Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: alskahawk on September 21, 2010, 09:45:04 PM
-
I recently used my old Gigabyte MB/Video Card/Ram and CPU on another build. So now I am looking to upgrade with a new MB/CPU/Ram/Video combo for my flying computer. It will be only used mostly for a few flying games. AH2, OFF etc.
I haven't kept up on the changes in the last couple of years. I have looked at just putting a decent AMD board in with a dual core CPU but I am not sure. What are the good Intel chips? What is the I7, I5 etc? Whats a good under $200 MB? I prefer Asus or Gigabyte, but I am open to suggestions. I usually use Tiger Direct or Newegg for parts. I am looking to keep the combo under $500.
Left over items on my computer:
150GB Raptor HD
750 W Pwr Supply
CD/DVD Sata drive
-
Here is one that might suit your need
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.502076
and here you go to look through the combo deals
http://www.newegg.com/Store/ComboDeals.aspx?ComboStoreID=1&name=CPUs-Motherboards&Page=1
-
Thanks. Good Recomendations. Unbelievable. Six core, last I heard of was Quad.
-
As an Intel shareholder I am shocked at this brazen attempt at influence. I would point out that those systems are amd based. I have read in the forums you should reconsider using only Intel based systems. They are the most common and would have better support.
-
If the system is only for gaming such as AH then a fast clocked Dual core is going to be better than a Quad or 6 core CPU. Skuzzy has said AH only uses 2 cores and is better run on a faster clocked Dual then a Quad. While Intel is typically faster overall (and some seem to have better luck with chipsets), AMD works perfectly fine in games. My Phenom II 555 x2 and even Athlon 4850e ran the game close to perfectly (when coupled with a GTX 260 and a lowly 2GB of RAM) at full settings (only 2-4K shadows).
For 500$ Intel can create a faster system but if you're only gaming you can save some money and get darn good performance for less with AMD.
Think the main complaints against AMD is poor chipsets or something along those lines and speeds when video-editing/compressing/etc, but personally I've never had troubles with AMD. If Intel didn't cost so much I'd buy them. :)
-
also good with the X6's is the turbo core feature .. i think it goes up to 3.6ghz on the 890fx chipset
also a good reference is this for price/performance comparsion
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html)
-
As an Intel shareholder I am shocked at this brazen attempt at influence. I would point out that those systems are amd based. I have read in the forums you should reconsider using only Intel based systems. They are the most common and would have better support.
Ohboy Intel shareholder :rolleyes:
-
As an Intel shareholder I am shocked at this brazen attempt at influence. I would point out that those systems are amd based. I have read in the forums you should reconsider using only Intel based systems. They are the most common and would have better support.
Troll or fanboi?
-
Like it or not folks, Intel does work better than AMD, for many things. It is not just the CPU, but the chipsets surrounding the CPU that are better than anything in the AMD corner.
Yes, Intel is, generally, more expensive. That is a fact.
I have to support the game, and Intel is the lion share of the systems running the game, yet AMD at the heart of the lion share of support issues. That is a fact.
If you do video editing, Intel is a no-brainer choice. You could spend a lot less on Intel, than AMD, and still have a faster video editing/rendering solution. That is also a fact.
I have zero vested interest in either company. My only motivation is fewer support calls/emails. I will always suggest the faster clocked CPU. 6 cores do not buy you much improvements, if any, in 99% of the real world applications, including video rendering simply due to the limits of the external memory busses. Only one core at a time can access the external memory bus.
Get the faster clocked CPU, with 4 cores, or less, and you will be a happy camper.
-
FWIW, the i-7 930 overclocked quite easily for me from the stock 2.8 GHz up to 3.4 GHz (see CPUZ link in sig, below)
YMMV ;)
-
Thanks! These are all good view points. I have used both Intel 2 core, quad, AMD Dual, and for my use it doesn't make a lot of difference. I am leaning towards AMD because of price and because I have a water cooling system with a AMD mount. Less money to the MB/CPU means more video card. But its not locked and loaded yet.
-
I have to support the game, and Intel is the lion share of the systems running the game, yet AMD at the heart of the lion share of support issues. That is a fact.
In the other thread you said most of the problems were from unnecessary video card driver updates :)
It also cracks me up how people misquote you skuzzy...
Over the last year or two I think you've said, in various ways, statements to the effect of:
"AH uses as many cores as it needs"
"AH runs faster when fed more mhz than it does when fed more cores (assuming same cpu family)"
Which of course appears to mean that more cores isn't "wasted" exactly, but if you're going to spend money on a new multi-core cpu, then buy the faster clocked one instead of slower clocked one with more cores.
Also, people forget that the vid card makers have been making their drivers multi-core aware for a couple of years now. So no matter how many cores AH uses, other processes running on the computer including vid, sound, network, etc. drivers may utilize additional cores. So going dual or quad core certainly might help, as long as you're not taking a huge clock speed hit from one cpu to the other.
Is that close to what you usually mean when discussing this topic?
-
In the other thread you said most of the problems were from unnecessary video card driver updates :)
It also cracks me up how people misquote you skuzzy...
