239 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

Odins Fist, on 29 January 2015 - 05:34 PM, said:

Then you're either a Fan-Boy or Naive..

Overall intel CPUs are better, that's a widely accepted fact across the board.
The only people that do NOT accept that fact are in denial or they have an agenda.

Boot up almost ANY RTS title with tons of units on a map and watch intel literally slap AMD around.

I watched an FX-8350 @4.8ghz go into chug-Lag mode 100% usage, while a 4770k @4.1ghz still had 20% CPU usage left to go and was not chug-lagged out on RTS like Forged Alliance modded, then SOASE modded in the same day at my place.

I don't care about converting video, neither do 99.9999% of the people I know that still argue about AMD CPUs versus intel CPUs..

It amazes me when people actually see an Intel chip NOT OC'd as high as an AMD chip out perform the AMD chip, and they STILL make excuses.

I skipped the ENTIRE FX series, I even still have 2 top end 990-FX Asus Mobos, got them before reviews were out for FX-series CPUs.. As soon as I saw the reviews I waited to see if the update of Bulldozer to Piledriver would make them worth the money to upgrade... IT DIDN'T. I kept my Phenom II thubans clocked them a little higher on water and forgot about FX-series CPUs.

Even AMD admitted that the FX-series CPUs were a flop... What more do you need to know..??

EDIT: I was an AMD guy for a decade, now i'm not.
That should say it all right there.

ALSO edited: 8350 was at 4.8 not 4.9 typo.

Lol.... I am neither that you have claimed me to be. Funny you should bring up a fan boy when replying to me.

From first hand experience, the only time I have ever seen my FX-8350 at 4.7-5ghz go to 100% use and throttle like you have claimed....is ummm like NEVER, LOL. I have even provided a fraps bench in above post with me compressing a 51gb fraps recording of a CW match to upload to Youtube and still didn't max my CPU out, close, but not what you have just claimed. Who's the fan boy? What more is there to say to you regarding this topic?

2015-01-14 22:15:41 - MWOClient
Frames: 5148 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 28.600 - Min: 17 - Max: 54 River city with Windows movie encoding and compressing 51gb fraps Video in back ground

BTW... game play was fairly smooth still, and I believe I kicked some ass in that match. Fraps shows a different story to most of the die hard gotta have min 60 fps crowd, and that is fine. To each their own, but even under these extreme set of conditions, my FX-3850 at 5ghz hasn't held me back.

xWiredx, on 29 January 2015 - 05:36 PM, said:

We've tested what you've stated above to death and you are wrong. Factually wrong. We have lots and lots of numbers to prove it. There are threads with pages and pages of numbers. In fact, the Bill Lumbar you see slightly above your post, the guy posting about possibly building an Intel rig and getting a new monitor, contributed quite a few batches of numbers with his AMD system. He even started out saying the same things you just said.

The fact of the matter is that AMD CPUs lack the brute force to deal with the various things sitting under the hood of the more CPU-intensive settings (shadows, particles). At 4.2GhZ, Haswell showed something like 20-33% better performance than Piledriver at like 4.9 or 5.0GhZ.

Wired, I really don't think I sounded just like this, and I think I explained my stance on Amd, and Intel from the start. Maybe you and others misunderstood me? As I have stated before, Once a year or every other year I look to build a new gaming rig, or update/upgrade what I have. This year I really don't have a option to upgrade for Amd past what I already have. So, given that I play MWO as much as I do, (or as much as I once did in the last year) and from the claims that some of you are making, maybe its time to try out a newer Intel build. I remember back when I first got my Phenom II 940 BE and could of gone Intel right away and decided not to. Every body on Tomshardware, (mostly fan boys talking all kinds of crap) claimed how much better the C2quads were then the Phenom II's for gaming/everything.

After around a year I picked up a Q9550 for $149 at Microcenter and built a Intel rig, and my first Intel quad at that time. I really wasn't that impressed with it over my Phenom II 940 B.E. for gaming, granted when over clocked to 3.8-4ghz things got interesting and I did see a nice increase over the Phenom II with around the same OC. I understand that Intel pulled away from Amd further with the I5's and I7's, my only point is and was that if Amd processors handle my needs, meets my expectations,(I am not a easy sale and kinda picky) what does it matter?

