CPU for AH: Cores or Clocks - which is best?

[Boozeman]

I'm going to build a new system soon, but I'm a bit puzzled about which CPU to pick. Basically I want optimum AH performance, and to that I want to bias my choice.

When reading this board, there seems to be contradicting information which way to go. I have read post that AH can make most use of a dual-core CPU, which would mean a fast 2 core would be the best choice. Then I've read on other occasions that AH is natively multi-threaded, which would then mean (correct me if I'm wrong) the more cores, the merrier. Well, I'm confused.

Basically, I have come up with 2 paths:

Intel 1156 path: Either a Core i5 660 2 x 3,33 GHz, or a Core i5 750 4 x 2,66 GHz
AMD AM3 path: Either a Phenom II X2 255 2 x 3,20 GHz, or a  Athlon II X4 635 4 x 2,90 GHz

Your thoughts?     

[BaldEagl]

At this point I'd probably buy a quad core Intel socket 1156 CPU.  It's just the way things are going.  

If you go with an I5 I'd stick with the 7xx series Lynfield core.

Theres a good comparison chart of the Core I CPU's near the bottom of this wiki artical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core

If you don't care about future upgrades and really just want to optimize AH then the best bang for the buck is still the E8400/E8500 Wolfdale.  I also heard a rumor that these CPU's might be rebranded as Core I3's meaning the LGA775 wouldn't be going away anytime soon.

[TequilaChaser]

AH utilizes 2 cores ( being multi-thread if I am not mistaken ) however you will not be hurting yourself if you go with more than a dual-core CPU.....

the toss-up between an Intel vs an AMD dual-core/Tri-core/quad-core processors(CPU's) is a never ending debate.....between the fanbois of both camps...... both camps ( AMD & Intel ) have Tri-Core CPUs....... both pass off their unstable 4 core CPU's as Tri-Core..... not stating to the general public the reason for the Tri-Core.....

personally I would stay away from the Tri-Core CPU's.....Tri-Core CPU's are actually Quad-Core CPU's that have failed their quality-control checks during manufacturering and are passed off  as Tri-Cores....... meaning one of the 4 cores were unstable..... sometimes this 4th core might be locked and sometimes it might be unlocked.....

Do Your Research

but YMMV ( your mileage may vary )

hope this helps.......

[Skuzzy]

From purely an Aces High perspective, a faster clocked dual core CPU is better than a slower clocked quad core.  Stay with Intel.

If the clock rates are the same for the dual and quad core, the quad core will not buy anything for the game.

For the record, there are very few applications which use more than two cores.  I am comfortable saying less than 1% of the available applications might use more than two cores.

There are those who would argue more cores allows more applications to run at the same time without any impact.  Those people are clueless, pay no mind to them.  As long as there is only one memory bus, that means only one application is actually running, no matter how many cores there are as only one core can access memory at a time.  That leaves whatever is left in the CPU cache to run.  Of course that is short-lived as once an application makes a call to a DLL library function, the cache is invalidated and the application is suspended until it can access memory again.

There are also those who will argue more and more applications will become multi-threaded.  Not really true either.  Most applications require a state change in order to continue doing whatever they are doing.  This precludes a thread being run as threads have to be able to run asynchronously to the application (i.e. not depend on any data in the core application) in order to have any benefit.

[Boozeman]

From purely an Aces High perspective, a faster clocked dual core CPU is better than a slower clocked quad core. 

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for. 

[denniswilha]

On a quad core system will it run the game better setting the processor Affinity to just 2 cores for the process {aces High}  ?

[Skuzzy]

On a quad core system will it run the game better setting the processor Affinity to just 2 cores for the process {aces High}  ?

No.

[zack1234]

why do they make quad  :old:cores?

[SIK1]

why do they make quad  :old:cores?

Marketing

[gyrene81]

Yup, so people can look at a label and go oooooh...like putting a 2.9 liter V8 under the hood of a Ferrari...yeah you have a V8 but it ain't gonna do much.

[Skuzzy]

With a proper server operating system, the more cores the better.  Most versions of the UNIX operating system do very well with multi-core CPU's.  As those operating system have been designed from the start to be multi-user/multi-threaded the multi-core CPU fits right in and is efficiently used.  Most UNIX processes are pretty small and self-contained so they cache well in the larger cached multi-core CPU's.

Also, video editing applications do very well with more cores than two.

Beyond that, there is really not much to be gained with a quad core CPU for most people.

[edog1977]

Yup, so people can look at a label and go oooooh...like putting a 2.9 liter V8 under the hood of a Ferrari...yeah you have a V8 but it ain't gonna do much.

I know this is way off topic but I can't help myself. You may want to reconsider that analogy. Ferrari used 2.0L V8 in road cars during the 80's, and their current F1 engine is a 2.0L V8 making over 700HP. 

[gyrene81]

I know this is way off topic but I can't help myself. You may want to reconsider that analogy. Ferrari used 2.0L V8 in road cars during the 80's, and their current F1 engine is a 2.0L V8 making over 700HP. 

Uh yeah...try putting a stock Buick 215 CID in that car and see what it does...  And I don't remember seeing any 2.0L V8 Ferrari street cars during the 80s...more like the 60s maybe.

[zack1234]

rgr sold my AMD dual core to my boss he makes films he thinks it great for editing

[Skuzzy]

Actually, AMD's kind of suck for video editing.