Over the last year or two I think you've said, in various ways, statements to the effect of:
"AH uses as many cores as it needs"
"AH runs faster when fed more mhz than it does when fed more cores (assuming same cpu family)"
Which of course appears to mean that more cores isn't "wasted" exactly, but if you're going to spend money on a new multi-core cpu, then buy the faster clocked one instead of slower clocked one with more cores.
Also, people forget that the vid card makers have been making their drivers multi-core aware for a couple of years now. So no matter how many cores AH uses, other processes running on the computer including vid, sound, network, etc. drivers may utilize additional cores. So going dual or quad core certainly might help, as long as you're not taking a huge clock speed hit from one cpu to the other.
Is that close to what you usually mean when discussing this topic?
Context, ain't it great?
The multi-threaded video card drivers run at kernel time, which requires a context switch. When that happens all processes are in user space are stopped and pushed out of the way on all cores so the kernel can run exclusive.
Nothing in the kernel can run parallel to a user process and vice-versa.
When I discuss video cards, the number one problem is newer drivers being loaded on older cards.
When I discuss CPU/computer related problems, AMD is the number one problem.
If I ever said Aces High will use as many cores as it needs (I do not remember saying that, but I am old so I do not trust my memory), then I was in la-la land, as that is absolutely not true. Aces High uses 2 cores.
-
Like it or not folks, Intel does work better than AMD, for many things. It is not just the CPU, but the chipsets surrounding the CPU that are better than anything in the AMD corner.
So if I'm looking at a new mobo, one with Intel south and northbridges would be preferable to one with, say an Nvidea northbridge? (assuming almost exclusive aces high use)
-
What are the most common problems you find with AMD Skuzzy? Is it more older computers, newer, or both?
-
FWIW: I am getting ready to hop back into the games after years of absence and have been researching systems to build. You can get the follow processor for under $300:
Intel Core i7-950 Bloomfield 3.06GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor BX80601950
45 nm Bloomfield 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache Series: Core i7
L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB
L3 Cache: 8MB
Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
Model #: BX80601950
The new AMD 6 core Phenom is Has more L2 cache, but less L3 and is 3.3GHz for $229.
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Thuban 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT90ZFBGRBOX
4000MHz 45 nm Thuban 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L... Series: Phenom II X6
L2 Cache: 6 x 512KB
L3 Cache: 6MB
Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
I am leaning towards the Intel, but need to know what Video card would work well. The newest cards are over $500 and I think this is over kill.
Thoughts?
-
I have never been real big on combo packages of PC components.
but for someone who is looking to build a PC and is wanting to save some money yet have better than middle of the road parts
this newegg combo in the link below might be worth it to some people
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.563935
just need to add a video card and the OS basically to have a complete new PC ( less the Monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers )
-
bulzeye just throwing some more food for thought. have you considered the sandy bridge cpus? they're supposed to be faster than a similar priced i7. just disregard the built in gpu.
semp
-
Like it or not folks, Intel does work better than AMD, for many things.
many things indeed, canned bentmarks mostly;
but not for these;
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/CCIMGO1.png)
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/amd032910d.jpg)
number one in industry standard peer-reviewed benchmarks (not the typical canned bentmarks found at anandtech or tomsHW);
STREAM memory bandwidth, SPEC_fp floating point performance, SPEC_int integer performance
number one CPU-based non-heterogenous supercomputer in the world is AMD-based. (http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/computing-resources/jaguar/)
im still here, providing alternative, unbridled technical TRUTH.
-
by the way, why do you have to pay more to buy intel? aka the "intel tax?"
pay more for inferior performance? :headscratch:
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/CCIMG04.png)
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/CCIMG05.png)
the "intel tax" is for the OEM kickbacks intel has to do (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/11/04/us-intel-cuomo-idUKTRE5A33TB20091104) to maintain the 80/20 market share.
and no, despite the antitrust case being settled in 2009, the kickback money is still free flowing (http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138356&p=198508&hilit=carrot+stick#p198508).
for purposes of AH2, your 60fps on an AMD system will just be the same as 60fps on an intel one.
your money is best spent on the best GPU you can buy (to enjoy this game), which btw intel cant figure out how to make properly.
ever heard of an intel video card? might be a while, not even to 2015 at least.
-
I wouldn't mind a bit of info on a build I'm playing with.
MB- Gigabyte MB GIGABYTE GA-G41M-COMBO R
CPU- Wolfdale e8400
GPU- ATI 5770
PSU- Corsair GS700
Ram- Undecided, but will probably go with 4GB Corsair DDR3 1333
OS- Win 7 Ultimate x64
I'm hoping that this rig will cover most of my needs (AH, CoD, general home use). My current comp runs well, but it's quite dated (N1996MB, e2180 CPU, 4 gb DDR2, ATI 5770 GPU).
Any imput or opinions would be appreciated.
EDIT for spelling.
EDIT #2- The reason I'm going with these components is that I've inherited the MB and CPU (new), so there won't be any out of pocket cost aside from the RAM, and I'd like to build a web-surfing machine with my old parts.
