Assuming my processor is the bottleneck, what is the one I should get?

[TooTubular]

I was just doing the rounds myself. My e6600 is aging and the market has some pretty attractive upgrades for some low prices.

 

For instance, I was checking out the AMD Phenom II X2 555, a dual core processor easily capable of 4ghz, and get this, you can get lucky and unlock it to 4 cores, all for 99 bucks! I was thinking, even if I was unlucky and managed only 1 or 0 unlocks, it wouldn't matter much for FC2 anyway and the overclockability is pretty nice regardless. Thought it was worth mentioning.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103846

 

Edit: Woopsie, was already mentioned... leaving the thread and coming back, I didn't realize. Well, as far as I can tell, +1 to the 555. :)

Edited April 26, 2010 by TooTubular

[TKMR]

The eye can see more than 25fps. It can see far more, the problem is the brain cannot process that information and in fact discards most of it.

 

Anyways. Back on topic (what the third post in this topic. =P). I'm really surprised you're experiencing an FPS issue. You didn't really provide a budget, so it's hard to give you suggestions. Currently I'm running a Phenom II X4 945 @ stock 3.0Ghz and I have completely smooth game, at least 40+ fps, I haven't really measured (4gb DDR3 @ 1600mhz, ATi HD5770, WD Caviar Black 1TB, Win7x86-64).

[ShadowVonChadwick]

What sort of OC result did you get with the standard heatsink?

 

I got from standard 2.8GHz to 3.2 on standard voltage easy. Maxed out at 3.8 at + 0.1 volt increase, not stable enough & I dont like running over 1.4volts. (More voltage didnt help much)

I now runn @ 3.3 in summer conditions (Australia is hot climate) with + 0.05 volts and winter 3.5/3.6 with + 0.075volts.

I am getting better cooler but only for summer conditions as I dont beleive above 3.7GHz is good for CPU and with the voltage needed will cause migration within the silicon. (its not a good conductor of heat)

At 3.6 from 2.8 thats 28% overclock. Not as good as a Celeron 300A @ 450MHz but good enough for me

 

Cheers ....Shad

[digital_steve]

Cheers for the info Shad

I'm in OZ as well

I've just got a 965 black edition, so i'm thinking of clocking it on the standard heatsink.

[ShadowVonChadwick]

Cheers for the info Shad

I'm in OZ as well

I've just got a 965 black edition, so i'm thinking of clocking it on the standard heatsink.

 

Watch temps, let us know how it goes?

 

Shad

[coder1024]

I've got a really old CPU, a Pentium D which was their first dual core I believe. But I've upgraded the power supply, the video card (EVGA GeForce 9800 512MB RAM), and the sound card (SB Audigy eXtreme I think) and it runs BS no problem. Old CPU, but new video card and sound card. I also have 4GB RAM and run games from a 10k raptor drive.

[sweinhart3]

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. Going from 3.2 GHz to 3.2 GHz of "more advanced" CPU will not provide a significant improvement. You'd probably get more significant improvement from overclocking 3.2->4 GHz. That's why 50+ FPS are not rare on my system equipped with just GF9600. Oh, and forget about quad cores.

 

Thats not entirely true. Clock speed is not the only factor when considering a cpu. As a general rule each new architecture which comes out every couple of years whether amd or intel will give anywhere between 15-30% improvement clock for clock. That means a 3.2ghz core i5 will have approximately 15-30% performance improvement over a 3.2ghz C2D. I say this is general rule because occasionally there are exceptions like the early P4 that was plain junk compared to the Athlons and P3 of the time.

 

There wont be any noticeable performance difference between dual core and quad core cpus with exception of a few software titles. If budget is a big concern, my advice would be to get the best processor you can afford that wont require you to buy new motherboard and memory.

[EtherealN]

Well, there's more detail to it than that - different applications will see different changes in clock-for-clock. In some cases there might even be deterioration - I don't recall the names of the architectures but basically the compute pipeline got more than doubled, which seriously affected those applications where the scheduler couldn't predict dependencies properly. There's also the questions of what the computation unit balance in the processors are and how well they fit the application being run.

 

But as a general rule, yes, agreed.

 

My own suggestion for budget systems would actually be an 1156 socketed system with a dual-core i3. They perform only roughly equal to the C2D e8xxx series, but interestingly enough cost almost half of the C2D's (smaller cache might contribute, I guess). The reason for this instead of an AMD system is that this leaves you with a socket that offers the option of just swapping CPU to a more powerful i5 or 1156-socketed i7 whenever money becomes more plentiful.

Edited April 29, 2010 by EtherealN

[*Rage*]

Do you no think there is any benefit to a quad core cpu for FC2/BS currently?

 

Sure the average FPS may be the same as a dual core but perhaps it will be smoother or have better minimum FPS?

[sweinhart3]

If I understand it right, no, unless your running a lot of background tasks, which you shouldnt be anyway if your trying to max your fps.

[Bucic]

Assume that quad won't give you any worthy improvements unless someone clearly proves otherwise. Not the opposite.

[EtherealN]

For DCS:BS it has been conclusively shown that there are no benefits at all to going quad - soon after release Maximus_G and others ran tests where they first ran a benchmark track with affinity to all four cores, and then ran it again with affinity on only two cores. The minute differences that existed were well within error margins.

 

I would assume that the case is the same for FC2, but since it does have a threaded sound engine there is a minute chance that the situation might have changed - but I don't see the sound engine needing more than one core of it's own anyhow.

[ShadowVonChadwick]

For DCS:BS it has been conclusively shown that there are no benefits at all to going quad

 

I would assume that the case is the same for FC2, but since it does have a threaded sound engine there is a minute chance that the situation might have changed - but I don't see the sound engine needing more than one core of it's own anyhow.

 

Still no different third core doesent pick up much even when other two are working hard.

[*Rage*]

Kind of a shame...im bored of my C2D@3.6Ghz :)

 

As an aside shame the 6 core thubans are not very inspiring either for most general tasks/gaming.

[kingneptune117]

Yes, I agree with Luke. If however that processor is slightly over your budget, get a 955. I've got the 955 my self :-) Its a very good processor and very easy to overclock. I switched from an amd athlon x2 7750 to the 955, and MY GOD the difference was enourmous! The difference is very large.

Hope this helps

 

 

You just made my day :)

 

Im running an Athlon as well, except while your old Athlon was at 2.7ghz, mine is at 2.3 GHZ! I have yet to play blackshark but play lockon and have to do low settings. I think I will be getting the 955 pretty soon. If your difference was enormous, I think I will be one happy camper once I receive mine. Ive been really on edge between the i5 750 and the 955 but I think for flight sims the 955 is the better option.

[Dominik]

I read in some other posts that the ED team is working on the difficult task of getting the code optimized for multi-core/multi-threading. This made me all sorts of happy since I have a rather non-standard config of two relatively slow Xeon Quad cores (2.3ghz). Like with most users, I have one core mostly pegged and one at 75%, and the other 6 cores just chilling. That's with the latest patch. Changing affinity doesn't improve much for me.

Seeing as I have ATI with Eyefinity going as well, the sim is almost unplayable.

 

So yea, I have 50 bucks earmarked for A10 and will be stoked when they implement all the improvements across the DCS engine! :)