Six core CPU's an advantage for CoD?

[mazex]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

Even if the game is built to support / use more than 4 threads - it is highly unlikely that those 'switches' will be turned on for CoD, more likely for the next iteration in the IL2 series.

Well, somewhere else here (don't remember which tread) Oleg stated that the CoD engine will have sound and resource loading on separate threads so 2-3 cores will be of use, no more. Kind of like the DCS A10 engine then... Not that unexpected even though some non-programmers will naturally whine.

[Thee_oddball]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Excellent idea. Unfortunately, don't think I would be able to participate, since my current system probably won't run CoD. I have an older Dual Core Pentium with a 512mg video card which runs IL-2 reasonably well at lower settings. I have been waiting before I buy a new system.

Certainly if Oleg or Luthier happens to notice this thread, I'd encourage them to respond.

dual core and a 512meg card...you should be at high setting's, i had a single core (2,4ghz) and a x1650 card with 256 and i was medium to high settings.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

This test clearly shows a big advantage for the 980x.

..in this single test, yes.

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by swiss

..in this single test, yes.

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

The thread was not referencing 'game to game', it was referencing one game specifically. CLIFFS OF DOVER.

Of course older games are going to be more dependent on raw speed, rather than multiple cores. CoD is clearly optimized for use with multiple core processors, the question is, how much use can the program make of CPU's with six cores?

Perhaps it is too much to ask of people on this board. Hopefully we might see a reply from Luthier or Oleg.

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by swiss

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

Very true. I now have an i7 2600 rig and interestingly it plays ROF with all sliders to the max perfectly - very fluid frame rates. However, with FSX (which is much older than ROF) it still refuses to have silky frame rates when many of the sliders are set above medium/high - most frustrating. We'll just have to see how the i7 2600 handles CoD.

PPanPan

[Alkayd]

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan

Very true. I now have an i7 2600 rig and interestingly it plays ROF with all sliders to the max perfectly - very fluid frame rates. However, with FSX (which is much older than ROF) it still refuses to have silky frame rates when many of the sliders are set above medium/high - most frustrating. We'll just have to see how the i7 2600 handles CoD.

PPanPan

Same here: Phenom 1090T (6cores 3.2GHz) + 8 GB RAM + nVidia GTS 250 (1GB) and it plays ROF with all sliders to the max perfectly and in FSX with most sliders set to High and a fiew to medium I get 20FPS on average ...

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

( I am not including the AMD six core processors in this discussion, they fall quite a bit behind in performance, although obviously not in value)

Thats funny your weak amd X6 is faster than your 2500K in this benchmark, and the regular phenom II is beating the I5 hum what was it you said above??

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Thats funny your weak amd X6 is faster than your 2500K in this benchmark, and the regular phenom II is beating the I5 hum what was it you said above??

The AMD is 6 cores and more expensive than the 2500K and yet barely beats it. So yes i would also say AMD is way behind at present.

As for the phenom (a buck or two cheaper than 2500K) vs i5, does any sane person even consider buying i5 today (not Sandy Bridge)?


Dont get me wrong, the same aplies to the i5 and i7`s also, SB beats them all on performance vs prize. Anyone even considering buying a i7 970/975 (twize the prize)instead of a 2500K/2600K should have their heads examined.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Baron

The AMD is 6 cores and more expensive than the 2500K and yet barely beats it.

We talking performance here and yes thanks for confirming that the amd x6 beats the 2500K as well as the other uber intel cpu's. Oh wait that means amd is uber too then..

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

We talking performance here and yes thanks for confirming that the amd x6 beats the 2500K as well as the other uber intel cpu's. Oh wait that means amd is uber too then..

In this test, yes. I still wouldn't buy it over a SB 2500K any more than i would buy a i7 970 over a 2500K. For the same reasons i wouldn't buy a 5970 over a 6970 or a 580


But thats just me.