Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: 1701E on November 11, 2010, 06:54:03 AM
-
Everytime a build comes up there gets to be jabs at people because of their choice of parts (particularly CPU), so let's settle it best we can. It's pretty well understood Intel outperforms AMD in the performance area. I've heard that ATI is beating Nvidia in the current generation of GPUs, and since this is a forum for AHII we'll use that as a comparison (unless someone specifically states another game they want to play).
Leaving the fanboi-ism out of anything in here it would be nice to compare AMD vs Intel and NVidia vs ATI. I use $ for $ since I don't know of anyone (personally) that buys a GPU for way more than it can do (like 3grand for a 580).
For comparisons in both areas assume 1680x1050 in AHII. Aside from the difference in what's being compared the systems are of equal performance for this test. Same RAM, CPU/GPU (where applicable), PSU, HDD, and so on.
In the $ for $ performance area who wins? -CPUs
I personally feel AMD wins (personal opinion, so looking for real stats) but I know more calculates into it than the CPU, chipset is a big problem but we'll assume the chipsets are good-as-it-gets for this.
Using everyday tasks and AHII as a comparison who would perform better in the $100, $200, $300 areas (no comparing a $101 CPU to a $199, keep it fair)?
Would the difference in AMD vs Intel be noticeable to an average user?
And as a guide, why does AMD or Intel perform better?
In the $ for $ performance area who wins? -GPUs
I have heard ATI is currently kicking NVidia because Fermi was rushed, is it still true?
Who performs better in the $200, $300, $400 marks (same restriction as CPU)?
Which maker runs cooler, less power, quieter (a must for some) in the respective prices?
What settings would likely be obtainable to those GPUs to sustain ~60FR (if possible since I know we don't have 1 of every card here)?
As a little side thing, what would be the minimum price to run AHII maxed at ~60FR? 500? 600? 900? 1500?
I run everything maxed (except shadows at 2-4K) at ~60FR for ~$635 so I'm curious how much more it would take to max it that little bit more. It would also help to get a baseline of what to expect if someone wants to run the game maxed.
~$635 includes running:
Case- Aerocool M40 $80
Motherboard- Biostar A785GE $55
CPU- AMD Phenom II X2 555 $90
RAM- Transcend DDR2-800Mhz 2x1GB $45
GPU- EVGA GTX 260 $185
PSU- OCZ StealthX 700Watt $85
HDD- 320GB WD $65 (was bought at Officemax so I cut the price for average prices in NE)
DVD- ASUS DVD RW $30
With all the knowledgeable people in here I'm sure we can get a decent non-argument based response to help other people who are considering building a system.
:salute
-
i think the minimum GPU that can run this game all settings maxed at 1050P would be the next step-up in the nV heirarchy.
GTX 285 (http://www.overclock.net/video/857076-fs-ft-bfg-gtx-285-oc.html). (im not sure that even if you overclock that 260 it will run max 4k textures.)
Would the difference in AMD vs Intel be noticeable to an average user?
And as a guide, why does AMD or Intel perform better?
intel performs better due to software optimization. majority of the market(80%) share is intel. hence, developers optimize with --march=intel at compile time. architecturally, intel has HTT/hypethreading, which adds about ~15/20% performance on most desktop workloads by exploiting execution stalls in the pipeline. however, for high performance computing workloads, such performance advantage basically goes down to zero due to highly efficient code(hand-picked asm). as for amd, they will be introducing their new uarch Q2-2011 using a quasi-cluster multithreading approach. (flex-fp with fma4 (http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/10/25/the-new-flex-fp/), something intel wont have until haswell/2012).
as for the GPU side of things, nV's uarch needs a node shrink to 28nm asap. i think fermi would have been a great product, but the tsmc 40nm process failed them, hard.
now to the Q above, what equivalent intel processor can you buy at your 555BE price range? i doubt it will be as feature packed or as capable. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%2050001157%204027&IsNodeId=1&name=%2475%20-%20%24100)
-
The reasons Intel outperforms AMD is many, and I am not going to get into that, but very little of it has to do with any type of code optimizations. The fact is, AMD is competing for Intel business and it is up to AMD to build a better mouse trap which executes code as well or better than Intel.
