upgraded from E6600 to Q9550. Massive improvement

[Tankbuster 1746]

I really wasn't expecting this.

Patch 115 has really helped me, it's improved performance of the game across the board.

But when I upgraded my E6600 CPU to a Q9550, the difference in the game was extraordinary. The headline clock speed hasn't changed much. I've gone from 2.4 Ghz to 2.83, but it's like playing a new game. No Z fighting, quicker recovery from tab out, hugely improved draw distances, faster load times and less slow downs when zoomed in forests. Overall reliabililty seems better too.

So, what's done this? As I say, the actual clock speed has only increased by 20% and the PC is unchanged other than that.

Weare told that ArmA doesn't make full use of multicore processors.

Hmmm, I wonder if the motherboard FSB will have automatically changed when the new CPU was installed? That would mean faster memory, although the GFX (a 8800 GTX) would not be running any quicker.

[KeyCat 131]

So, what's done this?

The increased L2 cache (12 MB vs 4 MB)? Clean OS install? And yes the FSB probably increased as well, from 1066 MHz to 1333 MHz since thats what the Q9550 uses if properly configed.

Anyway, glad you are satisfied with your upgrade, would be worse the other way around  

/KC

[Tankbuster 1746]

I didn't re-install the OS. I had been considering it to try and improve performance, but with the positive effects I've got with the new CPU and the patch 1.15, I've not bothered.

I know the mobo supports this CPU fully as I checked and flashed the BIOS, so yes, I assume it has stepped up it's FSB speed. I'll check to make sure later on.

[cjph 0]

I'm interested in the effect of cache and FSB on performance, as I run an E2160 overclocked to 3GHz with 1mb cache and 800MHz FSB. Even a move to a Wolfdale should show some improvement, though with one eye on the Arma2 use of multicores I am also struggling torn between a faster E8400/8500 or a Q6600 (the 9xx0s are out of budget at the moment). The small amount of testing I have done showed FPS min/ave/max increases with CPU speed when I clocked up to 3.3GHz (unstable), whereas overclocking my 8800GTS 512 made no difference.

Obviously Suma has released what he can, and a 4GHz quad would be ideal, but any info to help us mortals who are feeling the credit crunch and planning to upgrade for Arma2 would be appreciated when possible.

cjph

[Tankbuster 1746]

I'm interested in the effect of cache and FSB on performance,

That's why I started this thread.

We are told that we need a good graphics card to play this game, but it occurs to me that pretty much, any old clunker will do provided it meets the minimum spec, ie shader 3 etc.

A fellow clan member had a Pentium dual core and X1950 pro GFX and could play ArmA quite comfortably. When he upgraded to a Q6600, the game was transformed. Still the same crummy old VGA, but loads more CPU grunt.

I'm beginning to suspect ArmA players like myself have been too much importance on the graphics card and not enough on the CPU.

[cjph 0]

I agree, and most gaming articles stress the importance of graphics cards, usually saying at 3GHz any dual core will eat up any game (excluding Crysis, yawn) with a 'good' video card. I think Arma is almost unique and puts so much demand on the non-graphics system to make it the game it is.

I switched my upgrade focus from graphics to the CPU and system when Suma suggested an 8800GTS 512 (my card) in the speculative system requirements for Arma2, and other posts (here and elsewhere) back that up with claimed minimal improvements when moving to the latest top end cards.

I suspect we will have to wait for the release or demo of Arma2 for more definitive info - hoping we are not all broke and jobless by then !

cjph

[max power 21]

I also recently purchased a q9550 and I must say that I am extremely satisfied with ArmA's performance now. In most situations, even multiplayer, I am able to run the game with most settings maxed at a very, very comfortable vd of 8km. I await the inevitable frustration of trying to cope with ArmA 2's appreciated hardware requirements... like being unseated from a throne.

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]The small amount of testing I have done showed FPS min/ave/max increases with CPU speed when I clocked up to 3.3GHz (unstable), whereas overclocking my 8800GTS 512 made no difference.

I used both of those parts (E2180 and a 8800GTS 512) and definitely have to agree with you. I have read that increased cpu cache actually benefits gaming and the E21xx series of Intel cpus is starving for that with only 1MB.

Quote[/b] ]I am also struggling torn between a faster E8400/8500 or a Q6600

I would think you'd do better with an E8500 - in ArmA at least - especially if you're not against *ahem* "tweaking" the clock speed. If I was to go with a quad, it would be a 9xx0 but like you said - man are they expensive!

Quote[/b] ]I'm beginning to suspect ArmA players like myself have been too much importance on the graphics card and not enough on the CPU.

Well, ArmA is pretty unique with the boatloads of AI soldiers involved. Contrast it with, for example, Bioshock or Stalker. They are much more concerned with the "look" rather than the intelligence of all the AI characters.

If this genre survives - and I think it will - we may find that even more of a heavy load will be placed on the cpu. The ultimate goal of AI game characters is to have them as smart (or smarter) than human players.

