What CPU

[Tankbuster 1746]

Guys,

This week, I'm hoping to replace my E6600. I'm keeping the rest of the system and what ever I buy will have to be good for 18-24 months. It runs Win XP

So as this machine is primarily a gaming machine and I'm hoping primarily, an ArmA 2 one, which of these two upgrade CPUs will be best?

The E8600, two cores of goodness packing out 3.3Ghz of pure Intel grunt and costing approx £210.

Or the Q9550. At £250 it's more expensive and slower at 2.8Ghz, but, it has 4 cores.

I'm not into overclocking in a big way, but I know that the dual core is better for this.

Any advice gratefully recieved.

[mr.g-c 6]

Q9550 or even the new Core i7 920 (OC up to 4 GHZ).

Suma (lead developer Arma2) once stated something like this:

"Dual-Core 3 GHZ will be little faster than 2.4GHZ Quadcore, but in situations where many AI/Players are, the Quadcore could be faster".

So the best is then to go with 3GHZ Quadcore, lol.

Having a older Q6600 between 3.2 and 3.5GHZ OC on demand, i'm actually sure my CPU is enough (as example).

[Tankbuster 1746]

Thanks Mr GC (and Suma). I did remember him saying similar, but couldn't find it.

I think I will go with the quad, yes it's more expensive and less overclockable, but it will probably last me better and longer.

Of course, an i7 would be better, but I can't afford a new motherboard and memory as well as the CPU.

[POTS 0]

Q9550 or even the new Core i7 920 (OC up to 4 GHZ).

Suma (lead developer Arma2) once stated something like this:

"Dual-Core 3 GHZ will be little faster than 2.4GHZ Quadcore, but in situations where many AI/Players are, the Quadcore could be faster".

So the best is then to go with 3GHZ Quadcore, lol.

Having a older Q6600 between 3.2 and 3.5GHZ OC on demand, i'm actually sure my CPU is enough (as example).

But then he can take a E8600 to 4.0ghz+ being even faster then quadcore. And with the way BIS talks about quadcores, seems they are more for ArmA servers while dual cores are better for the clients. The server will take the most load when there are lots of ai and players in multiplayer.

[gL33k 0]

Q9550 or even the new Core i7 920 (OC up to 4 GHZ).

Suma (lead developer Arma2) once stated something like this:

"Dual-Core 3 GHZ will be little faster than 2.4GHZ Quadcore, but in situations where many AI/Players are, the Quadcore could be faster".

So the best is then to go with 3GHZ Quadcore, lol.

Having a older Q6600 between 3.2 and 3.5GHZ OC on demand, i'm actually sure my CPU is enough (as example).

But then he can take a E8600 to 4.0ghz+ being even faster then quadcore. And with the way BIS talks about quadcores, seems they are more for ArmA servers while dual cores are better for the clients. The server will take the most load when there are lots of ai and players in multiplayer.

with a warfar/cti running, maybe the Quad is better than any dual...

one single session (client with embedded server , running on other hardware threads...)

[ziiip 1]

TankbusterSPAFF, what is the experience in ArmA with your current CPU? And what VGA do you have

[Tankbuster 1746]

The E6600 is my game pc at the moment. It has a 8800GTX and it plays the game just fine, especially with the latest patch.

[Tankbuster 1746]

I can play ArmA with 30 + FPS on my 22 inch monitor, with occasional slow downs.

I don't play warfare so can't comment on that.

[Baff1 0]

The game will all be runnning on a single core anyway. I wouldn't worry about it.

It isn't going to be maxxing your CPU out either.

If ArmA 2 is going to be console compatable it will actually be using far less CPU power than you currently have.

Unless you are running a server. In which case go for the highest core clock speed you can afford. You will need as many core's as you want to run servers on your box.

Your CPU clock speed (single core) will define how many players you can fit into your server with how many AI's.

.

I run a 32 man ETQW server on my quad core 2.4 ghz at the same time as I run a client version too. It doesn't complain.

I have no experience of running more than 6 players on ArmA so I couldn't help you guesstimate what power you might need for what player counts

Spend the money on your GFX card adding more CPU won't make any difference. A newerr GFX card might gain you a few more FPS.

This should be a hardware scale down from ArmA not a bigger system hog.

To give you some idea, an Xbox CPU ranks at 1.4 ghz on the Pentium IV scale.

That is the CPU power that ArmA 2 is being designed to work with.

