Nividia or ATI, Intel or AMD
 

Il-2 definitely runs better on Nividia than ATI using open GL.
I'm considering a new rig for CoD.
The best bang for the buck seems to be AMD and ATI.
However, on the last Vcard upgrade for IL-2 I bought ATI and had to change back to Nividia.
Is there a general consensus as to which brand of Vcard and CPU that works best with CoD.
I have not played CoD, I have it backordered at Ubishop and it has not been made available as yet.
Any help would be most appreciated.

You gonna get a mix of answers here but don't listen to them.
Go for Intel i5/i7 minimum 3GHz and nVidia minimum 1,5GB if you wanna run on ultra settings.
AMD is cheaper and will get you there but Sandybridge is the new black. ;-)
And like you said, nVidia works better with this game.

Anyone claiming AMD is worthles for CoD is talking bullshit quite frankly. CoD uses DirectX and so the OpenGL thing is moot. CoD has some very serious issues with both cards re graphics anomilies, such as lines in the landscape, shimmering, poor FSAA, concrete water tiles, flickering shadows. AMD 6XXX series cards also have 3 blue lines on the horizon at low altitudes. All of these issues will be fixed in the future, we hope.

Sandybrige 2500K is the best bang for buck CPU these days, having said that I changed from an i7 920 clocked at 3.8 GHz to an i7 2600K clocked at 4.8GHz and it made not one single pick of difference to CoD. Which bears out the fact that CoD is just not that well optimised, or that it isn't CPU limited. The best bang for buck graphics card is the AMD HD6950 2GB.

If money is no object and you are gaming at 2560x1600 resolution or less then get a Nvidia GTX580 1.5GB (or 3GB if you are really flush). If money is an object then get a AMD HD6970 or a Nvidia GTX570. If you are gaming with multiple monitors such as eyefinity then you will need to go multi GPU and you can forget about going less than 1.5GB for the RAM on each card. So AMD HD6950 or HD6970 in crossfire, a single HD6990 or SLI GTX580s (don't touch the GTX570 if you are going multi screen).

What resolution do you plan to go and are you on a budget?

Nice explanations!



Why not???? ;)

A. what are you current system specs
B. build a system around you budget and daily needs NOT just for CLoD

S!

Current specs:
Intell E8400 @ 3.0Ghz
RAM 4GB
Nvidia GTS 250 1GB
PS 850watt
MoBo MSI P45 Platinum CrossFire only, no SLI
Vista 32bit
Monitor 1920x1200

Thanks for looking

CoD runs on Direct X? How does one know that? Then is Nvidia or ATI a much different question; running on Direct X?
If I understand correctly, then neither Nvidia or ATI is favoured using Direct X, but no matter which card is used their will be graphics problems at this stage of CoD's development.

Resolution for now is 1920X1200 and this won't change for a min. of 8 months
Budget is 1500.00
Thank you very much for your advice!

As a cpu i recommned definitely intel I7
as a graphics card the choice is harder, 6970 has a lot of ram which is very important for high res textures and highresolution monitors, here i think is wiser choice amd with 2 Gb ram , i you have enough money then choose nvidia 580 with 3Gb ram its about 10 percent faster.

try to avoid the sli or crossfire, this technology is not mature enough and you will have a lot of headaches with drivers and game support. maybe in future this will change.

S!

First of all, IL-2:CoD runs on DirectX 9 or 10 depending on settings. Even conf.ini proofs it if you do not believe what Oleg and Luthier said ;) So either AMD or nVidia will run this game adequately given the brands provide driver support/profiles for it.

As of CPU it seems 2500K is the best bang for the buck for now. Paying over 100€ more for 2600K with HyperThreading this game does not even use is worthless IMO. Even my modest rig runs CoD very smoothly and I put most of the performance issues to the messed up coding of the game rather than GPU drivers.

So either way..AMD or Intel CPU or AMD/nVidia GPU is matter of preference. But I would go for something built around the Intel 2500K + Z68 chipset..

