38 replies to this topic

[DaangeroussDann]

Im running old school gigabyte ga-g31m-es2l/c main board that supports intel core 2, single, duo or quad processors.

CURRENTLY RUNNING
single core 3 gig intel (over clocked)
Gforce 210 pci express video (512mb )
4 gigs ram running duel channel at 800 = 12 fps in mech lab, and still frame-10fps in battle

Funny thing is , its till worth playing even though Im useless to my team, I get lucky sometimes .

I am on a budget, I can afford either the intel core 2 duo 2.66, or the core2 quad 2.4 6600. Which do you recomend ? has to be LGA 775 / socket T

Or does anyone have a better suggeston, Im buying them on Ebay for under 50 dollars, money is tight here. Ill do a major upgrade this summer,, for now, I just need a bit more fps and I'll get by.

Edited by DaangeroussDann, 08 January 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[Lil Cthulhu]

Get the quad core and overclock it a bit.

[Snailio]

Here is what you need to do:

Step 1: Open CPU Support list - http://www.gigabyte....?pid=3134&dl=1#

Step 2: Open Passmark bechmark list: http://www.cpubenchm...h_end_cpus.html

Step 3: Open Ebay and cross reference the best bang for the buck.

Example: A recent Q9400 (Passmark Score: 3,452) sold for $71, while a Q6600 (Passmark Score: 2,953) has a current bid at $71. Q9400 is around 15-20% more performance than Q6600 and is compatible with your motherboard.

Youre going to need a video card also

Edited by Snailio, 08 January 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[Gryphdog]

Your video card is ok - just have to run at low settings and you should get decent framerates. Whats hurting the most is your cpu - most newer games capitalize on multiple threads, and are optimized to take advantage of 4. You only have 1 at the moment.

Overclocking CPU's isn't really necessary for games nowadays (except MS FSX which is ancient code), the most important thing is having one that has 4 cores or more, especially for CryEngine based games due to its physics engine.

[Lady Oscar Francois De Jarjayes]

You have the same motherboard as me but your RAM is superior to mine by a a factor of two. Anyways assuming your motherboard is the ES2C with BIOS version FF I'd buy a Q6600 Core2Quad processor and overclock it since it has a gigantic L2 cache compared to the later Core2Quad(I'm using a Q8400 stock speed). If you're not into overclocking last time I checked the motherboard can mount all the C2D and C2Q processors if your BIOS version is FF so you can probably mount a Q9400 and above.

After that you have to upgrade your video card. A GT210 is an abysmal card to use for video games. I'd recommend going for at least the GTX460 at minimum but I recommend getting the GTX670. All of them are Nvidia video cards and go for the MSI/Gigabyte/EVGA variant of the cards.

Lastly, if you plan on doing upgrades make sure your power supply is up to notch because if you plan on going the minimum Q6600 and GTX460 you'll need a minimum of 550 Watts PSU.

[ElmoWithAGun]

Gryphen, on 08 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Overclocking CPU's isn't really necessary for games nowadays (except MS FSX which is ancient code), the most important thing is having one that has 4 cores or more, especially for CryEngine based games due to its physics engine.

I beg to differ.

Most quad core processors designed by Intel (even those of older generations) are known to work to their full potential when clocked over 3.0Ghz which most majority aren't by stock and can be easily achieved on stock cooling with no changes needed other than the clock speed.

Edited by ElmoWithAGun, 08 January 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Hammerhai]

I hope I am not stealing thread time here:
Need to upgrade my video card soon. Is Radeon a better bet than Nvidia for MWO? Strangely support tells me my video card is not up to spec (Radeon 4800(?)) but I rarely get below 24 fps

[ElmoWithAGun]

Hammerhai, on 08 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

I hope I am not stealing thread time here:
Need to upgrade my video card soon. Is Radeon a better bet than Nvidia for MWO? Strangely support tells me my video card is not up to spec (Radeon 4800(?)) but I rarely get below 24 fps

No. ATI drivers are terrible. You're safer with Nvidia.

[Nirilus]

I have a gtx680, a quad ivy bride i5 3750k, and 8GB of ddr3 RAM. Motherboard is gigabyte ga-z77x-ud3h

I never use more than 4GB of RAM or tax more than two cores. Usually, just one.

If you have a high end vid card, then your other needs should be pretty low (dual core, 4 gig RAM)

However, given the low cost components you have, I would go quad core, and 6 gigs to be safe.

The most important part is your vid card - I recommend a gtx 460 or higher. Note- radeons don't seem to suffer the fps glitch.

I do not recommend overclocking. That's just asking for trouble considering the amount of glitches already in the game. Do you want to compound that problem??

[ElmoWithAGun]

Nirilus, on 08 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

The most important part is your vid card - I recommend a gtx 460 or higher. Note- radeons don't seem to suffer the fps glitch.

