[Faiyez]

Taoz, on Dec 03, 2012 - 6:31 PM, said:

GPU:radeon XFX 7870 2gb GHz Edition

Do you think its worth upgrading to a 6990, 7950 or 7970?

Are you kidding? That card is decent and you should upgrade your CPU if you want to upgrade something.

[Fatal]

Taoz, on Dec 03, 2012 - 6:31 PM, said:

How will I play with these:

Desktop:

CPU= amd Phenom II X6 1045T 2.7GHz
Ram = 8gb
OS = Windows 7 32-bit
GPU:radeon XFX 7870 2gb GHz Edition

My resolution that I will play is 1280 x 1024

Do you think its worth upgrading to a 6990, 7950 or 7970?
I am hoping to play max but I am not sure since i saw the benchmark chart that BnS tested with other cpu and gpu.

If you want to upgrade get a nice AM3+ motherboard and an fx6300 cpu or switch to intel CPUs and go 3570k and a nice intel motherboard, your current system will have no trouble at all maxing the game at that resolution.

There's also the option of getting a nicer monitor.

This post has been edited by Fatal: Dec 03, 2012 - 8:38 PM

[Taoz]

Fatal, on Dec 03, 2012 - 8:38 PM, said:

If you want to upgrade get a nice AM3+ motherboard and an fx6300 cpu or switch to intel CPUs and go 3570k and a nice intel motherboard, your current system will have no trouble at all maxing the game at that resolution.

Luckily I already have a AM3+ motherboard. should I go for the fx6300 or the fx8xxx?

[Fatal]

8350 if you render a lot of video else get the 6300.

[Hajo]

Exodus, on Dec 01, 2012 - 9:45 AM, said:

Well you wont run out of RAM 4gb are enough for any game really.. 8 is fine for being safe if you multitask like mad but 16? that's way too much :) you could save the money and get something like a SSD or micro SSD to take off some stress on the main SSD or something like that



You mean "WON'T bottleneck" xD

and it should not really :/ problem is the CPU is a dual core but a damn good one so im not sure how the game will respond to that..
But once you upgrade to an i5 quad you should be safe and rocking.

On the sidenote: you could save some money on RAM but thats just my opinion

If I upgrade to an i5, would I be able to run it at max?

EDIT: It didn't show everything in the quote. This is the build I posted earlier and what I'm referring to
CPU: Intel Core i3-3220 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor
RAM: 8GB
VGA: XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card
And I'm going to be running it on Windows 8 and on a 1920 x 1080 monitor if that matters.

This post has been edited by Hajo: Dec 06, 2012 - 3:17 PM

[Dobijasek]

Hajo, on Dec 06, 2012 - 3:13 PM, said:

If I upgrade to an i5, would I be able to run it at max?

EDIT: It didn't show everything in the quote. This is the build I posted earlier and what I'm referring to
CPU: Intel Core i3-3220 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor
RAM: 8GB
VGA: XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card
And I'm going to be running it on Windows 8 and on a 1920 x 1080 monitor if that matters.

http://www.bnsdatami.../Benchmark.html

Even fi you get best CPU and RAM then ur GPU just lack ur FPS around 55FPS in 1920x1080.
However there is almost non difference between i3 and i7.

This post has been edited by Dobijasek: Dec 06, 2012 - 3:34 PM

[Faiyez]

Dobijasek, on Dec 06, 2012 - 3:28 PM, said:

However there is almost non difference between i3 and i7.

False.

i3's are way down there.

It's actually close between i5 and i7 though.

This post has been edited by Faiyez: Dec 06, 2012 - 4:16 PM

[Dobijasek]

Faiyez, on Dec 06, 2012 - 4:14 PM, said:

False.

i3's are way down there.

It's actually close between i5 and i7 though.

[Exodus]

Hajo, on Dec 06, 2012 - 3:13 PM, said:

If I upgrade to an i5, would I be able to run it at max?

EDIT: It didn't show everything in the quote. This is the build I posted earlier and what I'm referring to
CPU: Intel Core i3-3220 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor
RAM: 8GB
VGA: XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card
And I'm going to be running it on Windows 8 and on a 1920 x 1080 monitor if that matters.