[cjph 0]

Argh ! Still torn between 8x00 and Quads . . .

Thats not the only point I am torn on - straying a little off topic, but you mention the survival of the genre - I can't help think if the massive amount of effort going into mods addons et al (and my sincere thanks to those who put in this effort for free) could (and maybe will) be downloaded and used by the console community then it would open up a huge area for BIS and the genre. I am torn as to whether we would all soon abandon Arma in the wake of hordes of spawn-kill-die-respawn fans.

I see a split community - console users playing in a slightly more sophisticated manner than COD, BF2 etc today, with the potential of many more maps, military hardware and game types, plus the PC users as now, generating the stuff (and playing, of course).

It might lure into Arma/Arma2 some of the more mature players who long for a more realistic game, and even perhaps generate more addons and maps. I see a lot of hard work and effort in this community (when RL allows I WILL contribute something back, promise !

So back on topic, still pondering "four cores good, two cores better" argument - thanks to anyone with experience to share.

cjph

PS not against tweaking, but my mobo does resist when possible.

[max power 21]

The ultimate goal of AI game characters is to have them as smart (or smarter) than human players.

Well that's not strictly true. Programming artificial stupidity is a big problem. No one wants to go against an omnipotent, omniscient enemy. Making them stupid and believably so, instead of super intelligent or deeply flawed in way that is not designed is the challenge.

[Lou Montana 101]

Well that's not strictly true.  Programming artificial stupidity is a big problem.  No one wants to go against an omnipotent, omniscient enemy.  Making them stupid and believably so, instead of super intelligent or deeply flawed in way that is not designed is the challenge.

That's what he said, as smart as humans... so great idiots

Of course, the game has to manage each soldier from his point of view, not making ALL forces omniscient from ONE soldier spotting you... but making AI transmit info to close friends !

btw, give AI to me, you'll see, they'll be as idiot as...*wait, I find something idiot* well they'll hit their head against trees  

[desertjedi 3]

Quote[/b] ]Programming artificial stupidity is a big problem.  No one wants to go against an omnipotent, omniscient enemy.  Making them stupid and believably so, instead of super intelligent or deeply flawed in way that is not designed is the challenge.

Considering the current state of artificial intelligence, IMHO, getting the AI to be smarter (interpret their environment and making good decisions based on that) is still a much larger problem than programming in stupidity.

Quote[/b] ]That's what he said, as smart as humans... so great idiots

That's pretty much what I meant. Ideally, you could scale the bots' intelligence with a slider. But we're a long way off from having bots smarter than even noob-humans.

There are ways to make the bots omniscient but those would be cheap cheats the devs could implement. The goal is to have heuristic-style bots that can behave, react and make decisions just at humans would. But yeah, there'd have to be some randomness to reflect poor decisions.

Quote[/b] ]Still torn between 8x00 and Quads . . .

I don't want to influence your final decision but one point to keep in mind is that by the time the majority of games use 4 cores, your "current" rig will probably be a fond memory.

Regarding my comment about the survival of the genre...I went through the Tom Clancy debacle so I'm a little wary about just much of a niche this type of gaming is...whatever you want to call it...serious gaming? Tactical gaming? Deep down, I can't see it going away. Having played ArmA for several months now, I look back at some of the games I've spent hours playing and I just have to shake my head.  

Um, what was the original post about?

[cjph 0]

Thanks DJ - I am leaning towards an E8400 and would hope to get up to 3.6GHZ from this rig with a little tweaking and my AC7 - with bigger cache and higher FSB this should give a boost, especially when Arma2 arrives and uses both cores.

Arma (and so Arma2) is the primary game I play, so I'm dependant on the Arma2 release date (hint hint) - slippage to later in the year would again tick the E8400 box, though the addition of ACE to my rig has hit MP FPS in Evo and Domination games I've played, so I might just be getting back to pre-Christmas rates.

There, back on topic I think. and apologies to the OP.

cjph

[boneboys 0]

I'm running a E8400, 8800gt + 3go of ram.

All that on the soon to be forgotten XP and so far I am very pleased with the performance.

I will just add that when I added an X-Fi sound card, that also helped considerably.

The E8400 is very stable.

[volkov956 0]

just remeber this game does not support multiple cores so a faster DUal Core is more beneficial then a slower quad core...

[kklownboy 43]

I think the newer NVDA drivers really use the multicore CPUs well, in spite of the lack of Game support for multicore CPUs in ARMA, same for newest ATI drivers, Especially with multi gpus. Testing with my new nehelam quad and it seems to be a big improvment!.

Looks good for ARMA2 and quads!

[sparks50 0]

A unclocked E6600? Now thats a waste of potential

[Tankbuster 1746]

just remeber this game does not support multiple cores so a faster DUal Core is more beneficial then a slower quad core...

