Cooler and Water Cooling Systems

Edited by Lord Letto, 19 December 2014 - 08:03 AM.

[xWiredx]

In the 500-1000 range, it should be pretty much a de facto standard to put a K-series Haswell chip in the build with an entry-level AIO or really good air cooler. Anybody recommending AMD chips in this price range for this game is just fanboying too hard. Also, going back to what I've learned about MWO performance in my own semi-extensive testing between 2 higher-end systems, MWO doesn't care about RAM speed and bandwidth beyond DDR3-1866 at all.

The amount of RAM the 64-bit client will address is up for speculation. I'm guessing there are some memory leaks still, because I can recall several times seeing it go toward 2GB of system RAM used, and it would eat up something like 1.8GB of VRAM as well. With a 32-bit client, that could cause some conflicts I suppose. Still, unless you're some super ultra multitasker (which you shouldn't be multitasking that hard while playing a game IMO) you still don't need more than 8GB of the stuff. If you're going outside of the 1000 range and looking at Haswell-E, you might as well just get a base-level 16GB kit.

We are done with the senseless squabbling now, yes? (oh wait, its the internet, nvm)

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 19 December 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

In the 500-1000 range, it should be pretty much a de facto standard to put a K-series Haswell chip in the build with an entry-level AIO or really good air cooler. Anybody recommending AMD chips in this price range for this game is just fanboying too hard. Also, going back to what I've learned about MWO performance in my own semi-extensive testing between 2 higher-end systems, MWO doesn't care about RAM speed and bandwidth beyond DDR3-1866 at all.

The amount of RAM the 64-bit client will address is up for speculation. I'm guessing there are some memory leaks still, because I can recall several times seeing it go toward 2GB of system RAM used, and it would eat up something like 1.8GB of VRAM as well. With a 32-bit client, that could cause some conflicts I suppose. Still, unless you're some super ultra multitasker (which you shouldn't be multitasking that hard while playing a game IMO) you still don't need more than 8GB of the stuff. If you're going outside of the 1000 range and looking at Haswell-E, you might as well just get a base-level 16GB kit.

We are done with the senseless squabbling now, yes? (oh wait, its the internet, nvm)

IMO, and from extensive experience in building gaming rigs for others for 8+ years.... anyone that tries to claim Intel is the best option for gaming seriously needs to wake up. As a builder of both AMD and Intel systems, I know for a fact that this is completely false. Claim what you like, we all have our own opinions, but from first hand experience with my builds, I know the true meaning of a fan boy when statements are made about forget AMD for gaming rigs, and go only with Intel.


From my experience which others may have had different ones then I have had in the last 8 years with MSI, I would stray away from their motherboards also. You may have a good experience with their boards, I have found from mine better choices out there.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 December 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[xWiredx]

For most gaming, AMD is usually fine since most games don't rely on CPU horsepower as much. For MWO, AMD is not fine unless you are willing to sacrifice quality for frame rates due to the CPU-dependent nature of the game. Every single person that pays attention to the hardware subforum knows this. I have 20 test runs proving my system's performance, and that data is here on the forums in another thread. AMD performance has also been tested to death, and it doesn't hold a candle to Intel's for this game. Nowhere near.

In general, as far as performance is concerned, nothing AMD has can touch Haswell. It takes an AMD chip 600-1000MhZ more to perform the same per-core, depending on which Core series you're comparing it to. That kind of deficit is ridiculous, and the reason why AMD is abandoning the entire architecture they've been drumming on the past few years. You can fanboy about it as hard as you want, but when the company you're supporting calls it a mistake, you just look silly. I've been an AMD fan since my first K6-2 chip, and ran primarily AMD all the way to Phenom II, but even going from Thuban to Sandy Bridge is night and day (especially for MWO).

If you don't agree with what I've just typed, I guess you're entitled to be wrong.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 19 December 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

For most gaming, AMD is usually fine since most games don't rely on CPU horsepower as much. For MWO, AMD is not fine unless you are willing to sacrifice quality for frame rates due to the CPU-dependent nature of the game. Every single person that pays attention to the hardware subforum knows this. I have 20 test runs proving my system's performance, and that data is here on the forums in another thread. AMD performance has also been tested to death, and it doesn't hold a candle to Intel's for this game. Nowhere near.

In general, as far as performance is concerned, nothing AMD has can touch Haswell. It takes an AMD chip 600-1000MhZ more to perform the same per-core, depending on which Core series you're comparing it to. That kind of deficit is ridiculous, and the reason why AMD is abandoning the entire architecture they've been drumming on the past few years. You can fanboy about it as hard as you want, but when the company you're supporting calls it a mistake, you just look silly. I've been an AMD fan since my first K6-2 chip, and ran primarily AMD all the way to Phenom II, but even going from Thuban to Sandy Bridge is night and day (especially for MWO).

If you don't agree with what I've just typed, I guess you're entitled to be wrong.

On benchmarks and the numbers they produce you are very correct..... Intel has and almost always had a lead over AMD. However, I am countering the claim that was made as if it was a fact, because it simply is not a fact. I have both AMD and Intel gaming rigs, never have I had to go into the config files to mod anything to make this game play smooth for me. Nor have I had to crank down the Settings to have a very stable gaming rig.... if I did, I would be the first to build another rig, using hardware that allowed me to run max settings. I also run a hanns-g 1900x1200 monitor, 16:10, High to very high settings, DX11, and AA turned on... no problems for me at all.