As Flanker says, almost verbatim :) At the moment there is no better choice than the i5 2500k. As far as graphics cards go, this may provide some guidance if you’re thinking about the amount of VRAM that may be necessary: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...o_card_review/

When it comes to CloD, I found the additional memory allowed higher detail settings without a frame rate penalty, but the difference wasn’t huge. More of it certainly doesn’t hurt, though.

Hmmm...
Since you have Intell E8400 @ 3.0Ghz, RAM 4GB, Nvidia GTS 250 1GB, PS 850watt, MoBo MSI P45 Platinum CrossFire only, no SLI, Vista 32bit, Monitor 1920x1200
I presume you are quite adept putting together hardware together.

My recommendation would be:
Intel i7 around 2,9GHz (you can overclock them without any superior knowledge to 3,6+GHz)
6-12Gb RAM 1600 (800MHz DDR2) (helps when it comes to overclocking of the CPU)
Motherboard SLI or tripple-SLI (you may need it later)
NVidia GPU, GTX570 has 1,3Gb VRAM or higher. 1,5Gb or 2Gb RAM would be even better.
Win7-64bit (this i a must, besides it works like a dream)

I think (you need to verify) your 850W PSU should be sufficient.

I am a NVidia man, my experience since the ATI 9800xt (5yrs ago) showed me that NV cards work well. My sympaphy lies with ATI but when it comes to my wallet, it has been NV for the past 4 years.

A word on SLI, I think it words pretty well now, since the arrival of the 460 series, a second GPU gives you almost double frames therefore it is becoming a worthwhile investment.
A word of caution though, ever 14 months on average, the new GPU generation on the market has double the performance of the previous thus, depending on your wallet, you may never need to buy a second GPU for SLI configuration.


~S~

335th_GRAthos posts a very good system. The only caveat his his lack of experience of current AMD cards. As a person who builds and supports PCs for a living I would say that overall the HD6970 is a slightly better choice as a GPU over a GTX570, though only because of the higher 2GB RAM. Most of the tests I have done show the HD6970 and GTX 570 trade blows and are both very close in performance at 1920x1080, the HD6970 starts to shine as you add higher res and more FSAA and AF etc. To be honest you will not go wrong with either card, or if money is a concern the GTX560 or HD6950, thought the HD6950 is definately a much superior card in this price range.

There is no problems with AMD drivers in my experience, so don't let anyone tell you they are crap.

Because at triple monitor resolutions the GTX570 hits the RAM barrier and goes to a crawl. Yes I noticed your smilie but answered anyway :)

Hi ICDP,
the smile was because I have two of them in my rig flying with three monitors and 3072x resolution... ;)

Yeah I guess you are right, you need 1,5+ Gb RAM to play CoD in very high resolutions...

~S~

I have another – while there is nothing wrong with the performance of LGA1366 i7’s, it is difficult to recommend them with SandyBridge available, the 2500k being the pick of the bunch. I recently built a Core i7 2600k system and was impressed with the performance, but the large additional cost for the HT capability is not worth it IMO (unless you need it, of course).

I am about to build my son a new system (he cannot wait to see how BullDozer might shape) and based on current prices would recommend the following. The total cost here in SA is around $1000 (based on 7 ZAR=1 USD), where you are pricing and availability may differ, and you would be hard-pressed to improve on performance without increasing costs significantly.

Mainboard: MSI Z68A-GD65 (4 SATA-3, 4 SATA-2, 6 USB3, Sli/X-fire)
Cpu: Intel Core i5 2500k 3.30 GHz with large Intel vertical cooler
Memory: name-brand DDR3 1333MHz, 2 x 4GB
Graphics: MSI Radeon HD6970 2GB ($200 cheaper than a GTX580 1.5GB)
OS: Windows 7 64-bit (cost not included)

If you are not interested in the cpu’s integrated graphics capabilities, a P67 mainboard will be a bit cheaper, the equivalent to the above is the P67A-GD65.