But that's sort of my original point. My dual core was at 2.4 Ghz, my new quad core is only .4 of a Ghz faster, yet the game performance has improved massively.

[Tankbuster 1746]

A unclocked E6600? Now thats a waste of potential

Ah yes. Well, I'm far from an inveterate overclocker and anyway, when I bought this rig, I made a poor choice of case and it cannot fit any decent CPU coolers in it. I have 100mm from the top of the mobo to the case side, so I'm stuck with the retail intel cooler, hence no real overclocking.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]Programming artificial stupidity is a big problem.  No one wants to go against an omnipotent, omniscient enemy.  Making them stupid and believably so, instead of super intelligent or deeply flawed in way that is not designed is the challenge.

Considering the current state of artificial intelligence, IMHO, getting the AI to be smarter (interpret their environment and making good decisions based on that) is still a much larger problem than programming in stupidity.

Quote[/b] ]That's what he said, as smart as humans... so great idiots

That's pretty much what I meant. Ideally, you could scale the bots' intelligence with a slider. But we're a long way off from having bots smarter than even noob-humans.

There are ways to make the bots omniscient but those would be cheap cheats the devs could implement. The goal is to have heuristic-style bots that can behave, react and make decisions just at humans would. But yeah, there'd have to be some randomness to reflect poor decisions.

Quote[/b] ]Still torn between 8x00 and Quads . . .

I don't want to influence your final decision but one point to keep in mind is that by the time the majority of games use 4 cores, your "current" rig will probably be a fond memory.

Regarding my comment about the survival of the genre...I went through the Tom Clancy debacle so I'm a little wary about just much of a niche this type of gaming is...whatever you want to call it...serious gaming? Tactical gaming? Deep down, I can't see it going away. Having played ArmA for several months now, I look back at some of the games I've spent hours playing and I just have to shake my head.  

Um, what was the original post about?

You said as smart as humans or smarter.

And programming in artificial stupidity is a great concern.  What you're referring to is actual stupidity.

You can see the artificial stupidity in ArmA when you're in close range and an enemy is standing right before you, but seems to be sweeping his rifle towards you slowly instead of blowing you away instantly.  If this was not programmed in, the AI would not appear to have human like limitations.  It is a programmed feature in order to make the AI less perfect.  Things like ai weapon dispersion is also artificial stupidity.  

The fact they can't navigate through a doorway properly is actual stupidity.

Perhaps a better way to phrase your earlier comment would be 'smart like humans', not 'as smart as (or smarter)' because it implies a quantity of intelligence and also a quality of intelligence.

[hit-man 0]

Good morning,

if you are right with the CPU power and ArmA, i thought to upgrade to a now cheap Q6600, to get some more out of my HD3850. What do you think ?

I could later transfer the Q6600 and overclock it on a new P45-board with DDR2/PCIe-board.

cheers

my current rig:

Conroe865PE - C2D E6600 @2520 - FSB280 - ThermalRight SI-128

- 2GB GSkill DDR400 2.3.3.5 - HIS Radeon HD3850 IceQ 3 Turbo -

Cinergy XS - Audigy SE - Enermax ELT500AWT - IBM CRT 21" -

XPhome SP3

[wamingo 1]

i thought to upgrade to a now cheap Q6600,

my current rig:

Conroe865PE - C2D E6600 @2520

You might gain a little in certain newer games but in arma I suspect very little or no difference at all.. I can only judge with the size of my own wallet, but if it's only for games and regular desktop usage, I think it's waste of money. You need to go higher to find noticable improvement.

[hit-man 0]

I'm interested in the effect of cache and FSB on performance,

That's why I started this thread.

We are told that we need a good graphics card to play this game, but it occurs to me that pretty much, any old clunker will do provided it meets the minimum spec, ie shader 3 etc.

A fellow clan member had a Pentium dual core and X1950 pro GFX and could play ArmA quite comfortably. When he upgraded to a Q6600, the game was transformed. Still the same crummy old VGA, but loads more CPU grunt.

I'm beginning to suspect ArmA players like myself have been too much importance on the graphics card and not enough on the CPU.

Maybe you're right, but did you read this above ? As it is "good old Arma", i wouldn't be suprised to get some more fps...

[wamingo 1]

Maybe you're right, but did you read this above ? As it is "good old Arma", i wouldn't be suprised to get some more fps...

That quote doesn't say which cpu the friend originally had, it might have been a really old (slow) one for all we know.

To my knowledge, the Q6600 is just 2x E6600 and is otherwise identical, ie runs at same clockspeed. So noticable benefit is, in my opinion, unlikely.

You might get more out of it with arma2, I couldn't say.

What I would say is, I'd save for a bigger jump.

[Tankbuster 1746]

To my knowledge, the Q6600 is just 2x E6600 and is otherwise identical, ie runs at same clockspeed. So noticable benefit is, in my opinion, unlikely.

Unless the cache memory has been doubled too, there might be no increase in performance at all.