45 replies to this topic

[Brother MEX]

xWiredx, on 10 June 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

...
The extra threads a 4790k can run concurrently means less background stuff is getting in the way of threads dedicated to MWO, the 4790k has extra on-die cache available, etc.
...
I have definitely answered the question to the best of my ability without spending hours searching (what the people asking the questions should be doing instead). Please for the love of sanity SEARCH.

Thanks for your advise, it was the BEST until now ... I did SEARCH for specific MW0 benchmarks but found NONE I COULD UNDERSTAND because of too much technobabble

Goose, on 10 June 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

...
You want an exact comparison? You gon'a buy the both of them for me?

I already have the MacBookPro 9,1 and I am playing MW0 on it since nearly 2 years ... before buying the ASUS ROC GR8 for ME I just want to know if it has similar or better performence as it has a new HASWELL DUAL CORE instead of my old IVY BRIDGE QUAD CORE ... as both are from different generations, the dual vs quad disadvantage might be smaller than expected.

DV McKenna, on 10 June 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

...

Thirdly a quad core is what you want to play the game on absolutely and unequivocally that is the minimum.
Aside from the overclocked pentium K dual core.

Forthly and finally.... having a better GPU for a worse CPU is one of the worst things you could do for MWO which as already stated is CPU bound..,

Accourding to the CPU benchmark posted above, the difference is 25% or less ... I just dont know if this is true for MW0 too ... but I think I will wait a few week/months for a offer on a steam console with more cores which looks as interesting for me as this ASUS ROC GR8.

MfG, MEX

Edited by Brother MEX, 10 June 2015 - 12:37 PM.

[WhisksSpatulasAndOrMathequations]

Lord Letto, on 06 June 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

Should be Playable at Medium-High @ 1080p, I'd say no AMD and Go Intel instead by going for something like this:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($64.95 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-A (NFC Express Edition) ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($52.45 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($93.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec One ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA 600B 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (32/64-bit) ($98.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $500.22
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-06 21:56 EDT-0400

Later on upgrade the CPU. MBoard supports much higher CPU so suffer on the low CPU and upgrade in six months.

[xWiredx]

Mex - Regarding Ivy Bridge vs Haswell: I did a break down of this elsewhere as well. You can expect anywhere between 2-5% better performance between Haswell and Ivy Bridge (and 5-11% more over Sandy Bridge).

[Oderint dum Metuant]

xWiredx, on 10 June 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

Mex - Regarding Ivy Bridge vs Haswell: I did a break down of this elsewhere as well. You can expect anywhere between 2-5% better performance between Haswell and Ivy Bridge (and 5-11% more over Sandy Bridge).

Would a dual core haswell outperform a quad core ivybridge tho? IPC yes but overall performance for MWO? I would be skeptical

[xWiredx]

No. God no. 2-5%, even assuming 5% for sure, isn't enough to quell the thirst of 40-80 other background processes to the point where it would nullify the core count advantage.

If you wanted to talk about going from a quad-core Nehalem (stock) vs a Haswell dual-core (stock), it would be closer, but I think the quad would still be slightly better (assuming they're both Core series chips and not pentium/celeron).

Edited by xWiredx, 10 June 2015 - 12:57 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

xWiredx, on 10 June 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

No. God no. 2-5%, even assuming 5% for sure, isn't enough to quell the thirst of 40-80 other background processes to the point where it would nullify the core count advantage.

If you wanted to talk about going from a quad-core Nehalem (stock) vs a Haswell dual-core (stock), it would be closer, but I think the quad would still be slightly better (assuming they're both Core series chips and not pentium/celeron).

He's not very technical so it was important to clarify that point.