-
This thread started back in Sept 2010. :rolleyes:
-
This thread started back in Sept 2010. :rolleyes:
Hey, thanks for adding relevant info. :rolleyes:
-
many things indeed, canned bentmarks mostly;
but not for these;
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/CCIMGO1.png)
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/amd032910d.jpg)
number one in industry standard peer-reviewed benchmarks (not the typical canned bentmarks found at anandtech or tomsHW);
STREAM memory bandwidth, SPEC_fp floating point performance, SPEC_int integer performance
number one CPU-based non-heterogenous supercomputer in the world is AMD-based. (http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/computing-resources/jaguar/)
im still here, providing alternative, unbridled technical TRUTH.
nice awards, however I seem to remember that skuzzy mentioned that most of his problems come from amd bases systems than from intel. and the money you save is not really in the 100's for it to be called a lower priced alternative. sure it's a little bit less but sometimes not enought. :salute.
semp
-
by the way, why do you have to pay more to buy intel? aka the "intel tax?"
pay more for inferior performance? :headscratch:
[
:bhead
I realize there wont be any changing your mind but I have to point out that your comments in this post are not only incorrect but probably the most biased bit of information I have seen posted yet!
-
nice awards, however I seem to remember that skuzzy mentioned that most of his problems come from amd bases systems than from intel. and the money you save is not really in the 100's for it to be called a lower priced alternative. sure it's a little bit less but sometimes not enought. :salute.
semp
I think it really depends what a person is going to use their computer for. How much they want to spend. How long they will own the PC and if they will upgrade.
I have 2 computers, both amd. The one my wife and daughter use which is connected to the tv is a older AMD dual core with a DFI MB. Don't tell me I need to buy a Intel CPU which is more expensive for a barbie game and wife surfing the net and movies.
There is people who maybe can only spend so much money on building a PC and that extra 100.00 can be used for something else.
I have nothing against Intel, but the reason why I didn't buy Intel is the price at the time. My computer does everything I need it to.
-
I think it really depends what a person is going to use their computer for. How much they want to spend. How long they will own the PC and if they will upgrade.
I have 2 computers, both amd. The one my wife and daughter use which is connected to the tv is a older AMD dual core with a DFI MB. Don't tell me I need to buy a Intel CPU which is more expensive for a barbie game and wife surfing the net and movies.
There is people who maybe can only spend so much money on building a PC and that extra 100.00 can be used for something else.
I have nothing against Intel, but the reason why I didn't buy Intel is the price at the time. My computer does everything I need it to.
so true cattb when it comes down to surf the net and some light gaming, the $500 puter with 20 in monitor at best buy is more than enough to meet those needs. my mother-in-law loves her super fast laptop that we got her for xmas. it is a dual core intel that we paid 300 bucks for and if the other celeron or amd laptops would've been cheaper we would have gotten of the those instead. the laptop is as slow as a bus with no tires. but it more than exceeds her needs, of bill paying and some light internet surfing.
however the spirit in which the post was made is that for an ah computer it is dumb to spend money on an intel when amd is a little less. which is a little misleading. I understand not having money to buy top of the line systems be it intel or amd. I decided to buy intel because of the posting skuzzy made about more problems with amd than intel. now it took me 6 months to finish buying all the parts since I couldnt afford to buy everything at one time. I used some parts from my old puter till i had enough to buy new ones. now I have an e8400 based computer than plays ah with everything maxed, except for shadows which i keep at 4020 (or whatever). that work for me based on my own situation. other people have different ideas or needs.
I guess my point is research and do your homework and basically spend the money based on how you're gonna use your puter. I have been listening to people here go on an on about the intel tax and how amd is so much cheaper and better. then again I also listen to problems than amd have in the game, not that intel is not without its own problem
i think intel is a much wiser choice. that is my uneducated opinion based on bits of information I got here on the forums.
semp
-
many things indeed, canned bentmarks mostly;
but not for these;
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/CCIMGO1.png)
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/amd032910d.jpg)
number one in industry standard peer-reviewed benchmarks (not the typical canned bentmarks found at anandtech or tomsHW);
STREAM memory bandwidth, SPEC_fp floating point performance, SPEC_int integer performance
number one CPU-based non-heterogenous supercomputer in the world is AMD-based. (http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/computing-resources/jaguar/)
im still here, providing alternative, unbridled technical TRUTH.
Sorry, but I have to giggle a bit. You post slides from an AMD presentation, and then state you are "providing alternative, unbridled technical TRUTH". You think AMD is really going to provide an unbiased view of thier product? I would say they would be about as unbiased, as Intel would be. I think that is a fair statement.
I never said a word about any benchmarks. I stated facts based on actual usage and involvement. I also stated I have no vested interests in either camp. My interest is in reducing my workload. Yes, I am selfish that way.
I understand you prefer AMD, but the simple fact is, Intel works better for Aces High than AMD does. I happen to have some first hand knowledge in this area. As to why, you can start with the Microsoft thread manager in Windows and go from there.
-
Yikes!
