Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Tom5572 on April 01, 2012, 01:14:28 PM
-
Gonna be upgrading the computer soon and would like more info. How do the new AMD CPUs compare to the i7s? Thanks for the input.
-
you had to do it. you just started another fight :furious.
semp
-
you had to do it. you just started another fight :furious.
semp
:rofl :rofl :rofl
More folks gotten the scorn for posting information on how AH works when this subject comes up.
-
I'll start! Intel is like a 911 turbo while the AMD is more like a mini cooper... you will get laid much more with an Intel. :noid
-
I'll start! Intel is like a 911 turbo while the AMD is more like a mini cooper... you will get laid much more with an Intel. :noid
So you're saying Intel is for people with more money then brains who don't care nothing has changed in 70 years while AMD is for the more sensible family man?
:P
-
no amd is for people that settle down for whatever as long as it's cheap. and let's all take a look at the next generaton of amd cpu's.
semp
-
no amd is for people that settle down for whatever as long as it's cheap. and let's all take a look at the next generaton of amd cpu's.
semp
the server only AMDs?
-
So you're saying Intel is for people with more money then brains who don't care nothing has changed in 70 years while AMD is for the more sensible family man?
:P
No, I'm saying if you tell a girl in a bar you have an AMD she will give you a fake number. However, if you tell her you have an Intel you can expect wet panties and quick trip to the bathroom for some hardcore raunchy sex.
(actual results may vary)
-
I'll start! Intel is like a 911 turbo while the AMD is more like a mini cooper... you will get laid much more with an Intel. :noid
Recently saw this bumper sticker: "I drive a MINI - what are *you* compensating for?" ;)
As for the AMD/Intel choice: AMD has better prices, especially in the mid-range. Go Intel for flat-out speed.
-
Recently saw this bumper sticker: "I drive a MINI - what are *you* compensating for?" ;)
As for the AMD/Intel choice: AMD has better prices, especially in the mid-range. Go Intel for flat-out speed.
I wonder what driving a Festiva says about me.... :eek:
-
Recently saw this bumper sticker: "I drive a MINI - what are *you* compensating for?" ;)
As for the AMD/Intel choice: AMD has better prices, especially in the mid-range. Go Intel for flat-out speed.
Thanks, will probably go mid range
-
the server only AMDs?
well bulldozer didnt serve much as I recall ;).
semp
-
Tom I'm diggin my i7 2600K rig. On an Asus P8Z68 mobo. They're at Z77 chipsets now tho. I've found the 2600K to be way overkill for AH tho. I rarely break 20% CPU load in any situation. My MSI 2GB R6960 video card is another story. With everything maxed in AH and further tweaked in Ati Tray Tools I'm running between 60 and 80% load with hardly anything going on. It'll max out with a lot of stuff goin on. But it handles it fine. It rarely breaks 60c too.
So there--I have intel AND AMD :neener:
-
Intel will be coming out with new cpus ivy bridge), this could possibly drop the price some on the sandy bridge. I am not sure but the new ivy bridge might use a new socket so a 1155 sandy bridge socket might not fit the ivy bridge. I have not done any research on it.
The new AMD cpus are more for multi threaded applications.
You should take a look at how your going to use your computer. Like what software your going to use and read some reviews and look at prices.
I will say the 2500k Intel, for around 200 is very popular.
I have not used the Intel 2500k, I cannot say if it the best way to go or not.