If I upgrade with what I am looking at right now with the parts I listed and the monitor, I am dropping right at $1500, lucky for me I have plenty of good PSU's and other parts around that I don't have to pick up more then Ram, Motherboard, and CPU. Lucky for me I can sell off some lower spec systems now when I do build the new monster Intel rig. Should be interesting to see if I really can notice and feel the difference in MWO from my current main rig. Maybe I will be so impressed with the new 32" IPS monitor that I too will become a avid Intel fanboy.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 06:18 PM.

[Catamount]

Lancer III, on 29 January 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

You still are missing my point. I'm not debating the CPU. I simply saying buy the better GPU. Even a really Crappy CPU will work if the GPU is good.

No. Just no. I wouldn't give this advice for general gaming, but for MWO? In this game this advice is calamitously bad, as opposed to just fairly bad.

Edited by Catamount, 29 January 2015 - 06:24 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

I think the sadist thing and what I have really said all along is that MWO is very poorly optimized for ALL systems, Amd and Intel. If this issue got fixed and the game was optimized there should be no reason for my FX-8350 or other mid to high CPU's to push out the numbers that some of the Intel processors are pushing out. If this game was optimized, sure one could say Intel processors perform better then Amd's top processors for this game, but both perform very well regardless. Really, its pretty messed up, kinda just as messed up that some that used to run Amd's are really upset that Amd hasn't been able to take the crown back from Intel. So what if they haven't been able to, does it really matter? Point is they are still here, and still competing with Intel, which is a very good thing for all of us consumers.

I still haven't taken the time to break out my Amd 6000x2 yet.... as I said before, it would be interesting to drop 8 gb's of my G. skill 1066 ram, a SSD drive, my 7970 into it and see just what happens when playing this game.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 08:27 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

I just love the arguement over Z97 VS X99, MWO needs IPC, Via Clock speed or architectural, and memory bandwidth,

X99 is superior in both of these.......and the numbers have been thrown up dozens of times by many I5 or I7 users who are OC'd and suffer massive performance issues.......

There are a few of us around here who put up numbers and tests and benchmarks instead of just running our mouths.......
No system out there has proven to top XWiredX 5820 @ 4.3 with 2666 ddr4..................you cannot put up the numbers and get to that level of smoothness without the IPC and memory bandwidth of X99. MWO is a goddamn boat anchor why dont you understand this?

**EDIT**
I had this huge arguement with a bunch of noobs on facebook in the forum Technical Domination, LMAO there were 4 or 5 Z97 users that screamed that i was full of **** that the X99 was superior in every way shape and form. LMAO higher IPC per clock, higher memory bandwidth and higher core count,........derp. those guys banned me and blocked me, lol dumasses the mod was like 12, he was running phenom 2 X4 @ under 4ghz and was trying to school me LOL i trolled so hard after that. schmucks!

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 29 January 2015 - 06:49 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 29 January 2015 - 06:46 PM, said:

I just love the arguement over Z97 VS X99, MWO needs IPC, Via Clock speed or architectural, and memory bandwidth,

X99 is superior in both of these.......and the numbers have been thrown up dozens of times by many I5 or I7 users who are OC'd and suffer massive performance issues.......

There are a few of us around here who put up numbers and tests and benchmarks instead of just running our mouths.......
No system out there has proven to top XWiredX 5820 @ 4.3 with 2666 ddr4..................you cannot put up the numbers and get to that level of smoothness without the IPC and memory bandwidth of X99. MWO is a goddamn boat anchor why dont you understand this?

**EDIT**
I had this huge arguement with a bunch of noobs on facebook in the forum Technical Domination, LMAO there were 4 or 5 Z97 users that screamed that i was full of **** that the X99 was superior in every way shape and form. LMAO higher IPC per clock, higher memory bandwidth and higher core count,........derp. those guys banned me and blocked me, lol dumasses the mod was like 12, he was running phenom 2 X4 @ under 4ghz and was trying to school me LOL i trolled so hard after that. schmucks!

So wait.... you are saying that if I don't go the z99 route.. which is gonna put me up to around $1700 dollars with my other upgrades, I will see performance issues still?

[Smokeyjedi]

Bill Lumbar, on 29 January 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

So wait.... you are saying that if I don't go the z99 route.. which is gonna put me up to around $1700 dollars with my other upgrades, I will see performance issues still?

no I'm not saying that.

And By issues do you mean way less framedrops??

My point is simply, MWO requires stupid amounts of IPC, stupid memory bandwidth and stupid core count if you are smart enough to use a cfg file, than you are smart enough to have a I5 or I7 play decent and a 5820 drop below 60FPS <1% of the time.<---------that is as far as it goes...........Pretty sure noone will Vsync MWO to a 144hz panel and hold it there anytime soon LOL, well maybe SKYNET could.....

