239 replies to this topic

[Johny Rocket]

Sorry but I have to call BS on all the Intel fanboys.
My rig handles MWO on maxed out settings with out breaking a sweat.
AMD FX 8310 OCed to 3.8 ghz (from 3.4)
MSI 970A G43 (with OC Genie)
MSI Radeon R7 265 Armor OC 2gb (not OCed)
OZC A-100 120gb SSD
8gb ram 1600mhz not OCed
Its a barebones kit I got from tiger that cost less than any comparable Intel chip and board.
I run dual monitors a 32" 1080p tv and a 15" vga. I run the game on the tv and resource manager on the other so I can keep an eye on things. I often run FF on the small screen playing music on youtube(like having a radio in the cockpit)
The use is spread pretty evenly across all 8 cores and usually humming along just under 30% cpu usage and have never seen a spike over 50% averaging 2.5 gb of ram
Ram and the R7 could use upgrading but I get by just fine.
The only time I have ever made it cry was playing MWO, HD vid in youtube and slicing a model for my 3D printer.

Show me an Intel rig that even comes close for the under $500 I have invested.

[Flapdrol]

We've got a live one!

[Kuritaclan]

T Joe - Last post March 2014 and now he is one year later alive to say FuYa Intel Fan Boys. Nice. Very helpfully such accs.

[xWiredx]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

Sorry but I have to call BS on all the Intel fanboys.
My rig handles MWO on maxed out settings with out breaking a sweat.
AMD FX 8310 OCed to 3.8 ghz (from 3.4)
MSI 970A G43 (with OC Genie)
MSI Radeon R7 265 Armor OC 2gb (not OCed)
OZC A-100 120gb SSD
8gb ram 1600mhz not OCed
Its a barebones kit I got from tiger that cost less than any comparable Intel chip and board.
I run dual monitors a 32" 1080p tv and a 15" vga. I run the game on the tv and resource manager on the other so I can keep an eye on things. I often run FF on the small screen playing music on youtube(like having a radio in the cockpit)
The use is spread pretty evenly across all 8 cores and usually humming along just under 30% cpu usage and have never seen a spike over 50% averaging 2.5 gb of ram
Ram and the R7 could use upgrading but I get by just fine.
The only time I have ever made it cry was playing MWO, HD vid in youtube and slicing a model for my 3D printer.

Show me an Intel rig that even comes close for the under $500 I have invested.

Considering we already know you're wrong and have mounds of evidence to show it while you present none to the contrary, I don't think anybody is going to take you seriously. You should feel privileged to know that we took 120 seconds out of our days to tell you that you're wrong.

[Johny Rocket]

Fanboys be Fanboys yo.
I usually spend my free time playn the game not talking about it.

Please do tell me where exactly you believe Im wrong?

[Hardin4188]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

Fanboys be Fanboys yo.
I usually spend my free time playn the game not talking about it.

Please do tell me where exactly you believe Im wrong?

First of all I question your definition of without breaking a sweat. To me without breaking a sweat in this game would be consistent 60 fps on 1440p. You probably are not getting these kind of framerates on that computer, especially with maxed out settings.

Edited by Hardin4188, 03 February 2015 - 07:59 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

Fanboys be Fanboys yo.
I usually spend my free time playn the game not talking about it.

Please do tell me where exactly you believe Im wrong?

The fact your FPS will be 40 or below with dips into the 20's.
The fact your game performance will be on par or worse than a dual core haswell refresh CPU.

Edited by DV McKenna, 03 February 2015 - 08:09 AM.

[Hammer Fall]

Exactly Tractor Joe. Fanboys, and those bitten blame AMD and do not look at other things like them not optimizing Windoze. Or they have high cpu processes in the background. Or they compare to an Intel twice the price. I run MWO on a A10-5700 with no problems and medium settings. On Linux it flies above the clouds. Super fast. For comparable performance from Intel/Nvidia I would have to spend another $400 at least. I payed $350 used from a friend and it is still like new. Once again look at gameplay videos. The AMD/ATI rigs have better colour and better detail.

[Hammer Fall]

So who here uses non-Intel biased benchmarks and uses their computer for things other than games? Also can objectively compare CPU performance by running other than one fat constipated obsolete Windoze? I hear a lot of power gaming whining and a lot of conjecture, little reality. The bottom line is unless you are willing to spend $500 or more on a CPU you get a better performance to price ratio with AMD. Until you get the big iron type Intel chips they are overpriced. I have used both for gaming, servers, and compiling lots of software. The caveats about AMD were true but not anymore. In the last couple of years they have gone through the pain of losing market share and focusing on redesigning architecture for the future. Soon it will be the Athlon vs P4 era. AMD back on top and Intel being the constipated fat cat it really is.