Good luck ;)

Eish...the delayed release of Bulldozer has caused a bit of a stir.
I'm still waiting, and if Bulldozer isn't all that, then Ivy Bridge is just around the corner come September. At that point in time Sandy Bridge might look like a slightly less attractive choice.

I'm hoping Bulldozer is all that, though. ;)

Don't get your hopes up too much on bulldozer! It's gonna be late to the party and the clock speeds will never match intel. You can't make up speed with more cores.

Right now i have to recommend the 2500k/2600k with a z68 or p67 mobo.
The 1366 socket is making an exit unless you plan on running 3 or more graphics cards!

Apparently delayed until March 2012 (http://semiaccurate.com/2011/05/30/b...delayed-a-bit/). A bit of irony above - 13ullDoZeR having a go at BullDozer :)

Gaah! Well, I can't wait that long. It's a straight up choice between Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer then.

get what you want :p

I prefer intel CPUs but know plenty that run AMD... I think intel will run faster but thats my opinion.

As far as video.. Nvidia.
Some of my regular fly buddies have had ATI, then swiched to nvidia..and refuse to go back.
to many troubles with drivers all the time.
I have an ati card in my latest laptop... only because I coudnt get it configured with an nvidia card and no other laptop I could get configured close to it.
and the driver crashes all the time. have updated it.. rolled back.
its just a mess. And I hear that same thing from my friends using ATI.
most have switched to nvidia.
I have 3 home built computers running nvidia, and one laptop. No issues.

Haha...what can I say, they stole my name!

I'm always in upgrade mode..and don't ever count AMD out until the performance numbers show intel dominating!
I want the best price:performance ratio and competition is a win for consumers!

Skip Bulldozer. AMD has postponed it and will phase it out before the end of the year according to a leaked roadmap.

Sooo that leaves you with i5/i7 and nVidia...just like I told you in the first reply. :-D

Please don't listen to deluded biased fools like this. Read reviews and make your own mind up. Anyone who has a wierd biased fanboy love for one corporation over another is not to be taken seriously. All these corporations want is your money, no point ginving them more than you need to or more than they deserve. As far as CPUs go the Intel i5 2500K is the best bang for buck and overclocks exceptionaly well. Best bang for buck graphics card is the AMD HD6950, then the GTX570 or HD6970.

These are hardware components and the best one to purchase depends on many factors.

1. Your requirements
2. Price
3. Performance
4. Features.

Look at all of the above and base your decision on logic such as price per performance ratio, or featureset etc. Do not base it on the deluded advice from a raving Nvidiot or FanATIc.

Zoop I would get the 2500k a new motherboard and keep the rest of your old stuff and upgrade as needed.

your vid card and mine are pretty close and i also have 4 gigs of ram and i get pretty good fps on high settings (shadows off).
you would be amazed how a new MB/CPU upgrade can bump your FPS up :)

S!

phheeeleeezzeee, I fly with ATI (see sig) but reading the forum shows that nVidia has less problem...with this game...with this patch. 6950/70 users will be happy flyers too but if you'd have to make a choice then...!

Lookie here, Mr. ICDP.
OP flies IL-2 and might wanna keep doing that. 1-0 to nVidia.
Is there a general consensus as to which brand? 2-0 to nVidia.

But glad we agree on the Sandybridge though. :-D

To provide more overclocking headroom I presume?

Depends on your budget. You can play CloD fine with AMD so dont listen to the intel fanboys.

No, just price - gaming memory is double the price with a much smaller gain in performance. And you cannot OC an SandyBridge by raising the clock by much (it's on the cpu), which is why they have 'k' editions with unlocked multipliers.

Without a doubt, but for someone who wants a fast gaming machine that should last for a while, and is both faster and cheaper than the previous standard (LGA1366), SB is hard to resist. I prefer AMD for other reasons, one of them being the constant 'upgrade-ability',and am more than happy with performance.

Just picking up on what ICDP mentioned regarding the 570GTX, he is right!

I fly nicely at 3072x resolution SLI with 70+ fps no problems as long as my VRAM is not full.
e.g. REPKA server islands with all options grass, shadows, roads etc etc.