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 29 January 2015 - 07:08 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

You said this....


"I just love the arguement over Z97 VS X99, MWO needs IPC, Via Clock speed or architectural, and memory bandwidth,

X99 is superior in both of these.......and the numbers have been thrown up dozens of times by many I5 or I7 users who are OC'd and suffer massive performance issues......."

What are you talking about? Fps drops?



So if I don't use a config file or mod mine with either system, my current FX-8350 or even the new z97 build with the I7 4790K i am looking at building, I will still see some FPS drops and dips when playing? What about going with the new z99 build, same thing? I am looking to have a system that doesn't drop below 60 fps in CW or in regular matches with the new 32" monitor I listed... 2560x1440

With your last statement is why I gave up on going with a 120-144hz monitor, because I really don't see any advantage with one and how this game "plays" on all systems, even bad ass ones.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 07:22 PM.

[xWiredx]

Bill, if you are indeed going to pull the trigger on new parts, do this and listen to nothing else: get a 4790K, an excellent overclocking board, and plop that sucker in 4.4GhZ territory. You won't be sorry. At 4.2GhZ I was happy. At 4.3GhZ I was still happy. At 4.37GhZ, I'm little more happy. I haven't run the numbers, but I've also made some significant changes in my user.cfg and FRAPS still refuses to run when I select the 64-bit client. Do I see sub-60FPS dips? Not very often, even in CW.

Now the monitor... if you were going to eventually get an Nvidia card -for sure- then eye a G-sync monitor come March/April. There should be a much better selection then, and G-sync will help smooth over the visuals a little bit. If you aren't definitely going with an Nvidia card this time around, skip the monitor altogether until something more tantalizing comes along.

[Bill Lumbar]

This is what I am looking at right now to pull the trigger on. I have thought about getting a Nvidia card, but to be honest I really think my 7970 can carry me over till Amd comes out with the 300 series, which I hear should be this coming month. I have also heard the numbers leaked on it, and if they are true...OMG... I can't wait. As for the monitor, I really don't believe I can or want to hold off on it at this point. I like mine, but its getting a bit old, and that 32" looks so sweet! I am pretty sure I will love it, and MWO isn't the only game I play, and looking forward to Warhammer 40K coming out soon and the new monitor would be a welcomed change for the better. It is 35% off right now also.... seems like a good deal for what it is.

Newegg Standard Shipping Service Tax: $96.01
BenQ BL3200PT Black 32" 4ms (GTG) HDMI Widescreen LED Backlight LCD Monitor VA Panel
Monitor Standard Return Policy


Protect Your Investment

G.SKILL Trident X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200) Desktop Memory Model F3-2400C10D-16GTX
Memory Standard Return Policy
Send this item as a gift Join Today

ASRock Z97 OC Formula LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
Standard Return Policy


Protect Your Investment
$40.00 Mail-in Rebate
Intel Core i7-4790K Haswell Quad-Core 4.0GHz LGA 1150 Desktop Processor BX80646I74790K
CPU Replacement Only Return Policy


Protect Your Investment

In Stock
Limit 5

• $349.99
  
• $336^.99
  
• Save: 3.71%

Join Today


I also have a chance to pick up a I7 4770K for only $265 dollars with a guy selling a sealed "new" one off craigslist in up in Indy.... would it be a good deal to pick it up over the 4790K off newegg? I would make sure he had a receipt in case of any issues and I am gonna OC anyways.... same specs just a lower clock rating right?

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 07:58 PM.

[xWiredx]

Essentially. The 4790K is essentially a newer stepping, maybe better-binned version of the 4770K (basically, at this point Intel's 22nm process is ridiculously mature). It also has a better thermal interface to the IHS than the 4770K, though that doesn't appear to have really helped OCing much if any.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 29 January 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Essentially. The 4790K is essentially a newer stepping, maybe better-binned version of the 4770K (basically, at this point Intel's 22nm process is ridiculously mature). It also has a better thermal interface to the IHS than the 4770K, though that doesn't appear to have really helped OCing much if any.

So that would be a no on getting the 4770K then?

[Kuritaclan]

xWiredx, on 29 January 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Essentially. The 4790K is essentially a newer stepping, maybe better-binned version of the 4770K (basically, at this point Intel's 22nm process is ridiculously mature). It also has a better thermal interface to the IHS than the 4770K, though that doesn't appear to have really helped OCing much if any.

