AMD 6 core Processor

[wizbomb 10]

As I said if you can afford an I7 2500, 2500K or 2600 buy it. ArmA is a CPU hungry game. The more power you have, the better. If not, there is no shame in buying the x6 as it's a good CPU and can run ArmA 2 just fine. Be advised that you need different motherbords depending on which brand you decide on.

P.S. Be sure you also get a decent PSU to feed your new CPU and GPU :)

ANyway, you should wait for ArmA 3 to come out and then build a new PC.

well, i wont have to worry about much of than seeing as it will be an already built PC with a good PSU and GPU.....most likely going with the 6 core

[igneous01 19]

considering that a3 will be more optimized than a2 is right now (and that their test machines are not exactly top of the line either) I am thinking that my 1090T will run the game no problem - graphics may be an issue, since gtx 560 can be considered an "old" card now.

If you have 1000 dollars to spend on cpu alone, go for the i7 2600k, if you dont have that kind of money (I dont blame you) get the new 10XXT amd cpu's, I got the 1090T when it was just released for 250 dollars CAD, + my gtx 560 I can run arma 2 on max settings, with a good 30 fps on chernarus.

but CPU is one thing - you still need to get a good motherboard to handle it. Im using ASUS crosshair V formula and I love the combo - smooth performance and good price.

[Robster 11]

I run on AMD 6 cores and nv460GTX 1gb vram and only 4GB RAM... every setting is on top with 10000 m view distance... smooth playing all the time...

A2OA just use about 18% of CPU processing power...

Anyways, I think I will go for 8GB RAM @1600 mhz... just for making maps a bit more comfortable... cheers!

Edited January 23, 2012 by Robster

[vuckotadic 10]

For gaming, get an Intel i5 2500k and Nvidia GTX 560Ti or GTX 570 if you have $$$.

[Tonci87 163]

considering that a3 will be more optimized than a2 is right now (and that their test machines are not exactly top of the line either) I am thinking that my 1090T will run the game no problem - graphics may be an issue, since gtx 560 can be considered an "old" card now.

If you have 1000 dollars to spend on cpu alone, go for the i7 2600k, if you dont have that kind of money (I dont blame you) get the new 10XXT amd cpu's, I got the 1090T when it was just released for 250 dollars CAD, + my gtx 560 I can run arma 2 on max settings, with a good 30 fps on chernarus.

but CPU is one thing - you still need to get a good motherboard to handle it. Im using ASUS crosshair V formula and I love the combo - smooth performance and good price.

1000$ for an i7 2600k? I bought mine for 250€ :rolleyes:

[TimRiceSE 10]

1000$ for an i7 2600k? I bought mine for 250€ :rolleyes:

QFT.

I cant actually beleive people are recommending AMD CPUs given how much of an enormous flop bulldoze is...

[Nicholas 5]

QFT.

I cant actually beleive people are recommending AMD CPUs given how much of an enormous flop bulldoze is...

No one has yet recommended a Bulldozer CPU. Just because AMD's Bulldozer line of CPU's was a failure, doesn't mean all of them are. My AMD Phenom II X6 1100T is an awesome processor, AMD really offers the best bang for your buck. I am currently overclocking mine and have so far made it to 4.0Ghz.

Tell me, what is wrong with AMD CPU's? Don't just tell me that Intel has more power.

[kotov12345 10]

build a3 pc when game will be released : )

if you want play now build arma2 pc lol

take latest intel chipset and as much as expensive graphic card.

Cooling system and power supply are important.

Ram,Cpu and rest components are not,unless you will decode HD video on it.

Dedicated sound card give you some more options and blue ray drive as well :)

[PuFu 4600]

As I said if you can afford an I7 2500, 2500K or 2600 buy it.

There is no such thing as i7 2500/2500k Those are the I5s (no HyperThreading-virtual cores).

If you have 1000 dollars to spend on cpu alone, go for the i7 2600k

I spent 1000$ on the i7 970 which is a 6core/12threads CPU, when it was just released. The i7 2600k is around 250-300EUs. Please don't bring subjective talk on the table.