If I fly on a heavier map (REPKA server channel island), the moment my VRAM is filled up above 1240Mb, I have 30fps.
If I lower the eye candy (roads, shadows, grass=OFF) the my VRAM will go up to 1140Mb and I continue enjoying my 70fps.

So, no matter what kind of card you are going to choose, make sure you have 1,5Gb and more if you want to enjoy.

My next card(s) will have 3Gb VRAM for sure (I only need a rig to fly IL2 and CoD so this is the only requirement), I bet it will be available by next year.

~S~

PS: thanks for mentioning ICDP, it made go back and start testing....

This from that article:

"In all of our gameplay testing we haven't hit the VRAM wall with the GeForce GTX 580 with 1.5GB of RAM. In Metro 2033 we had the opportunity to show you what this looks like. We found that at 2560x1600 with Very High quality and 4X MSAA enabled and Depth of Field enabled, the VRAM requirements are at least a 2GB video card. This graph above proves that.

If you look at the GeForce GTX 580 line, it has a framerate between 6-9 FPS, varying only by 3 FPS the entire run-through. This is a clear cut VRAM bottleneck imposed by the insufficient 1.5GB of RAM on the video card for these settings. When you look at the performance of the AMD Radeon HD 6970, with 2GB of RAM, the performance is better and there is a wider range of framerate over time. The same goes for the 3GB MSI N580GTX Lightning XE which is faster still, with varying framerate."

So, TonyD thanks for that link. It has helped me decide on the 6970. I won't be running at that 25x16 rez, though. Probably 19x10 (or 12). Two gb of vram should hold me in good stead with CLOD in that case. Nothing like data! ;) Perhpas when CLOD implements that weather thing, and Crossfire gets optimized for CLOD, I could always add another card. BTW, I sold my i7-920. I'll buy an i5-2500k. It's not because of FPS. It's because of power usage. I never even used the 920 at any rate. It's off to a good home.
Flyby out

Hey don't listen to them. Listen to me. ;)

I had a single GTX460 for a while and it is a great card at 1920x1080. I bought two more monitors and an extra GTX460 but at 6048x1080 they just could not handle the hit due to lack of VRAM. So I traded them in when the HD6970 came out and bought two of them. Two GTX580s were an option but I felt for the extra 10% performance at that resolution it was silly to spend and extra £240.

I always look at price/performance/features when making a graphics card purchase. When the GTX460 was released it was the best bang for buck so I bought one, then another. This time it was 2X HD6970s that got my vote.

HD6970! yeaaah would have been an option, were it being produced by NVidia! :P


Just joking...

No, the bad news I read in that hardware review, the 3Gb 580GTX GPUs are there but they bring hardly any noticable performance advantage. So it is the next 1-2 generations of GPUs we need in order to see performance.

I will have to wait...

Thank you all for the advice
 

I'm definitely going to go SB, probably i5_2500K and 2X GTX 570's in SLI. I'm not willing to gamble on AMD again and as Vengeance pointed out I'm not done with IL-2: 2-0 for Nvidia!
If CloD definitely runs better on Direct X rather than GL then there should be no issue, but as IL-2 is the only one of the two that I know of on line at this moment then I'm decided.
I want to thank everyone who responded to my querie. I very much appreciate it.

Something more since you are preparing your order, take a look at my other post here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=23302&page=2

And, since you mentioned 2 x GTX570 which is exactly the setup I have, my advice today:

I personally would buy two 580GTX 3GbVRAM if I would go to the shop today so, unless if you want to play very high resolution (3072x and higher) you should to buy a single GTX580 3Gb VRAM GPU.
Should cost the same or be cheaper than 2 x 570GTX
Wait for the game to support 3Renders (3 monitors), by then the prices of GTX580 will have dropped and you can buy your second GTX580 when you will really need it.

I say this because the 1380Mb VRAM of the GTX570 is always at the limit at the resolution I play (3072x1024) so I will always recommend more than 1380Mb VRAM (you can see screenshots of the 570GTX VRAM usage in my pictures on the "SLI Working" thread).

