Post new topic   Reply to topic    7th Fleet Forum Index -> Group 7 Galactic [G7G]
View previous topic :: View next topic   Goto page 1, 2  Next
Christian M. Hanson
Tactical - Captain

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 943

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

If anyone is looking into a new rig, I found this DIY on NewEgg. Obviously you'd eventually want to add just a little bit more ram and upgrade to a better graphics card, but this should allow you to at least play Arena Commander without issue. I think it's a good price for an 8 core.  

 

New Egg Rig DIY



_________________

davisjm0311

user avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

I'm not certain this rig has the power to run SC...



_________________
 
Ryo Himura

user avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

Looks like a good build, except I'd go with a better video card and probably a better motherboard. The processor in this build is currently a step up from my current 8 core, and am looking at getting it, it's one hell of a processor I hear.

Power supply at 600W I'm not sure of, currently use 750W and want to upgrade, so 600W might need changing if you choose to edit that build.

 

IMO, anything more than 8gb RAM when you're not running a server or doing like-things, is a waste of RAM. 8GB RAM will still probably be more than you'll need for SC.

davisjm0311

user avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

Gotcha, I think my laptop is bit more powerful that this rig, but not entirely sure...not super familiar with the AMD stuff. By the time SC comes out I'm hoping to have a much beefer computer than I do now though. 



_________________
 
Christian M. Hanson
Tactical - Captain

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 943

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

This rig should handle SC fine... I think it's a decent entry level PC for those on a budget, and you can update the RAM and Graphics card at a later time if you need. I think 600W is plenty.



_________________

VADM JT Kerry
VADM JT Kerry
Engineering - Vice Admiral

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 1207

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

I looked over this rig.  It will handle SC.  I like this ASRock mboard better because you can run 2 video cards at full x16 bandwidth:  ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard .  You may want to double up on the RAM to 16GB (filling all 4 slots), and at some time add a second video card. 

 

I recently wrote to some of the techs at AMD over concerns with the lack of PCIe 3.0 support on the AMD AM3+ mobo's and actually got a response directly from the current president of AMD, Rory Read.  Here is what he sent: (I highlighted the text in red that answered my question)

Dear John,

Thank you for your email.  I appreciate your raising this issue, and I wanted to respond personally to you.  AMD is committed to providing an incredible user experience at competitive price points.  The AMD FX platform is a great example of this standard.  Part of managing this value to the customer is understanding how to optimize our investments to provide the best experience for the value at the right time.  We have not seen significant throttling of PCIe gen 3 graphics cards when used with the AMD FX platform for gaming. The AM3+ FX platform is capable of powering the most advanced and immersive experiences available today as demonstrated by Kotaku’s recent testing of the best of AMD - http://kotaku.com/i-built-a-4k-ultra-hd-gaming-pc-and-i-love-it-1564135136

 We understand that the gaming industry is rapidly evolving, and we do see a future need for improving bandwidth, as demonstrated by our most recently released processor, codenamed “Kaveri,” including PCI-Express gen 3 capabilities.  You can be assured that AMD is working to develop new platforms, some details of which were shared at our recent Core Innovation Day, which led Tech Report editor Scott Wasson to state “AMD is returning to its roots, aiming to produce a best-in-class big core.” URL - http://techreport.com/review/26418/amd-reveals-k12-new-arm-and-x86-cores-are-coming . We will continue our heritage of delivering the best experience possible to valued consumers like yourself.

Best regards,

Rory

Rory P. Read
Chief Executive Officer and President,

AMD 

7171 Southwest Parkway

Austin, Texas 78735

So, the PCIe 2.0 mobo slots for the video, shouldn't be a hindrance.  I looked up AMD's processor road map, and they are in a spot to jump way ahead of Intel.  And, their gaming software platform "Mantle" is optimized for multicore both in processor and graphics, which is what SC is using:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(API) - and - AMD's Mantle Overview .  In any event, I think the system, though not top of the line, will work just fine.  I would upgrade the memory though.

Happy Hunting,

JT

 



_________________
 

VADM JT Kerry, 7th Fleet Chief of Communications, USS Astoria, "Lucky" 7th Fleet, Starfleet Command, UFP
HunterAP

user avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

I normally don't advise spending big bucks on a PC, but for SC, I think you're going to want more.  Roberts will not compromise quality for performance.