-
I too have Intel & AMD
PC Gaming Rig #1 ( AMD):
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
Thermaltake Level10-GT Case......................... .........................Ther maltake Black Widow TR2 RX 850W Modular PSU
AMD Phenom II X4 975 BE @ 3.6ghz cpu.......................... ..Corsair CAFA70 120mm A70 Dual-Fan CPU Cooler
ASUS M4A89GTD-PRO/USB3 MB........................... ............Corsair Vengeance 16GB DDR3 1600mhz (PC3 12800)
XFX HD-687A-ZDFC HD6870 1GB VideoCard.................... .......Crucial CT128M4SSD2 128GB SATA 6.0Gb/s SSD
Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty Xtreme Gamer Pro ........................WD VelociRaptor WD4500HLHX 450GB 10000RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s HD
CHproducts HOTAS (CombatStick\ProThrottle\ProPedals)............Micro Visions Gaming Keyboard \ Lazer Gaming Mouse
ASUS VE278Q Black 27" 1920x1080 2ms Full HD HDMI LED Backlight 16:9 LCD Monitor w/Speakers 300 cd/m2 ASCR 10,000,000:1
PC Gaming Rig #2 ( INTEL ):
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
Thermaltake Level10-GT Case......................... .........Thermaltake Black Widow TR2 RX 850W Modular PSU
Intel i7-2600K 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) cpu...............Corsair CAFA70 120mm A70 Dual-Fan CPU Cooler
ASUS Intel P8Z68 Deluxe MB........................... ........Corsair Vengeance 16GB DDR3 1600mhz (PC3 12800)
XFX HD-695X-CDDC HD6950 2GB VideoCard.................... ....(2)Crucial CT128M4SSD2 128GB SATA 6.0Gb/s SSD's in "RAID 0"
ASUS Xonar DS Soundcard.................... ..................HITACHI Deskstar 7K3000 1.5TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s HD
CHproducts HOTAS (FighterStick\ProThrottle\Pedals)........Logitech G510 Gaming Keyboard \ Lazer Gaming Mouse
Hanns-G HZ281HPB 27.5'' 1920x1200 3ms Full HD 1080P HDMI WideScreen 16:10 LCD Monitor 400cd/m2 X-Contrast 15,000:1(800:1)Built-in Speakers
I only ran the 2 SSDs in RAID 0 for close to 2 months..... was no reason for it, damn thing loaded and ran so good/fast that hardly tell a difference IN THE REAL WORLD whether it was with 1 ssd or 2 raided together........ on stats/tests though it was quiet a bit faster
already had to go into the BIOS when I first built it and set a 10 second delay so I could actually see something on the screen before the windows 7 login/password page
The AMD build is of the Phenom II generation ...... and there is nothing I have found including Aces high, that the AMD system can not do just as good as the INTEL build.......
both systems will run the current Aces high game maxed out graphics except for texture shadows set to 4096 and stay pegged at 59/60 fps at 1920x1200 or on the other pc 1920x1080.......using the highres pkg and the 2048 setting
to me both are overkill
buy what you think will suit you best and is affordable.... I only built the INTEL system to compare with my above AMD system, and as a project when Drano built his....... we kind of researched, discussed and talked while we both built our Intel systems...... I just splurged more on the bluray DL rewriters and crap......
good luck on your build
TC
-
here, look at this
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
if you have never built a computer you cannot go wrong with intel. amd on the other hand must be carefully researched to make sure you get matching components. and with amd there's always a chance that it wont play ah in the best possible way. most of the calls to ah asking for help are from amd users. so there you go. also dont count on intel dropping the price of the sandy bridge anytime soon unless they go on sale. intel is known for not having a fire sale to make room for newer cpus.
if it was me i would go with the 2500k at least or maybe the 2600k. either one will play aces high assuming you get the right components. you dont say how much you want to spend so unless we know everybody is just gonna speculate.
besides correct me if I am wrong, isnt amd pulling out of the cpu market after they messed up with their newer cpu bulldozer?
semp
-
I budgeted myself 550 for board and CPU, I have an xfx power supply (850 watts) and an xfx 6770 video card. Currently, I have an ASUS M4A78 plus MB with an Anthelon x3 CPU, 8 gig of ddr2 ram. I cannot remember the stats on the RAM now. I am able to run AH at 60 fps at 1024 but only detailed terrain is on. Detailed water drops me to 47ish fps. Any more drops it further.
This will be my third build but the first with current year components.
-
I budgeted myself 550 for board and CPU, I have an xfx power supply (850 watts) and an xfx 6770 video card. Currently, I have an ASUS M4A78 plus MB with an Anthelon x3 CPU, 8 gig of ddr2 ram. I cannot remember the stats on the RAM now. I am able to run AH at 60 fps at 1024 but only detailed terrain is on. Detailed water drops me to 47ish fps. Any more drops it further.
This will be my third build but the first with current year components.