I think it is unlikely that you will be able to detect any performance difference at all by upgrading your CPU. Your CPU is double what's needed already.

[POTS 0]

The game will all be runnning on a single core anyway. I wouldn't worry about it.

It isn't going to be maxxing your CPU out either.

If ArmA 2 is going to be console compatable it will actually be using far less CPU power than you currently have.

Unless you are running a server. In which case go for the highest core clock speed you can afford. You will need as many core's as you want to run servers on your box.

Your CPU clock speed (single core) will define how many players you can fit into your server with how many AI's.

.

I run a 32 man ETQW server on my quad core 2.4 ghz at the same time as I run a client version too. It doesn't complain.

I have no experience of running more than 6 players on ArmA so I couldn't help you guesstimate what power you might need for what player counts

Spend the money on your GFX card adding more CPU won't make any difference. A newerr GFX card might gain you a few more FPS.

This should be a hardware scale down from ArmA not a bigger system hog.

To give you some idea, an Xbox CPU ranks at 1.4 ghz on the Pentium IV scale.

That is the CPU power that ArmA 2 is being designed to work with.

I think it is unlikely that you will be able to detect any performance difference at all by upgrading your CPU. Your CPU is double what's needed already.

Did you just pull all of that out of your ***?

[max power 21]

The xbox 360 has a triple core xenon processor, it has 6 hardware threads available, and is clocked at 3.2 ghz.

[mr.g-c 6]

@POTS:

Don't be so rude...

@Baff1:

I'm very sorry but what you are writing is nothing else than false assumptions.

BIS developers/pr-Guys/etc. clearly said that Dual-Core will be/is MINIMUM!!!

Thats because "new/old-polished" AI needs at least ONE CORE ALONE in Arma2.

No chance for Single-Core i would assume.

As for consoles, well you can't really compare that....

But what are you talking about the processor? Thats really rubbish...

Xbox360 has triple-core each 3.2GHZ plus each core can handle 2 threads simultaneously (similar like in current core I7 or old P4-HT).

Graphics-processor is also top-notch compared to recent PC graphic-cards, so on my first-look i don't think hardware performance on Xbox360 will be a issue.

On top of that, no-one really knows when the console versions will be out or on which consoles they will be ported/developed for anyway..... who knows maybe they wait for current Xbox's successor, which is AFAIK already announced for End of 2009....

[POTS 0]

@POTS:

Don't be so rude...

@Baff1:

I'm very sorry but what you are writing is nothing else than false assumptions.

BIS developers/pr-Guys/etc. clearly said that Dual-Core will be/is MINIMUM!!!

Thats because "new/old-polished" AI needs at least ONE CORE ALONE in Arma2.

No chance for Single-Core i would assume.

As for consoles, well you can't really compare that....

But what are you talking about the processor? Thats really rubbish...

Xbox360 has triple-core each 3.2GHZ plus each core can handle 2 threads simultaneously (similar like in current core I7 or old P4-HT).

Graphics-processor is also top-notch compared to recent PC graphic-cards, so on my first-look i don't think hardware performance on Xbox360 will be a issue.

On top of that, no-one really knows when the console versions will be out or on which consoles they will be ported/developed for anyway..... who knows maybe they wait for current Xbox's successor, which is AFAIK already announced for End of 2009....

Sorry for being rude. Didn't mean to come off so strong. I was just so stunned by all the false things. Thought I was reading a book about breathing in space.

[Baff1 0]

@POTS:

Don't be so rude...

@Baff1:

I'm very sorry but what you are writing is nothing else than false assumptions.

BIS developers/pr-Guys/etc. clearly said that Dual-Core will be/is MINIMUM!!!

Thats because "new/old-polished" AI needs at least ONE CORE ALONE in Arma2.

No chance for Single-Core i would assume.

As for consoles, well you can't really compare that....

But what are you talking about the processor? Thats really rubbish...

Xbox360 has triple-core each 3.2GHZ plus each core can handle 2 threads simultaneously (similar like in current core I7 or old P4-HT).

Graphics-processor is also top-notch compared to recent PC graphic-cards, so on my first-look i don't think hardware performance on Xbox360 will be a issue.

On top of that, no-one really knows when the console versions will be out or on which consoles they will be ported/developed for anyway..... who knows maybe they wait for current Xbox's successor, which is AFAIK already announced for End of 2009....

I stand corrected if BIS say they are goin to multi threading in this game then they are.

I would like to point out however that the OP is already running a dual core chip. He has that based covered.

