AMD 6 core Processor

[Dwarden 1125]

by the time A3 is out there most likely will be new CPU and GPU from both IHV

[carlostex 38]

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1838/1/

[kotov12345 10]

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1838/1/

some kind of rubbish - what they mean votes ?

Do gaming test on asrock mobos same drink alcohol free beer.

May be asus or gigabyte but not asrock.

Intel base chipsets system run faster amd based around 20% - the most problem that they cost more than 20% - that yea - but 20 and 25 fps is huge difference for gaming as well as this 20%

I recently tested intel hd 3000 on toshiba r850 laptop (55 chipset) and found that 8gb ram machine run equal FPS intel 45 chipset with dedicated ati 4570.No way that any shared amd system can do same.I'm not talking about that amd still not able to sortout overheat problems and over 1-2 years chipsets phisically pull-off motherboards and owner have to order reballing them which not last long ater that.

Check problems with laptops toshiba L450D HP DV6 and many many others

Edited January 25, 2012 by kotov12345

[TimRiceSE 10]

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1838/1/

Are you joking?

No one who's actually serious about gaming gives a damn about integrated graphics. Great if youre on a super budget and want to play console ports.... Good luck playing arma on it.

Try again! And put some effort in to it this time...

Edit:

Lets put everything into perspective. Sub £100 CPUs.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/31/the-best-100-processor/12

Tiny difference between all the CPUs when you add a dedicated graphics card.

Without dedicated graphics, regardless if its AMD or Intel, its a complete waste of time. 17 FPS without even turning on AF or AA? yeah...

Edited January 25, 2012 by TimRiceSE

[DualJoe 10]

Keep in mind that Intel has way more money to spend on creative marketing tricks so they can afford to be more economic with the truth. One of the most creative is the trick Intel puts in their compiler, as long as the resulting executable is run on a "Genuine Intel" it will use all the cpu's functions, without the factories brand it won't use all those functions even if they are present.

In other words if you don't know which compiler was used on the executable I wouldn't put too much faith in those benchmarks. Quite the opposite, pretty impressive that the bulldozers ONLY lag 20%, which would suggest that they are a whole lot faster than Intel. I've seen benchmarks and tests on websites and forums on other operating systems like linux where the tables are turned completely and the 2600k gets it's ass handed to it by the 1100t let alone the bulldozers. In some of those tests we're not talking about a measly 10%/20% either.

Besides why should anybody give a shit about a minuscule difference of 20%. To me that means that if the AMD won't run it, the Intel won't either. I sure as hell won't be 20% less irritated in that case. One plus for AMD is that you don't necessarily have to upgrade everything for a single generation jump.

I'm currently playing BF3 on ultra with an old e8500 core2duo on 1920x1200 with an occasional dip to about 45fps. I've got arma2co running at an almost constant 60fps on reasonably high settings. Running the Heaven benchmark I get the exact same score as core i7 rigs with the same nvidia GTX560Ti. In short who cares about cpu's when talking about gaming performance, save your money for a videocard-upgrade.

[carlostex 38]

The link i posted just proves that the human eye won't tell a difference past certain FPS. That's why the players noted no differences between systems. The point in the article is about the mind of the player if he knew what system he was playing on.

I guess that most people only care about Max FPS, which is a big mistake. Start thinking about minimum and average FPS and you'll barely see the difference between a top end AMD system to an Intel one.

Looks like some people can't read an article till it ends. And misinformation in the internet leads to ignorance.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

Do gaming test on asrock mobos same drink alcohol free beer.

May be asus or gigabyte but not asrock.

I stopped reading past this point. FPDR

---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

Keep in mind that Intel has way more money to spend on creative marketing tricks so they can afford to be more economic with the truth. One of the most creative is the trick Intel puts in their compiler, as long as the resulting executable is run on a "Genuine Intel" it will use all the cpu's functions, without the factories brand it won't use all those functions even if they are present.

In other words if you don't know which compiler was used on the executable I wouldn't put too much faith in those benchmarks. Quite the opposite, pretty impressive that the bulldozers ONLY lag 20%, which would suggest that they are a whole lot faster than Intel. I've seen benchmarks and tests on websites and forums on other operating systems like linux where the tables are turned completely and the 2600k gets it's ass handed to it by the 1100t let alone the bulldozers. In some of those tests we're not talking about a measly 10%/20% either.

