46 replies to this topic

[Aznpersuasion89]

I don't know why people think amd cpus won't work well with this game. I can exceed 60 fps max settings with my 8320. I think when people say they they don't really know. I can tell you for a fact my 8 core is more then capable of playing this game

[Mcgral18]

I've gone ahead and ordered...Wish me luck.

My first build. I hope I don't fry anything. Anti static wrist band was ordered.

[GumbyC2C]

When I first started playing, I was on an AMD Phenom II X4 3800. Game ran great.
I have since upgraded to an Intel Core i7 4770k. Game runs great.

The upgrade had nothing to do with improved MWO performance, it was just time to build a new PC and I went with the best performance I could afford at the time. Like I always do when it's new PC build time.

[Flapdrol]

Aznpersuasion89, on 27 November 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

I don't know why people think amd cpus won't work well with this game. I can exceed 60 fps max settings with my 8320. I think when people say they they don't really know. I can tell you for a fact my 8 core is more then capable of playing this game

Nobody says you can't play the game, but comparing fps graphs of full rounds it's safe to say it runs much better on an i5. So when people ask advice on what cpu to get we say i5.

Edited by Flapdrol, 28 November 2014 - 02:38 AM.

[Aznpersuasion89]

Flapdrol, on 28 November 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

Nobody says you can't play the game, but comparing fps graphs of full rounds it's safe to say it runs much better on an i5. So when people ask advice on what cpu to get we say i5.

can you link me to the chart that shows mwo specific? Where all tests conducted with the exact same hardware minus the cpu/mobo swap?

[Red Chaos1]

xWiredx, on 27 November 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

The i7s also have more cache, not just hyperthreading, and the unlocked ones seems to OC a bit better (people on average get 100-300MhZ more out of the i7s, likely because of their binning process that determines i5-worthy from i7-worthy). When budget allows, an i7 is always a more valid choice than an i5. If the budget doesn't allow, then an i5 will still net you pretty much the same experience (~95% with most software, closer to ~99% with most games).

100 to 300MHz extra doesn't even net an extra frame per second. If you aren't using an HT aware application, an i7 is just ePeen waving and a waste of cash. An i5 4670K is more than enough for just about every game out right now, seeing as they OC to damn near 5GHz. Only reason to go with the 4690 over it is if you do work with VMs and need VT-d, and can benefit from TSX-NI. Most people are better served savbving $$$ with the i5 and getting more RAM or buying a better mobo or something.

SomersetStriker, on 27 November 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

So my old Phenom II X4 945 released in 2009 doesn't work well with the game when I can play it on the highest settings possible including dx11 and 1080p? Sorry, but I didn't notice at all.

Not calling you a liar, but I am curious how you manage that. I am running a Phenom II X4 955BE with 2x R9-270 (clocked to 270X) in Crossfire, and I can't run at the highest setting without it being a slide-show. I have to keep everything but textures at medium to keep a reasonable framerate for now. Very much CPU bound and these old AMDs just don't have the juice. Also worth note, prior to these R9's, I was running a GTX 560. Performance was the same with that as it is with the 2 R9's, which is how I know it's my CPU.

As for OPs question, I've been an AMD guy since I started building my own machines. My next build will be Intel unless AMD pulls some serious feces (censoring dem dirty words, how quaint) out of their hat. All AMD has going for it right now is cost up front. CPUs and mobo's are cheap. AMD CPUs are power hungry. So you'll spend a little more up front but save over time in less electricity wasted by the CPU, and less electricity used to cool down your place of living. And then there's the fact that Intel CPUs outperform AMD CPUs for now.

Aznpersuasion89, on 28 November 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Where all tests conducted with the exact same hardware minus the cpu/mobo swap?

You realize that the differences in mobo alone are incredible and make such a question meaningless right? The only way it could be meaningful is if someone managed to make a mobo with 2 sockets and a south bridge that can accommodate both, connecting either CPU to the same buses and such so they were on much closer to even ground. Even if you managed to find 2 boards with similar chips on them, etc. the design differences would be enough to make them unequal. This is why Steam takes periodic readings of system specs so they can get a better overall picture of performance, etc.

Edited by Red Chaos1, 28 November 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[cSand]

Master OrHan, on 27 November 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Never purchase AMD for gaming. Devs almost always code with Intel in mind and AMD users are left with compatibility issues a majority of the time. Has been that way for years and it STILL is that way today. Same is true for AMD vs nVidia, almost always better off with nVidia for the same reason.

