111 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

Yeah, the Radeon HD 7970, which in some scenarios outperforms the 6970 by as much as 90%, is coming out at ~$500 1/9/2012. So the 6970 is expected to fall in price. lol.

Oh and the 7970 is 10% more power efficient on full load, and only consumes 3 watts on idle. It will pay itself off on your power bill XD.

I tend to like HIS, MSI, and Asus. in that order.

Edit: it's out now: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814161399
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814150586
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814121485

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 08 January 2012 - 09:32 PM.

[RyannVonDoom]

500$ is far out of my price range. What do you think the 6970 will drop to?

[Vulpesveritas]

Likely down around $275-300.

Even if it doesn't drop that low any time soon, you can always get a 6950. It will do you well and you could always try to 'unlock' it into a 6970.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 08 January 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[RyannVonDoom]

I dont OC and try to keep my systems simple. Less I have to battle with, the better. I'm with a stock CPU cooler atm.. wasn't sure if my zalman 9700 on the AMD 6400 would be able to do the job on the am3+..

Tiger Direct has the 6970s for 330$ range right now. Should be dropping soon then.

[Vulpesveritas]

that they should be.

I would recommend putting in the extra ~$50 for an aftermarket cooler and some Gelid GC-Extreme thermal paste.
Coolermaster 212 EVO http://www.newegg.co...N82E16835103099
or if you need room the SilentX 80/92mm EFZ all copper heatsinks are decent. Oh and cheaper at $20 for the 92mm version.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16835226050

And the Gelid TIM just about doesn't ever set, while preforming on average at least 5 degrees Celsius cooler than Artic Silver 5.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16835426020

[Morashtak]

CPU - Intel Core i5-2500K, ~$US220
GPU - Radeaon 6970 2GB, ~$US350 (~$US150 cheaper than GTX 580)
Mobo - Asus P8Z68-V Pro, ~$US190

Prices are a bit out of date.

Those three will set you back ~$US770. Add in a quality case and other parts (new SSD, HDD, Cooler, 8GB RAM, etc) and you should have a total cost of ~ $US1,600. This doesn't include monitor, mouse or keyboard. "Should" get around 45FPS on multiplayer maps (Huge SWAG at this time, of course).

[RyannVonDoom]

Paid 216 for the cpu/mobo combo at frys thanks to taxes, I need to put the rebate in that'll give me 20$ back. 179$ before taxes due to that.
69$ for the 16gb of ram
79$ for the PSU I had to get because of them not having any other 8 pin PSUs.. nor the 8 pin adapter =/
22$ for new DVDr drive.

So I didn't spend too much to upgrade from my AMD 6400.


Was a good christmas.

[Vulpesveritas]

Morashtak, on 08 January 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

CPU - Intel Core i5-2500K, ~$US220
GPU - Radeaon 6970 2GB, ~$US350 (~$US150 cheaper than GTX 580)
Mobo - Asus P8Z68-V Pro, ~$US190

Prices are a bit out of date.

Those three will set you back ~$US770. Add in a quality case and other parts (new SSD, HDD, Cooler, 8GB RAM, etc) and you should have a total cost of ~ $US1,600. This doesn't include monitor, mouse or keyboard. "Should" get around 45FPS on multiplayer maps (Huge SWAG at this time, of course).

Well, for that I'd recommend an FX-8120p as CryENGINE 3 does support 8 threads so a PC for MWO would be better with Bulldozer than an 4 thread i5, even though the i5 has ~30% higher IPC. And the 6970 is going down in price, and anyone with a brain will get a Radeon HD 7970 over a Geforce GTX 580 now. And you can get a decent AM3+ board cheaper too.

The reason for the frames per second is 'maximum' enhancements include, but are not limited to: 4/8x AA, 4/8x adaptive AA, 3D, lighting effects, and particle effects. Oh and lets not forget the nice good ol' DirectX 11 lighting enhancement which actually realistic shows surfaces as reflective to a certain point, and reflect lighting and shadows to that point. water movement as well. All like to poke at your FPS.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 08 January 2012 - 10:41 PM.

[SousukeSagara]

wow this game looks like a REALLY CPU and GRAPHIC entinsive, I do not even know if my computer will be able to even run it
its a (Acer Aspire 5736Z-4460) comp spec right there
I have issue with Modern Warfare 2, My computer would just die from that I think

[Vulpesveritas]

Well, my laptop can play crysis 2 at 28 frames per second on average. with the lowest end integrated Radeon graphics out there right now, the HD 4250. Quad core cpu phenom II.

But it's more CPU intensive, these are for maximum settings. at 540p my laptop can pull it off at -barely- playable graphics.

Just waiting on tax return to get new desktop.



