147 replies to this topic

[SethAbercromby]

haha, yeah i know what you mean. I had to downgrade to a 1440 x 900 screen for reasons today. I'm already missing 1080p...

[Bill Lumbar]

All four cores are pushing at around 65-85% use on this Phenom II 960T stock, and they seem to be loaded pretty even too.

I really don't think its so much the game play is like a "slide show" at this point, because it really doesn't seem to be that bad even with the low FPS. I think it is more to do with the gaming at 1080P, it sucks!

CW drops.... Mild over clock on the 6870 @935 core/1065 memory.

2015-03-27 22:41:57 - MWOClient
Frames: 9215 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 51.194 - Min: 28 - Max: 65 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.

2015-03-27 22:46:48 - MWOClient
Frames: 5580 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 31.000 - Min: 22 - Max: 44 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 22:51:59 - MWOClient
Frames: 6139 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 34.106 - Min: 21 - Max: 68 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 22:55:05 - MWOClient
Frames: 5538 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 30.767 - Min: 17 - Max: 42 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 23:00:20 - MWOClient
Frames: 5989 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 33.272 - Min: 17 - Max: 69 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 23:04:38 - MWOClient
Frames: 6447 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 35.817 - Min: 22 - Max: 54 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.

Even with the lows... this is and was very playable guys. No real "stutters,chopyness" to speak of, not as smooth of game play as my FX rig or my new main I7 rig. But in all honesty given the specs of the hardware vs my main rig... it is interesting to see just what parts afford you performance wise in a game.

And here are some drops back on my main rig... Smooth as butter and 1440P In the last matches I scored 186 match score on the Phenom II rig, and 183 match score with the I7 and 1440P. So in the bigger picture of things.... both are playable. I just wouldn't want to be on the 55" LG and the Phenom II 960T build full time.

2015-03-26 18:10:08 - MWOClient
Frames: 13043 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 72.461 - Min: 56 - Max: 85 CW Desert map

2015-03-28 01:21:35 - MWOClient
Frames: 13051 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 72.506 - Min: 55 - Max: 84 CW Desert map


2015-03-28 01:29:06 - MWOClient
Frames: 12610 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 70.056 - Min: 52 - Max: 82 CW Desert map


2015-03-28 01:39:32 - MWOClient
Frames: 12972 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 72.067 - Min: 56 - Max: 106 CW Desert map


2015-03-28 01:46:25 - MWOClient
Frames: 13006 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 72.256 - Min: 54 - Max: 118 CW Desert map

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 27 March 2015 - 10:13 PM.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

how do you guys run the benchmark?
amd chips are running much better recently with optimization.

[xWiredx]

Bill Lumbar, on 27 March 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

CW drops.... Mild over clock on the 6870 @935 core/1065 memory.

2015-03-27 22:41:57 - MWOClient
Frames: 9215 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 51.194 - Min: 28 - Max: 65 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.

2015-03-27 22:46:48 - MWOClient
Frames: 5580 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 31.000 - Min: 22 - Max: 44 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 22:51:59 - MWOClient
Frames: 6139 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 34.106 - Min: 21 - Max: 68 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 22:55:05 - MWOClient
Frames: 5538 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 30.767 - Min: 17 - Max: 42 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 23:00:20 - MWOClient
Frames: 5989 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 33.272 - Min: 17 - Max: 69 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.
2015-03-27 23:04:38 - MWOClient
Frames: 6447 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 35.817 - Min: 22 - Max: 54 CW Helleborn Mild over clock on the XFX 6870 1gb.

This isn't "choppy" to you? The rest of the internet would like to speak to you. We promise this isn't an intervention. WE PROMISE.

Seriously, that looks awful.

That said, it looks like now that you've bought into Intel for that shiny new machine, PGI has decided that the patch on April 7th is going to fix the major particle issue when overheating. I'm willing to bet life is about to get better for those AMD users out there by a pretty decent amount.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Marack Drock, on 01 April 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

...................... I use AMD...................

In terms of MWO... Poor you!

Altho life is better now than in the past.

[ShinobiHunter]

xWiredx, on 01 April 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

This isn't "choppy" to you? The rest of the internet would like to speak to you. We promise this isn't an intervention. WE PROMISE.

Seriously, that looks awful.

The lows on that rig were as good as the highs on my laptop

But life is good on my new PC

[Gremlich Johns]

I know my FX-8350 is more than capable of handling Cryengine3. Star Citizen is just fine with it on Max vid settings.

Remember, nobody plays benchmarks.....

[SethAbercromby]

Gremlich Johns, on 01 April 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

I know my FX-8350 is more than capable of handling Cryengine3. Star Citizen is just fine with it on Max vid settings.