The 4790k has better voltage transformation parts what makes him run more stable with higher clocks. The thermal paste instead of soldering the i7 4790k is a drawback. But nothing you can't fix. Just for a note lately we had a i7 5930k what had a delta T of 8°K between cores - so even soldering isn't save for good thermal interface.

Bill Lumbar, on 29 January 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

So that would be a no on getting the 4770K then?

If you go for the So 1150 rout with the Haswell use i7 4790k.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 29 January 2015 - 08:36 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Bill Lumbar, on 29 January 2015 - 07:14 PM, said:

You said this....


"I just love the arguement over Z97 VS X99, MWO needs IPC, Via Clock speed or architectural, and memory bandwidth,

X99 is superior in both of these.......and the numbers have been thrown up dozens of times by many I5 or I7 users who are OC'd and suffer massive performance issues......."

What are you talking about? Fps drops?



So if I don't use a config file or mod mine with either system, my current FX-8350 or even the new z97 build with the I7 4790K i am looking at building, I will still see some FPS drops and dips when playing? What about going with the new z99 build, same thing? I am looking to have a system that doesn't drop below 60 fps in CW or in regular matches with the new 32" monitor I listed... 2560x1440

With your last statement is why I gave up on going with a 120-144hz monitor, because I really don't see any advantage with one and how this game "plays" on all systems, even bad ass ones.

You wont hold 60 FPS Vsync without a cnfg file of some sort. not on max settings......not @ 1080P, So assuming higher (1200P,1440P)would be lower and dip harder. even after OC, you will see dips to 40-50FPS bare bones MWO(no cfg file) on that Z97+I5,I7 but you wont vsync @60 is all im saying........after cfg file, some tweaking and solid OC you will be damn close probably dips to 55 knocking the vsync loose but quickly snapping back up.

[Kuritaclan]

Smokeyjedi, on 29 January 2015 - 06:46 PM, said:

There are a few of us around here who put up numbers and tests and benchmarks instead of just running our mouths.......
No system out there has proven to top XWiredX 5820 @ 4.3 with 2666 ddr4..................you cannot put up the numbers and get to that level of smoothness without the IPC and memory bandwidth of X99. MWO is a goddamn boat anchor why dont you understand this?

I'm courious how 2666MHz DDR4 with its awfull timinigs is anything better than DDR3 2400MHz+ Kits. DDR4 RAM for now has DDR3 Chips on it only the interface is DDR4. Since DDR4 timming on most common 2666MHz sticks are CL16 have a latency of 12 and CL15 have 11.25 they are much slower than DDR3 CL10 2400 DDR3 Sticks with a Latency of 8.33 for example. DDR4 has only efforts by the Quadchannel mode over the dualchannel of DDR3. It will take time that DDR4 will be faster than DDR3 or you have to buy DDR4 3000MHz+ with timings equal or better lower than CL15 to have at least Latency of 10. This means DDR4 is for now not that much of a performance gain over DDR3 by itself. Real benefit of DDR4 is that you have up to 128GB RAM possible to equip. And in future when DDR4 Chips are common on the DDR4 sticks and oems have better process, than DDR4 will get faster than DDR3. (http://www.overclock...820K-comparison) DDR4 Advantage will really come out when Latency is the same on the best DDR4 stick compared to the DDR3. The advantage as it is now that gives same/better performance is that it has a quarter of Wordlines to read/write over DDR3. But this advantage gets mostly eaten up by the high latency.

Also a I7 5820k@4.3GHz get overdone by i7 4790k on everything what only uses 4tasks for cores. And MWO isn't optimized to utilize for up to 8 cores of the X99 Haswell-Es/isn't optimized to utilize the up to 16 threads of the X99 Haswell-Es. In games like crysis or wolfenstein or Battlefield4 and so on you get the performance gain of more cores, but not in this game yet. In the end only the little bit of more chared Level chache is a differenz what could be overcome by pretty much higher clockspeeds 4.7Ghz+ on a i7 4790k.


Haswell-E is oc able but not that good under 24/7 stable circumstances. Out of 200 samples of i7 5960X there was non that was stable with 1.35V on 4.5GHz. Yes there are more samples on the i7 5820k what can break the 4.5GHz with 1.35V or less, but they are not that common. So in the end you have a gap of the highest reachable clock and this is 8core<6core<4core. And no not cache or ddr4 can fully compensate for core cloke in some games, since this is what define the speed serial tasks get done in faster time on same architecture (which is >>Haswell<<)

In the End for this game the Haswell-E will be nearly the same performance as a Haswell, so you just pay more bucks. If you have other tasks to do where you can utilize the 6+ cores then it will be an option. But not when your Mainreason to upgrade is this game.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 30 January 2015 - 12:09 AM.