Besides why should anybody give a shit about a minuscule difference of 20%. To me that means that if the AMD won't run it, the Intel won't either. I sure as hell won't be 20% less irritated in that case. One plus for AMD is that you don't necessarily have to upgrade everything for a single generation jump.

The CPUID feature in Intel compiler has been well looked at and verified:

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

But i don't think games out there are being compiled by ICC. I might be wrong by i would say the majority of them are compiled via GNU/GCC.

So that should definately not apply here.

Again the point in the link is that when the top end systems were tested, the majority of gamers could not distinguish the Intel as the fastest system. The reason is probably because in both systems minimum FPS didn't drop to a point where the human eye could detect loss of smoothness.

[TimRiceSE 10]

The link i posted just proves that the human eye won't tell a difference past certain FPS. That's why the players noted no differences between systems. The point in the article is about the mind of the player if he knew what system he was playing on.

*snip*

Again the point in the link is that when the top end systems were tested, the majority of gamers could not distinguish the Intel as the fastest system. The reason is probably because in both systems minimum FPS didn't drop to a point where the human eye could detect loss of smoothness.

OK.. but in that link it compares two $500 machines.. thats budget. not even close to top end. You sure you gave us the right link?

[PuFu 4600]

some kind of rubbish - what they mean votes ?

Do gaming test on asrock mobos same drink alcohol free beer.

May be asus or gigabyte but not asrock.

This is the Nth time you are writing the same bullshit about Asrock or cheaper mainboards.

Please do STOP.

I recently tested intel hd 3000 on toshiba r850 laptop (55 chipset) and found that 8gb ram machine run equal FPS intel 45 chipset with dedicated ati 4570.No way that any shared amd system can do same.I'm not talking about that amd still not able to sortout overheat problems and over 1-2 years chipsets phisically pull-off motherboards and owner have to order reballing them which not last long ater that.

Check problems with laptops toshiba L450D HP DV6 and many many others

Very OT, laptops (especially the ones you listed) are not gaming oriented.

[gammadust 12]

I think someone is missing the part where the article goes...

...

The next challenge given to gamers was two high-end systems that were both running AMD Radeon HD 7970 'Tahati' DirectX 11 graphics cards running an Eyefinity display setup. The Intel system was powered by an Intel Core-i7 2700K 'Sandy Bridge' processor with an ASRock P67 Fatal1ty motherboard and 8GB of AMD DDR3 performance memory. The AMD system was powered by the FX-8150 'Bulldozer' processor an ASRock 990FX Fatal1ty and the same 8GB of AMD DDR3 performance memory. (...)

* System C (Intel Core i7-2700K): 40 Votes

* System D (AMD FX-8150): 73 Votes

* No Difference: 28 Votes

But yes this is more related to the psichological part of consumer preference. We all know how irrational a consumer can be.

[carlostex 38]

But yes this is more related to the psichological part of consumer preference. We all know how irrational a consumer can be.

That was the point. Thank you

---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 ----------

This is the Nth time you are writing the same bullshit about Asrock or cheaper mainboards.

Please do STOP.

He's probably not the only one, and just one example of how misinformed people are, sometimes because the information comes from the friend or neighbour or are lazy to get informed, or when they try to get informed are victims of bad IT sites.

[frostwyrm333 1]

games are definitely not compiled with gnu gcc, while on linux it is great, the windows version mingw is far from cutting edge, so no way.

The AMD "reality check" - there are 1000 ways they could have rigged it, also its not independent, I wouldn't take it seriously.

[kotov12345 10]

He's probably not the only one, and just one example of how misinformed people are, sometimes because the information comes from the friend or neighbour or are lazy to get informed, or when they try to get informed are victims of bad IT sites.

I'm pc and laptop builder and seller for many years - I just smile reading your posts keep coming :)

I build and sold with warranty more gaming pc than you saw on tv.

I know many kids here on forum and I just not pay attention on some comments.

BTW Pufu is this coincidence that your 2 rigs 1 got asus mobo and another gigabyte ?What about to sell them and buy asrocks :):) I know that you dont like me and I know why.Unfortunately it is not relayed to game or my opinion regarding gaming performance.

Edited January 26, 2012 by kotov12345

[PuFu 4600]

BTW Pufu is this coincidence that your 2 rigs 1 got asus mobo and another gigabyte ?What about to sell them and buy asrocks :):) I know that you dont like me and I know why.Unfortunately it is not relayed to game or my opinion regarding gaming performance.

