Building a computer to run CLOD, ROF , IL2 fully modded & maxed out

[kendo65]

Hi kennel, on reading your first post my first reaction was a question: "Which quad core processor exactly?"

You answered that in your second post. Best advice I can give is to definitely steer clear of the 8-core processor - the extra cores will really not be of very much use in gaming or most applications for the foreseeable future.

Also, the AMD FX-4170 is off the pace of the current Intel processors.

To get an overview of the current state of play read:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ock,3106.html?

and check out the Gaming CPU hierarchy Chart at the end of that article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ck,3106-5.html

Current best advice is to get a Core i5-3570K. This will mean you will have to pick a different motherboard as well.

Regarding RAM, I think 8GB is plenty for now, but some people prefer to max out with 16GB. Most tests I have seen report absolutely minimal (if any) performance gain from that though. Just make sure that whatever motherboard you get has the capacity to add extra RAM later if needed.

I think you will not need the 1000W power supply unless you feel that you may double up on graphics cards at a later date. Current graphics cards are a lot less power hungry than those from a few years back. With your currently quoted system I would say a good quality 600W would be fine, even if you decide to overclock.

------------------------------------

Edit: Just took my own advice and read the article I linked to! The AMD processor is about $100 (US) cheaper than the Intel, so if (?) price is a really key factor in your choice you may decide to opt for it, BUT even with price considerations for max performance my advice would be to go for 8GB Ram instead of 16GB, opt for a 600W power supply then spend the money saved to get the Intel processor.

[TonyD]

Hi kennel

Some advice from someone who has both Intel and AMD systems - be sure you understand the testing methodology of the sites producing benchmark comparisons if you are to base your decision on those. Typically cpu gaming tests are run with the graphic settings at absolute minimum to stress the cpu as much as possible, mainly because most games are gpu limited. For a more relevant comparison, read this, or this for a review including the FX-8350.

Back to your question – I’m not sure if you understand the architecture, but Bulldozer cpu’s comprise a number of dual-core modules which share some resources (particularly the floating-point units which handle graphic calculations) and are labelled SMT (simultaneous multi-threading). This architecture requires the OS to assign tasks correctly for them to function as intended, which Windows 7 doesn’t. Windows 8 does, so that would be my first recommendation.

Secondly, a lot of new games are using the DirectX 11 api, which can enable multi-threading over as many threads as your cpu can handle, and this includes CloD. Out of the new games I have currently on my pc, Rise of Flight, rFactor2, CoD Black Ops2 and Dishonored only use 4 cores all being DirectX 9. IL-2 CloD, Dirt3, F1 2012 and Far Cry3 all use 8 since they use the DirectX 11 api (if not all the graphics features available). All games based on this version in future will take advantage of additional cores available.

Thirdly, if you do not intend having to overclock at all, then the FX-4170 would be a good choice due to its default high clock speed. BD only really starts performing satisfactorily once over 4.0GHz from my experience, and this one is already there. If you would prefer an 8-core variant I would suggest the FX-8350 for the same reason. I bought mine with the idea of overclocking from the start so I didn’t waste any money on one with a higher default speed. I use AMD OverDrive (AOD) to alter the clock states from the default 3.1/3.4/4.0GHz to 4.1/4.3/4.5GHz and the performance is really good. With it set like this it will run the same as the FX-4170 in any DirectX 9 game (power state P1 on 4 cores: 4.3GHz).

Fourthly, BD has native support for DDR3 1866 memory. In other words you don’t have to overclock you memory to reach this speed, it will do it by default (you may need to select this multiplier in your BIOS). There isn’t a lot of measurable difference in performance between 1600 and 1866, but it’s there. Mine has the same bandwidth with 1866 chips as my Core i5 does with 1333 chips, which is very good. Also most games (all?) are 32-bit and therefore cannot address more than 3GB of memory, so 8GB is way more than enough. If you intend running virtual machines, then go for more.

Lastly, I agree with kendo about the psu – 1000W is overkill. I run a 600W CoolerMaster, and even with my previous power-hungry HD6970 and overclocking have had no problems. So save yourself some cash, buy a 600W and put some of the difference into changing the cpu for a FX-8350 (from most reports this will OC to 4.7GHz 'easily').

To summarise:
AMD FX-8350 Piledriver cpu
2 x 4GB DDR3 1866 memory modules
Name-brand 600W psu
Windows 8 64-bit

Edit: Oh, and you may want to stick an AMD HD7970 3GB into that system for 100% compatibility and more savings

[kendo65]

OK, deep breath...