All I was hoping for was guidance on the video card to include in the setup! LOL Sorry for opening up old business...
Thanks Skuzzy! Facts is what I like.
-
I stated facts based on actual usage and involvement.
amd having defective chipsets? look who's just made a costly chipset mistake with the "state of the art" SANDY BRIDGE platform (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/31/businessinsider-intels-billion-dollar-mistake-2011-1.DTL).
in the past intel also tried to screw consumers by not honoring returns of defective CPU's, (Pentium FDIV).
until IBM stepped in and stopped making intel desktops did intel start honoring warranties.
AH2 as a workload runs fine on AMD just as well as it does on intel. the only difference you'll see is in your pocket, and your visual experience.
because when you have a set budget, you will have to spend more on an intel CPU than an AMD one;
thereby relegating you to an inferior GPU choice(which is a far more critical part of the PC when it comes to AH2.)
i might also add a better screen (1080P minimum) would also yield you a better gaming experience, than a top line CPU.
-
:bhead
how is my post incorrect or biased?
lets see, you might as well tell SPEC scientists and engineers their peer-reviewed benchmark is useless.
and look who are the members of SPEC:
SPEC was founded in 1988.[2] Its members include Apple Inc., Dell, IBM, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems.[3] SPEC benchmarks are widely used to evaluate the performance of computer systems; the test results are published on the SPEC website. Results are sometimes informally referred to as "SPECmarks" or just "SPEC".
The benchmarks aim to test "real-life" situations. There are several benchmarks testing Java scenarios, from simple computation (SPECjbb) to a full system with Java EE, database, disk, and network (SPECjEnterprise). The SPECweb benchmarks test web server performance by performing various types of parallel HTTP requests.
The SPEC CPU suites test CPU performance by measuring the run time of several programs such as the compiler gcc, the chemistry program gamess, and the weather program WRF. The various tasks are equally weighted; no attempt is made to weight them based on their perceived importance. An overall score is based on a geometric mean.
i know you prefer bentmarks at anadtech or tomsHW, but look who sells/finances those kinds of marketing software (http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=137432&start=825#p185307); that is running code not nearly representative of actual desktop workloads!
-
I am an AMD fanboi, have been ever since I had my Cyrix P166+ based computer stolen and replaced it with an Intel 200? or 233 Pro.....
with that said, Intel users have the advantage of AH using 2 cores verses AMD users are relegated to only having 1 core of a dual(or quad etc core) processor, used in AH.....
even though my dual core AMD has never had any problems at all, nor any conflicts and runs AH with top settings.it is still only relegated to using just 1 core
to where if I had an Intel dual/quad core... I could get the use of 2 cores of the processor.....
also Intel seems to run cooler, but I think that is all in the make up of who built the pc/what tower & cooling method is used/etc..... some AMD topend processors pull lots more power, but one can keep them running cool if they do their home work...
YMMV......
-
Intel users have the advantage of AH using 2 cores verses AMD users are relegated to only having 1 core of a dual(or quad etc core) processor, used in AH.
wrong. i game on an AMD dual core and it is running threads on BOTH cores.
-
wrong. i game on an AMD dual core and it is running threads on BOTH cores.
ok, thanks, I'll go with what Skuzzy tells me though
cheers
-
wrong. i game on an AMD dual core and it is running threads on BOTH cores.
The native part of the game is not running on two cores. There are elements in DirectX itself which are multi-threaded and will run on more than one core, but the game will not. It is a fix supplied by AMD to work around a design issue within the CPU's. A slight difference in the way they do it versus Intel.
We had a ton of problems with AMD CPU's, until AMD supplied a fix. I was ready to write off AMD altogether.
As far as Intel and problems with chips goes. Intel learned with the 80286 it was far easier to be proactive about problems with chips, than to try and hide it. Did you also read how Intel already has a fix for the "Sandy Bridge" motherboard chipsets and will work to replace the defective units?
Remember the "Granite Bay" chipset? Intel fubared the 8x AGP bus up. People thought it was an ATI issue, but Intel had the information posted on thier WEB page long before ATI released the 8x AGP cards.
If you are trying to say AMD never makes a mistake, then you are really reaching for straws. You do not want to go down that path with me.
Again, I do not care. I have to support whatever a person buys, but when asked, I will recommend Intel as I know for a fact (I have data to support this and it is overwhelming) Intel CPU's (with Intel motherboard chipsets) simply have fewer issues running the game. Your agenda is to promote AMD, from what I can discern. My agenda is to reduce the support issues with the game. How many times do I have to say that?
-
The native part of the game is not running on two cores. There are elements in DirectX itself which are multi-threaded and will run on more than one core, but the game will not. It is a fix supplied by AMD to work around a design issue within the CPU's. A slight difference in the way they do it versus Intel.
does this "native part of the game" run on more than one core on intel systems?
what is the name of the thread for that "native part?"
does the patch provided by AMD allow for that native part of the game to run on more than one core?
We had a ton of problems with AMD CPU's, until AMD supplied a fix. I was ready to write off AMD altogether.
keyword: fixed, and i assume those issues were with the original athlon dual cores, not the later phenom ii X2 dual cores.