In other words, no one sould be able to write any type of code that would benefit Intel over AMD, unless AMD did a poor job executing that code.
Now, to the overall question at hand. Intel CPU's/chipsets will run Aces High better than AMD CPU's/chipsets.
-
Now, to the overall question at hand. Intel CPU's/chipsets will run Aces High better than AMD CPU's/chipsets.
im off to buy an intel atom with an intel larrabee gpu. :bolt:
-
Well, if you want to try to run the game with a "tablet" CPU, you would have to use Intel as AMD does not have anything to compete with it.
Larrabee never shipped, so good luck with that.
-
I've always been a ATI person, and wondering about the differance also! sniffing around my comp store, they had a smoking deal on a returned (EVGA) GTX 465 SC, 1Gb dram,they said it would not fit the guys tower! out the door for 220 buck's! Hand's down it smokes the (diamond) 5770 1Gb, I was useing! I run the hi-res pack @ 1920X1200 just a notch of AA on board and in game and triple buff, The close fly-by passes and then you hear/feel the shot's are almost gone!
just a really nice card! from what i've read, the differance between the two is type's of multithreading? (not sure!) AH is the only game I play (who would want to play anything else?) he,he. Now I don't belive in dropping 400 buck's on a GPU! but for what I payed for this card! It was worth every cent!
-
1701E, what you can't quantify as easily - but which is every bit as germaine when responding to a request for what to get for a gaming system - is that the chipsets that support an AMD-based system seem to be less stable and robust than the chipsets that are available to support an Intel solution.
Up through the mid-range, there are certainly price points where dollar for dollar you can put together a higher performing AMD system for the same money you'd spend on an Intel.
But much of the time, you pay for it down the road in stability - not stability with the AMD processor itself, but because of the chipset of the motherboard you had to pair it with.
How much is that stability worth? Having once had an AMD-Athlon based system that would corrupt hard disk transfers under some circumstances, I can tell you that to me, it's worth a lot. And this is mostly why I once again switched back to Intel with my latest build - the 4600+ was a great chip, but the best motherboard I could get to put it in not so much.
In my very humble opinion, the best thing AMD could do to no longer be viewed as "second-rate" would be to invest as much effort into ensuring a stable chipset option as Intel has. I'd certainly be much more amenable to AMD if that were the case.
<S>
-
it seems the last time people here built AMD systems were when they outsourced that chipset business to VIA.
ever since they've acquired ATi's core logic business, chipsets have been nothing but excellent.
of course, if you compare two mobos, keep in mind they should be at the same price point.
no use comparing a budget AMD board to a Rampage III. :lol
but even for top-end boards, you'll clearly see what i mean by the intel tax premium.
this is one of the top-line ASUS AMD mobo's, based on 890FX chipset. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131667&cm_re=crosshair-_-13-131-667-_-Product)
(http://www.alphacity.co.nz/images/consumables/Crosshair-IV-Extreme.jpg)
whats not to like?
-
here's the comparable top-line ASUS mobo. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131642)
(http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/asus_rampage_iii_extreme.jpg)
-
The ATI chipset is coming along. It had issues in the early stages, like anything new, but it is getting better. VIA/NVidia certainly did not do AMD any favors by supporting them.
You can complain about Intel's price premium (in a price/performance comparison, they really are not that far apart) It really is not much of a premium when you can complete a movie encode 40% faster than a comparably performing/cheaper AMD CPU. I cannot count how much money that has saved me.
That is just one facet of desktop computer work where AMD really falls short. Still, Aces High will run better on a multi-core Intel CPU than it will on anything AMD. By the way, we do have special code in the game for AMD (deals with the borked threading in the dual-core AMD CPU's) and none for Intel.