Tell me, what is wrong with AMD CPU's? Don't just tell me that Intel has more power.

Yes, current generation of Intel procesors are more powerful. And NOT only for games...

Edited January 23, 2012 by PuFu

[Nicholas 5]

Yes, current generation of Intel procesors are more powerful. And NOT only for games...

I asked not to tell me that. What is wrong with AMD processors? Nothing, correct? They are quite powerful.

[igneous01 19]

I spent 1000$ on the i7 970 which is a 6core/12threads CPU, when it was just released. The i7 2600k is around 250-300EUs. Please don't bring subjective talk on the table.

yes your right, I thought it was called the 2600k, but I was wrong.

970 is still 1000$, and 3960X is about 1300 dollars.

[rangerpl 13]

I would not recommend the 550Ti, it's slower than the GTX460 series. If possible, you should look at a 560 at least, or, if that's beyond your budget, a 6850 or the like.

[mrcash2009 0]

I have never used anything but AMD/Nvidia combo, my rig is old and yet still squeeze legit juice out of a dual core (yep .. I did say dual core).

Obviously I need a new system and summer is the time for me to get one, and I wont do anything other than AMD/Nvidia combination. 6 core will be the level I will look at nearer that time July/Aug, the whole Intel/AMD debate is a never ending loop, just look at the balance of power with the cost mainly.

Edited January 24, 2012 by mrcash2009

[MissionCreep 12]

Is there any guarantee at all that Arma 3 multithreading could even scale properly to utilize 6 cores effectively?

[frostwyrm333 1]

multithreading doesn't work that way, more cores doesn't mean more speed, above 3-4 cores it actually sucks, some tasks can't be broken into smaller threads, or it won't be effective anyway

some reading:

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

if you ask me that graph they have on their dev blog quite sucks, even if you got yourself regular 8 core, most of the cores would sleep most of the time.

Edited January 24, 2012 by frostwyrm333

[Nicholas 5]

But you see, sometimes more than 4 cores is needed. You must remember that not only will the game be using the CPU, but other running programs and other hardware components will be communicating with the CPU as well.

[frostwyrm333 1]

they support lots of cores, but it all depends on the specifics, most people have/will get quadcore

[MissileMoose 10]

I would rather chew my own finger-tips off that purchase another AMD chip. I currently have a Phenom II X6 1090t. Intel have set the standard with processors, AMD have pretty much given up with desktop processors and are mainly focusing on mobile devices now. At least that was the last I heard. Bulldozer was a huge flop too, as stated before in this thread.

In April I'm going to build a new machine, my budget is around £2500. Without a doubt I'll be going for a Kepler series graphics card and a mother board with the future socket that supports SandyBridge-E and IvyBridge-E chips. I'm not sure when IB-E will be released but I could purchase one of the upcoming quad core SB-E chips with the intent of upgrading.

From my past experiences I wouldn't recommend ANY AMD chips to gamers, go with Intel. They have set the standard. Don't complain about prices either, the only reasons that a gamer would purchase an AMD chip for a new rig are: A) They are uneducated and/or have been lured into the 6Core Gimmick OR B) They are uneducated and have fallen for the low price.

I'm not really sure where I stand with AMD graphics cards though, formerly ATI. I currently have two R6870's in CrossfireX and have had terrible experiences with lower performance when both cards are enabled. Especially in ArmA 2 and DCS: A-10C Warthog. Though I'm still unsure who is responsible, AMD or the game developers. I have yet to experience Nvidia SLI driver/games support.

So if you're looking to purchase a new rig at this current time for ArmA 2/3, I would (without a doubt) recommend either an i5 2500k or i7 2700k depending on hyperthreading needs (video editing, 3D rendering ect). Make sure you add the 'K', they Overclock. :)

-

Wall of text much? :p

TL;DR I prefer Intel over AMD. However with graphics I am not decided. :D

[frostwyrm333 1]

if you have the money sure, go with intel, ill never pay that much for a cpu. arma is not supported by crossfire/sli AFAIK. no amd didnt stop making desktop cpus.