This game is CPU dependent though...

[Gryphdog]

ElmoWithAGun, on 08 January 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

I beg to differ.

Most quad core processors designed by Intel (even those of older generations) are known to work to their full potential when clocked over 3.0Ghz which most majority aren't by stock and can be easily achieved on stock cooling with no changes needed other than the clock speed.

Sure, if you know how, go ahead and overclock. But its really not necessary because you won't see much gain unless you go all out to the 4.5 ghz area with today's stuff. Which requires more investment in a better cooler, liquid, etc., and a higher chance of burning up. Contrasting the single and dual core CPUs to todays quad standard, that's the biggest gain, especially so with an nVidia chipset because letting the physics driver have its own thread drastically increases performance.

[Catamount]

ElmoWithAGun, on 08 January 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

No. ATI drivers are terrible. You're safer with Nvidia.

This may have once been true (as in a decade or so ago), but I haven't seen anyone demonstrate this in years. In fact, the last time I saw any evidence of actual difference, it was Nvidia's drivers being so much worse than AMD's, that they were the single biggest cause of Windows Vista crashes. That was in 2007. This is the same company that broke all anti-aliasing in Battlefield 2142, and presumably BF2, for like 2 years (from the 179.xx drivers onward), so it's not as though their track record for game-specific issues was fantastic either, nor did they apparently fix problems once they arose.

Since then, if anything, it's Nvidia who's cleaned up their act to catch up with AMD's drivers for stability and function.


Cards should be purchased for their actual performance, not fear over drivers. In that regard both companies are competitive, except in the lower pricepoints where AMD keeps the same stranglehold it's had for years, and the top end where the Radeon HD 7970 GHZ edition is slightly cheaper than the slightly slower Geforce GTX 680.


...on the other hand

Nirilus, on 08 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

The most important part is your vid card - I recommend a gtx 460 or higher. Note- radeons don't seem to suffer the fps glitch.

If you're referring to the 4fps bug, I'm afraid they do, unless there's some additional Nvidia-only bug?

Edited by Catamount, 09 January 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Both Nvidia and AMD cards suffer the 4FPS bug.
Both companies drivers are ok these days.

As to the CPU question, definately the Quad Core

[Nirilus]

"The most important part is your graphics card"

ElmoWithAGun, on 08 January 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

This game is CPU dependent though...

You have an extreme misunderstanding of what parts of this game are CPU dependent.

As it turns out, the graphics portion of this game is graphics card oriented.

The majority of cpus out there have more than enough power to handle the CPU dependant portions of the game.

That is not the case with graphics cards.

This is coming from someone who has run this game on both the hd4000 and a gtx680 (same exact system). There is a world of difference.

Edited by Nirilus, 30 January 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[Barbaric Soul]

Nirilus, on 30 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

"The most important part is your graphics card"



You have an extreme misunderstanding of what parts of this game are CPU dependent.

As it turns out, the graphics portion of this game is graphics card oriented.

The majority of cpus out there have more than enough power to handle the CPU dependant portions of the game.

That is not the case with graphics cards.

This is coming from someone who has run this game on both the hd4000 and a gtx680 (same exact system). There is a world of difference.

I would like to know where you got this information from, because from my experence with this game, the game is very much CPU dependent. Ok, current quad cores and higher have plenty of muscle for the game, but when you start looking at older quad cores like the original phenoms like the 9850 and 65nm core2quads like the Q6600, performance definently takes a hit. And dual cores even more. I have a friend running an AMD X2 5200 with a GTX260. Plenty of video card for high settings at 720p(which is what his monitor is), Yet he has to play at low settings and still only gets around 20 fps. One guy in my group/clan/team/whatever you want to call them started out playing with a E8400 with a GTX 560ti, definently no slouch when it comes to dual cores. IIRC, he was only getting like 25fps. He upgraded to a 2.6GHZ Q9450, and while he did see an improvement in performance, it wasn't that great of a improvement. personally I believe this is because the CPU is only running at 2.6ghz. If the two of us could ever get together and work on getting a little OC'ing done to that Q9450, we could easily get over Q9650 @ stock speeds performance without blinking an eye. I'd be willing to bet that would give him over 30 fps constant and the bottleneck would actually become the GTX560ti. If I had access to a high-end dual core system, I'd love to drop my 7970 in it and compare it's performance in my 2600k system, just to know for sure. Currently, I get a constant 60 fps at highest setting except motion blur which is off at 1080p with my 2600k and 7970, even with no OC'ing. I get 40 fps with my 2560*1600 30" with that system.

[Catamount]

Nirilus, on 30 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

The majority of cpus out there have more than enough power to handle the CPU dependant portions of the game.