This is such a load, perpetuated by "experts" such as yourself across the web and somehow taken as gospel. People with little to no actual technical knowledge relying on heresay and opinion. Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about, and shouldn't be giving advice. It blows me away how many experts have no clue about how these things actually work. No. Clue.


Go with what you can afford. An AMD FX chip will net you similar performance than an i5 at lower cost. That said you will also be dealing with 3 year old chipset.

For intel... if you don;t cart wabout overclocking, go with a XEON. Similar price to an i5, similar performance to an i7. No brainer!

edit: I see you already ordered. Looks ike a good build, good luck sir!

Edited by cSand, 28 November 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Aznpersuasion89]

Red Chaos1, on 28 November 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

You realize that the differences in mobo alone are incredible and make such a question meaningless right? The only way it could be meaningful is if someone managed to make a mobo with 2 sockets and a south bridge that can accommodate both, connecting either CPU to the same buses and such so they were on much closer to even ground. Even if you managed to find 2 boards with similar chips on them, etc. the design differences would be enough to make them unequal. This is why Steam takes periodic readings of system specs so they can get a better overall picture of performance, etc.

I know that, that's why I asked it because it's not a good comparison. Comparing two processors and chip is better is not the only factor. But also hardware that helps suppoet the processor. But the fact of the matter is the Intel may be better at some point, but I have not met that some point on mwo with my amd cpu. Yes its power hungry but it's also far cheaper. For this game an amd cpu is more then adequate. And for the crossfire question I had 2 r9 270X devils and had me max settings I would be able to get a steady 40-50 frames.

Edited by Aznpersuasion89, 28 November 2014 - 01:21 PM.

[Flapdrol]

Aznpersuasion89, on 28 November 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

can you link me to the chart that shows mwo specific? Where all tests conducted with the exact same hardware minus the cpu/mobo swap?

Lordred made a topic
http://mwomercs.com/...-rumors-in-mwo/

has a lot of FX clocked to 4.7 GHz graphs in it.

intel dualcore at similar clocks
http://mwomercs.com/...-448-adventure/

cant find an overclocked i5, but should be somewhere though.

Edited by Flapdrol, 28 November 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[ebea51]

Doesn't make a difference at the moment.

I have an AMD PhenomII X6 T090 and MWO doesn't even use 60% CPU.

Game just ISNT OPTIMISED at all to use the hardware we are using because they decided to work on community warfare instead of actually finishing the product they actually have.
The Scaleform hud is still taking 40% of our FPS!

I wouldn't bother about new tech for MWO until the devs sit down and put out some much needed optimisation patches.

Edited by ebea51, 28 November 2014 - 01:44 PM.

[Red Chaos1]

Aznpersuasion89, on 28 November 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

But the fact of the matter is the Intel may be better at some point, but I have not met that some point on mwo with my amd cpu.

Purely on paper Intel almost always outperforms AMD, but that's 1) on paper, and 2) rarely enough of a gain to amount to more than a few fps more for games. So yeah, splitting hairs, but the *technical* win is Intel. *shrug*

Quote

Yes its power hungry but it's also far cheaper. For this game an amd cpu is more then adequate.

This is why I brought up energy consumption and heat output to better quantify cost. Up front? AMD wins. Over time? Intel wins. In fact I'd say it makes Intel the bigger winner. You take the technical win, plus the savings in electricity on running the computer, plus the savings of not needing to run your AC as much, and the Intel chip ends up as cheap or cheaper over time. So if you can't save or only care about the initial cost, AMD all the way. Personally I'm tired of the fact that my system draws ~150w even with CnQ running and the machine idle. This is why I'm jumping to Intel for this round.

Quote

And for the crossfire question I had 2 r9 270X devils and had me max settings I would be able to get a steady 40-50 frames.

Yeah I don't know how you guys manage that. PII X4 955BE, 8GB of Mushkin 1333, and whether it was my old GTX-560 or the 2 R9-270's, I avg about 35fps, using all medium except mech and terrain textures (very high for those), 16x aniso, PostAA, etc. In the newest map prior to Bog I get about 20fps avg. with dips into the teens sometimes. If left to auto detect, the game will set me to medium across the board. Really sucks.

Edited by Red Chaos1, 28 November 2014 - 01:51 PM.

[Aznpersuasion89]

I'll agree with that. Intel is very power sipping and runs much cooler. But yes electricity to me isn't a big enough deal. Maybe I lucked out with the transistor jack pot. Both cards are stock clocked at 1180 core and 1400 memory. But now I have a 970 g1 . But I agree on paper Intel is superior. In reality I haven't met an Intel machine that outperforms mine in such away that I would justify the cost.