First up, I don't want this to degenerate into an Intel V AMD dust-up, but TonyD, I checked out both the links you supplied and neither of them come through with glowing recommendations concerning the FX-8350 compared to Ivy Bridge (i5-3570K).

To check further I did a quick scan for other reviews and came up with these (kennel, I've linked to the conclusion pages of each of these as it gets to the point quicker. If you wish you can dig deeper into the body of the reviews).

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...iver_review/10

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...-8350-review/8

However, the overall result, while not as disheartening as the FX-8150, is still a distant second to Intel’s Core i5-3570K and associated Ivy Bridge architecture. It doesn't so much change the status quo as reinforce it.

AMD remains deeply uncompetitive in primarily single threaded applications such as games without offering the significant benefits in multi-threaded applications you’d expect from a chip boasting eight cores. Peak power consumption remains higher than Intel too and it’s these fundamental issues that mean the FX-8350 just isn’t a competitive CPU. Despite the drop in price, there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in comparison to the Intel competition; it seems that while AMD’s changed lots of little things about the FX-8350, the end result remains largely the same.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46...x-8350/?page=8

We believe that a cutting-edge CPU needs to be strong in all areas, not just a few. The AMD FX-8350's heritage means that while it can look really impressive in certain tests, it cannot tick as many desirable checkboxes as the competing Intel Core i5 chips.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-17.html

Short summary: go for Intel.

Also found something on the improvements for AMD with Windows 8 versus Win 7 and the findings don't support TonyD's statement above.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3289-7.html

kennel - on the positive side you have good advice to go for 8GB of RAM and a 600W power supply.

For the processor you'll have to do a bit of reading and then make your own decision. After looking at it all again my advice remains the same - go for the Intel i5-3570K.

----------------------------------------------------

As i said above there is a danger of getting into an Intel V AMD flame war here so I won't be posting again in this thread. My advice is given from a very neutral perspective and based on the reviews I've read and quoted above.

TonyD, are you sure that you're not coming at this from a slight AMD bias?

I note that you only recommend AMD chips and an AMD graphics card?

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by kendo65

OK, deep breath...

First up, I don't want this to degenerate into an Intel V AMD dust-up, but ...

Neither do I, and that wasn’t the OP’s question. My recommendations are based on his enquiry; suggesting that he would require a processor that costs 2 to 3 times the price of his choice to achieve acceptable gaming performance is not true. Processors are generally not that important when it comes to gaming, as long as it’s fast enough performance will be gpu-bound.

If you have another look at the gaming benchmarks in the links I provided, you’ll see an almost imperceptible difference in frame rates between all cpu’s, to the naked eye anyway. Some site’s methodology for testing a cpu’s game performance is fine in theory, but nobody actually plays games at 800 x 600 (or whatever). And so what if cpu A can run a game at 135fps and cpu B can only manage 95 when the average monitor can only display at 60Hz? All my games run in high detail at 1080p limited to 60fps using VSYNC.

I don’t want to get into debating benchmarking procedures since many sites (and people) have their own opinions, my reference is purely to gaming. I have the advantage of having 4 pc’s in my house, 2 Intel and 2 AMD, and can therefore run any comparative tests I like. With my current settings my FX machine is a little quicker than my son’s Core i5 2500k at default – BD needs a 400 to 500MHz clock advantage to do this. A mate has a 2600k with the same graphics card as me, and while benchmark scores are higher on his, game benchmarks and actual game performance are almost identical. A bit of reading on overclockers.com will reveal that the two architectures perform very closely at around 4.50GHz – BD needs higher-than-standard clocks to properly utilise the architecture, Intel’s SB and IB don’t.

I am AMD biased, same as I prefer Audi to BMW cars, or my BMW motorcycle to riceys, but that’s personal preference. If you search some of my posts here you’ll find that I try not to be biased when offering this sort of advice – I have recommended Intel systems to a number of people based on their preferences. The advice offered was based on the OP’s specification, and I didn’t think suggesting that he change to Intel to achieve what he wanted was correct. You would (generally) always achieve higher performance by spending more money, whether it would be noticeable or worth it is up to the purchaser.

And instead of relying on second-hand info found on the always-right internet, how about acquiring one yourself and finding out first-hand – you may be surprised