You should have no problem picking out a nice a board and cpu with $550. However, budget another $50-100 for ddr3 ram. You can get 16gigs of 1600 ddr3 for about $100
-
Tom,
I'm building a new system as well, and I stayed Intel. I went with the i5 2500K instead of the i7 2600K.
Here's what I picked up:
Processor -- i5 2500K -- $205
Motherboard - GIGABYTE GA-Z68XP-UD4 LGA -- $189
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 F3-12800CL9Q-16GBXL -- $90
Total for these 3 is $484.
-
You should have no problem picking out a nice a board and cpu with $550. However, budget another $50-100 for ddr3 ram. You can get 16gigs of 1600 ddr3 for about $100
You do realize that Windows will not allow any application to consume more than 3GB of system RAM, regardless of the amount of free RAM available, or if the OS is 32 bit or 64 bit? Just FYI.
-
You do realize that Windows will not allow any application to consume more than 3GB of system RAM, regardless of the amount of free RAM available, or if the OS is 32 bit or 64 bit? Just FYI.
Yeah that is annoying as hell. Is there some actual reason why there's a limit other than they just picked a number? You'd think if board manufacturers were able to put together boards that will accept up to 32 GB now (I think) that the RAM could actually be used.
-
You do realize that Windows will not allow any application to consume more than 3GB of system RAM, regardless of the amount of free RAM available, or if the OS is 32 bit or 64 bit? Just FYI.
I was under the impression that max usable was 4gb on 32 bit, 64bit supports more. The OP said he had 8gig of ddr2 so I have to assume he is running a 64bit OS. I just have 16gig because its cheap so why not :aok
-
You do realize that Windows will not allow any application to consume more than 3GB of system RAM, regardless of the amount of free RAM available, or if the OS is 32 bit or 64 bit? Just FYI.
I thought the limit was 2Gb and only for 32-bit application code that is not compiled with the large address aware -flag. Are you sure 64-bit code can't use more than 3Gb? Sounds pretty strange.
-
The maximum addressable space with a 32 bit OS (sans a proper extended support which Microsoft will never do) is 4GB and for 64 bit Microsoft has set an arbitrary limit depending on which 64 bit OS you have.
The maximum amount of system RAM Microsoft will allow an application to use, of the maximum addressable space, is 3GB, if the application is compiled with a specific flag. If not, then the space is reduced to 2GB.
I thought the limit was 2Gb and only for 32-bit application code that is not compiled with the large address aware -flag. Are you sure 64-bit code can't use more than 3Gb? Sounds pretty strange.
Yes, 64 bit code is still restricted to 3GB. The only thing compiling in 64 bit does is allow the application to run in address space higher than 4GB.
-
The maximum addressable space with a 32 bit OS (sans a proper extended support which Microsoft will never do) is 4GB and for 64 bit Microsoft has set an arbitrary limit depending on which 64 bit OS you have.
The maximum amount of system RAM Microsoft will allow an application to use, of the maximum addressable space, is 3GB, if the application is compiled with a specific flag. If not, then the space is reduced to 2GB.
But you can run multiple applications at the same time each using 3gig correct? So in theory if you are running several apps you can easily exceed the 8-10gig in use? I'm just asking, I don't pretend to know.
-
The maximum addressable space with a 32 bit OS (sans a proper extended support which Microsoft will never do) is 4GB and for 64 bit Microsoft has set an arbitrary limit depending on which 64 bit OS you have.
The maximum amount of system RAM Microsoft will allow an application to use, of the maximum addressable space, is 3GB, if the application is compiled with a specific flag. If not, then the space is reduced to 2GB.
Yes, 64 bit code is still restricted to 3GB. The only thing compiling in 64 bit does is allow the application to run in address space higher than 4GB.
That's pretty unbelievable. It means MS severely gimps server performance. Or does it only apply for the desktop version? I have to keep this in mind as we have a couple of customers that run mysql on Server 2003/2008. They'll be hitting a performance limit pretty soon if only 3Gb is allowed.
Luckily our own production servers run on linux, we have several instances with 8-12Gb mysql memory footprints.
-
Go to newegg.com. Watch the videos, read the reviews.
