Hahahah...oh wow. I had some doubts as to whether you were a bad troll or just a well intended, poorly informated guy but your answers have pretty much pointed which one out. Your post barely made any sense,
for the love of god at least start using paragraphs. In case, this one time I'll bite. Mistake me not, I do not change a word of my previous post, you ARE leading people in error.
So, you say you've got 18 years experience in this field, I say I have 25. Now what..? Do I get a medal?
This is the internet, no one cares who you say you are, get over yourself. It adds nothing to this arguement anyway.
Your rambling on memory speed/module combinations made no sense whatsoever, nor do I understand what it adds to this discussion. Your "DDR2 controllers downclock modules when combined capacity exceeds 4gb" theory is ridiculous. I've searched everywhere and found nothing of the sort so either post proof or shut it.
My rig uses DDR2, if that were true I'd know. What happens is, when you have any given modules of different speeds, when in dual channel they run at the lowest speed, when in single channel they run at their native speeds. I can try to borrow a module from a friend to check this if you want.
I have no idea where you got that "Hypertransport doesn't apply to dual cores" theory either, but this one I can prove wrong right now. Ever since AMD adopted HT they have used it in every single CPU they made. Here's copypasta from wikipedia for
Athlon 64,
Sempron 64,
Turion 64,
Phenom,
Phenom II and
FX families. You can check each gen has a list of cpus released under it and their respective specs.
Every single one has Hyper Transport. And yes, that includes dual cores. What now, you're gonna tell me Wikipedia has it wrong?
To make things clear, I know very damn well that quads are better than duals and DDR3 is better than DDR2, at no point did I say otherwise.
The thing is you're talking about these differences like they're essential to run this game and they are not. You can check my pc in my sig, with that pc I used to run MWO reasonably well before Nov 20ths' patch. Right now I can't (barely)
because dual cores can't, because the game's code is messed up. Do you understand that? Your emphasis on these details just shows how little you know of why this game under performs for so many. Basically you've been telling people the 'pipes' between the cpu and the motherboard are clogged when it's actually the cpu thats full of sh**!! The game breaker isn't memory speed, dual cores with DDR3 are almost as clogged as dual cores with DDR2. It's not system bus bandwidth (ie. FSB/QPI for Intel, HT for amd), right now even a pc as old as mine has it's cpu so clogged the gfx card doesn't even go above 50%. It's not memory amount, the.exe is barely 2gb, its not gfx memory either, lowest textures work well with any card with 512mb minimum.
THE GAME BREAKER IS CPU OPTIMISATION. Is this clear enough?
That's why people with quads and more up-to-date rigs like you can mostly play the game ok, you've got enough extra performance to just power through the crappy coding (even though the game still is under performing for you). We, the ones with dual cores (and weaker quads), don't. Once they fix this (which they will) we'll be able to play again. Yes, at highest settings the game will be resource heavy, more so with every engine update as Crytek builds on it, yet if you don't want to run it highest settings that doesn't mean anything because the min specs will remain the same.
That is why I said it's dumb to buy a new pc just because of this game when your current one is above minimum specifications, you should just wait for the devs to fix the game. Not because todays hardware isn't better.
Also I forgot to point out in the other post, whether a pc has FSB or HT or QPI or WHAT EVER, it does not influence this fix and I have no idea how a
system bus even could, it's like saying I like oranges because tomorrow's gonna rain. As long as you've got a multithread capable dual core it should work, though its' stability and effectiveness are another issue entirely.
Again, think I'm wrong? Prove it, post a reliable source and fund your claims and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Otherwise quit babbling ridiculous conjectures and passing for someone that understands what they're talking about. This thread was stickied for devs to monitor peoples feedback regarding this "fix", not as a "AMD FX cpus suck" thread or a "buy a better pc" thread or anything of the like. The offtopic is already bad enough, if you insist on leading people in error I will report you.
Now my head hurts, yet something tells me you still won't get it. Anyhow I've provided enough reasoning for anyone interested in the matter to make their own judgements so, bye.
Edited by Click, 07 December 2012 - 12:14 AM.
22
This topic is locked
Marctraider, on 06 December 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:
This game doesnt even run smoothly on my i7 3770K @ 4.5GHz with 670GTX OC'ed
