AMD 3800 and 6000 X2 CPU

[Herbal Influence 10]

Please let us gather knowledge and experiences with the mentioned cpus here.

Please always give (at best in your signature text, see below) also the solution you use.

My experience:

AA1: nicely playable with "normal", a bit slow with "high"

AA2: playable only with "low" quality settings

EDIT: pls note I upgraded hardware later - all fantastic now !

Edited July 20, 2009 by Herbal Influence
upgraded hardware

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

sorry i think this is kind of a useless topic.. i have a 6000+ and i upgraded from a amd athlon 3500+ 2.21ghz single core.. and i saw a major performance boost,that is all

[Herbal Influence 10]

Calling a thread useless another person is interested in?

Your post might get usABLE, if you offer your screen solution and the settings you use while gaming?

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I never said you were useless or your post was useless, i just thought the topic was not necessary because this really does'nt belong here even though its under troubleshooting, it belongs more in a hardware forum. Im not trying to sound harsh but i see no point in this thread.

For your clearance, i am running on 1280x1024 Resoultion Maxed everything i get 25-35 FPS and with Shadows on High and AA on Normal, Max Everything else i get 35-45 FPS :). I run on 1.2KM distance.

[-=seany=- 5]

sorry i think this is kind of a useless topic.. i have a 6000+ and i upgraded from a amd athlon 3500+ 2.21ghz single core.. and i saw a major performance boost,that is all

Sorry to kind of hijack a thread, it is related though. My second PC has a socket 939 mother board and a 3500+ single core, like you had Russianguy.

Is the 6000+ a socket 939 chip, or did you upgrade the mother board to socket AM2 also? Is it possible to get a multicore 939 chip and if so where?

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Sorry to kind of hijack a thread, it is related though. My second PC has a socket 939 mother board and a 3500+ single core, like you had Russianguy.

Is the 6000+ a socket 939 chip, or did you upgrade the mother board to socket AM2 also? Is it possible to get a multicore 939 chip and if so where?

I had to upgrade my motherboard to AM2/AM2+ in order to get the 6000+ cpu, i had a 939 socket motherboard with the 3500+ so i sold them both. Yes it is possible but generally they are slower,expensive now and rare to find because they aren't produced anymore and the best one you can get is a 4800 X2. If i were you i would go buy an AM2 Motherboard and the 6000+ cpu, as itll be cheaper and better in the long run than just buying a 939 dual core socket cpu alone now, if you do that it will run arma 2 great, you will also need to upgrade your gfx card anyhow. Im having no problems so far and i am happy, running high-max :). I upgraded my ram,motherboard,cpu and gfx card just for arma 2. I spent about $550 NZD on the upgrade and saved quite a bit which is equivalent to around $300 USD I presume.

I had 1gb of ram,939 socket Asrock Motherboard,HiS ATI Radeon 3850 512mb PCI-E card and a 3500+ AMD Athlon 2.21ghz. Now i have what you see on my signature :). Even though i overclocked my cpu and gfx card, you don't really have to, but i decided cause i wanted to get some more performance out of my system

Edited June 29, 2009 by =Spetsnaz=

[-=seany=- 5]

dang yeah, If I have to upgrade it I may as well go the whole hog and go Intel socket 775 and PCIe.

I hoped maybe a 939 multicore and a AGP3850 (was 7800gs) might help. At the moment Arma2 is (unsurprisingly) totally unplayable on it. Although It ran Arma1 pretty good. Shame we cant tone down the GFX to Arma1's standard for the ol' dinosaurs :). I think the new SM3.0 plants are just too hardcore for the original SM3.0 cards.

cheers.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

good choice, but personally i dislike intel because they are generally overpriced while AMD are bang for buck. i suggest you get an ati card as for some reason arma 2 likes ati cards over nvidia cards :S

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Intel maybe more dinero, but AMD's get hotter than the surface of the sun. So both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Intel maybe more dinero, but AMD's get hotter than the surface of the sun. So both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Depends if you have a good cpu cooler or not, mine came with a very good stock cooler. Only thing i don't like about AMDs is the fact they are a pain to overclock and intels overclock more nicely. But ive always liked AMD because of the price ranges for performance. Generally Intel is much much expensive, because yes they perform much better than AMD and id rather save quite a bit and go AMD and Overclock it so i can get the max performance out of it.