------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 4/1/2012, 11:10:12
Machine name: RICK-PC
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.111118-2330)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: MSI
System Model: MS-7673
BIOS: BIOS Date: 04/14/11 10:01:35 Ver: 04.06.04
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2400 CPU @ 3.10GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.1GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 8162MB RAM
Page File: 1586MB used, 6829MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
DxDiag Version: 6.01.7600.16385 64bit Unicode
---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce GTX 550 Ti
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1244&SUBSYS_15563842&REV_A1
Display Memory: 4019 MB
Dedicated Memory: 947 MB
Shared Memory: 3071 MB
Current Mode: 1600 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: HP 2009
Monitor Id: HWP2828
Native Mode: 1600 x 900(p) (60.000Hz)
Output Type: DVI
Driver Name: nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um
Driver File Version: 8.17.0012.6671 (English)
Driver Version: 8.17.12.6671
DDI Version: 10.1
Driver Model: WDDM 1.1
Driver Attributes: Final Retail
Driver Date/Size: 1/16/2011 17:53:00, 12864104 bytes
WHQL Logo'd: n/a
WHQL Date Stamp: n/a
Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-5104-11CF-FD41-5A351FC2C535}
Vendor ID: 0x10DE
Device ID: 0x1244
SubSys ID: 0x15563842
Revision ID: 0x00A1
Driver Strong Name: oem4.inf:NVIDIA_SetA_Devices.NTamd64.6 .1:Section005:8.17.12.6671:pci\ven_10de&dev_1244
I am thoroughly happy with my new build. :salute
-
That's pretty unbelievable. It means MS severely gimps server performance. Or does it only apply for the desktop version? I have to keep this in mind as we have a couple of customers that run mysql on Server 2003/2008. They'll be hitting a performance limit pretty soon if only 3Gb is allowed.
Luckily our own production servers run on linux, we have several instances with 8-12Gb mysql memory footprints.
SQL Server/MS Server is a different beast than the desktops. Although the 32 bit versions do have the same limitations as any desktop does.
Microsoft has not really stated what the 64 bit application limitations/restrictions are for those server platforms. Just the gross OS address space, which is the same as the desktop operating systems.
-
I am running win 7 home pro 64 bit.
-
Um.. Skuzzy? Win 7 Enterprise x64.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/3468007.jpg)
-
Memory Limit in 64-bit Windows
User-mode virtual address space for each 32-bit process:
2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWAR E cleared (default)
4 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWAR E set
User-mode virtual address space for each 64-bit process:
8 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWAR E set (default)
2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWAR E cleared
Kernel-mode virtual address space:
8TB
-
The virtual address space is not the physical address space.
The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows 7.
| Version | 32 bit | 64 bit |
| Ultimate | 4GB | 192GB |
| Enterprise | 4GB | 192GB |
| Professional | 4GB | 192GB |
| Home Premium | 4GB | 16GB |
| Home Basic | 4GB | 8GB |
| Starter | 2GB | N/A |
The process size numbers you have are correct. My bad for not looking and going from memory. Thank you.
Here (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7) is the public link to Microsoft's MSDN page explaining the various memory configurations.
-
The virtual address space is not the physical address space.
I know, I listed virtual address space because discussion went into application/process memory limit on windows, which I think is more relevant than physical memory limit.
Anyway, current desktop hardware limits are even lower - typical 32GB (or less) for Intel CPU platform.
-
I believe the 4GB in the 32 bit versions includes the video memory. So if you have 4Gig of ram you will only get 3Gig and change used.
-
it looks like AMD will be releasing a FX-4200 processor which features 4 cores and 4 modules (no shared integer modules in this one). This CPU could be pretty decent for Aces high I reckon !
-
AMD has fx 4270, have not seen any reviews.
-
it looks like AMD will be releasing a FX-4200 processor which features 4 cores and 4 modules (no shared integer modules in this one). This CPU could be pretty decent for Aces high I reckon !
only info i found out about that is this http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012032801_AMD_FX-4200_spotted_in_Gigabyte_support_list.html
semp
-
it looks like AMD will be releasing a FX-4200 processor which features 4 cores and 4 modules (no shared integer modules in this one). This CPU could be pretty decent for Aces high I reckon !
I meant floating point and not integer...
only info i found out about that is this http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012032801_AMD_FX-4200_spotted_in_Gigabyte_support_list.html
semp
yeah I've seen various reports, but no test yet