CoD new engine vs IL2 old engine & graphics

[swiss]

Originally Posted by David198502

i have a dual core now and a quad would be very fine. now that i know that sandy bridge will not be my decision i wonder which one to get.the costs play a role for me, but i want something decent too.any suggestions?ah by the way thx for your quick answers.

Budget?

Max would be i7 860/870 - I guess.
They are ~$300.


But I'm AMD guy, wait for the intel boys to chime in.

as i dont play any other games than il2.

Sounds familiar.

[David198502]

300$ is ok!may its a bit less in euros.
what does the mainboard exactly do??will i get an increase in performance when i change my crappy one??

yep one year ago i became aware of the develpement of storm of war, and decided to buy 1946 to prepare myself for the upcoming game.this was the best decision i have made since then.il2 1946 was/is worth the 4euros ten times.i confess im an addict.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by David198502

300$ is ok!may its a bit less in euros.
what does the mainboard exactly do??will i get an increase in performance when i change my crappy one??

Basically the mobo lets the different components communicate.
If you got a crappy one it could bottleneck some parts, limit your OC- and upgrade options.

But again, I don't know enough about the intel stuff give you any advise on mobo selection.

Maybe you should start a new thread.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by David198502

300$ is ok!may its a bit less in euros.
what does the mainboard exactly do??will i get an increase in performance when i change my crappy one??

yep one year ago i became aware of the develpement of storm of war, and decided to buy 1946 to prepare myself for the upcoming game.this was the best decision i have made since then.il2 1946 was/is worth the 4euros ten times.i confess im an addict.

Difficult to know what to advise on the motherboard. I had a read through the linked review and while performance-wise your board wasn't as fast as the others tested, the difference in numbers terms looked fairly negligible.

edit: heres a quote from the review:

"We have already pointed out many times that all mainboards run almost equally fast in nominal mode. This is quite natural and expected, as the boards work in identical conditions. But still, even though the performance difference is truly minor, I believe it is fair that Intel DH55TC is mostly the last one in this race: it is th slowest of the three."

They also talk about it lacking features - if you're finding that you are notmissing out on anything at the moment, then those are features you probably don't need.

Personally, I'd probably just stick with it and upgrade the processor.

I agree with Swiss: the i7 860/870 (hyperthreading 4 core) would be a big jump up.

There is also the Core i5 760 2.80GHz (no hyperthreading 4 core) which is well thought of for gaming purposes and is a fair bit cheaper.

[PE_Tigar]

On MoBos - two things I learned not to save on are MoBos and PSUs. You may not use all the features of a premium MoBo, but it will come in handy when you want to set up RAID or smt like that. Same thing for PSUs - those 200W extra might come in handy for SLI or CF upgrade later.

I'm just wondering for how long Soc. 1366 and that other format for i5 will be with us. I've bought a Q9650 several months ago (my former processor was a bit long in the tooth) to tide me over until COD comes, but now I'm thinking I may well wait for another year or two for a complete new build because my current configuration runs the contemporary stuff (DCS: A-10C, RoF etc.) really well, albeit with not all eye candy. But I don't need that anyway (for the most part HDR, Bloom, depth of field etc are cartoonish and useless).

Finally, to know what to do and what to invest into, if looking at playing COD mostly (which I probably will) I'd have to know how well it scales with processor cores, GPUs, how much memory does it use, is .exe 64-bit or 32-bit. Guess I'll wait and see.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by PE_Tigar

On MoBos - two things I learned not to save on are MoBos and PSUs. You may not use all the features of a premium MoBo, but it will come in handy when you want to set up RAID or smt like that. Same thing for PSUs - those 200W extra might come in handy for SLI or CF upgrade later.

I'm just wondering for how long Soc. 1366 and that other format for i5 will be with us. I've bought a Q9650 several months ago (my former processor was a bit long in the tooth) to tide me over until COD comes, but now I'm thinking I may well wait for another year or two for a complete new build because my current configuration runs the contemporary stuff (DCS: A-10C, RoF etc.) really well, albeit with not all eye candy. But I don't need that anyway (for the most part HDR, Bloom, depth of field etc are cartoonish and useless).

Finally, to know what to do and what to invest into, if looking at playing COD mostly (which I probably will) I'd have to know how well it scales with processor cores, GPUs, how much memory does it use, is .exe 64-bit or 32-bit. Guess I'll wait and see.

Good points. Oleg has mentioned there will be a 64 bit exe.

System specs are out!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18417

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Ok,

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3 am good here with Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended) Good here with 4GB RAM DDR2, would DDR3 realy make a big diff?

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List* Am ok here with my GTX 285!

DIRECT X®: DirectX® 9.0c or DirectX® 10 (included on disc) Good here!

DVD-ROM DRIVE: 8X Good!

SOUND CARD: DirectX 9.0c compatible Good!

HARD DISK SPACE: 10GB No prob!

PERIPHERALS: Mouse, keyboard (joystick with throttle and rudder control recommended) Good

MULTIPLAY: Broadband connection with 128 kbps upstream or faster Good

*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480 My GTX 285 is in the middle of the pack.

Great news, although eventually would like to run at maxed settings, I think my current build will get me by and allow me time to save and build in the future thanks to CoD's up to date engine that utilizes even 2008 hardware better than IL2 ever did!

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

Go quad. ANYTHING runs better in a quad core than in a dual core. Just look at the amount of processes running in background in your W7 and think about it.

People tend to think only in "one thread", "the game" running in one core. That's not the way things work really.

Just look at the reviews regards performance in new multicore processors. Two more cores will sure improve your performance in IL-2:CoD.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

Ok,
...

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

I'm in a similar situation with E8200 dual core (2.66GHz). I think the fact that they have listed quad cores under the recommended listing looks like it will be beneficial to have the extra cores.

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended) Good here with 4GB RAM DDR2, would DDR3 realy make a big diff?
...

Not so clear on this one. In most cases i don't think it will make a substantial difference

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by kendo65

I got the info from a magazine - Custom PC (UK) that did a fairly extensive test of the Core i5-2500K and the i7-2600K in their current issue.

I don't have the magazine to hand (in work currently), but the gist was that in all but very highly multi-threaded applications the Sandy Bridge processors are on a par or even beating the 980.

For gaming their recommendation was the i5-2500K. For video editing the i7-2600K was better. The i5-2500K was roughly on a par with the 980 in gaming (1fps lower in Crysis in their test, better in some other games).

As for being a "rip-off" they're actually very good value - gaming performance comparable to a 980 for a quarter of the price. (I take your point though that the 980 probably STILL is the ultimate processor for those wanting the maximum flexibility or for dealing with heavily multi-threaded apps, but for practical gaming and general purposes I think the Sandy Bridge are a great deal)

Others can make up their own minds but personally I can settle for a 1 fps difference if I'm saving 600 notes

(By the way the 'K' versions of the new processors are massively overclockable too)

Yep, the 980 is not at all a good choice for cost v performance unless you want to have it for a long long time (as I intend to use it for 4+ years).
The main thing I was trying to say is the sandbridge CPU is in fact no better then the 40nm i7 range, all you need to do is OC the i7 and they are about the same power, except SB cpu's are more expensive and contain a inbuilt gpu which is completely uneeded.
Basically current SB are glorified laptop cpus

(there is some talk I believe of the late 2011 SB cpus being 1366 socket. But get a decent mobo so you can upgrade later, it will save you $ in the long run.