Also for those of you who have money: CryENGINE 3 run- Crysis 2: Maximum settings at 2560x1600 pixels:
http://techreport.co...cles.x/22192/12
= 1080p at ~ twice as many frames per second.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 08 January 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[AlexHxyz]

hey guys, my desktop can barely run black ops. it has GeForce 8500. do you think i'd need an upgrade for MWO by the time it comes out?

[Vulpesveritas]

Umm what's your processor? You should have at least a 2 ghz dual core- cpu (said CPU is bare minimum for CPU for this game) and a geforce 8800. In modern part terms, like an AMD A6 or A8 APU, or a Intel Pentium and a Radeon HD 6570. Your GPU should be able to play it at bare minimum settings, though your maximum framerate at such with a quad core CPU will be like 35 frames per second.

of which it would be cheaper and you'll be faster on the AMD A6/A8 as they're quad cores.
something between this: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103951
and this: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819106001
would be ideal for a low end build. FM1 socket also gives you rather good connectivity on the A75 chipset. Graphics on an A6 are about equal to the 8800, and your power bill will go down. USB 3.0, HDMI and all the like, tri/quad core CPU.

Higher end you could go up to the Radeon HD 7970 at ~$550. Fastest single graphics card out there right now.

[Catamount]

It's worth noting that while this game will likely be somewhat GPU intensive (and possibly very GPU intensive; we'll see), it's not likely to be very CPU intensive, because games in general aren't.


I remember reading a review, not all that long ago, where they actually measured a Sandy Bridge CPU in BF3, and even when they disabled two cores and knocked the clocked speed down enormously, the framerate of the game stayed the same. That's really the norm for games these days, with only a couple of exceptions (mostly RTS games or that horrible pile of bad coding, Civ 5).

[Vulpesveritas]

Most games aren't, however a dual core 2ghz processor is considered extremely low end any more CPU wise. You can get a dual-core AMD A4 2.7ghz with Radeon HD 6470 integrated graphics for $60. heck you can get an E-350 dual core 1.8ghz with motherboard for $75.

So you do need at least a low end by modern terms CPU. Archaic monocore cpus and slower dual cores won't quite work.

[Catamount]

Oh, without a doubt, there's a limit to how low end you can go.

Older dual cores, like the Althon X64 X2s just aren't going to cut it, and a Bobcat APU probably wouldn't be ideal either. Anything faster than that is probably okay for the time being, since games won't grow enormously in requirements until the next generation of consoles (hard to up the requirements on the fastest systems of multi-platform releases until you do for the slowest systems ).


I'd say, for the time being, the slowest thing you'd want to try to squeeze by on would be either a faster Athlon II X4, or something in the range of a C2D E8400. Without knowing system requirements, I wouldn't feel safe recommending anything less.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

You can tell someone in this thread is a pure bread AMD fan
Do your own research would be my advice just about every sight where you look up for the best gaming CPU will tell you that currently the I5 2500k with its unlocked Multiplyer is king for gaming and can be overclocked to 4.6ghz stable without much bother.

Cry Engine3 supports 8 cores will MWO make best use of that? Highly doubt it, it'll be designed for the average user within the Phenom II, I3/5/7 Market. AMD's current Bulldozer chips have not made the biggest of splashes with the tech review section (however long term i think you'd be better going AMD they support their chips better and longer ).

This is currently what im looking at in the next few months.

• 120GB OCZ Technology Vertex 3, 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Sandforce SSD, Read 550MB/s, Write 500MB/s, 85K IOPS
  
• 2 x 1GB Asus GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP, 40nm, 4200MHz GDDR5, GPU 900MHz, Shader 1800MHz, 384 Cores + Battlefield3 Game
  
• 1TB Seagate ST31000524AS Barracuda 7200.12, SATA 6Gb/s, 7200rpm, 32MB Cache, 8.5ms, NCQ
  
• 850W PSU, Corsair HX CMPSU-850HXUK, Modular, 90% Eff', 80 PLUS Silver, SLI/CrossFire, EPS 12V, Fan, ATX v2.91
  
• 8GB (2x4GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Jet Black LP, PC3-12800 (1600), Non-ECC, CAS 9-9-9-24, XMP, 1.5V
  
• Asus ROG Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Z68, S 1155, DDR3, SATA III - 6Gb/s, RAID SATA, PCIe 2.0 (x16), E-ATX
  
• Asus Xonar DG 5.1 PCI Sound Card & Headphone Ampifier, OEM
  
• [color="#0099ff"]Coolermaster HAF 912 Plus, Black, Mid Tower Case w/o PSU[/color]
  
• Corsair H80 Hydro Series High Performance CPU cooler, S775/1155/1156/1366/2011/AM2/AM3
  
• Intel Core i5 2500K Unlocked, S1155, Sndy Bridge, Quad, 3.3GHz, HD3000 IGP 850Mhz, 6MB Cache 95W Retail
  
• Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit SP1, Operating System, Single, - OEM
  
• Pioneer DVR-S19LBK 24x DVD±R, 12x DVD±DL, DVD+RW x8/-RW x6, RAM x12, SATA, Black, Retail Labelflash

Edited by DV^McKenna, 09 January 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

CryENGINE 3 natively supports 8 threads, which both the Intel i7 and AMD FX8000 implement. benchmark wise the FX8150p does slightly better than an i7 2600k when all 8 threads are in use. It also overclocks well, if you have *cough* decent cooling* and a good PSU.