Yes Intel are good but with their prices they not going to win me as a potential customer

[Alex72 1]

Ran ArmA1 with 6000+ X2 and running ARMA2 with it.

Cant say much though as im on 8800GTS 320MB card and i just dont know how the CPU itself performes. With the settings below i run it real good. Even tested adding 100 AI fighting it out and it seems to be decent.

Playing all at NORMAL but PP=OFF and AF=HIGH. Only 1024x768 until i install a 4890HD 1GB card wich i hope will work with ARMA2...

ARMA2 needs optimizing and fix for many videocards so it seems. And BIS is on it im sure.

Alex

[mosh 0]

Please let us gather knowledge and experiences with the mentioned cpus here.

Please always give (at best in your signature text, see below) also the solution you use.

My experience:

AA1: nicely playable with "normal", a bit slow with "high"

AA2: playable only with "low" quality settings

Your signature shows AMD 3800, 7600 GT, and 2 MB (you mean GB) RAM.

I upgraded from that exact same setup for Arma 1 to what I have now. The older setup ran Arma 1 OK (1680x1050, mostly medium settings). I wouldn't even try running ARMA 2 on it.

My current CPU runs Arma 2 good (1680x1050, medium to very high settings). I planned on upgrading, but after seeing how it performs, I decided against it. An upgrade for me would be EVERY piece (otherwise I would just create bottlenecks for performance).

If I am understanding your question correctly... Can you just simply upgrade your CPU and hope to run Arma 2 well?

No. You need a better video card, more RAM, new MoBo, etc...

And if that wasn't your question... well, what was it then?

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

the 6000+ x2 is a decent cpu and it runs ArmA 2 very well unless you have a good graphics card,a suitable OS like windows 7 64bit, or windows xp 32 or 64bit so not >>Windows Vista<<, decent amount of ram around 2GB+. Im getting good FPS rates with my system, and im more than happy making a wise decision upgrading to the current spec i have here, saved myself tons of $$ while still getting good overall performance.

[Masterfragg 10]

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (AM2+)

RAM: 2GB Corsair XMS Dominator DDR2 @ 1066mhz

GFX: Nvidia GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB

Sound: Realtek HD Audio Device (outputting 5.1)

Armed Assault I pull off everything High/Very High 1280x720 between 35 to 60 FPS 80% of the time unless mission is very heavy with vsync off it hits above 60 FPS

Arma 2 I pull off everything low 640x480 (fillrate 50%) view dist 500 no higher than 30 FPS no lower than 20 with everything Normal at 1280x720 with View dist at 1600 and fill rate at 100%/125% I pull of no higher than 30 FPS no lower than 15/16 FPS roughly dependant on drivers it seems.

My AMD Phenom II X4 should arrive today so lets hope it improves...BIS better hope it improves anyway lol

I have not used Intel myself since the PIII chips and don't plan to unless AMD continue to drop the ball.

The Phenom II's are a technically huge improvement over the previous Phenom/X2 chips with the L3 Cache being generally larger and more accessable by all cores and seem to have a better multicore design.

Sometimes even beating the i7 in benchmarks although I'm guessing thats due to "Hyperthreading" problem many people are having with them.

Intel is toooooo expensive for my blood! it's that simple

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (AM2+)

RAM: 2GB Corsair XMS Dominator DDR2 @ 1066mhz

GFX: Nvidia GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB

Sound: Realtek HD Audio Device (outputting 5.1)

Armed Assault I pull off everything High/Very High 1280x720 between 35 to 60 FPS 80% of the time unless mission is very heavy with vsync off it hits above 60 FPS

Arma 2 I pull off everything low 640x480 (fillrate 50%) view dist 500 no higher than 30 FPS no lower than 20 with everything Normal at 1280x720 with View dist at 1600 and fill rate at 100%/125% I pull of no higher than 30 FPS no lower than 15/16 FPS roughly dependant on drivers it seems.

