Upgrade of PC to run CoD Properly

[Bikerjack]

As most posters have previously reported, the tweaks required to run this game adequately are sometimes mind-boggling. I have followed many threads and have certainly achieved the best possible "playable" settings on my current system. So, thanks to everyone for the input and advice. It is without doubt that, whatever problem one has, there is somebody out there who has had the same issue or has solved it.

However, I have decided to upgrade my motherboard and processor to the best spec I can afford. Currently I am running Windows 7 64 on a 2Ghz AMD Phenom Dual Core processor with one VTX Radeon 6970 card. I can acheive acceptable FPS rates of 20+ average but only if I create a mission in the builder with not too many AI planes and/or ground items. If I try to run the set missions the FPS rates fall dramatically to below 10 with annoying stuttering. I have not tried to fly on-line as yet.

I am due to upgrade to a 3.6Ghz AMD FX-8150 processor and a Gigabyte 990FXA motherboard and waiting for the parts to be delivered. I will ask the "shop" to put the system together for me using existing hard drives, 750watt power supply etc. I also intend to get another 6970 card and apply the Crossfire technology. I will start off with a minimum of 16Gb RAM although the board will take up to 32!

One big question worries me. As I understand it from reading up in the forums, CoD only uses one core of the processor? So am I going very much over the top with this purchase or will it run the game with ease?

I know I am throwing a lot of cash at this but I want (need!) a system that really gets the best out of the game because I love it - 1946 was great but CoD is potentially graphically excellent. Before I finally commit to this upgrade, can I ask for feedback on the pros and cons of the processor/Crossfire combination?

Thanks.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Luthier has stated they have improved the use of multiple cores in recent patches even the RTS option is not in conf.ini anymore. So you should be just fine. CrossFire can cause stutters and all, but seems that those with CrossFire use the LostPlanet2-profile in the settings and it helps. I still use a single card due all the problems SLI/CrossFire seems to induce in games. I also linked 12.7 beta drivers for AMD, they work nicely with CoD as well.

Have fun with your rig It should be enough to run CoD easily.

[Warhound]

I would forget about the FX-8150 right now, it might have alot of cores but despite that it performs outright horrible compared to similar priced Intel processors.
CLOD does use multiple cores btw, even if it's not to their full capacity.
Just compare the gaming (and other) scores in this,or any other, test with a FX-8150 and a I5 3570K : http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...k-cpu-review/6

A good motherboard for a 3570K would be something based on the intel Z77 chipset.
Personally I like Asus, but others are fine too. Depending on the features you want and overclocking you plan on anything from a ASUS Maximus V Gene down to a ASUS P8Z77-V LX will do.
Compared to your planned Gigabyte it will give you PCI-E 3.0, allowing for a graphics upgrade further down the road without bottlenecking it.
Throw in a good CPU-cooler and those I5's easily hit 4.5GHZ.

A single 6970 like you have now is also enough to run CLOD at pretty high settings at a resolution of 1920x1200 and will do even better at lower resolutions. Add in some quircks and bugs with Crossfire and CLOD, and you are probably better off saving money.
Can always use it to get a new generation graphics card in 2013 or spend it right now on a SSD harddrive, which will help windows and CLOD load faster and give you a more responsive PC in general. Samsung 830 series are really good for their money and a 128GB one will do if it's just for the OS and games (and you don't have tons of games you want to have installed all at once).
Most people who installed a SSD say it's the best upgrade they ever did, and once you've used a SSD system pretty much any regular HDD system will feel sluggish in comparison.

Finally, be sure to compare prices rigorously as some shops are alot more expensive than others.
http://skinflint.co.uk/?m=1 Should give you an idea about prices...just remember to also pick a shop with good RMA (hopefully a fellow Brit can help you here).
Building the thing yourself could also save you some money which would be better spent on beer or slightly better parts. If you've ever built a Meccano kit and can follow a step by step manual it's a cakewalk really.
First time will be a bit stressfull, but just follow the motherboard manual's steps and not much can go wrong.

