AMD or Intel?

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

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]

Originally Posted by Codex

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]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Do you need a ferrari to drive to work??

That would be rather nice actually.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

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!

[F19_lacrits]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

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.