Still, the 580GTX is a medium term solution so you will need to buy a new card in a year or two.

My 2cts...

~S~

S!

People should stop spreading false information about CoD. It runs at DirectX ONLY. Period. It was in beginning OpenGL, but switched to DirectX later on. So a DirectX capable card should run the title just fine AFTER the devs have fixed their code, after that AMD/nVidia can make applicable drivers/CAP etc.

Exactly. I think Battle of Moscow will not introduce much challenges but Battle of Stalingrad which may come next year will probably have at least some elements of new water, clouds and/or weather. 580 will be able to run it on medium settings but for those who can not settle for less than everything maxed out a nextgen card will suit better.

Since the 2 blue lines bug is fixed ATI 2GB vram 69xx series is a strong player again. As a medium term solution I would recommend going for 6950 flashed to 6970 and adding the 2nd one when/if needed depending on nextgen cards price/performance ratio and timing of Il-2 addons issue.

2x570 is a waste of money imho as it does not have enough memory to last long term and is too expensive as a med-term solution.

ps. BTW my 4890 runs original Il-2 in OpenGL fine without any artefacts.

I did build a new system July 8, 2011 using the advice gained here.
i7 2600K
Corsair H80 cooler
Gigabyte Z68X-UD5-B3
EVGA GTX 580 3GB
G Skill F3 Sniper DDR-3 1866 2 x 4GB
Crucial M4 SSD 128GB SATA 3
Corsair AX 850
Windows 7 Pro 64 bit
I'm running graphics at very high settings. Never had a stutter so far. Haven't bothered with a FPS reading as yet. I'm quite happy with this setup. Specs are stock for now, but I will be overclocking the CPU and the GTX 580 in the next month or so.

Thank you to everyone for the input.

Nice! I love the smell of new hardware.

I recommend i7 2600k and a 3 Gig GTX580.

This is what runs CloD best at the moment. But maybe you should wait for the patch with the new graphics engine and decide then.

Edith: I just realized I beat a dead horse.

Someone please show me where a 3GB 580 out preforms a 1.5GB card because I've yet to see it.
Clock for clock

I think it's not about clocks (in fact, i vaguely remember seeing some specs where the 3GB variants use a slower type of vRAM than the 1.5GB ones) but the total amount of memory.

That's specific to CoD though, due to the large texture sizes and the way they are shuffled in and out of vRAM.

Let's just say that with the graphics engine update in the upcoming patch i wouldn't be keen to buy a new GPU until i see the new patch in action, because it could all be subject to change very soon.
If for example memory management becomes better and the game swaps textures in and out of vRAM in a more efficient manner, it could be possible for everyone to up their texture settings one notch without having to buy a new GPU. In such an example my Ati 4890 1GB would probably be able to run high textures and 1.5GB cards might be able to run original size textures, with no additional money spent.

Another example, getting a 64 bit executable would allow us to use more RAM which would in turn allow the sim to load more textures in there, so instead of having to access the hard drive every time the GPU wanted a set of textures, it would access the RAM which is much faster. Buying an extra bank of DDR3 sticks to double RAM from 3-4 GB to 6-8GB (depending on triple/dual channel configurations) is much cheaper than a new GPU.

I think it's one of those times that it's best for us all to wait ;-)

That's easy: London is the place where the 3 Gigs come in handy ;)

It isn't faster fps wise, but it's keeping all the textures in its ram, which completely eliminates the stutters. At least, that's what I saw, when I tested it.

Yes its slower but most likely due to higher latency from the 64x32 modules and increased memory controller overhead.
Higher clocked cards are faster then lower clocked cards of the same spec ... obviously ... that's the only reason I added clock for clock


That's cute ..... it sounds alot like the placebo effect

Besides something like Metro 2033 DX11 at ultra high resolutions and crazy amounts of anti aliasing where you get a little better minimum framerates I haven't seen much of anything that shows a 3GB is faster then 1.5GB