-
Still, Aces High will run better on a multi-core Intel CPU than it will on anything AMD.
keep in mind however, this game is GPU-bound more than CPU-bound.
for an equal amount of money, you will see more fps by investing in a better GPU than CPU.
as for encoding, CUDA definitely is a lot faster/better for non-HD resolutions(480P to 720P).
the future of the pc is heterogenous computing. one fat x86 core with competing threads is a dead end.
as well as the many, small x86 cores for GPU(why intel's LRB failed.)
might i also add, intel does not have GPU expertise or a decent GPU core available for up to 2015 at least.
intels upcoming Sandy Bridge core's GPU barely keeps up with AMD's lowest end Fusion core(Ontario, Zacate) (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4003/previewing-amds-brazos-part-1-more-details-on-zacateontario-and-fusion/2).
unless they buy nvidia. but why spend money on inept management? (just buy the IP!)
fortunately for now, one company gets the whole picture, be it CPU or GPU. only AMD can lay claim to that.
and last i checked, 60FPS on AMD is just as fast as 60FPS on intel. unless im missing something. :lol :lol :aok
-
Actually Aces High is very CPU dependent. Try modeling flight and not be CPU dependent. It is a balancing act between the CPU and GPU. Aces High will run on the basic Intel GPU, which is about as slow as it gets in the video world.
I am not speculating about the future. Anything to do with the future is pure speculation at this point in time. The question is what is better today and Intel is better for Aces High.
Look, I have to support everything. The lion share of all hardware related problems come from AMD computer users. Considering AMD is a much smaller percentage of the customer base, and yet has more problems tells me Intel is better for the game. It seems to be a logical conclusion.
I am not much for pointing fingers. I look at the numbers and that is what compels me to answer this question. I have no vested interest in Intel, nor AMD. I have a vested interest in reducing the support emails and phone calls I get.
-
I am not much for pointing fingers. I look at the numbers and that is what compels me to answer this question. I have no vested interest in Intel, nor AMD. I have a vested interest in reducing the support emails and phone calls I get.
I get what you're saying skuzz, and I can only imagine how much you've aged since answering techsupport for AH2. :O :O :lol
sure past AMD chipsets from VIA/nV really DID and still DO suck, generally. (nV cant get Hypertransport right.)
but you really need to update your view of current technology while keeping an eye out for the future.
this AMD Llano CPU coming out 1H2011 (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1443/1/) will very likely allow users to play AH2 on above-default graphics settings at resolutions up to 900P, without the need for a discrete video card. isnt that a wonderful solution for budget gamers here, specially in these hard economic times when people dont have the $$$ for a $250ish ATi/nV GPU?
the ATi purchase really put a dent not only on AMD's pockets but also on their past execution(familiar with Barcelona?)
but by the same token, ATi has injected new life not only on AMD but to the x86 industry in general, courtesy of fusion.
AMD has started shipping Ontario/Zacate to OEM's. its probably time to say RIP Atom. you never really pleased me. :D :D :aok
-
oh btw, as for this game being CPU dependent? the minimum system requirements say a lot different.
while playing this game, it barely even taxes an athlon dual core w/ 4890, fps pegged at 60.
-
The game is currently pretty well balanced between the CPU and GPU. It is quite easy to have too much GPU, if your CPU is too slow.
I am fully aware of what is coming, but none of what is coming is here today, so I am not about to make a bet on something I cannot test first. It would be completely out of character for me to do so.
I am also fully aware of what is available in the market. I am also well versed in the type and number of complaints I get about various things.
I have this one guy who spent a wad of cash on the top of the line AMD stuff and he is pulling his hair out of his head trying to get it stable. He is one of the few that has me completely stumped. I have tried everything and nothing seems to have a positive impact on the stability issues.
I have also run into Intel computers with stability issues, but I have always been able to figure out why and help the player get it worked out.
This poor guy has replaced everything, somethings twice and he is still crashing. I am still digging into whether or not Windows 7 is more unstable with AMD or not. That is my last line of hope for this guy.
You have no idea how much I hate it when I cannot figure out what is wrong with a players computer.