[Hardin4188]

Lord Marauder, on 03 February 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

Exactly Tractor Joe. Fanboys, and those bitten blame AMD and do not look at other things like them not optimizing Windoze. Or they have high cpu processes in the background. Or they compare to an Intel twice the price. I run MWO on a A10-5700 with no problems and medium settings. On Linux it flies above the clouds. Super fast. For comparable performance from Intel/Nvidia I would have to spend another $400 at least. I payed $350 used from a friend and it is still like new. Once again look at gameplay videos. The AMD/ATI rigs have better colour and better detail.

Well first of all anything you see in a video would be seen with the colors of your computer, the video card and monitor. It would not matter what video card the recorder has. Second we are talking about cpus here, not video cards. I happen to have an amd video card and prefer amd video cards to nvidia. While the colors should not be too different on an nvidia card, they do have a higher default gamma level which might look washed out to some people.

But again we are discussing cpus here.

Lord Marauder, on 03 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

So who here uses non-Intel biased benchmarks and uses their computer for things other than games? Also can objectively compare CPU performance by running other than one fat constipated obsolete Windoze? I hear a lot of power gaming whining and a lot of conjecture, little reality. The bottom line is unless you are willing to spend $500 or more on a CPU you get a better performance to price ratio with AMD. Until you get the big iron type Intel chips they are overpriced. I have used both for gaming, servers, and compiling lots of software. The caveats about AMD were true but not anymore. In the last couple of years they have gone through the pain of losing market share and focusing on redesigning architecture for the future. Soon it will be the Athlon vs P4 era. AMD back on top and Intel being the constipated fat cat it really is.

Your dislike for Windows is irrelevant to this discussion. This is a windows game so obviously windows benchmarks are important to review when purchasing a new system for this windows game. This game also has poor multi threading. On my core i7 3770k, it generally uses only 30% of the cpu performance. A sign that the majority of the threads are not being utilized. That is why intel processors are recommended for this game. They have far superior single threading performance with far lower energy usage.

Edited by Hardin4188, 03 February 2015 - 08:42 AM.

[Summon3r]

the people calling fanboi are just to funny, the OP asked about non overclocking cpu's and whether the savings would be better between AMD and intel to put into a GPU, MWO likes raw CPU power end of story.... it has been proven the AMD cpu's (especially a 6300 such as the OP is looking at) need a hefty OC to perform even half decent ion MWO.... SO get yourself a 3.5ghz AMD cpu and a 3.5ghz intel cpu and you can figure out what the "fanboi's" are talking about.

also there is a very extensive thread in here that measures cpu performance that has all the info you will ever need including pretty graphs for you to go over

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Lord Marauder, on 03 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

So who here uses non-Intel biased benchmarks and uses their computer for things other than games? Also can objectively compare CPU performance by running other than one fat constipated obsolete Windoze? I hear a lot of power gaming whining and a lot of conjecture, little reality. The bottom line is unless you are willing to spend $500 or more on a CPU you get a better performance to price ratio with AMD. Until you get the big iron type Intel chips they are overpriced. I have used both for gaming, servers, and compiling lots of software. The caveats about AMD were true but not anymore. In the last couple of years they have gone through the pain of losing market share and focusing on redesigning architecture for the future. Soon it will be the Athlon vs P4 era. AMD back on top and Intel being the constipated fat cat it really is.

Here stop posting rubbish and educate yourself.
http://mwomercs.com/...-rumors-in-mwo/

[Johny Rocket]

Shot with my very crap LG Optimus Fuel in 800x600.
Shot it with the phone instead of screen cap so no one can say Im cheating.



I had my cpu OC numbers wrong its only clocked to 3.6

Like I said before find me an intel based rig that can do this sub $500

Edited by Tractor Joe, 03 February 2015 - 09:15 AM.

[MercJ]

This...this is still a thing? People are honestly still under the impression that AMD FX CPUs are equivalent/better/unnoticeably different in MWO? I mean, justifying a purchase is one thing, but spreading false information is another.