Most likely they will have to if the wish it run on console. 1.4/3 would make for a very limited CPU power if they only intended to use the one.

The Xbox 360 chip has the equivalent processing power as a Pentium IV 1.4 GHZ.

Or, more accurately, it has double the processing power of the original Xbox. (Which is an 800 Ghz P IV).

(Just as an AMD Athlon XP running at 1.8 ghz does).

GHZ clock speed does not define CPU power any more than number of cores does.

Hence although AMD chips have more GHZ and sometimes more cores they are graduated and sold using the Pentium IV scale. A 2.4 ghz AMD is equivalent to 2GHZ on the PIV scale.

3 crap cores are not necessarily better than 1 decent core.

The XBOX CPU was designed for and abandoned by the PC market.

The chip that time forgot.

It could not compete with Intel Celerons on either price nor power.

It's launch was abandoned completely. Microsoft bought it cheap.

It was knocked out of the market, as was a complete generation of Intel chips, when AMD annouced the launch of it's 64 bit processors.

The company folded and Toshiba and Microsoft bought it's designs up from the recievership sales.

The same people also designed the slightly higher specced Cell chip. Which had also failed to attract intrest in the PC market for the same reasons.

All the rest is sales hype.

THE GPU in it's day was a good one. When announced it was a generation above Nvidia's 6000 series GPU. (A 6.5 perhaps).

Unfortunatley before it entered service Nvidia had already released the newer 7 series to the PC market. Then came 8, 9 and then the 200's taking us to where we are today.

Fully 3 generations of GPU on from the Xbox 360 and PS3. (8 and 9 use the same GPU design).

The major drawback for the GPU is that it uses slow system RAM and not dedicated ultra fast stuff like a PC GFX card.

Not only is this RAM slow there isn't very much of it with the game sharing 512 megs between system and GFX. You might want to compare it to the onboard GFX that a Nvidia motherboard provides. A 6100 or a 7100 for example.

You get what you pay for mate.

You aren't getting state of the art graphics and CPU's comparable to a modern gaming PC for 129 quid.

Sorry. That bit was just sales hype.

If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

I also do not think hardware performance on the Xbox 360 will be an issue. It is vastly more powerful than the Xbox. and OpF worked on that.

The game will be designed with the Xbox's hardware capabilities in mind and limited to function well within them. That's why you don't need to upgrade your PC CPU.

The OP's is 3 or 4 times as powerful as what this game is being designed to run on.

[mr.g-c 6]

Sorry i have not really time to quote each of your sentences and correct you, the Internet may correct you though....

But what i want to tell you is that you have probably no idea of multicore improvements and multithreading.

A very quick example from my RL experiences if you use Software WHICH IS OPTIMIZED for Multicore - in this example DivX codec in latest version.

Old CPU: Athlon 64 3700+ (2.4GHz default) at 3000MHZ got at encoding the same video (1920x1200px, no sound, 5 mins long) and got average of 8FPS encoding-rate.

Using my "new" Q6600, disabling all but one core and clocking it also to 3000 MHZ resulted in average 10-12FPS (2-4FPS more are most likely due to architecture improvements, faster RAM DDR2 vs. DDR1, etc.)

Now i enabled all other 3 cores and i got average of 42FPS encoding rate.

During entire encoding, the task manager showed average 90% utilization on each core!

I don't want to explain now even MULTITHREADING to you, but i can just recall that new Core I7 get over 50% faster on compression programs like Winrar, when you enable Multithreading (each of the 4 cores can handle 2 threads then - SIMILAR like in XboX360!!!! )

And now tell me again that a single core is as fast as multicore if the software IS OPTIMIZED for Multicor usage (Arma2 IS!!! )

[gsleighter 0]

I tend to agree with g-c, Arma can chew my processor to pieces sometimes, but I'm able to run Crysis on high and Supreme Commander at max settings, and these were designed to take advantage of multiple cores. And I do NOT have a nice processor, it's a dual core celeron D, but it is better for Crysis and SupCom than a high end single core CPU.

[Baff1 0]

oop

[Baff1 0]

Sorry i have not really time to quote each of your sentences and correct you, the Internet may correct you though....

But what i want to tell you is that you have probably no idea of multicore improvements and multithreading.

A very quick example from my RL experiences if you use Software WHICH IS OPTIMIZED for Multicore - in this example DivX codec in latest version.

Old CPU: Athlon 64 3700+ (2.4GHz default) at 3000MHZ got at encoding the same video (1920x1200px, no sound, 5 mins long) and got average of 8FPS encoding-rate.