-
windows 7 works perfect with AMD. besides wasn't it microsoft who made x86-64/AMD64 a brilliant success and itanium/IA-64 a dismal failure?
send him over to http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/ if you cant get it stable. we havent had that much trouble troubleshooting set-ups, not that theres that many diY'ers having trouble with their builds anyway. only two ones weve had over the past year 2010 has been with HTSF errors, and its just with the MSI board. most/all we get over there are converts bit!&#( about how an overpriced pos their past intel cpu was- while getting just as much(and frankly they cant tell the difference)- if not better performance with their amd cpu's.
*edit: maybe he's trying to play AH2 at the same clocks as the one in my sig? :lol :lol :rock
-
That's what makes forums like this a great venue. I myself, having been both burned in the past and at having at best never had a better than "just OK" experience with AMD-based solutions, if left to my own devices would likely never try them again.
[ Aside -> The problem is that AMD now has to be better on something other than just a few percentage points on pricing. Even if we take it on faith that the AMD based system that's equivalent in nearly everything that a normal user would tend to do (Skuzzy's movie encoding is IMO a special case, and not something the average person does enough to matter) is much improved in stability over some of the previous AMD-based solutions - which in some instances were unmitigated disasters - even if you save 10-15% compared to Intel up through to the point where the AMD systems can no longer compete, it's just not enough because "improved" doesn't shout to the masses "equally stable and robust". Even if we're generous and assume we can pare 15% across the board the savings on a $1300 system is going to come in at around $200 max - and of course less money as we go down the scale to where we can more easily capitalize on the savings. For anyone who's been burned, 10-15% and/or a couple of hundred dollars at best - especially amortized over the life of the system - is just not enough to risk going out on the limb for given past experiences. ]
If enough regular people begin to say that they are using the newer AMD stuff and it's working well for them - I'll listen. I'd swore off ATI cards for life a bit short of most of a decade ago too after an absolutely disastrous foray into using their cards - but couldn't be happier with the switch to AMD with my current rig. Fanboi's work against themselves though - when those who are making the claims appear to be on a crusade, their objectivity seems questionable at best.
And techie's have long memories - a manufacturer burns our fingers and it's a long, long time before we'll trust them enough to put our hands back in the pot.
Again, all IMO - take it for what it cost you ;).
<S>
-
The reasons Intel outperforms AMD is many, and I am not going to get into that, but very little of it has to do with any type of code optimizations. The fact is, AMD is competing for Intel business and it is up to AMD to build a better mouse trap which executes code as well or better than Intel.
In other words, no one sould be able to write any type of code that would benefit Intel over AMD, unless AMD did a poor job executing that code.
Now, to the overall question at hand. Intel CPU's/chipsets will run Aces High better than AMD CPU's/chipsets.
skuzzy, i wanted to get back to this. software is just as important as hardware, and if you could provide better technical information other than the "mousetrap" analogy, id appreciate it much. for example, what compiler is used on the client-side AH2 program?
the reason why you see some windows based benchmarketing software runs infinitely better on intel is because some of these becnhmarks, in addition to optimized code, are compiled with ICC. it is important that the end consumer get the whole picture and not just resort to posting colorful bar charts.
fwiw, i hope AH2 doesnt use ICC in any of its releases.
http://bit.ly/5vGcmV
THE US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) apparently is interested in the fact that Intel's compiler deliberately cripples performance for non-Intel processors such as those made by AMD and VIA.
Writing in his blog, programming expert Agner Fog said that it appears that Chipzilla's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set. The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly.
But it also checks what instruction sets are supported by the CPU and it also checks the vendor ID string. If the string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will use the slowest version of the code it can find.
While this is known, few Intel compiler users actually seem to know about it. Chipzilla does not say that the compiler is Intel-specific, either.
Fog said that if more programmers knew this fact they would probably use another compiler as everyone wants their code to run just as well on AMD's processors as on Intel's.
Some benchmarking programs are affected by this, up to a point where benchmark results can differ greatly depending on how a processor identifies itself.
-
We use Visual Studio.