I have both. AMD and Intel. To be specific, I play MWO on the following systems, all at 1080p:
i5-2500K@4.8 GHz + R9 290@1100 MHz + 2x4GB DDR3 1600Mhz CAS8,
i5-3570K@4.6 GHz + GTX750ti@1400 MHz (~boost) + 2x4GB 1866 CAS10,
i5-4670K@4.6 GHz + GTX970@1450 MHz (~boost) + 2x4GB 2133 CAS10/11 (don't remember right now) (main MWO system for obvious reasons),
FX-8350@4.8 GHz/2.4 GHz NB + (any of the cards above or an R9 270X@1100 MHz) + 2x4GB 1866 CAS 10,
FX-8320@4.6 GHz/2.4 GHz NB + (same as the above system or a 7950@1000 MHz) + 2x4GB 1600 CAS 8,
FX-6300@4.6 GHz/2.2 GHz NB + (same again, usually another R9 270X) + 8GB 1600 CAS 8,
A10-7850K@4.4 GHz + GTX960@1500 MHz + 2x4GB 2133 CAS 10/11,
Intel G3258@4.7/4.8 GHz + GTX750ti or a GTX660

I've probably used every combination of the above too, interchangeably, testing the different GPUs on the different systems. I'm not trying to list my hardware for bragging, rather than to hopefully show I currently operate on BOTH platforms and a wide range of systems. Here are my observations (and I've been collecting frame times to back them up) - PLEASE NOTE THE EXACT SCALE ON EACH GRAPH!!! I tried to match the scale on all of them, most cut off at 60ms, but if it's higher the graph will look like it has lower frame times than it actually does!

The FX CPUs MUST be at (at least) 4.6GHz to begin to feel "smooth." The higher NB clocks help too, but depending on your motherboard you may not be able to get over 2.2 GHz anyway. Even still, particles need to be set to low, and you'll still experience dips down into the 20s/30s in-game. There's also the frame time issue that ISN'T reflected in the FPS figure (I'll update with a few examples). The FX CPUs just don't provide the same experience in MWO as the Intels.


The frame times on the FX-8320 above are actually pretty decent - some spikes still, but hovering around that magical 16.7ms mark (I think which corresponds to the refresh rate of the display, 60fps/hz etc.). Most of these are 2-minute frametime captures, with varying settings - most of the AMD systems have most settings on low to get these frametimes though. EDIT: Note the top of the vertical scale for this one - the frametimes aren't as low as they appear at first glance, because the scale isn't the same as the others (140ms vs 60ms). There is actually a lot more variance than it may first appear - I'll try to find this log and re-upload it with the right scale.

***The two following graphs are set to the same scale as the Intel CPUs, and are most useful for comparing the two at a glance - look how much the frames vary on the FX CPUs.



EDIT: NOTE THE CHANGED SCALE! Sorry, I'll have to find one cut off at 60ms for this too, the graph expanded vertically to include the spikes, but it should be cut off at 60ms It's really the same experience as the two graphs above, just looks a little more compressed because of the scale /EDIT- Here's the 8350 at the same speed, it runs a little cooler at lower voltage settings and same speed as my 8320, but there's still a decent variance in frame times - the tighter the line, the better overall perception of "smoothness". Again, particles and most other settings are low. Different GPU, but I saw similar patterns on all FX CPUs no matter the GPU.

I couldn't get my Kaveri to cooperate It was barely stable at 4.6, cooling wasn't an issue (most of the above systems are watercooled to keep those 200W at bay ), just...wouldn't cooperate. Might be lack of L3 cache in the FM2+ CPUs? I don't know. NB was stuck at 1.8/1.9 MHz too, which the higher NB clocks on the FX CPUs seemed to be the key for communication between the modules in those processors (helped smooth out the "jumpiness").

The Intel CPUs are much "smoother"/consistant in MWO, even at stock speeds. To push the higher framerates, the OC's become more and more necessary it seems. Even still, to be competitive in CW, I generally set the particles to low even on the Intel systems (High is still playable in public drops, but I play the Intel systems on a 144Hz monitor and don't like to drop below 100 if I can :/ ). Again, I'll update with some frametime examples.


I haven't captured frametimes from my GTX970 yet, but...I had a better experience with the i5 and 750ti.

The frames don't vary as much - you can tell at a glance. Less "stutter".

I've since retired the GTX660 on the i5-3570K system, but it performed pretty similar (in overall FPS) to the overclocked 750ti. The GTX750ti's higher clock speeds were nice though - if I could make any conclusion, it's that raw clock speed (CPU or GPU) is the most important factor in MWO performance.