As with Barbaric, I'd love to know where you got this information. Not only are the majority of CPUs not more than powerful enough to hand this game's CPU requirements, but there are, in fact, almost no CPUs out there that are capable of handling this game's CPU requirements.

My Phenom II X4 965 wasn't even close (minimums in the 30s, iirc), and my i5-3570k get dragged down from the mid 90s for framerates to the 50s in heavy combat, regardless of settings. I can play on low or very high and the minimum framerate is the same; MWO is CPU-bound, not GPU-bound, not with a remotely decent GPU, to the point that the fastest quad core CPU you can buy is only just adequate for running this game smoothly. Anything below an i5-3570 sits somewhere along a wide range of "playable, but not ideal", especially older chips like the aforementioned Phenom II.

[Vulpesveritas]

It pretty much boils down to the following CPU's for this game if you want ideal performance, though it will do 'okay' with lower end quad core CPU's, to get 45fps+ min, you need the following;
Intel:
Sandy Bridge Series i7 desktop
Sandy Bridge-E series i7 desktop
Ivy Bridge Series i5 desktop
Ivy Bridge Series i7 Desktop / high end laptop

AMD:
FX-83xx series, preferably overclocked.

[Nirilus]

The minimum requirements for crysis3, an optimized cryengine game, is a Geforce 400 series.  MWO is not optimized, and has worse performance.  I would not go by MWO's "minimum requirements"http://digitalbattle...m-requirements/

I'm saying this from experience.  I've played this on several different systems, including, but let's consider my i5 system BEFORE and AFTER I upgraded the vid card.  I never use more than 50% of my CPU while playing the game (quad core in this case)

- On the HD4000 I got barely playable rates at 1024x768 lowest settings ~ 20FPS.  
- With the GTX 680 I play at highest settings 1650x1080 @50-120FPS

"I have a friend running an AMD X2 5200 with a GTX260. Plenty of video card for high settings at 720p(which is what his monitor is), Yet he has to play at low settings and still only gets around 20 fps"
-- ARE YOU JOKING?  A GTX 260? That's as slow as my HD4000.  Just because it can play one thing at 720p doesn't have any bearing on it's performance on other things at 720p.

" He upgraded to a 2.6GHZ Q9450, and while he did see an improvement in performance, it wasn't that great of a improvement. personally I believe this is because the CPU is only running at 2.6ghz."
-- Are you effing serious?  The Mhz myth?  his limited performance difference supports my point.

Dual cores have slightly better clock speeds and single thread performance than quads.  You will in fact probably see better performance on a core2 duo than you would see from a core2 quad as the quad has significantly lower single thread performance than the dual core.(Also from experience - The  E6700 I had was significantly faster than the Q6700 for the majority of my needs)

Edited by Nirilus, 30 January 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[Nirilus]

This game is very CPU dependent for...a game.  And you will get a performance hit with less than a strong dual core...but my results above, without a doubt, that the video card makes a HUGE difference.

No matter what processor you have IT WILL NOT PLAY WELL ON REASONABLE SETTINGS WITH LESS THAN A GTX400 SERIES.

Edited by Nirilus, 31 January 2013 - 12:28 AM.

[Catamount]

Nirilius, your argument is logically fallacious. You're asserting that because the game was GPU bound on an Intel HD 4000, it's therefore more GPU bound than CPU bound. This is an utterly ridiculous argument, because no one is going to be gaming on an HD4000 in the first place.

My Radeon HD 5850, which is at least a real gaming GPU (unlike the HD4000) was easily bottlenecked, even by my 3570k, on a combination of medium and high settings, and a 5850 is not an especially fast GPU. I was running a GPU worth 1/3 what my CPU is worth, and the CPU was still the bottleneck. That's with a top of the line CPU. A more average gaming CPU, like a Phenom II X4 or an FX6100, won't run this game at anywhere near 60fps, with any GPU, on any settings.


So please, spare us the nonsense about how MWO isn't CPU-intensive. There's almost no CPU in existence that can play this game at the 60fps target that one shoots for in gaming, and most CPUs will be lucky to be netting you 40fps (forget it if you're on a dual core machine). I'd call it being pretty CPU-intensive when there effectively isn't a GPU that can run the game properly on the market.

Yes, we get it, the game requires an actual GPU, not a crappy Intel integrated chip, but your presenting a false dichotomy. You're implying that the game is either CPU or GPU intensive; in truth, it's both, in abundance. The CPU-dependency is just more important. You're wrong about the Geforce 400 requirement; a GTX260 would have no problem with this game. I've played just fine on slower GPUs than that, on medium settings.

The difference is that if a GPU isn't completely up to the task, you just turn down settings and the game is very playable. If your CPU isn't up to the task, your options are either put up with bad lag, or don't play the game. You have no recourse to make the game playable on an inadequate CPU.