Using my "new" Q6600, disabling all but one core and clocking it also to 3000 MHZ resulted in average 10-12FPS (2-4FPS more are most likely due to architecture improvements, faster RAM DDR2 vs. DDR1, etc.)

Now i enabled all other 3 cores and i got average of 42FPS encoding rate.

During entire encoding, the task manager showed average 90% utilization on each core!

I don't want to explain now even MULTITHREADING to you, but i can just recall that new Core I7 get over 50% faster on compression programs like Winrar, when you enable Multithreading (each of the 4 cores can handle 2 threads then - SIMILAR like in XboX360!!!! )

And now tell me again that a single core is as fast as multicore if the software IS OPTIMIZED for Multicor usage (Arma2 IS!!! )

I absolutely agree.

However ArmA will not be using your CPU for heavy duty encryption.

It will not be using anything like 90% of your CPU power.

Compression, packing and unpacking Rars, encoding and decoding movie files, is as CPU intensive an operation as you can get.

First person video games are not.

You will clearly see the difference in encoding times if you upgrade your CPU.

You will not see any visible difference to your first person shooters.

As an experiment launch ArmA now and see what % of your CPU it is actually using.

If it isn't maxxing already you won't see any benefit from upgrading.

And if they are multi-threading ArmA 2, we can expect it to actually be using less CPU than ArmA currently is. (50% less?).

Neither is an Xbox 360 chip anything like as powerful as either an XP 3700 or a Q6600.

Adding 50% isn't very much when the XBox 360 CPU has so (comparatively) little to start with.

150% of not so much is still not so much.

[Pyronick 21]

Sorry i have not really time to quote each of your sentences and correct you, the Internet may correct you though....

But what i want to tell you is that you have probably no idea of multicore improvements and multithreading.

A very quick example from my RL experiences if you use Software WHICH IS OPTIMIZED for Multicore - in this example DivX codec in latest version.

Old CPU: Athlon 64 3700+ (2.4GHz default) at 3000MHZ got at encoding the same video (1920x1200px, no sound, 5 mins long) and got average of 8FPS encoding-rate.

Using my "new" Q6600, disabling all but one core and clocking it also to 3000 MHZ resulted in average 10-12FPS (2-4FPS more are most likely due to architecture improvements, faster RAM DDR2 vs. DDR1, etc.)

Now i enabled all other 3 cores and i got average of 42FPS encoding rate.

During entire encoding, the task manager showed average 90% utilization on each core!

I don't want to explain now even MULTITHREADING to you, but i can just recall that new Core I7 get over 50% faster on compression programs like Winrar, when you enable Multithreading (each of the 4 cores can handle 2 threads then - SIMILAR like in XboX360!!!! )

And now tell me again that a single core is as fast as multicore if the software IS OPTIMIZED for Multicor usage (Arma2 IS!!! )

I absolutely agree.

However ArmA will not be using your CPU for heavy duty encryption.

It will not be using anything like 90% of your CPU power.

Compression, packing and unpacking Rars, encoding and decoding movie files, is as CPU intensive an operation as you can get.

First person video games are not.

You will clearly see the difference in encoding times if you upgrade your CPU.

You will not see any visible difference to your first person shooters.

As an experiment launch ArmA now and see what % of your CPU it is actually using.

If it isn't maxxing already you won't see any benefit from upgrading.

And if they are multi-threading ArmA 2, we can expect it to actually be using less CPU than ArmA currently is. (50% less?).

Neither is an Xbox 360 chip anything like as powerful as either an XP 3700 or a Q6600.

Adding 50% isn't very much when the XBox 360 CPU has so (comparatively) little to start with.

150% of not so much is still not so much.

Multithreading support is different than multithreading optimized.

Lots of games split up in to two threads which is the easiest way to program.

Optimized games can optimally scale their threads usage offloading certain tasks like asset streaming, newtonian physics computing, artificial intelligence or audio processing (to name a few).

Especially with the newer Core i7 you'll have bigger performance advantages due to the cache coherency, improved direct memory access and broader bandwidth due to the newer QuickPath Interconnect.

Less bottlenecking on your RAM and graphics accelerator aswell.

Multithreaded software has been written for more than 25 years in the form of SMP support. Only the last couple of years has SMP entered the mainstream sector.

Actually, the Quake 3 engine featured multi-processor support. But it was disabled in a patch.

