CPU core count important?

[atlau]

Does AH3 benefit from 4+ cores? Im looking to build a new computer to replace my laptop and it's the only game I play. Basically wondering if an i5 would make any significant improvement over an i3. On the other hand if AH3 benefits from more cores should i consider AMD? Looking for the best bang for the buck and maybe put any cost savings towards a better GPU.

[100Coogn]

Does AH3 benefit from 4+ cores? Im looking to build a new computer to replace my laptop and it's the only game I play. Basically wondering if an i5 would make any significant improvement over an i3. On the other hand if AH3 benefits from more cores should i consider AMD? Looking for the best bang for the buck and maybe put any cost savings towards a better GPU.

I would strongly suggest an upgrade on your GPU.
I went from CPU: Phenom 965 (4 Core) to an FX8350 (8 core).  Noticed no difference in the game.
Then I upgraded my GPU: EVGA GTX 660 to an EVGA GTX 970 and the improvement was amazing.

Coogan

[MADe]

AH2 used only 2 cores, it was written that way I believe.
AH3? I believe it too, uses only 2 cores, as written.
Windows has its own way of multitasking???

AH3 switched to a GPU dominant world. AH2 was a cpu bound world.

So get as better a vid card, as your current cpu can handle, imo. advice already given lol

 

[Bizman]

MADe is right as far as I can remember what's been written here.

Adding to that, it's been said that the single core speed should be above 3 GHz. Two cores will run AH well, but the background tasks of your computer might use the rest so a quad core is a good choice if your budget allows. Intel has a little better reputation than AMD, there was some issue in the past certain AMD models only being able to use one core for AH.

[atlau]

Thanks for the replies. I was leaning towards an i5 so I'll stick with that. Value proposition wise I'm eying the gtx 1060 or the AMD 480 to pair with it. Any thoughts? Any reason to get more than 3gb vram?

[DaddyAce]

I just built a puter with a dual core i3 6100 and 3 GB GTX 1060.   I'm using a 1680 by 1050 monitor.  I recently checked and with all normal background processes and AH3 the cpu is running maybe 50%.  With all graphics turned up I usually get a steady 60 fps.  My monitor is currently limiting frame rate.  If I turn off VSync and fly offline the frame rate then ranges from about 50 to about 180 fps.  Also, again with graphics maxed out, AH3 seems to use only about half of my 3 Gb video ram.

Punch line, I agree with the others, put the $ into the GPU.  I think you'd be fine with an I3 if you want to save more $ there, and don't think going with more than 3 GB VRAM is needed unless maybe if you want to run a 4k monitor.  I also seem to recall that unless the game uses a lot of hyperthreading, which I think AH3 does not, you may actually get better CPU performance with a dual core.  I don't have time to look that up now....perhaps later today....

[Skuzzy]

Actually, Aces High III can make use of 3 cores, at times.  That said, Windows still needs cores as well.  Quad core is a good choice, as long as it is not a slow quad core.

I would pick the gtx 1060 over the AMD 480.  3GB of dedicated video RAM will be enough for Aces High III.

[atlau]

Thanks Skuzzy. Does that apply to the 4k graphics requirements as well?

[Skuzzy]

As far as game resources are concerned, 4K monitors only impact the final frame buffer, but it takes a lot of GPU power to supply that many pixels at a decent frame rate.

Not sure the 1060 is the best choice for 4K support, but that is more mathematical than application as I do not have access to a 4K monitor, at the moment.

[ACE]

I would strongly suggest an upgrade on your GPU.
I went from CPU: Phenom 965 (4 Core) to an FX8350 (8 core).  Noticed no difference in the game.
Then I upgraded my GPU: EVGA GTX 660 to an EVGA GTX 970 and the improvement was amazing.

Coogan

Funny. I just upgraded my GTX 660 to a GTX1060 still got my old CPU amd phenom 925 4 core and so far I can't get it to run max details.

[Skuzzy]

Funny. I just upgraded my GTX 660 to a GTX1060 still got my old CPU amd phenom 925 4 core and so far I can't get it to run max details.

Should easily run with everything at maximum, except environmental mapping.  Still need that left at the first notch.  Basically, hit the "Default" button at the Options->Graphic Detail page.

Go offline and use CM God's Eye mode to get above the terrain a good bit.

If you look up, with no clouds in the sky, you should be getting close to a 1000 FPS (theoretical maximum).  I know a 980Ti will do that and the 1060 is close to, if not faster, than the 980Ti.

[DaddyAce]

Hi Skuzzy,

You have me now wondering about my decision to go with the i3 6100; at any rate the machine is now built and overall I'm quite happy with it and it's a huge improvement over what I had.  I have the 3 GB 1060 and just tried the CM Godseye thing you suggested, turned off Vsync, then environment mapping to none,  and only got about 600 fps in the far blue sky, as opposed to the 1,000 you mentioned, with essentially a 1080 p monitor.  I used task manager to record CPU usage and that was only about 50-60% max.  Does this suggest that somehow the CPU is limiting, or some limitation with the GPU perhaps?

So you have me curious about when the 3 CPU cores you referenced would be useful, presumably perhaps in FSO's when we have a lot of fighters escorting buffs and get jumped so there are planes in the air everywhere, for example?

Am inclined to upgrade to a 1440p monitor next, but you got me thinking about upgrading my CPU if I'm not happy with eye-candy/frames rates when I upgrade the monitor.

Thanks for any perspective you can add.

[Skuzzy]

The 980Ti we have in the office is being driven with an i7-4790.  I may be over-estimating the 1060 performance, but according to comparisons I have read, it should be close to the 980Ti in performance.

Are you running with everything at default settings in the game?  My test was also done at 1920x1080 resolution.  Anything higher would impact the performance.

It is important to get to about 30 to 40 thousand feet when doing the test.

[icepac]

I'm primarily an ATI guy but the GTX1060 is the sweetspot within the cash/performance/power usage formula.

[DaddyAce]

...hope I'm not hijacking your thread atlau, but am thinking this is relevant to the general topic....

........
Are you running with everything at default settings in the game?  My test was also done at 1920x1080 resolution.  Anything higher would impact the performance.

It is important to get to about 30 to 40 thousand feet when doing the test.

Thanks for your quick reply Skuzzy, I had most of my graphics settings maxed out, then went to default as you suggested, loaded the Dueling Terrain (no clouds) went max throttle waaaaaayyy out into the blue (not sure how to tell alt in CM godseye), still got only a max of about 630 fps, although my GPU usage was up showing about 60-70+% on Task Manager.  My resolution is actually a bit lower at 1680 x 1050.

No big deal for me, don't want to chew up your time, if it gives you some useful clues you can share great, if not all is well.

Thanks again!

I'm primarily an ATI guy but the GTX1060 is the sweetspot within the cash/performance/power usage formula.

icepac I agree and that's why I went with the 1060, the i3 6100 seems similar that way for CPU's assuming these componenets give you enough of what you want.