Oh and have you the deleted Logo.wmv file in your install? It buggers up most ATI cards and stops them from clocking up to 3D speeds..with luck it might allow you to get 30FPS on your current system. So be sure to check this aswell and remember to do it on your new system too.
It just removes the Ubi logo at startup, so don't worry about it messing anything else up.
In your Steam folder, go to "SteamApps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\parts\core\GUI". Rename "Logo.wmv" to any random name (or outright delete it).


Hope this helps a bit and you end up a happy CLOD pilot
and kinda praying you didn't order that FX-8150 allready.. ;(

[vranac]

^ +1

http://guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-815...ssor-review/19
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/8
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...-8150-review/9

And if you want to stay with AMD anyway, better go with much cheaper
960T, 1050T or FX-4100 because you will not gain anything in CloD with 8150.
Revision of Buldozer(Piledriver) should get out Q3(Q4?) this year and I hope it will be much better and competitive with Intel CPUs so you can upgrade later.

[TonyD]

As an alternative viewpoint to the endless Intel hype everywhere , I would suggest the FX-8120 instead of the FX-8150. If you understand how processors are rated, you would realise that the essential differences between the two are the default settings for the multipliers (which are unlocked anyway). I should point out that both of these were released with multipliers set way too low, and need to be overclocked to get the best out of them. If you are reluctant to do this, then the FX-8150 would be a better choice, as it will run CloD at 3.90GHz (state P1) by default.

I use AMD OverDrive (AOD) for overclocking, and it really is very simple. This also allows me to keep all the power saving features enabled, which is beneficial with Bulldozer, particularly at higher clocks. Subsequent BIOS updates for my mobo have also improved performance as manufacturers have come to grips with how BD operates, which should improve in future. If you are considering going this route, PM me and we can discuss it further, or we can do it here and maybe provide some enlightenment in the sea of Intel blue

CloD currently loads all eight cores at about 30% on my cpu, and performance is very good (one of the benefits of the DirectX 11 API). This wasn’t the case before the latest beta update, where it couldn’t quite match that of my previous 3.80GHz Phenom-II 965. Even at times when the frame rate is lower (eg, over London), it is very smooth with very little in the way of stutters. Hopefully the next update will improve things further.

Multi-gpu’s are currently not much of a benefit in CloD, although some users have reported some success. I know that they have stated that this will be fully supported at some point, but I would suggest holding off on going this route at the moment.

Even though I am a died-in-the-wool AMD fan, I would also suggest a 3570k (or 2500k if they’re available) if you wanted to take the safest route – this cpu is in excess of what you would require to run any game, and should reasonably last a long time (I detest the company, not necessarily their products). You would also not need to overclock it to at the best out of it, which is currently the case with BD.

But Bulldozer is not nearly as poor a performer as most would have you believe. Just to add to the review links:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by vranac

Revision of Buldozer(Piledriver) should get out Q3(Q4?) this year and I hope it will be much better and competitive with Intel CPUs so you can upgrade later.

Piledriver is still using the AM3+ socket and even the newly designed 1090FX chipset will lack PCI-E 3.0...though that might be rectified with a future revision.
Even worse, it looks like it won't be competitive, the mobile version of Piledriver (Trinity) has allready been benched and proven to be slow compared to Sandy/Ivy Bridge's mobile offerings.
So it's likely Piledriver itself will be no match either.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5831/a...m-a-new-hope/5

It's Integrated Graphics solution is faster than Intel's, but that's irrelevant to gamers with dedicated graphics cards like us.
So I'd say it's not worth waiting for that.
Think we'd all like AMD to be competitive again but I don't see it happening with Piledriver.

@TonyD, I'm 100% neutral to either company and just look for the best performer or best performance/price, and right now AMD just can't compete unless you want a budget PC.
I Loved my Athlon 700, 1100, 1700+ and Barton 3200+, but after the "Core" design Intel just took over and kept leading the way.
Luckily ATI is still competitive, but even they are sliding downhill now.
I can see AMD as a company get into deep trouble unless they release a winning design next year, preferrably a CPU as that's where the real volume is. They had a massive restructuring quite recently ,then massive delays with Bulldozer which ended up slow and sold bad.
Their marketshare keeps dropping and unless it get's turned around somehow I fear we're headed to a de facto Intel/Nvidia duopoly with high prices and little/slower innovation.