[Blaike]

I'm currently running an i3 3.10 GHz processor and 16 gig ram and a NVIDIA gforce GTX 650 Ti
It runs most things pretty well. But its time to get a new pc and would like your expert input
before I buy anything.
So i5 or i7 processor or equivalent
geforce 770 or better. or equivalent

I do intend to make 2 computers out of the parts I have and buy some more. I like to run 2 computers
but have sold my number 2 already.
Any advice would be gratefuly recieved.

[xWiredx]

Kuritaclan, on 29 January 2015 - 09:00 PM, said:

I'm courious how 2666MHz DDR4 with its awfull timinigs is anything better than DDR3 2400MHz+ Kits. DDR4 RAM for now has DDR3 Chips on it only the interface is DDR4. Since DDR4 timming on most common 2666MHz sticks are CL16 have a latency of 12 and CL15 have 11.25 they are much slower than DDR3 CL10 2400 DDR3 Sticks with a Latency of 8.33 for example. DDR4 has only efforts by the Quadchannel mode over the dualchannel of DDR3. It will take time that DDR4 will be faster than DDR3 or you have to buy DDR4 3000MHz+ with timings equal or better lower than CL15 to have at least Latency of 10. This means DDR4 is for now not that much of a performance gain over DDR3 by itself. Real benefit of DDR4 is that you have up to 128GB RAM possible to equip. And in future when DDR4 Chips are common on the DDR4 sticks and oems have better process, than DDR4 will get faster than DDR3. (http://www.overclock...820K-comparison) DDR4 Advantage will really come out when Latency is the same on the best DDR4 stick compared to the DDR3. The advantage as it is now that gives same/better performance is that it has a quarter of Wordlines to read/write over DDR3. But this advantage gets mostly eaten up by the high latency.

Haswell-E is oc able but not that good under 24/7 stable circumstances. Out of 200 samples of i7 5960X there was non that was stable with 1.35V on 4.5GHz. Yes there are more samples on the i7 5820k what can break the 4.5GHz with 1.35V or less, but they are not that common. So in the end you have a gap of the highest reachable clock and this is 8core<6core<4core. And no not cache or ddr4 can fully compensate for core cloke in some games, since this is what define the speed serial tasks get done in faster time on same architecture (which is >>Haswell<<)

Then all 200 of your samples are subpar. Lots of Haswell-E chips here hitting 4.5GhZ and higher on less than 1.35v, and at 1.35v people are getting 4.5GhZ and higher. (btw, 1.35v I believe Intel has posted as the official 'safe' limit, I can't remember).

http://www.overclock...ard-owners-club

As far as DDR4-goes, MWO doesn't care. MWO doesn't care after DDR3-1866 at all, and that is only a very tiny improvement over 1600 (like... 1-3fps max). We've been over this a few times already. The major technical advantage of DDR4 is massive bandwidth increase using less voltage. To really see it leap ahead, you are exactly correct in thinking that DDR4 needs to mature a lot still. Once DDR4-3000 and faster becomes mainstream, DDR4 will be more worthwhile.

Edited by xWiredx, 30 January 2015 - 06:07 AM.

[Iqfish]

Blaike, on 30 January 2015 - 05:43 AM, said:

So i5 or i7 processor or equivalent

i5. If you are not doing anything else than gaming, you won't benefit from hyperthreading, which is the core thing that makes an i7 more expensive than an i5.

Go for the i5. Invest the 100§ difference in a better videocard. Don't buy a 770, that's last gen tech. Get an 970 or an 980, or 290X if you want to go for team red.
You can wait for the AMD R9 3XX generation to come out though.

[Blaike]

ok. thanks for that

[SappInfernaWulf]

The hubbys had been building MWO gaming machines for a while now. Ive watched and learned from him. First off the Intels do give a much better reaction to FPS. However its only on the higher end AMD chips that seem to fall on their face. For cryengine the best is INTEL sandy bridge/ivy bridge processors. A great set of choices for these chipsets are the I5 2500k-I7 4770k budget cips that will run this game flawlessly.