Anyway, this is offtopic but I'd really like more information about Mega SEF and X-Fi support.

Is there an ArmA 2 developer who can clear this up?

[Baff1 0]

Less bottlenecking on your RAM and graphics accelerator aswell.

While this is technically correct, it is in practise a red herring.

Improving your CPU does increase your GFX delivery.

However it doesn't increase it to a degree that is detectable to the human eye. We are talking a very very small improvement here.

You can see the difference between a XP 3700 and a Q6600 playing Quake on a benchmark program but to the naked eye, it is not noticeable.

180 FPS instead of 170 FPS at 1024x768 is an improvement on paper but I can't actually visually detect it by playing the game.

If I had the OP's computer and wished to upgrade it specifically for playing games (and not for compression programs) I would get better value from keeping the same chip and upgrading to a new GFX card instead, where for the same money, I could expect to increase my FPS by about 50 and actually be able to see it.

(Please note. Actual specific FPS numbers made up off the top of my head to give a broad estimation, consult Tom's Hardware for precise scores).

[PTV-Jobo 820]

Do you guys think the Intel Core i7 920 will do ok with ArmA 2? I'd really like to play high settings thing time or nearly since right now on my 1.86ghz Core Duo and Radeon X1650 had things set mostly low with one or two normal and like 1800 view distance and still suffer a lot of times.

I know its somewhat tough since we don't have it in front of us, but I'm hoping I'm not going to have to get the $1000+ i7, lol.

[max power 21]

Anything anyone tells you at this point is pure conjecture, I think.

[mr.g-c 6]

Baff1, i don't think you get what i said at all....

The example with the Video encoding was just an example to show you what difference a multicore optimized piece of softwae will benefit from such a system.

In a short sentence:

Arma2 will be multicore optimized so you can await a better performance on multicore systems, period...

Just a actual statement by them: http://translate.google.com/transla....&u=http

Quote[/b] ]What is the recommended configuration for Arma 2?

Recommended configuration can be found on the official Web site arma2.com.

A very important condition for the smooth running of this game will be multi core processor. D A good image can be computer set Alza Ruby, which we had this year in October to play the game journalists at an event ARMA2 Boot Camp.

Now got it?

[11aTony 0]

I've changed couple of things since ArmA came out. First I was running ArmA on AMD 3000+, 1500Mb of RAM and 6600GT. The game was set mostly on low, res-1024x768 and view distance on 1200 or so. Game was running... OK on 19" screen. Then I bought 9800GTX (512) and I was able to set everything on high and it was all good. Then some othergames started to require more then 2GHz CPU so I bought new PC with Q9450@2.66, 4GB of RAM and 9800GTX from before. ArmA was running like never before with view distance of 10km. Incredible. After a while I got 22" widescreen LCD, so your only option is to run everything on 1680x1050 (HD) unless you want to get your eyes "burned". When I had to set everything on low and view distance on 2km is was pretty dissapointed but I realised that graphics are really good with HD res even on low. Although I can't have more then 2km VD or FPD drasticly drops near objects and in shadows. Basicly if you have over 2GHz CPU its only matter of GPU in ArmA and most new games.

Now ArmA 2 is suppose to use more cores - dual min, quad optimal... we heared all about it but I can swear that I heared/read in one of the interviews or smt that arma 2 is going to run quite well on around 3GHz single-core CPUs too. Meaning that with 8800 class GPU and not HD res you will be able to run then game nicely on medium settings or so. So I guess ArmA 2 will be optimised nicely, I hope for HD and widescreen resolutions too, without that kind of FPS drop. I thought that VD has to do more with CPU then it does, but after a while I realised that CPU is not so important anymore.

For example Crysis Warhead: I have it on HD and mostly on high to ultra. Really nicely optimised with supreme graphics.

I tryed to run the game on old CPU and 9800GTX and I only had to change few things on medium but not all of them.

So TankbusterSPAFF I sugest you to stay with what you already have. If you have option to put another GPU in (SLi) put another one or buy 260/280 class GPU insted of new CPU.

Maybe you OC your CPU a bit. Just make sure you have enough RAM. I mean for XP is not so important, around 2GB is OK, but on Vista 2GB is nothing with new games.

[Tankbuster 1746]

I don't have an SLI motherboard. When I bought it, nearly 2 years ago, I said SLI was not a good way of betting GPU power to the system and I reckon I was right.

If and when ArmA2 comes along, and this system isn't up to it, then it'll be i7 and Vista time, but only then.