Max? For sure
The only thing that bothers me about the dual core one is that newer games run better with a quad core
The GPU is a good card for the buck. Its good.. not the best but for B&S it's good.
Monitor is not important to mention here "1920 x 1080 on a 1GB card is enough"

Dobijasek, on Dec 06, 2012 - 5:37 PM, said:

Hidden Content

Holy cow 1.1fps difference... its like no difference at all

This post has been edited by Exodus: Dec 06, 2012 - 6:53 PM

[Fatal]

Hajo, on Dec 06, 2012 - 3:13 PM, said:

If I upgrade to an i5, would I be able to run it at max?

EDIT: It didn't show everything in the quote. This is the build I posted earlier and what I'm referring to
CPU: Intel Core i3-3220 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor
RAM: 8GB
VGA: XFX Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card
And I'm going to be running it on Windows 8 and on a 1920 x 1080 monitor if that matters.

If you want to run it at max Upgrade your GPU to a 7950 or 660ti.

Faiyez, on Dec 06, 2012 - 4:14 PM, said:

False.

i3's are way down there.

It's actually close between i5 and i7 though.

Uninformed.
For gaming ,more cores does not mean better performance. What does make a difference is better per core performance due to the fact that the majority of games, BnS included, cannot make use of more than 2 CPU cores. Hence sacrificing money that could be spent on a better GPU for a quad core CPU will bring no noticeable gains in game performance.

The difference in gaming performance between the i3, i5 and quad core i7 is small enough to be completely ignored, the only reason to get more than an i3 for gaming is overclocking or very heavy multitasking, like running 4 game clients simultaneously.

Some games are exceptions but those are very few. (All of the Blizzard games off the top of my head)
5 years from now games will most likely all utilize more than 2 cores, but by that point quad core CPUs with very high per core performance will be available at the i3 pricepoint.

Exodus, on Dec 06, 2012 - 6:49 PM, said:

Holy cow 1.1fps difference... its like no difference at all

The difference is that small because the CPU is not the bottleneck, it's the GPU keeping things back.

This post has been edited by Fatal: Dec 06, 2012 - 8:49 PM

[Exodus]

Fatal, on Dec 06, 2012 - 8:43 PM, said:

The difference is that small because the CPU is not the bottleneck, it's the GPU keeping things back.

Yeah those CPU's handle the game without any problems but still... i always get a feeling that "better CPU = better FPS" even tho its like no difference i would at-least have thought that the fps would drop to around 6

oh and Pentium and Celeron? Had no idea Intel still makes those

[Faiyez]

Dobijasek, on Dec 06, 2012 - 5:37 PM, said:

Haha, that's great and all man. An i3 might even be enough for anyone who's most demanding task would be merely running B&S.

Good luck multitasking while running the game, though. And forget about the increasing number of games that can take advantage of more than 2 cores.

Fatal, on Dec 06, 2012 - 8:43 PM, said:

Uninformed.

Demrofninu.

Fatal, on Dec 06, 2012 - 8:43 PM, said:

For gaming ,more cores does not mean better performance.

i5 chips have better IPC, the rest of what you said will surely be useful info for fellow posters.

Nothing of what you said is innacurate in the very least, but let's not pretend an Intel i3 is the "go to" CPU for PC gaming, because they aren't.

Is B&S the single most intensive thing you plan to do forever and ever? Fine, go with i3.

Exodus, on Dec 06, 2012 - 9:01 PM, said:

[color="#008000"]
Yeah those CPU's handle the game without any problems but still... i always get a feeling that "better CPU = better FPS" even tho its like no difference i would at-least have thought that the fps would drop to around 6

You'll get better framerates in other games.

[Fatal]

Faiyez, on Dec 06, 2012 - 9:33 PM, said:

Is B&S the single most intensive thing you plan to do forever and ever? Fine, go with i3.

I don't think any PC is going to last forever and ever.

And the original guy asking about this is on a very limited budget. Upgrading the CPU in a system meant for gaming at the cost of a better GPU is always a bad idea.
If he was on a $1000 budget then an i5 would be the way to go, but not at a $700 max budget.

[Exodus]

Fatal, on Dec 06, 2012 - 8:43 PM, said:

For gaming ,more cores does not mean better performance. What does make a difference is better per core performance due to the fact that the majority of games, BnS included, cannot make use of more than 2 CPU cores. Hence sacrificing money that could be spent on a better GPU for a quad core CPU will bring no noticeable gains in game performance.