As far as Intel and problems with chips goes. Intel learned with the 80286 it was far easier to be proactive about problems with chips, than to try and hide it. Did you also read how Intel already has a fix for the "Sandy Bridge" motherboard chipsets and will work to replace the defective units?
it will cost intel $1BILLION to fix this issue. this includes systems already sold at retail stores/online.
and humor me, there is a little funny thing going on with intel cooking its books (http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4097) to maintain its expensive process migration.
Remember the "Granite Bay" chipset? Intel fubared the 8x AGP bus up. People thought it was an ATI issue, but Intel had the information posted on thier WEB page long before ATI released the 8x AGP cards.
If you are trying to say AMD never makes a mistake, then you are really reaching for straws. You do not want to go down that path with me.
you will not find any statement from me whatsoever, from beginning of my membership here that "AMD doesn't make mistakes."
why would i? :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:
Again, I do not care. I have to support whatever a person buys, but when asked, I will recommend Intel as I know for a fact (I have data to support this and it is overwhelming) Intel CPU's (with Intel motherboard chipsets) simply have fewer issues running the game. Your agenda is to promote AMD, from what I can discern. My agenda is to reduce the support issues with the game. How many times do I have to say that?
yes, your agenda is to reduce support at the prejudice of one product.
have you built yourself a recent AMD system?
have you gamed recently on an AMD cpu and AMD video card?
how can you provide unbiased tech support when all you have personally used lately is an E8400?
btw, my agenda is to provide accurate information when it comes to AMD.
i cant stand this "AMD is slower" statement when on unbiased workloads/benchmarks that are
PEER/ACADEMICALLY REVIEWED, AMD wipes the floor with intel CPU hardware.
i think the only thing we agree on is intel GPU's suck worse than cow dung? :lol :aok :D
-
ok, thanks, I'll go with what Skuzzy tells me though
cheers
along with AMD runs hotter?
-175 degrees celsius. colder than the dark face of the moon.
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/IMG_0711.jpg)
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/IMG_0710.jpg)
:aok :cool: :cool:
-
along with AMD runs hotter?
-175 degrees Celsius. colder than the dark face of the moon.
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/IMG_0711.jpg)
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/IMG_0710.jpg)
:aok :cool: :cool:
you fixing to bark up the wrong side of the tree with your below -174 Celsius statement
I can liquid cool one with refrigerant myself if I wanted too......
-
I can liquid cool one with refrigerant myself if I wanted too......
sure go ahead. talk is cheap.
-
sure go ahead. talk is cheap.
yep it is... and your talk is not worth my time
have a good day
-
so step off ........ so I don't have to mark ignore you, you might have something of valueto say in the future
sorry i got you worked up. but i dont know/understand why? :(
i also didnt ask for credentials, im sure youre smart and above-average, or 99 percentile on the tax bracket..
but i only asked for a sub-zero overclock... w/c shouldnt be much trouble....?
(see sig, although i am disinterested in it anymore.)
nothing ruins passion worse than adult "overclockers" cheating for cheap wins (http://www.realredraider.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=35985).
yes, theyre the "world famous people" at xtremesystems.org. more coverage here. (http://www.lostcircuits.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3808&p=6918&hilit=+blow+up#p6918)
thats where intel also seeds ES processors (http://www.realredraider.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31290) in exchange for running canned benchmarks.
-
I under stand your passion, skribetm
I felt as though you called me out with the quoting me then showing the sub zero pics
then telling me to go ahead talk is cheap
it felt like one of those e- p measuring things starting to happen and I just rather went and backed off to be friendly......
I have nothing to prove to anyone, I am happy knowing what I know and you should be to, Sir
as a matter of fact, I have seen your links in your sig something like 1 to 2 years ago, and I am familiar with the sites and the competition
just gonna sit back and read the boards
:cheers:
-
does this "native part of the game" run on more than one core on intel systems?
what is the name of the thread for that "native part?"
does the patch provided by AMD allow for that native part of the game to run on more than one core?
keyword: fixed, and i assume those issues were with the original athlon dual cores, not the later phenom ii X2 dual cores.
Yes, the native part of the game runs on both cores of an Intel multi-core system.
I do not know the name of the thread.
The fix AMD provided allows us to see the issue and not run the thread. The mix of CPU;s the covers is broad. At first, we all thought it was limited to a family of parts. This turned out to be a false assumption.
<snip>yes, your agenda is to reduce support at the prejudice of one product.
No prejudice at all. I have the numbers in front of me. AMD based systems are the smallest portion of computers running the game today and the largest portion of support issues. (Windows 7 64 bit not withstanding).
That is just a fact.
have you built yourself a recent AMD system?
You really do not want to hear this. I did. I have one at home in a corner collecting dust. Under a load it keeps dropping data from the audio streams of single channel audio.
have you gamed recently on an AMD cpu and AMD video card?
I use ATI cards in all my personal computers. Good products. I do not game at home. I make extensive use of video/audio editing on my home computer. I also do CAD design for my CNC mill.
how can you provide unbiased tech support when all you have personally used lately is an E8400?