[Alienized]

i got a i5-4570k and thats working well already. combined with a intel dh87 mainboard. no problems.
that means anything above will be plenty^^

[TamCoan]

As a long time AMD user, I have to agree that the latest AMD chip generation isn't much better than the last. I've been holding out on upgrading given that the 8-core chips don't seem to run much better than my current 6-core. I upgraded the video card this year and it runs MWO fine. 40-70fps range with an average of around 50-ish. For new builds it really depends on what you are looking for. AMD will do you fine, pros and cons vs. the i5 and i7 chips. If cost is a factor, AMD will run a bit under the i5 chips and generally seems to perform between the i5/i7. Generally a decent bang for the buck, just be sure you do your research and get a good board/ram combo to go with the chip as often a midgrade board can bottleneck your system and make it look like your chip isn't running well. The rumors of the next AMD core sounds promising however, will wait to see more on that.

Current core HW:
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T overclocked to 4GHz
AMD amd r9 270x video card

[Oderint dum Metuant]

cSand, on 28 November 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

This is such a load, perpetuated by "experts" such as yourself across the web and somehow taken as gospel. People with little to no actual technical knowledge relying on heresay and opinion. Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about, and shouldn't be giving advice. It blows me away how many experts have no clue about how these things actually work. No. Clue.


Go with what you can afford. An AMD FX chip will net you similar performance than an i5 at lower cost. That said you will also be dealing with 3 year old chipset.

For intel... if you don;t cart wabout overclocking, go with a XEON. Similar price to an i5, similar performance to an i7. No brainer!

edit: I see you already ordered. Looks ike a good build, good luck sir!

What's sad is people who can't tell the difference between minimums and maximums.

It's been show on these boards time and time again, Intel chips run the game smoother with less dips and higher average framerates because they have better single core performance.

MWO with the way it is coded is excessively heavy on per core performance which is why Intel chips run this game better.

This isn't a problem for most games on the market but there are a number that perform better on Intel chips because of this.

[Tvrdoglavi]

Unless you want to go high end, it would have made more sense to get something like this + better dedicated graphics card: http://www.logicbuy....8700/45507.aspx
Would have been cheaper.

[Joanna Conners]

Master OrHan, on 27 November 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Never purchase AMD for gaming. Devs almost always code with Intel in mind and AMD users are left with compatibility issues a majority of the time. Has been that way for years and it STILL is that way today. Same is true for AMD vs nVidia, almost always better off with nVidia for the same reason.

That wasn't always true and it's not as likely to be true going forward with AMD occupying the consoles.

RE: OP It's still going to boil down to your preference. I've always preferred AMD, but I've had Intel machines as well. AMD may often have more raw power, while Intel is usually more refined. I have nothing negative to say about either company.

[michaelius]

DV McKenna, on 01 December 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

What's sad is people who can't tell the difference between minimums and maximums.

It's been show on these boards time and time again, Intel chips run the game smoother with less dips and higher average framerates because they have better single core performance.

MWO with the way it is coded is excessively heavy on per core performance which is why Intel chips run this game better.

This isn't a problem for most games on the market but there are a number that perform better on Intel chips because of this.

Actually it's like that for almost all games.

Titles that can benefit from more than 4 threads are extremly rare so if you want best cpu for gaming machine you want 4 fast cores.

[Smokeyjedi]

Sits back and waits for mantle to be supported leading to intels lead shrinking.........Mantle was proof of intels influence on all things threaded.......wish AMDs proprietary instruction sets could be implemented like the ones in Handbrake and other coding programs that allow AMDs 8 cores to trump intels performance lead.

** EDIT after all I score over 44000 on CPU queen AIDA 64 benchmark......FX8350@ 4746mhz(226X21) haven't even ran the benchmark @ 4860(256X19)

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 01 December 2014 - 05:42 PM.

[xWiredx]

Mantle isn't catching on very fast. Unless PGI gets their stuff together works with Crytek to get a much newer version of the engine running this game that supports Mantle, you can bet PGI won't attempt to support it on their own. Also, Mantle has little to do with AMD vs Intel, it's still focused on the GPU. It's just a lower-level API layer with better direct access to the hardware, unlike DX11. An Intel i5-based system with an AMD GPU will perform better with Mantle than an AMD FX-based system with the same AMD GPU also using Mantle.

Also, FWIW, I scored 72257 on CPU Queen. 4.1GhZ 5820K. I can't remember the last time their numbers were really relevant in comparison to game performance, but it is what it is.