I've since overclocked the i5-2500K system above to 4.9 and 1100 MHz (GPU), and it's smoothed out a bit more - again, raw clock speeds help, but the Intel's higher single-threaded performance helps it churn at frames at similar rates, rather than varying as much as the FX CPUs. You CAN get frametimes to be somewhat comparable with a lot of work, tinkering (and cooling!) - but the experience is better on an Intel platform.

Basically, I want to see if those users in here with FX systems have any examples of their systems running MWO "flawlessly" - my 8350 is pretty smooth, but I still get stutters into the 20s. Would it be worth upgrading from a highly-overclocked 8350 to an i5? Probably not, it's still a "gameable" experience - but I would have to objectively admit that my Intel systems are a noticeably better option for MWO, even though the AMD systems can still game in OTHER titles more similarly to the Intels.

**NEW EDIT: adding some newer results for completeness:

Note the higher res for the 1070, the results aren't directly compatible:




BONUS OC'd i3



**For Kaveri results, check this post (spoilers - it ain't pretty):
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__4166088

Edited by MercJ, 07 March 2017 - 08:04 AM.

[Goose]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

Please do tell me where exactly you believe Im wrong?

All the vowels … And the consonant, too.

Log Files or It Didn't Happen®

[Flapdrol]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

Shot with my very crap LG Optimus Fuel in 800x600.
Shot it with the phone instead of screen cap so no one can say Im cheating.



I had my cpu OC numbers wrong its only clocked to 3.6

Like I said before find me an intel based rig that can do this sub $500

Your video only serves to show this game only makes use of a little over 2 cores, which is exactly why intel performs better, with fewer but faster cores at a given pricepoint.

Amd only has a price/peformance advantage with highly multithreaded workloads.

Edited by Flapdrol, 03 February 2015 - 09:31 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

Shot with my very crap LG Optimus Fuel in 800x600.
Shot it with the phone instead of screen cap so no one can say Im cheating.



I had my cpu OC numbers wrong its only clocked to 3.6

Like I said before find me an intel based rig that can do this sub $500

That;s nice and all and nothing new, but you must be new to technology.

Record your FPS during a game, afterburner is good it will give you a nice graph and show all the dips and falls during a match...when you come back here with dips into the low 30's and 20's we will sit here and laugh at your 8 core with super poor per core performance that leads to rubbish FPS in MWO.

[Johny Rocket]

The OP was asking about bang for the buck value. Tower, board, ssd, cpu cooler, and gpu all for $479.
Might you get a bit better results with an equivalent Intel rig, sure for twice the money.
Bored now, going to go play.
Talk to you next year.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Tractor Joe, on 03 February 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

The OP was asking about bang for the buck value. Tower, board, ssd, cpu cooler, and gpu all for $479.
Might you get a bit better results with an equivalent Intel rig, sure for twice the money.
Bored now, going to go play.
Talk to you next year.

Wrong.
The pentium K with it's two cores would like a word with your poorly performing 8 cores....oh sorry 4 cores and associated fake things.

Edited by DV McKenna, 03 February 2015 - 09:35 AM.

[MercJ]

I should probably follow up with a frametime capture to my graph-heavy post above: Yeah, a Pentium G3258 @ 4.6-4.8 GHz was a better experience in MWO than an FX-6300 or 8320 at 4.6/4.8. With the same GPU (GTX750ti).

$70 CPU + ~$130 GPU for Intel system (rest of components don't really matter - except on the AMD systems you'll need to spend up on cooling) -

- vs a *minimum* of $100 CPU (best experience was with an 8350, which I got on sale for $160) + a *minimum* of $120 motherboard (good luck pushing 200W through cheap MOSFETs, clocking up a NB, and keeping everything cool on a cheap AMD board...) and a *minimum* of ~$50 for cooling (an Argon AR03 did okay, SilverStone Tundra TD-02 did much better...)...

So $200 in essential components for Intel system + ~$100 for an overclocking-capable mobo to arrive at $300, vs.

~$430 for AMD system to get a similar experience. Add RAM, SSD/HDD, case, etc. - those could all be the same for both platforms.

For ONLY playing MWO? Yeah, Intel's got the price/perf option too. I don't like it either, but...thems the facts. Refer to my previous post - I've played on ALL of these platforms.

EDIT: I should say, with the number of components out there, you can build similar systems around the same price point. HOWEVER: a $400 Intel system will still be a better experience in MWO than a $400 AMD system. Sorry. But that's been my experience.

Edited by MercJ, 03 February 2015 - 09:54 AM.