Uh, what I use has nothing to do with what I support. When someone calls with a problem with thier computer, I work with them to get it resolved. I could care less what they have in the box. They have a problem, then I have a problem.
btw, my agenda is to provide accurate information when it comes to AMD.
Good for you. When asked, "What CPU do you recommend for Aces High?" I give the most accurate reponse I can, based on the data at my disposal. Today, that answer is Intel. There was a time when AMD was the choice. Remember the Intel Prescott family?
i cant stand this "AMD is slower" statement when on unbiased workloads/benchmarks that are
PEER/ACADEMICALLY REVIEWED, AMD wipes the floor with intel CPU hardware.
The only time I have said AMD was slower was in video editing and rendering than an Intel CPU. That is still true today. It is not my opinion. Ask any professional videographer. Do not take my word for it. The professional forums I hang around with echo the same things. AMD is just slow at the streaming instruction set, as compared to Intel.
-
I under stand your passion, skribetm
:cheers:
thank you, TC. i do not mean to offend ANYONE here, just to be clear.
i am just advocating for a product and everyone is free to counterpoint.
if not for AMD, intel would still be using aluminum interconnects (instead of copper);
or selling Pentium 4's for $1,000.00; or with a latency-bound FSB (instead of QPI and an IMC);
i could go on but you get the idea.
AMD's innovativeness brings forth better products from intel.
AMD will be introducing FMA4, XOP, a flex-FPU and many more new tech in the area of fusion.
These tech will probably only start showing up in intel processors by 2013 at the earliest. (http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138336&p=198309#p198309)
-
Yes, the native part of the game runs on both cores of an Intel multi-core system.
I do not know the name of the thread.
The fix AMD provided allows us to see the issue and not run the thread. The mix of CPU;s the covers is broad. At first, we all thought it was limited to a family of parts. This turned out to be a false assumption.
need more information.
"the mix of cpu's is broad" is too vague. need model numbers tested.
i will try getting AMD support on this issue. directly.
if the fix AMD gave you was to not run the thread at all then it is not a fix.
what is the performance hit from not running that thread?
need data points, comparisons, time runs in milliseconds;
how much faster in seconds, minutes, will AH2 run faster
on intel because this thread runs on intel; not AMD?
You really do not want to hear this. I did. I have one at home in a corner collecting dust.
it will do you well to learn it inside and out.
the BIOS settings, the install procedures, its specifications.
what model is it? i <3 pics how much dust is in it. :D
thats probably waaaaaaay old cpu. released together w/ what intel counterpart?
I use ATI cards in all my personal computers. Good products. I do not game at home. I make extensive use of video/audio editing on my home computer. I also do CAD design for my CNC mill.
nvidia is better at professional graphics. QUADRO. CUDA. SUPPORT.
gaming wise, ati rocks price/performance/power.
The only time I have said AMD was slower was in video editing and rendering than an Intel CPU. That is still true today. It is not my opinion. Ask any professional videographer. Do not take my word for it. The professional forums I hang around with echo the same things. AMD is just slow at the streaming instruction set, as compared to Intel.
video editing and rendering. those i can agree with because most of those software are tuned for intel and compiled with ICC.
under linux w/ blender and compiled with GCC, AMD performs better at rendering. see the performance discrepancy here at anadtech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/amd-s-12-core-magny-cours-opteron-6174-vs-intel-s-6-core-xeon/7).
early part of the thread:
Like it or not folks, Intel does work better than AMD, for many things.
video editing + rendering != "many things" ; although for yourself it is probably true. :D :D :D
thank you skuzzy.
-
See Rule #4
-
Group HUG!!! :cheers: Now about the best Video card for my dollar? LOL
-
need more information.
"the mix of cpu's is broad" is too vague. need model numbers tested.
i will try getting AMD support on this issue. directly.
if the fix AMD gave you was to not run the thread at all then it is not a fix.
what is the performance hit from not running that thread?
need data points, comparisons, time runs in milliseconds;
I cannot answer many of those questions due to NDA with AMD. AMD is the one who told us it was not limited to a family of product. That is all I can give you.
how much faster in seconds, minutes, will AH2 run faster
on intel because this thread runs on intel; not AMD?
It is not so much performance as it is smoothness. I cannot get into the details as it fringes on our IP.
it will do you well to learn it inside and out.
the BIOS settings, the install procedures, its specifications.
what model is it? i <3 pics how much dust is in it. :D
thats probably waaaaaaay old cpu. released together w/ what intel counterpart?
It is a Phenom II. I am very familiar with the BIOS settings and computer configuration. In this instance it is losing interrupts, which is causing data to be lost in the audio stream. The manufacturer is aware of the problem and it was supposed to be fixed.
nvidia is better at professional graphics. QUADRO. CUDA. SUPPORT.
gaming wise, ati rocks price/performance/power.