Remember, nobody plays benchmarks.....

True, but when in case of the GTX 900 series, the benchmarks show significantly worse results than expected and partially results that are notably worse than those of previous generation cards, thus uncovering significant design flaws that lead to loss of potential performance, you see why benchmarks have their place.

Once applications use heavy multithreading, I'm sure AMD processors will thrive. Unfortunately that day is not tomorrow and probably not next year. Intel Cores currently are performing better overall, thanks to being very good in handling single-threaded processes while being decent enough with multi-threading to get very stable performance results. As a budget solution, they are perfectly fine for most things though. I just like pointing out that Nvidia intends to continue screwing over AMD users with things like PhysX...

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 01 April 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

This isn't "choppy" to you? The rest of the internet would like to speak to you. We promise this isn't an intervention. WE PROMISE.

Seriously, that looks awful.

That said, it looks like now that you've bought into Intel for that shiny new machine, PGI has decided that the patch on April 7th is going to fix the major particle issue when overheating. I'm willing to bet life is about to get better for those AMD users out there by a pretty decent amount.

Honestly, no it wasn't "choppy", it wasn't as smooth as my old FX rig, or as smooth as my new I7 rig, but it was in fact playable. Those numbers were at stock settings also, No OC. I still haven't tried to mess with Overclocking it yet, I have been getting my Xbmc media worked into shape and setting up a server.

Is this a computer I would want to play full time on with MWO, no its not. However, I think I the 1080P threw my game off more then the lesser FPS I am used to from my I7 build and the 32" at 1440P. Coming off 1440P and going to a 55" at 1080P really sucks IMO for MWO game play. Everything seems so out of whack vs. 1440P, kinda hazy... Idk, just not my cup of tea for gaming. The point is that for anyone that is building a gaming rig, or a system, there are in fact more choices then just " Get a Intel" or else your experience in MWO will suck, or be sub par. Just because the FPS counter drops in benchmarks, doesn't mean that the game play becomes a slide show. I have seen the "slide show" effect on my FX-8350 build, back before the Dev's did the passes to help optimize this game..... but many players reported the very same things, even with higher end Intel and Nvidia systems.

No doubts that many of the mid-higher end Intel chips push stronger FPS then Amd's mid-high end, but that's where the claims really ends guys. All three Cpu's I have tested and posted benchmarks on, ALL produce acceptable game play in MWO. I am guessing my Intel Q9550 would put out about the same numbers with the 6870 1gb as the 960T did. I am sure with either Cpu's, if I installed a higher end card, even my 7970 and ran them, they would produce better numbers, even smoother game play with MWO.

This topic has been beaten into the ground for over a decade... lol. It's the same old same old lines thrown back and forth from both sides of the camps. I have built and used both Intel and Amd Cpu's in my rigs for the last 8 years, and till now had been gaming with higher end Amd Cpu's, and never had any issues because of them, and that includes this game. Do I regret picking up the I7, no I don't, but it wasn't needed, and with the work being done by the Dev's to try and optimize this game(as it should be) performance from Amd Cpu's will get even better. This does make them a contender in the Cpu market, given the price of a FX-8350 vs. the I7 4790K I just went with.

Neither Intel nor Amd have made any ground breaking improvements to the CPU world over what we have now, or even several years ago. Sure we get minor bumps in performance...but nothing worth dropping several hundred dollars on over what we already have for something new, IMO.

[SethAbercromby]

Bill Lumbar, on 01 April 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

Neither Intel nor Amd have made any ground breaking improvements to the CPU world over what we have now, or even several years ago. Sure we get minor bumps in performance...but nothing worth dropping several hundred dollars on over what we already have for something new, IMO.

Pretty much, yeah. The big thing intel has going for it though is power efficiency. The Ivy Bridge i5 I have is listed with 77W without overclock. The Hasswell Cores barely need more power for their high-performance cores at 84W. The FX-8350 requires up to 125W without considering overclock options, about what Intel lists for its mid-performance Xenon Cores (130W). If anything is currently a major deal breaker, this would probably be it. The very good overall performance is just a boon, really.

[Smokeyjedi]

get those 4 deneb core to 4.0//// than the only thing holding it back would be 1333DDR...........timing tightened and some tweaking to really scream it out. poor ol deneb.

[Bill Lumbar]

I am running the 8 gbs of DDR3 @1600 As for the OC, yeah.... I am sure that it will get better FPS with it, but I think the 6870 1gb is really the set back on that system right now.

SethAbercromby, on 01 April 2015 - 06:16 PM, said:

Pretty much, yeah. The big thing intel has going for it though is power efficiency. The Ivy Bridge i5 I have is listed with 77W without overclock. The Hasswell Cores barely need more power for their high-performance cores at 84W. The FX-8350 requires up to 125W without considering overclock options, about what Intel lists for its mid-performance Xenon Cores (130W). If anything is currently a major deal breaker, this would probably be it. The very good overall performance is just a boon, really.