[Wen 10]

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?

The 550ti was designed as a mid-range gaming card at its time. It is hardly more powerful than the GTX260, which is listed as the recommended GPU for Arma3. 8800GT is recommended for running Arma 2. Can you imagine playing ArmA 2 properly with a 8800GT?

I've got a 1090t@4Ghz & GTX560 OCed past 1Ghz core, and in certain official campaigns(Arma 2), the FPS rate drops to ~20fps. Expect the same ridiculous performance in Arma 3 as the nature of the calculation is the same: large amount of path finding, etc... and PHYSX in addition!!

Do yourself a favour and get a SNB platform... i5 2500k+ GTX 560ti will be good.

if you have the money sure, go with intel, ill never pay that much for a cpu. arma is not supported by crossfire/sli AFAIK. no amd didnt stop making desktop cpus.

Well, an i5 2500k is not much more expensive than a 1100t(less than $50 USD/AUD) and the performance at the same clock is not even close. Please do not mention OC ability as both CPUs have unlocked multipliers. 2500k does not use as much power either.

AMD did not stop producing desktop CPUs, yes, but its starting to give the majority of its attention to its APU product line. FM1 will be favoured over AM3+ and AM3, I'm afraid.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Wen

[CameronMcDonald 146]

arma is not supported by crossfire/sli AFAIK.

SLi makes a hell of a difference. Dunno about Crossfire.

[TimRiceSE 10]

No one has yet recommended a Bulldozer CPU. Just because AMD's Bulldozer line of CPU's was a failure, doesn't mean all of them are. My AMD Phenom II X6 1100T is an awesome processor, AMD really offers the best bang for your buck. I am currently overclocking mine and have so far made it to 4.0Ghz.

Tell me, what is wrong with AMD CPU's? Don't just tell me that Intel has more power.

Well, OK, theres nothing "wrong" with them. but are they really better "bang for the buck" up to a certain point maybe and then... nothing. no competition at all above low-mid range.

lets have a look shall we?

Lets take, for example, this benchmark, from a bulldozer review.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9

Notice at standard clock speeds,

intel i5 2500k - Avg: 100fps

amd phenom 3 x6 1100T BE - Avg: 68 fps

and now price, currently can find:

i5 2500k at 1839 SEK

AMD 1100T BE at 1799 SEK

and now TDP (thermal design power)

i5 2500k 95 watt

AMD 1100T BE 125 watt

...

I dont know, you tell me, whats better?

someone mentioned overclocking - i5 2500k can do 5ghz on AIR cooling...

Although I really do have difficulty recommending a 1 year old CPU.. so.. back to the topic, wait for ivy bridge before you buy anything... (intels next gen which due to be released Q1/2 this year)

Edited January 24, 2012 by TimRiceSE

[carlostex 38]

@TimRiceSE

You have to consider the price of the entire platform. :rolleyes:

[CaptainBravo 0]

100 fps? wow!

That beats my 20-30 fps!!

Arma 3 is nopt out till end of year, plenty of time for new CPUs to hit the market and prices for current ones to drop significantly.

[TimRiceSE 10]

@TimRiceSE

You have to consider the price of the entire platform. :rolleyes:

so.. the only other difference would be the price of the motherboard?

Cheapest AM3 mobo i can find is 439 SEK.

Cheapest LGA1155 mobo i can find is 539 SEK.

100 SEK i.e. 10 GBP / 15 USD. Yeah, that'll break the bank.

did you check yourself or are you just assuming that AMD must be OMG!111 much better value? Cos its not.

Or by all means, prove me wrong.

100 fps? wow!

That beats my 20-30 fps!!

Arma 3 is nopt out till end of year, plenty of time for new CPUs to hit the market and prices for current ones to drop significantly.

theyre running 590GTX graphics card, wihtout AA or AF so the bottleneck will be the CPU..

Edited January 24, 2012 by TimRiceSE