The difference in gaming performance between the i3, i5 and quad core i7 is small enough to be completely ignored, the only reason to get more than an i3 for gaming is overclocking or very heavy multitasking, like running 4 game clients simultaneously.

Some games are exceptions but those are very few. (All of the Blizzard games off the top of my head)
5 years from now games will most likely all utilize more than 2 cores, but by that point quad core CPUs with very high per core performance will be available at the i3 pricepoint.

True but there are still games that synergize better with a quad core cpus than with a dual core.. but again thats another chapter (MMO's still need only 2 cores). I'm still positive that going for an i5 would be better cause you might be building this pc for B&S but im 100% sure you wont be Just Playing B&S..

(Im offtrack from the prices so correct me if im wrong)

The difference from the dual-core and the quad core is what? 100 bucks? and you get a better performance insurance to use your pc in the next years to come without lacking cores. You said it yourself that computers are not meant to last forever, So if i can pay 100 bucks more to get lets say a Extra year of not needing to upgrade my rig

But again... its all preference

This post has been edited by Exodus: Dec 08, 2012 - 10:09 PM

[Fatal]

Exodus, on Dec 08, 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

True but there are still games that synergize better with a quad core cpus than with a dual core.. but again thats another chapter (MMO's still need only 2 cores). I'm still positive that going for an i5 would be better cause you might be building this pc for B&S but im 100% sure you wont be Just Playing B&S..

(Im offtrack from the prices so correct me if im wrong)

The difference from the dual-core and the quad core is what? 100 bucks? and you get a better performance insurance to use your pc in the next years to come without lacking cores. You said it yourself that computers are not meant to last forever, So if i can pay 100 bucks more to get lets say a Extra year of not needing to upgrade my rig

But again... its all preference

The cost of an i3 3220 is $120 for the cpu + $70 for a decent H77 motherboard; $190
The cost of an i5 3570k is $215for the cpu + $110 for a decent Z77 motherboard + $30 for an after market cooler; $355
That's a $165 difference. For someone on a tight budget this usually means +/- $165 spent on a Graphics Card.

The i3 3220 is a hyper-threaded CPU, 2 physical CPU cores, 4 CPU threads, basically 2+2ht, the hyper threaded cores, if i recall correctly provide about 50% the performance of a physical core.

Now, there is a difference between the i3 and i5:


In Games like Blade & Soul that can only use really 2 CPU threads and are very light on CPU usage the i3 only starts performing notably worse when paired with a 680 or better.




In Games that can utilize all 4 threads on both the i3 and i5 Like Skyrim and Diablo 3 the i5 performs about 30% better. However when more GPU intensive games start making use of 4 threads, you'll still need a gpu good enough to keep up with your cpu.




Starcraft 2 is an extremely CPU intensive game. It also cannot make use of more than 2 cores. Other RTS games are also going to be heavily CPU intensive because of the large amounts of CPU calculations that need to happen for the possible 100s of units on your screen at a time. People who predominantly play this Genre of video games are the ones who need an i5 3570k. Not because of the extra cores but because of overclocking to gain more performance per core.

And in the near future when games do utilize all 4 cores,the i3, along with the i5, will benefit from the increase in performance and they're still going to have to be as CPU intensive as Starcraft 2 to warrant the step up to an i5.

However, if someone works in content creation; 3d modelling, streaming, video rendering and the like then an i5 3570k is going to be a minimum requirement as these types of programs are going to use as much CPU power as you can feed them.

Programs that you'd use alongside gaming like a chat client, browser with 5 or so tabs and a flash video playing, maybe a music player as well are not going to make much of a difference as they barely use any CPU power to begin with. you'll be fine using those while gaming on an i3.

This post has been edited by Fatal: Dec 10, 2012 - 10:58 PM

[Exodus]

Fatal, on Dec 10, 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

The cost of an i3 3220 is $120 for the cpu + $70 for a decent H77 motherboard; $190
The cost of an i5 3570k is $215for the cpu + $110 for a decent Z77 motherboard + $30 for an after market cooler; $355
That's a $165 difference. For someone on a tight budget this usually means +/- $165 spent on a Graphics Card.