My AMD Phenom II X4 should arrive today so lets hope it improves...BIS better hope it improves anyway lol

I have not used Intel myself since the PIII chips and don't plan to unless AMD continue to drop the ball.

The Phenom II's are a technically huge improvement over the previous Phenom/X2 chips with the L3 Cache being generally larger and more accessable by all cores and seem to have a better multicore design.

Sometimes even beating the i7 in benchmarks although I'm guessing thats due to "Hyperthreading" problem many people are having with them.

Intel is toooooo expensive for my blood! it's that simple

i don't know but what patch are you running on?

[Herbal Influence 10]

Thx for your many replies yet.

It's interesting to see what a nowadays middleclass cpu like the amd x2 6000 can do.

I have to decide now to invest into a 9800 GTX graphic or something better.

By the by:

I don't like Intel as I don't like Microsoft for their illegal practice to sell products (not only in Europe) and raise thereby prices that way. http://www.linexlegal.com/content.php?content_id=94087

Edited July 16, 2009 by Herbal Influence
inserted brackets to make my point more clear

[Herbal Influence 10]

Hi guys,

like you can see in my signature I have upgraded from graphic 7600 GT to 9600 GT and I am so happy about the effects:

OFP: 60 fps varies +/- 2

AA1: 35 fps varies +/- 3

AA2: 23 fps varies +/- 4

Everything on highest settings.

It was easy to upgrade and the 9600 GT did cost 99 Euros.

I had to chose 9600 instead of 9800 for I have only one pcie-slot on my mainboard.

And ...with the 9800 I think I would have had power consuming problems.

So - all in all - from Dec 06 to now I had to invest 160 Euros being able to run AA2 nicely. For this I cannot really understand the critics on Bohemia Interactive delivering a game only for extreme expensive hardware.

Please continue to comment on your hardware based on a AMD 6000 X2!

Sheers!

ps.: Some poster said that Intel would be too expensive to him. I went the AMD-way not because of the costs in late 2006 but because I was informed that AMDs - at that time - consumed much less power than Intel-Cpus. But the illegal acts of Intel may be the reason for the higher prices: They illegaly bound Media-Markt and Saturn (maybe even more resellers) only to sell Intel-cpu's to kick off AMD from the market. And they could rise prices that way. Now they have to be more expensive for they have to pay 1.000.000.000,00 Euros to the EU Commision for doing so. Maybe they stay expensive now to get back that money - again from their customers. And it's not an EU thing only. They did trade illegaly since years at least in other countries too (I remember - not sure - Corea and Japan) too.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Herbal Influence
Variations of fps amended

[Herbal Influence 10]

One more thing to boost graphics - sorry, but I have to say so:

Switch off "Nachbearbeitung"!

Sorry, I don't know the English word for it.

EDIT: Now I know it: "Post processing" ;-)

I was getting headaches from "Nachbearbeitung" for it blurres everything in the distance so that my eyes got irritated, trying to sharpen things that are blurred - like hiding enemies ...

Edited July 18, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[ZiggyJinx 0]

64 X2 4800+ Dual Core.... Running at 2.6ghz and hits 100% when the going gets tough.

[Herbal Influence 10]

@ZiggyJinx (and all followers): Pls post your system specs more detailed! For what you are saying is not too helpful without graphic card specs and resolution - at least?

Why not putting it into "signature" ?

[thr0tt 12]

dang yeah, If I have to upgrade it I may as well go the whole hog and go Intel socket 775 and PCIe.