AMD the only chips we have found that actually work great with MWO, when I say great I mean AWESOME FRAME RATES WITH NO OVERCLOCKING. Even the NGNG staff agree with this one the AMD Athlon II x4 is where its at. AMD chips have had a time with cryengine not supporting multi threaded multi core processors, these two second gen chips seem to be stronger than the 6 and 8 core Vasheera processors rolling out today. IE the AMD Phenom II x4 945 black and the AMD Athlon II x4 640 4 cores are more stable and run better than the 6 cores and the 8 cores wich seem to bottleneck and fall on thier face since 50% of those new processors cant access their full potential. at elast with the quad cores your somewhat optimised to use the processor's 4 cores. rather than using just four cores and letting the other cores "ROT on the VINE"
never to be utillized for MWO.
Graphics there is alot of options for you to try the best for the budget would be the EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SC. Just realeased on EVGA's website for a mere 209.99, before this new card the recommendation we had was the EVGA GTX 750 TI, beast for budget. However if you want to go all out then bite the bullet and go with the evga Geforce GTX 980 FTW or even the 980 SC. Pricey but well worth the componet power that these series of cards have to offer.

Id say go budget and get what you need rather than go at it with an AMD that wont get you even the same results of older lower end AMD processors.


This is my MWO RIg, I run a MSI AM3+ 970A-G43 Mobo a AMD Athlon II x4 640, 8 gb of Ripjaw X PC3-10666, a Samsung 840 500 gb SSD. and a WD Red WD40EFRX 4TB drive. and last but not least a incredible Palit Geforce GTX 560 TI, Im running MWO at 58-60 FPS on pug drops with only a slight dip in CW performance, framerates are stable at 45-51 in CW. All these stats mind you are at max settings DX 11@ 1920x1080 res, so all you who say it cant be done with OLD PARTS need to back off cause it can be done.


Cant wait for taxes will up the graphics card to the EVGA GTX 960 SC.

Edited by SappInfernaWulf, 30 January 2015 - 07:54 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

SappInfernaWulf, on 30 January 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

The hubbys had been building MWO gaming machines for a while now. Ive watched and learned from him. First off the Intels do give a much better reaction to FPS. However its only on the higher end AMD chips that seem to fall on their face. For cryengine the best is INTEL sandy bridge/ivy bridge processors. A great set of choices for these chipsets are the I5 2500k-I7 4770k budget cips that will run this game flawlessly.

AMD the only chips we have found that actually work great with MWO, when I say great I mean AWESOME FRAME RATES WITH NO OVERCLOCKING. Even the NGNG staff agree with this one the AMD Athlon II x4 is where its at. AMD chips have had a time with cryengine not supporting multi threaded multi core processors, these two second gen chips seem to be stronger than the 6 and 8 core Vasheera processors rolling out today. IE the AMD Phenom II x4 945 black and the AMD Athlon II x4 640 4 cores are more stable and run better than the 6 cores and the 8 cores wich seem to bottleneck and fall on thier face since 50% of those new processors cant access their full potential. at elast with the quad cores your somewhat optimised to use the processor's 4 cores. rather than using just four cores and letting the other cores "ROT on the VINE"
never to be utillized for MWO.
Graphics there is alot of options for you to try the best for the budget would be the EVGA GeForce GTX 960 SC. Just realeased on EVGA's website for a mere 209.99, before this new card the recommendation we had was the EVGA GTX 750 TI, beast for budget. However if you want to go all out then bite the bullet and go with the evga Geforce GTX 980 FTW or even the 980 SC. Pricey but well worth the componet power that these series of cards have to offer.

Id say go budget and get what you need rather than go at it with an AMD that wont get you even the same results of older lower end AMD processors.


This is my MWO RIg, I run a MSI AM3+ 970A-G43 Mobo a AMD Athlon II x4 640, 8 gb of Ripjaw X PC3-10666, a Samsung 840 500 gb SSD. and a WD Red WD40EFRX 4TB drive. and last but not least a incredible Palit Geforce GTX 560 TI, Im running MWO at 58-60 FPS on pug drops with only a slight dip in CW performance, framerates are stable at 45-51 in CW. All these stats mind you are at max settings DX 11@ 1920x1080 res, so all you who say it cant be done with OLD PARTS need to back off cause it can be done.


Cant wait for taxes will up the graphics card to the EVGA GTX 960 SC.

WOW, just wow. http://www.cpubenchm...thlon+II+X4+620

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 30 January 2015 - 10:17 AM.