[TonyD]

@ Warhound: I beg to differ. It also really depends on what you do with your pc. If I had the time and inclination, I could selectively choose benchmarks that favour either cpu to prove one is better than the other, and Anandtech is probably the worst (best?) example of Intel bias there is on the ‘net.

I did spend a fair bit of time reading up before deciding, and one of the articles that made up my mind was this one: http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/f...chmark-results (although it degenerated into an argument that needed to be locked – sound familiar? ) This showed how close the two were overall when overclocked to the same speed.

I also have the benefit of being able to do a direct comparison between my son’s Core i5 2500k and mine, using whatever benchmark I choose. I therefore do not have to rely on finding a website that may compare programs relevant to me, as I can do this myself. Currently my performance matches his in everything I have tested, but needs a higher frequency to do so (except for CloD, where having 8 cores does provide an advantage). Since the 2500k is widely considered to be the best gaming cpu you can buy (or its 3570k replacement, which is no faster), having an AMD cpu that matches it means that I have the best gaming cpu money can buy (not bad for a ‘budget pc’)

The other aspect to consider is that you do not need a very fast cpu for a game station, just one that is adequately fast. You get far better value by spending more on a fast graphics card than a fast cpu, as most games are gpu bound. It certainly isn’t detrimental having a fast cpu, it’s just not as beneficial as some would have you believe. A Core i3 2130 with a GTX680 will run every game you try faster than a Core i7 3770k with a HD7950, and cost the same (just as an example).

[Bikerjack]

Thanks for your very detailed responses. I suppose I am sticking with AMD because I have got used to it and using Catalyst. I know that Intel (mostly) perform better than the AMD but from what some of you are saying the 8120 or 8150 will run the program.

Now I have concerns about the graphics cards and Crossfire link up. I am not sure how this works technically and just assumed that the cards would share any processing and therefore enhance the output. It seems from your comments that CoD actually needs to know that it has linked cards and, at present, doesn't handle it very well? I will have to wait and see as I have already got the two cards (both are 2Gb).

As far as the Motherboard and Processor are concerned, the shop (they are a good place and a few of my friends have used them for years) has got the stuff in for me but I will definitely share the comments and advice you have all given me with them to see what they think before I commit.

Still a minefield for me but I am a fast learner!

Also, I would like to run it without overclocking as the process worries me somewhat. Perhaps, once I am up and running with whatever rig I end up with I can post again about performance etc and, if need be, consult about specific overclocking if required?

Thanks again for advice and comment.

Tony D - Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 | AMD FX-8120 | MSI HD6970 | 8GB Corsair DDR-III 1866 | Win7 Pro 64-bit. Your spec seems similar to what I am going to have:
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 - AMD FX-8150 - VTX Radeon HD 6970 (2gb) x2 - 16Gb DDR3 RAM (not sure what manufacturer yet?) - Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit - Track IR5 - joystick (no pedals as yet)

[Bikerjack]

I am planning to visit the shop this pm with my PC. I have printed out this thread and will address your comments when I speak to them.

Thanks again for the advice.

[Warhound]

Damnit just wrote a whole post and had it vanish..i'll try to recap everything quickly.

-Noone said the 8150 won't run it ,just that for the same money you could get some extra FPS.
Also don't worry about changing brands, Catalyst is the software your ATI-cards use so it won't affect your CPU in any way and you won't have to relearn a thing.

-I'd even stick with the 8150 if you had the shop preorder all those parts. By asking this and having them buy them for you... you commited yourself by your word, even if you haven't paid yet.
Ignore this if you're buying out of stock.

-Might need a stronger PSU if you use crossfire and plan to overclock the CPU later on. 2 6970's will draw 500Wattt combined under load, and an highly OC'd 8150 will draw about the same.
Add some periphirals like USB , harddisks, DVD-drive etc and 750Watt will be insufficient.
Also if you have some extra cash to burn, strongly consider an SSD as the general windows experience will be night and day difference, aswel as CLOD loadingtimes without having to fiddle with RAM-drives and the likes.

There that's the gist of it, hope you still read this before heading off.
And please let us know your experiences once everything is up and running.