I have a FX-8350, 16 gb of ddr3 1886 ram, (use to have an ATI 6870 2gb card,) now have a ATI XFX 7970 3gb card, 512 GB samsung SSD, I have not had any issues or problems from this rig, I am seeing Fps before the 64 bit client at a steady 40-60 in normal matches. When CW dropped, I saw a slight hit, down to 30-40 fps steady. After the new 64 bit client and tweaks PGI made on their end with this patch, I am seeing 60-100 fps in normal matches, and 45-80 in CW matches, game play is much smoother now. If you run your opinion by bench marks and the numbers they produce, vs. real world results, you are gonna be chasing that "dragon" for the rest of your gaming days.

It is laughable.... it truly defines one that has to have the best of the best in hardware, regardless of the cost to obtain it,(and in two years or less, the next best thing with 1000 more points added to your benchmark test will be out, hurry run, spend you cash to get it) or it defines a fan boy when they make false claims about "ALL" Amd systems that are simply not true. On paper, in bench mark test, yes, Intel does produce and yield better numbers.... however, in real game play, just what do those numbers really mean when both systems run a game smoothly and are in fact both able to do so? If you are worried about numbers, vs. real world results, enjoy your choice, but the claim that "all" AMD systems have to be overclocked and the config files have to be tweaked to play this game and produce a good experience, or that one is gimping himself by building a rig with AMD CPU's is completely FALSE. Moving on

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 December 2014 - 01:24 PM.

[xWiredx]

Yeah, no. My performance testing was done using MWO using very high everything at 1920x1080. We've already beaten this horse to death on both sides. Keep fanboying.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 19 December 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

Yeah, no. My performance testing was done using MWO using very high everything at 1920x1080. We've already beaten this horse to death on both sides. Keep fanboying.

So why is it that my rig handles everything at mostly high settings, still produces very good results when playing this game? No tweaks, no turning down settings.... nothing. Just mostly maxed out and high settings, AA and Dx11 on, and how do you explain the others that have serious issues effecting their game play experience in MWO that have very nice Intel rigs? You know, like the other thread you are trying to help another trouble shoot.....? Fanboy? NA....Fanboys don't purchase both companies processors and build their own gaming rigs and keep them in service for years, nor do they only recommend one brand over another simply because of benchmarks and sales hype.... or their opinions when real world results suggest a different picture. Nice try

Btw..... this game engine has been known for not being optimized for any system..... even if you are running the biggest baddest Intel setup that the processor alone sells for $2000 grand...doesn't matter. They didn't coin the phrase, " Yah, but can your rig play Crysis" for no reason. This engine is not well optimized, and this is a fact. This reminds me of 6 years ago with all the Toms arguments regarding Intel, and Amd.... Nvidia/ATI battles.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 December 2014 - 01:50 PM.

[xWiredx]

You mean all those people that, after helping them, their Intel rigs play it just fine? And all those AMD people that switch to Intel that have a better experience? And those people that attempt to get 4.8GhZ+ on the AMD machines so they can start turning up their settings? All of my testing was done a month ago, so there was no 64-bit client. People have reported better performance with it, so I'll be restesting soon. On a 32-bit client, though? You're wrong, or you're a statistical outlier.

Fire up FRAPs, turn on the 32-bit client, put all of the settings at very high and use postaa, run tests for the first 180 seconds of the next 20 matches you're in, and come back with results. We'll put this to rest real quick.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 19 December 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

You mean all those people that, after helping them, their Intel rigs play it just fine? And all those AMD people that switch to Intel that have a better experience? And those people that attempt to get 4.8GhZ+ on the AMD machines so they can start turning up their settings? All of my testing was done a month ago, so there was no 64-bit client. People have reported better performance with it, so I'll be restesting soon. On a 32-bit client, though? You're wrong, or you're a statistical outlier.

Fire up FRAPs, turn on the 32-bit client, put all of the settings at very high and use postaa, run tests for the first 180 seconds of the next 20 matches you're in, and come back with results. We'll put this to rest real quick.

So let me get this right.... You are claiming my AMD system is not the norm for most AMD systems, and given my specs? And to end this argument, that it is very clear on these vary forums, Intel rigs are suffering also....

Now you want to suggest to me, that I need to turn on fraps.... record 3 minutes of my first 20 matches and then go on to the process of rendering how many GB's of footage(8.11 GB per 2:54's clip =486.6 Gb of video to convert and upload...) for an hour worth of video recorded, and you want me to use my FX-8350 to convert the hour worth of footage from fraps.... to put this issue to rest?

Come on Seriously?

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 December 2014 - 02:30 PM.

[Catamount]

Bill Lumbar, on 17 December 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

That is my point... go to the forums.. go to the town hall and listen in on the one that just happened tonight. A player there has around a $2500 Intel rig setup... it is dipping into the low teens and he even claimed he seen single digits. I have heard other chatter on these forums, people very upset that their Intel gaming rigs are having issues like this as well as AMD users.

Anecdote is not the singular of data. My Intel rig is nowhere near $2500, and it outperforms your AMD rig. Yes, I do know that.

I'm glad that your AMD rig works "fine" by whatever standards you set, really. If we both do some fraps benchmark runs at max settings and 1080P, will yours post the same minimums as my 3770k-based rig? No, because I'm not one anecdotal case of malfunction, and no AMD rig approaches even a modest and properly functioning Intel rig. I'm not even one of the 5820k on up guys.

Now, if you want to try, be my guest. I'm just telling you how it's going to end up.