While I agree with you, it has been shown the amount of power used vs the cost of the extra power is really not a "deal breaker". If I was running a straight solar system, no land lands, It would be a factor to be considered for sure. Other then that extreme example, the power savings over time is next to nothing vs. the cost difference of the Cpu's.

[xWiredx]

100W difference in an OCed FX-8350 and an OCed 4770K is not negligible. It doesn't pay for the chip in 2 years probably, but if you're one of those people that's gonna build a system with one of them and keep it for 5 years the choice becomes a little more simple.

Also, please apply dry ice to that Phenom II and get it to 4.5GhZ, then downclock the FX to 4.5 and watch the Phenom II beat it in MWO. It'll be hilarious until you run out of dry ice.

[SethAbercromby]

xWiredx, on 02 April 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

Also, please apply dry ice to that Phenom II and get it to 4.5GhZ, then downclock the FX to 4.5 and watch the Phenom II beat it in MWO. It'll be hilarious until you run out of dry ice.

I'm sure "this game made my rig catch on fire" will get a whole new meaning after that.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 02 April 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

100W difference in an OCed FX-8350 and an OCed 4770K is not negligible. It doesn't pay for the chip in 2 years probably, but if you're one of those people that's gonna build a system with one of them and keep it for 5 years the choice becomes a little more simple.

Also, please apply dry ice to that Phenom II and get it to 4.5GhZ, then downclock the FX to 4.5 and watch the Phenom II beat it in MWO. It'll be hilarious until you run out of dry ice.

If I remember right..... anything over 4.2 ghz for a phenom II chip is considered a lotto chip. I think if I remember right, my Phenom II 940 BE I had several years ago hit a wall at 4.3 ghz and that was under my water loop. Its been awhile though, I might me mistaken. I sold the FX-8350...so no more testing it out.

[xWiredx]

On dry ice, my X3 720 BE hit 4.6GhZ. On water I couldn't get it past 3.7GhZ, though. Really stubborn chip. I used a custom-coated Asus M4A79T Deluxe. It was a damn good machine for its day, but I wouldn't think of playing MWO on it.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 02 April 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

On dry ice, my X3 720 BE hit 4.6GhZ. On water I couldn't get it past 3.7GhZ, though. Really stubborn chip. I used a custom-coated Asus M4A79T Deluxe. It was a damn good machine for its day, but I wouldn't think of playing MWO on it.

I had the same motherboard... I loved that rig! I think I was hard pressed to get even 4.1 ghz.... I think I hit 4.1ghz but it wasn't stable. I also lapped mine, it did help keep the temps down. I ended up trading that rig for a 27" Imac three years ago, and then sold the Imac. I more then made my money back on that build

[Smokeyjedi]

4.21 gigawatts was the max my 555BE would handle, on hyper 212 EVO couldnt get it past there.....voltage, lower than ambient air cooling.......nothing would do it.......but it was no slouch/

[Windscape]

I'm going to be building a desktop with the G3258 processor. I'm trying to create an affordable desktop. It seems life overclocking it ought to be fine. I was talking to a friend who said that even though the processor Is cheap, the overclocking will require you to spend more money in the long run. I don't believe he's right. After all, buying a big case and stuffing it full of fans would keep it cool. You wouldn't have to overclock it that much though, right? But yeah, I'm thinking a computer w/ a G3258 possessor and a decent Radeon video card for maybe a little less than $200, after all, Radeons are cheap, effective, and powerful for games like MWO.

[xWiredx]

Windscape, on 22 April 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

I'm going to be building a desktop with the G3258 processor. I'm trying to create an affordable desktop. It seems life overclocking it ought to be fine. I was talking to a friend who said that even though the processor Is cheap, the overclocking will require you to spend more money in the long run. I don't believe he's right. After all, buying a big case and stuffing it full of fans would keep it cool. You wouldn't have to overclock it that much though, right? But yeah, I'm thinking a computer w/ a G3258 possessor and a decent Radeon video card for maybe a little less than $200, after all, Radeons are cheap, effective, and powerful for games like MWO.

Typical OC appears to be in the 4.2-4.6GhZ range. I can tell you that you'll basically just want to shoot for the max stable OC you can get out of it for MWO.

I have no idea what your friend means by 'spending more in the long run' since most people end up upgrading their hardware far before they kill a CPU from overclocking and that pentium chip is decently power efficient. Maybe he means you need a better cooler, but in that case, a cheap AIO water cooler (like $50) would be more than enough for it, so I'm at a loss there.