The thing with asrock is warranty related, at least in my case/country 3years instead of 2, for more or less the same price. (and i really like the new bios that comes with Asus boards). I would buy an asrock without thinking twice, especially the following boards (for SB):

Asrock Fatal1ty Z68 Pro Gen3

Asrock Z68 Extreme7 Gen3

[carlostex 38]

I'm pc and laptop builder and seller for many years - I just smile reading your posts keep coming :)

I build and sold with warranty more gaming pc than you saw on tv.

You BUILD and sell desktops and laptops? :rolleyes:

[Madus_Maximus 0]

You BUILD and sell desktops and laptops? :rolleyes:

You do know you can build laptops right? A few of the local computer shops near me do it, maybe he owns his own shop or gets the same components and acts as a soul trader?

[carlostex 38]

You do know you can build laptops right? A few of the local computer shops near me do it, maybe he owns his own shop or gets the same components and acts as a soul trader?

Oh yeah, but from what he has been posting here i wouldn't rely on him for anything related to computers.

[mant3z 1]

i am building a new computer with the goal of playing arma 3 with no problems and i was wondering if an AMD 6 core Processor was necessary? i dont know much about processors but it seems to be a duel between this and an i7. and do u guys think a 550 TI would be a good graphics card?

Why dont you just wait until release? After you buy the game you will see what you need.

This whole building rigs before release makes no sense at all. :confused:

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Why dont you just wait until release? After you buy the game you will see what you need.

This whole building rigs before release makes no sense at all. :confused:

lol, that is what I'm seeing (everybody building a pc now) which will be out dated long before the game is released.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

To avoid being "obsolete" by the time it comes out, try and get the best there is now, or near the best. I find it highly unlikely that from now to release a Core i7 2600K will be deemed "crap" lol. Maybe it will compared to the 3770K when the Ivy Bridge stuff comes out, but if you have a board that can accept the 2600K on the P67 or Z68 chipset you should be able to stick in one of the 3770K's with no problems. They're going to be around $250-300 ish, which is where the 2600K currently is, so you'll get a good few years out of your current board if you didn't go for a bargain basement one with the absolute minimum chipset and feature set to run your current set up.

So far as AMD goes, not sure how their AM3+ platform is going to evolve. Let's hope the FX series gets a nice boost in performance either from software for just by refining the new architecture (like they did with the previous one for years and years), but if you have the higher end stuff right now, you should be fine for some time to come.

The most likely area you'll want to take a good look at when ArmA 3 releases is your GPU. I've run ArmA 2 on this same rig using 3 GPU's and every time I've upgraded the performance in ArmA has greatly improved with it. I went from an 8800, to a GTX260 to a GTX560 Ti and it's night and day every time lol.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

If you are building a PC for ArmA 3 now, you are a few cans short of a six-pack.

[Leopardi 0]

Will this processor be enough for ArmA III, or should I ditch my plans of simply updating my GTX 460 and save it for a whole new PC in the future?

[Flogger23m 2]

You would want a GTX560ti 2GB or better. ArmA 2 uses over 1GB of video RAM at 1680x1050, and it pushes the 560ti to the limit. With an AMD 965 and 8GB RAM with that GPU I still get 23-25 with most of the settings turned up with no AI units depending on the terrian.

Personally I would wait until Nvidia release the 660/whatever so you can get the 560ti's replacement. At the least, the 69502GB/560ti 2GB will drop in price.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Will this processor be enough for ArmA III, or should I ditch my plans of simply updating my GTX 460 and save it for a whole new PC in the future?

Wait about 12 months, then ask yourself the same question. Anything else and I fear you'll be wasting money.

[Droikka 1]

You would want a GTX560ti 2GB or better. ArmA 2 uses over 1GB of video RAM at 1680x1050, and it pushes the 560ti to the limit. With an AMD 965 and 8GB RAM with that GPU I still get 23-25 with most of the settings turned up with no AI units depending on the terrian.

Personally I would wait until Nvidia release the 660/whatever so you can get the 560ti's replacement. At the least, the 69502GB/560ti 2GB will drop in price.

2500k @ 4.4 + 560Ti @ 980/2300 1GB runs it 40FPS @ 1920x1080, 4x AA + everything set to V.High other than PP which is Low and terrain + HDR to high.

I'm usually playing in Domination but warfare is most of the time higher.

[onlyrazor 11]

Also, rumor has it Ivy Bridge processors are coming out sometime in or after April this year. I'd wait at least until then.