Ok. 100 bucks and a nice meal

You misunderstand what i said. I agree that atm the dual core is the best choice for most game and especially MMOs
But as i said again its all preference. I would prefer a quad any day as even if i have 2 cores resting.. i will have them ready if i will ever need em (cause you never know)

Biggest buck for the price atm = 3220 I agree on that one
But i would still prefer the 3570 any time


Note: You did not have to make such i big post, i get what your tring to say.. But I was only interested on the marketing part lol ;D

This post has been edited by Exodus: Dec 11, 2012 - 8:39 PM

[Hajo]

Exodus, on Dec 11, 2012 - 8:36 PM, said:

Ok. 100 bucks and a nice meal

You misunderstand what i said. I agree that atm the dual core is the best choice for most game and especially MMOs
But as i said again its all preference. I would prefer a quad any day as even if i have 2 cores resting.. i will have them ready if i will ever need em (cause you never know)

Biggest buck for the price atm = 3220 I agree on that one
But i would still prefer the 3570 any time


Note: You did not have to make such i big post, i get what your tring to say.. But I was only interested on the marketing part lol ;D

No, it's fine! It was very informative to me since I'm not too familiar with the differences in performance between the 2.
So I can run this game maxed out with an i3 and the GPU i mentioned earlier (XFX Radeon 7850 i think it was)?
And this is totally irrelevant, but since you mentioned other games as benchmarks Fatal, would I also be able to run Borderlands 2 or Phantasy Star Online 2 maxed out at 1920x1080 resolution?
I haven't been able to find any benchmarks with this build so I want to get a range for how many FPS I will get with these games on average.

[db256]

CPU= AMD a8-4500m Quad Core 1.9
Ram = 4gb
OS = Windows 7 64bit
GPU: Radeon 7640g discrete (2gb video memory)

LAPTOP btw

can i run this game smooth at 1366 x 768
*crosses fingers*

Also just a quick thing, i hear amd ghz isnt the same as intel ghz, so about how different would they be? like 1.9ghz would be equal to about how much ghz in intel?

This post has been edited by db256: Dec 18, 2012 - 4:34 PM

[Fatal]

Hajo, on Dec 12, 2012 - 1:30 PM, said:

No, it's fine! It was very informative to me since I'm not too familiar with the differences in performance between the 2.
So I can run this game maxed out with an i3 and the GPU i mentioned earlier (XFX Radeon 7850 i think it was)?
And this is totally irrelevant, but since you mentioned other games as benchmarks Fatal, would I also be able to run Borderlands 2 or Phantasy Star Online 2 maxed out at 1920x1080 resolution?
I haven't been able to find any benchmarks with this build so I want to get a range for how many FPS I will get with these games on average.

Consider stepping up to a 7870 for maxing out BnS (I'm particularly partial to the Gigabyte GHz edition), the other 2 should easily be maxed out by a 7850.

db256, on Dec 18, 2012 - 4:33 PM, said:

CPU= AMD a8-4500m Quad Core 1.9
Ram = 4gb
OS = Windows 7 64bit
GPU: Radeon 7640g discrete (2gb video memory)

LAPTOP btw

can i run this game smooth at 1366 x 768
*crosses fingers*

Also just a quick thing, i hear amd ghz isnt the same as intel ghz, so about how different would they be? like 1.9ghz would be equal to about how much ghz in intel?

Low to Medium

Intel CPUs typically provide more power per GHz because the architecture is better, however Intel's integrated graphics is inferior compared to AMDs. For gaming at the price point I assume your laptop was purchased at, AMD is the better option.

Also, instead of comparing GHz, compare benchmarks, iirc that particular AMD CPU performs comparably to ULV i3s.

This post has been edited by Fatal: Dec 18, 2012 - 8:58 PM

[db256]

Fatal, on Dec 18, 2012 - 8:52 PM, said:

Consider stepping up to a 7870 for maxing out BnS (I'm particularly partial to the Gigabyte GHz edition), the other 2 should easily be maxed out by a 7850.




Low to Medium

Intel CPUs typically provide more power per GHz because the architecture is better, however Intel's integrated graphics is inferior compared to AMDs. For gaming at the price point I assume your laptop was purchased at, AMD is the better option.

Also, instead of comparing GHz, compare benchmarks, iirc that particular AMD CPU performs comparably to ULV i3s.

what would be the main problem preventing me from playing this game to the fullest, the CPU or GPU?
I didnt buy the laptop yet, but i was looking at that specific one