The i5 2500k is only king in low thread games, but modern/future games are no longer going to be poorly threaded. The FX-8120 falls into the same capacity as the above vs the 2500k, though it fares a little bit better in competition when it's utilizing 8 threads and the i5 can only utilize 4.

And bobcat has slightly higher IPC than the older Athalon 64x2, which the minimum CPU for Crysis 2 is a Athalon 64x2 2ghz, which is outclassed by a bit by a 1.8ghz bobcat. GPU minimum is a Radeon HD 3850 or Nvidea 8800GT. Modern equivalant is a A60integrated 6520, or a dedicated Radeon HD 6570, or Nvidea Geforce GTX 540.

AMD just has better price/performance CPU wise, the A6-3670k outclasses the i3 thanks to it's unlocked processor and integrated graphics performance. The A8s are a good choice for a price point just above that and competes with the lower end i5s, as Llano has the highest IPC of an AMD CPU, and of course comes with decent integrated graphics.. And ATI/AMD cards right now just win at every price point, the only Nvidea card that makes sense is the 570 at the moment.

*I'm OCD about cooling anyhow so the issues with overclocking the B2rev of Zambezi isn't a huge deal to me

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 09 January 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 09 January 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

CryENGINE 3 natively supports 8 threads, which both the Intel i7 and AMD FX8000 implement. benchmark wise the FX8150p does slightly better than an i7 2600k when all 8 threads are in use. It also overclocks well, if you have *cough* decent cooling* and a good PSU.

The i5 2500k is only king in low thread games, but modern/future games are no longer going to be poorly threaded. The FX-8120 falls into the same capacity as the above vs the 2500k, though it fares a little bit better in competition when it's utilizing 8 threads and the i5 can only utilize 4.

And bobcat has slightly higher IPC than the older Athalon 64x2, which the minimum CPU for Crysis 2 is a Athalon 64x2 2ghz, which is outclassed by a bit by a 1.8ghz bobcat. GPU minimum is a Radeon HD 3850 or Nvidea 8800GT. Modern equivalant is a A60integrated 6520, or a dedicated Radeon HD 6570, or Nvidea Geforce GTX 540.

AMD just has better price/performance CPU wise, the A6-3670k outclasses the i3 thanks to it's unlocked processor and integrated graphics performance. The A8s are a good choice for a price point just above that and competes with the lower end i5s, as Llano has the highest IPC of an AMD CPU, and of course comes with decent integrated graphics.. And ATI/AMD cards right now just win at every price point, the only Nvidea card that makes sense is the 570 at the moment.

*I'm OCD about cooling anyhow so the issues with overclocking the B2rev of Zambezi isn't a huge deal to me

Again this is pretty debatable, are developers going to spend time optimizing games for an 8 core cpu that only 1-5% of the market may have?
Again if money is no object sure throw it at the more expensive 8 core cpu, but on a price/performance basis it really is just not worth it yet,an I5 will last you the next 3-5 years in gaming terms as most games will bottleneck at the GPU end way before hitting the limits of the processor.

[Catamount]

DV^McKenna, on 09 January 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Again this is pretty debatable, are developers going to spend time optimizing games for an 8 core cpu that only 1-5% of the market may have?

My bet is actually no here.


Octathreaded applications take work to code properly (meaning you don't just technically support 8 threads, but you actually give them all something intensive to do). It's work that will someday become meaningful, but in the situation we're in today, where even a semi-older dual core still doesn't bottleneck games, because they're 95% GPU-bound, it's just not worthwhile to do.


So given the choice, I would much rather have the i5-2500k at the moment (though Bulldozer shouldn't be counted out if AMD can get much better IPC out of it down the road).

Edited by Catamount, 09 January 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Well if Piledriver delivers based on what AMD says it will have an IPC increase of 15% which would make it 5% faster than STARS per clock.

And I'll still take AMD over Intel. 5 reasons:
1. I'll not lose more than 5 frames per second vs intel processor of same price.
2. I will usually get higher frames per second on a CPU $150 down.
3. AMD needs my money.
4. Intel pays companies to use their processors, AMD doesn't
5. Intel puts more money into R&D in a year than AMD makes in all in a year. Yet AMD can make competitive designs. WTH?!? I mean, come on Intel, don't you have competent researchers? you have more than five times the resources yet you still can't come out with a decent GPU driver? Or make something truly over the top that would make you truly reign supreme?