Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   AMD or Intel? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=18565)

Rainmaker 02-17-2011 04:21 PM

Intel

Oldschool61 02-17-2011 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainmaker (Post 225298)
Intel

Do you own a ferrari or lamborgini??

kendo65 02-17-2011 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 225294)
im not saying what is best im saying what will work. Once you get your minimum fps above 30-40 fps everything else is wasted in a sence. I know there are intel cpus better but they are totally unneccesary. These cpus will almost certainly give more then adequate gameplay for a fraction of the price.

Adequate for now - what about building in some future-proofing?

What happens when dynamic weather and other new features get added?

Oldschool61 02-17-2011 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 225338)
Adequate for now - what about building in some future-proofing?

What happens when dynamic weather and other new features get added?

Dont you mean IF dynamic weather is added. I dont think there are any guarantees that it will ever be active.

Codex 02-17-2011 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 225219)
I dont know were your getting your cpu's but the amd 1100T is only 240 on newegg while the i7 2600K is 330. For that much difference I can get a mobo, 100T and ram for the price of the i7. And it would play CoD just fine. And I save $100

I compared the 2600 not the 2600k. The 'K' is the unlocked version and more expensive. But what I was highlighting was the power of two CPUs at roughly the same price.

Your not wrong in what your saying about using the AMD's, in fact if all you want is a gaming rig them I would say go for AMD.

But remember that almost all CPU benchmarks are formulated around First Person Shooters who's game engines are heavily focused on eye candy which is almost entirely taken care of by the GPU. That's they show a $100 CPU performs almost on par as a $1000 CPU. But a flight sim needs to do many more calculations for things that aren't directly displayed on the screen, e.g. Weather modelling, Flight modelling, Damage modelling etc. Yes some First Person do this as well, but not to the level of details as what IL-2 or IL-S:CoD do. And don't forget about the other stuff that is usually associated with a flight sim - Hyper Lobby, TrackIR, Joystick mapping software etc. Using a flight sim for a benchmark will stress a CPU more and this is where Intel will generally do better than a similar priced AMD chip.

Oldschool61 02-17-2011 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codex (Post 225377)
I compared the 2600 not the 2600k. The 'K' is the unlocked version and more expensive. But what I was highlighting was the power of two CPUs at roughly the same price.

Your not wrong in what your saying about using the AMD's, in fact if all you want is a gaming rig them I would say go for AMD.

But remember that almost all CPU benchmarks are formulated around First Person Shooters who's game engines are heavily focused on eye candy which is almost entirely taken care of by the GPU. That's they show a $100 CPU performs almost on par as a $1000 CPU. But a flight sim needs to do many more calculations for things that aren't directly displayed on the screen, e.g. Weather modelling, Flight modelling, Damage modelling etc. Yes some First Person do this as well, but not to the level of details as what IL-2 or IL-S:CoD do. And don't forget about the other stuff that is usually associated with a flight sim - Hyper Lobby, TrackIR, Joystick mapping software etc. Using a flight sim for a benchmark will stress a CPU more and this is where Intel will generally do better than a similar priced AMD chip.

Yes I agree, but the cpu's I was comparing were all basicall within 5-10% in performance of each other in CPU and gaming benchmarks not just GPU. And yes intel (spawn of satan) has the best cpu performance when cost isnt an object.

But for most on a budget the AMD phenom II systems will give more fps per dollar than intel. And most high end phenom II X4 will be more than fast enough for this and any game presently. So why pay more for something thats overkill. Do you need a ferrari to drive to work??

WTE_Galway 02-17-2011 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 225413)
Do you need a ferrari to drive to work??

That would be rather nice actually.

Codex 02-17-2011 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 225413)
Do you need a ferrari to drive to work??

hehehe ... no. I'm actually building my own Lamborghini Concept kit car ...

http://www.lambocars.com/lambonews/f...i_concept.html

Planning to start building next year when the garage is finished, have obatined permission from the man himself to use his design and have ordered the 6.0ltr LS3 that I'll be using :)

All thats left is to hire an engineer to oversee the build. I can't wait to start!

White Owl 02-18-2011 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 225375)
Dont you mean IF dynamic weather is added. I dont think there are any guarantees that it will ever be active.

I thought we had a guarantee that dynamic weather is already included in the FMB as an undocumented feature, to be used at your own risk, and better optimization will come in later patches.

speculum jockey 02-18-2011 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 225338)
Adequate for now - what about building in some future-proofing?

What happens when dynamic weather and other new features get added?

Don't try and future proof! That last few FPS is going to cost you 100X more than they are worth!

Buy the PC components with the most FPS at the best price right now and don't throw away your money. What runs "bleeding edge" right now will be left in the dust by whatever comes out in 2 years. It doesn't matter if you drop $3000 on your system I will be able to spend $800 in two years and probably get 2x the FPS yours does.

YOU CANNOT FUTURE PROOF!!!

If I went for the top of the line stuff available 2 years ago and spent $3000 I could go out now and trounce that system for less than a third of the money. Under $1000 would do the trick and make that system look pathetic.

If I instead bought a $1000 system I'd probably only have a few FPS less than that $3000 system, and would have $2000 in the bank. Now I want to upgrade for COD and that $3000 system is not going to cut it and I'll have to buy a new one. So I've essentially spent $1000 a year for a computer, that I now have to replace and spend more money on. If I instead got a $1000 system three years ago ($333.33 a year) I have more money to buy a system that will run COD maxed and still have money left in the bank.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or call you stupid, but don't try and Future Proof, it can't be done and it's wasting your money.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.