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)

Wise words. There is always a sweet spot where you get the most bangs for your bucks, and if you regularly purchase within it, you will save lots of money in the long run and get pretty good performance at all times - as opposed to brief periods of great performance with the same pretty good performance all the rest of the time, but the whole exercise instead costing exponentially more.

+1

The latest Intel CPU are using socket 1155 and they're talking about releasing socket 2011 second half of this year. From the way Intel has been releasing sockets for their CPUs I wouldn't be expecting a long life for the newly released sockets.

In the past you could have remarked that AMD have been relatively stable with their Sockets. That will change with the introduction of bulldozer later in the year (edit: looks like they requires AM3+ motherboard for full functionality).

So if your building for longevity, your sort of stuck between a rock and someplace nasty at the moment.

As stated before, Hardware will get cheeper and faster the longer you can wait. Get what you need when you need it.

I've been looking at the differences between IL-2 (very CPU intensive) and some of the newer sims (ROF&A10 - very graphics intensive) and have come to the conclusion that I personally will be waiting for Bob's (Ooops!!! CoDs! sorry!) release and seeing how it works before deciding on any hardware upgrades.
cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 225413)

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??

As we are talking about a new game which will be released (we are after all not in the forum thread of past FPS games..) you could be looking at eating up your above statement with salt and pepper in a few months time.

Trust me, I hope I don't have to pay a fortune on new hardware to enjoy this new game once it's released. I don't care for brand or make when spending my hard earned cache. I wan't to put my money where it gives me the best return.
Are you prepared to reimburse my expense if I go and buy a new PC based on your recommendations, and it turns out I'd be better off getting other gear in hindsight?
(No, I don't expect you to.. I'm just taking this to extremes) ;)
My point is that one should not claim facts when the truth is not even out there yet!

And that's my gripe, there are so many here advocating they know whats best to get NOW.. when they actually know NOTHING of what will be required to run the game smoothly once it's installed on our PC's in a few months time.

The best we have right now are some vague system requirements, minimum and recommended.. And I am sure they are very conservative and politically correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speculum jockey (Post 225497)

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.

Generally speaking, I agree with you, but I'm not planning to go for the top of the range i-7 Extreme version or anything like that. Sandy Bridge I think is the current sweet spot. It gives better performance than the Phenom and is within my budget, so...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 225604)

Exactly!

As for the people who spent $2000 on systems in August and September so they could play SOW in October. . . . not a tear will be shed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT (Post 224328)

Only clever thing to do NOW is to wait until next month to see how good or how bad AMD Bulldozer is.