I hoped maybe a 939 multicore and a AGP3850 (was 7800gs) might help. At the moment Arma2 is (unsurprisingly) totally unplayable on it. Although It ran Arma1 pretty good. Shame we cant tone down the GFX to Arma1's standard for the ol' dinosaurs :). I think the new SM3.0 plants are just too hardcore for the original SM3.0 cards.

cheers.

Check my sig., I am waiting to upgrade mobo and GPU and can confirm ArmA II runs poorly on this config so if i were you I would go full hog and get PCIe with relevant CPU/GPU combo for performance but to date there is no standard system built to run this game, it is pot luck.

[mrcash2009 0]

Check my sig for specs,

Runs best for me under XP32. I set force mipmaps setting in nvidia driver to "trilinear", vsync always "off" and texture filtering quality to default "Quality".

In game most is set to high (shadow, terrain, object detail) including AA, texture detail is set to normal but texture memory is set to "highest" ( <<< this was one of the main things that corrected my stuttering with cities and bad LOD issues) and also 125% fillrate, draw distance is set to 3000 running 1400x900 16:10 60hz. This combination including the "clutter fix" mod, plus using in certain places the FPS monitor addon (witch controls dynamic draw distance and terrain levels) I'm running pretty well indeed for what I use Arma2 for and what I expected. No CTD's .. well I had one, but that was a week ago and nothing since. And pure eye candy to boot.

I do get some fps lag in areas that everyone else does even on higher spec rigs, I think the new patch is fixing that FPS issue on borders of map (cities / industrial places) and such.

I don't get half the lag and FPS in the main Elecro city and the other usual suspects after all my tweaking but still some to iron out. I do obviously get chugging and stutters and large citied get drawn when in jets, but then, i got that with ARMA1 so no real shock to me, but this can also be sorted with me lowering draw distance .. the FPS check mod helps here anyway so that's not half as bad. Although I really dont fly much in Arma/2 anyway.

I can have a 4 fire team battle with tanks and such and planes, but I do see the obvious AI based FPS/CPU hit on larger battle setting .. but still no show stopper and what i would expect without a quad. I don't really play much large battles anyway.

Im personally happy with performance im getting with the expected usual things without a quad, however I know it can be optimised more so I cant wait for that, just means better draw distance I hope. its clear there is something very odd with new spec rigs and some very new setups to be sorted though that is for sure. Seems my spec and similar seem to avoid show stopping issues currently (and im not being smug either).

Edited July 20, 2009 by mrcash2009

[Herbal Influence 10]

mrcash - thanx for the post!

I think it shows that the problems other gamers have are not combined with the NVIDIA GTX - cards though there are many problem-posters using them.

But mostly in combination with Intel Processors.

Seems to me that BI developers run your/my system specs ! ;-))

ps. (offtopic)

I would really be interested whether it's Intel.

Because then all guys that were mislead by Intels illegal distribution contracts to buy only Intel have not had only the higher prices but also a bad solution. For remembrance: Intel had to pay about a 1.000.000,00 Euros (1.44 bio. $) for illegal distribution practises in the EU which harmed customers choice.

[mrcash2009 0]

I wouldn't even like to speculate becuase that would then spark a "CPU war" :)

Who knows, but one thing is certain if BIS use the data collected on these forums so far plus logs etc they will get a better picture of where the problems are coming from system specific wise. And I bet they can easily see a pattern emerging by now.

[Sinistercr0c 0]

For anyone interested, I'm running reasonable FPS (like most other players its around 25 fps in most areas dropping in big cities) on an AMD Athlon 64 3800 x2 OC'd @ 2.5Ghz.

This is on Vista 64 ultimate with 4gb of DDR400 RAM running at DDR456 (due to the cpu oc) and an ATI 4870x2 on cat 9.6 BUT only using one GPU as I get no gains running the -winxp handle or messing with the arma2.exe name.

It appears to me at least that what BIS meant when they said the 'optimum' system specs were (for AMD at least) a 4400 CPU, you would see no improvement if you had a faster CPU than this. This is based on the huge volume of posters complaining they've got uber rigs and still only get 25 - 30 FPS in game.