And that is why I use ATI. Power. Due to the other things I do, I prefer the video quality of ATI over NVidia.
video editing and rendering. those i can agree with because most of those software are tuned for intel and compiled with ICC.
under linux w/ blender and compiled with GCC, AMD performs better at rendering. see the performance discrepancy here at anadtech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/amd-s-12-core-magny-cours-opteron-6174-vs-intel-s-6-core-xeon/7).
early part of the thread:
video editing + rendering != "many things" ; although for yourself it is probably true. :D :D :D
thank you skuzzy.
The GCC compiler has only just recently started generating any streaming instructions at all. Yes, you remove the streaming instruction set from the equation and AMD will win. AMD's support for the streaming instructions is poor, at best and they know it.
-
Skuzzy, I'm just glad you're taking it easy on him. I can only imagine in between babysitting this BBS (I'm to blame at times and know this) and trying your damndest to troubleshoot over the phone, most would put the gun to their head.
:cheers:
-
I cannot answer many of those questions due to NDA with AMD. AMD is the one who told us it was not limited to a family of product. That is all I can give you.
It is not so much performance as it is smoothness. I cannot get into the details as it fringes on our IP.
well that doesnt help any, doesnt it? besides, a statement saying how much faster in
seconds the app performs on one platform compared to another does not infringe on IP.
if it was otherwise, then these tech websites/benchmarketers have infringed on the IP of a lot of games..
The GCC compiler has only just recently started generating any streaming instructions at all. Yes, you remove the streaming instruction set from the equation and AMD will win. AMD's support for the streaming instructions is poor, at best and they know it.
it is more likely that the windows build/compile generates code path with SSE3/SSE4 enabled if intel, and an SSE2 code path only if VIA/AMD.
hence the performance discrepancy. GCC support for SSE has been standard, in fact newer instruction sets find their way
into the GCC trunk earlier than in other compilers.
-
Skuzzy, I'm just glad you're taking it easy on him. I can only imagine in between babysitting this BBS (I'm to blame at times and know this) and trying your damndest to troubleshoot over the phone, most would put the gun to their head.
:cheers:
skuzzy is doing fine and well.
last he needs is another ankle humper.
:lol :aok :aok
-
If I may bring this thread back on topic (temporarily I'm sure), it seems the problem with the Intel "Series 6" motherboard chipsets is legit (affecting the 3GB (but not 6GB) Intel-chipset sata connections on all H67 and P67 motherboards on the market), and I would avoid buying a "Sandy Bridge" Intel CPU & motherboard until fixed motherboards are available (which will be a few weeks).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug)
To go back off-topic, I haven't been an early adopter of much of anything of significance since my Voodoo 5 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/KL_3DFX_Voodoo5_5500.jpg/800px-KL_3DFX_Voodoo5_5500.jpg), but apparently I forget lessons once learned if its been over 10 years or so.
-
well that doesnt help any, doesnt it? besides, a statement saying how much faster in
seconds the app performs on one platform compared to another does not infringe on IP.
if it was otherwise, then these tech websites/benchmarketers have infringed on the IP of a lot of games..
it is more likely that the windows build/compile generates code path with SSE3/SSE4 enabled if intel, and an SSE2 code path only if VIA/AMD.
hence the performance discrepancy. GCC support for SSE has been standard, in fact newer instruction sets find their way
into the GCC trunk earlier than in other compilers.
give it up sir. you are going in circles. you are beginning to sound like my kids asking, why, why.
semp
-
give it up sir. you are going in circles. you are beginning to sound like my kids asking, why, why.
semp
sorry, i dont just take someones word without evidence.
i respect inquiring men more than blind sheeple.
i belong to the former. no self repecting, reasoning- human being would like to be in the latter.
all this "issues with AMD", "AMD is slower in AH" so far has been brought up many times in this forum.
and each time it is brought up, no concrete evidence other than hearsay and unverified "facts" have been handed out.
-
sorry, i dont just take someones word without evidence.
i respect inquiring men more than blind sheeple.
i belong to the former. no self repecting, reasoning- human being would like to be in the latter.
all this "issues with AMD", "AMD is slower in AH" so far has been brought up many times in this forum.
and each time it is brought up, no concrete evidence other than hearsay and unverified "facts" have been handed out.
you are beating a dead horse. he already said he can't answer your question due to a nda. and frankly it's getting annoying that you don't get the point that it's useless to argue because you could have all the evidence and you would still demand more data. you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
semp
-
you are beating a dead horse. he already said he can't answer your question due to a nda. and frankly it's getting annoying that you don't get the point that it's useless to argue because you could have all the evidence and you would still demand more data. you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
semp
He's on a religious anti-Intel crusade. It got tiring to read a while ago. IMO if he has nothing more to contribute than the same old anti-Intel canned phrases, he shouldn't post at all. Certainly shouldn't be repeating what he already said three times in every thread remotely related to the topic at hand.
-
sorry, i dont just take someones word without evidence.
i respect inquiring men more than blind sheeple.
i belong to the former. no self repecting, reasoning- human being would like to be in the latter.
all this "issues with AMD", "AMD is slower in AH" so far has been brought up many times in this forum.
and each time it is brought up, no concrete evidence other than hearsay and unverified "facts" have been handed out.
Ya know, you are getting kind of boring.
The guy said most of his problems come from AMD users and you insist that you be provided "concrete evidence" of that fact. Sometimes anecdotal experiences are valid. The fact that they cant be explained to your satisfaction is immaterial.
shamus
-
Group HUG!!! :cheers: Now about the best Video card for my dollar? LOL
The 460 and 6850 run performance wise very close to each other I have read. Though I do not have either card I am sure either would work fine to run the game.
These are midrange cards.(about 150.00 to 210.00)
There are the higher end cards up from these two cards mentioned.
nvidia has the cuda and the physx.
ati has the multi screen support.
Do some research and consider what your going to use your PC for and how long before you want to rebuld or upgrade and how much you want to spend.
You will also need a good power supply to power your system and the graphics card you buy.
I am not recommending you buy either the 460 or 6850, just suggesting a starting point.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600083830%204017&IsNodeId=1&name=%24100%20-%20%24200 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600083830%204017&IsNodeId=1&name=%24100%20-%20%24200)
-
you are beating a dead horse. he already said he can't answer your question due to a nda. ... you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
semp
5-year old NDA's? the dual core optimizer has been released five years ago and is already obsolete.
NDA's for the most part are for unreleased products. how this relates to this particular issue i have no clue.
Ya know, you are getting kind of boring.
He's on a religious anti-Intel crusade. It got tiring to read a while ago. IMO if he has nothing more to contribute than the same old anti-Intel canned phrases, he shouldn't post at all. Certainly shouldn't be repeating what he already said three times in every thread remotely related to the topic at hand.
:headscratch: :rofl :rofl
right, because personal attacks are a better contribution to this thread rather than posting technical info.
getting no concrete evidence regarding this issue, i wouldnt be surprised if this same argument come up again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258707.msg3209374.html#msg3209374) two years (or earlier) from now.
-
well that doesnt help any, doesnt it? besides, a statement saying how much faster in
seconds the app performs on one platform compared to another does not infringe on IP.
if it was otherwise, then these tech websites/benchmarketers have infringed on the IP of a lot of games..
it is more likely that the windows build/compile generates code path with SSE3/SSE4 enabled if intel, and an SSE2 code path only if VIA/AMD.
hence the performance discrepancy. GCC support for SSE has been standard, in fact newer instruction sets find their way
into the GCC trunk earlier than in other compilers.
This is my last post on the subject. After that you can do what you want.
1) I have never said Aces High runs faster on Intel. I have repeatedly stated, the game will run "better" on an Intel based system, than and AMD based system. "better" as in potentially less problematic than AMD. I am not going to provide the breakdown of how many systems are running Intel versus AMD, and what the exact percentage is of problems. AMD would not appreciate that.
2) AMD provided a source code fix, along with an NDA. We will not violate that agreement. Our relationship with AMD is worth far more than our relationship with you is.
GCC has always been very far behind the curve in supporting new instructions. I have been dealing with it for over 25 years and that has always been the major complaint about them. They are very conservative in updating the compiler and assembler. It is not unusual for them to add a new processor flag, but not add any new instruction support. Sometimes the processor flag is to stop the compiler/assembler from generating an instruction that has been deprecated, not to add anything new.
The Microsoft compiler does not do dynamic compiling. The compiler generates exactly what you tell it to. Visual Studio is not based on the Intel compiler. Microsoft updates their compilers, but you have to buy the latest version to get those updates.
Finally, I will state, for the last time, my only concern is to reduce my support efforts. I have not stated anything based solely on my opinion. I do not have to do that as I have access to all the data I need to support my suggestions. If I do not have that data, then I do not make any suggestion at all. If you think I lack the expertise/talent to make a proper suggestion as to what could lower your potential issues with the game, there is not much I can do about it.
-
:headscratch: :rofl :rofl
right, because personal attacks are a better contribution to this thread rather than posting technical info.
getting no concrete evidence regarding this issue, i wouldnt be surprised if this same argument come up again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258707.msg3209374.html#msg3209374) two years (or earlier) from now.
Its not a personal attack. Its a warning to anyone reading this thread to take your posts with a Michigan highway spreader's truckload of salt. Because you haven't posted any unbiased technical info, all you've done is been a rather loud AMD fanboy.
I'll even give you that at the low end there's probably some AMD systems that run Aces High better than an equally priced Intel system, even with the "Aces High only runs on one core on AMD CPUs" problem holding it back. You certainly haven't told us anything new other than to refute perceived slander against AMD's good name.
Your "unbiased peer-reviewed facts" came from, as Skuzzy pointed out, an AMD sales pitch. You lost all credibility at that point. Anyone listening to anything you say now, would be a fool.
Here's the bottom line for anyone new to this thread:
Intel for Aces High. AMD is perfectly good for other applications, but for your money, you're almost certainly better off with an Intel CPU for Aces High, because Aces High only runs on one core in a multi-core AMD cpu, while on Intel CPUs, it'll use two cores.
If anyone wants to refute that, please don't bring "facts" from an AMD sales pitch.