Normally, I'd be ok with going with AMD, but for SC, I would recommend Intel all the way, Core i5 4570 with 8-16 gigs of RAM.  (Core i7's are totally unnecessary.  i5 4570 will do all you need.  if you want more performance, spend more on the video card)

Get yourself an SSD.  Again, normally, I don't list SSD as a requirement, but with the insane size of the textures for SC, you're going to want it.

In terms of video cards, AMD/ATI seems to have better bang for your buck at this point, but Nvidia has always done a better job with their drivers, and working with developers to get their new features in games ASAP.  In any case, whatever video card you buy now will not be enough for SC when it launches.  However, if you get an Nvidia 660 or 760, you can probably drop a 2nd one in your PC in two years and you'll be good to go.

Here's a baseline:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1625248

$770

 

That build doesn't include the SSD or an OS.  But it is more in line with what you're going to want for SC.



_________________
VADM JT Kerry
VADM JT Kerry
Engineering - Vice Admiral

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 1207

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

Hunter,

I have to disagree.  The Intel i5 3.2 (3.6 turbo) Quad is no consolation to the AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz (4.2 turbo) 8-Core.  For starters, the price the i5 is $10 more - FOR A QUAD CORE - and not even the top of the line!  The FX-8350 holds the current Overclocking world record of 8.79GHz.  Intel's last attempt was with a Celeron D 325 at 8.54GHz, and their "top of the line" "flagship" processor fizzled at 7.17GHz.  The FX-8350 was the top of the line for a long time, but the FX-9370 replaced it at 4.4/4.7 GHz and again by the FX-9590 - 4.7/5.0 GHz, both 8 cores, and currently the 9590 is priced at $330.  The top of the line quad (configured in pairs - 2+2) i7-4960X Extreme Edition 3.6/4.0GHz is at a minimum $1029 - almost $700 more, it is slower and has fewer independent cores. 

Lets talk stability - Intel, I see lockups all the time, and all need to be hard reset (hold the power button) to shut down.  In my last 3 AMD Processors I've had 3 unintended shutdowns (outside of Windows update requesting a shutdown) since 2005: 1 - lightning strike (affected the mobo - the wife is still using the processor on a different mobo with no issues), 2 - Overclocking - Exceeded limits of the mobo north bridge - reset the BIOS restored normal function, and 3 - a power outage.  I've had locked up programs, but I've never had to do a hard, power button, reset.  Unlike the Intel PCs at home, which required a hard reset at least a couple of times a month.  Then there are the 500+ Intels I have to deal with on a daily basis and I have 5 or 6 random lockups a month, where the screen freezes and all input control is lost - hard reset.  Why spend more for less all around performance? 

And, here is the top reason not to buy an Intel for Star Citizen.  Star Citizen has bought in to AMD's Mantle platform. Where Mantle is optimized for the AMD GPU and the AMD APU.  For those who follow tech news, AMD has already announced its new processors for the A series, which have built in GPUs which (unlike Intel) these GPU's have meaning for gamers.  The new line of AMD "Kaveri" A10-7850K (the 7850 denotes the video card is a Radeon HD 7850 equivalent for the GPU).  You can find it for a modest $180.  It has a 4 core CPU/8 core GPU.  If you read the what is written out there closely, you find the Mantle platform is the game changer for the A series.  The wording on the Kaveri line of processors goes from 4CPU/8GPU to 12 cores.  The separation of the cores and how they are used is malleable when it come to this platform.  All of the A series chips have an additional plus of having built-in Crossfire support, so if the video isn't adequate, you have at least one or more PCIe slot to boost the video system. The A series mobo's are PCIe 3.0, also.  I'm not saying the A series is better than the FX-8350 or FX-9XXX processors, but Mantle makes the best of the FX and A series configurations.  At least from what I've read.  The Kaveri processors are due out with a 16 core model soon.

The last item I found is that AMD is wanting to find it's niche outside of direct competition with the Intel business class market, and that is in gaming.  They have acquired contracts with most of the game box industry - Xbox, PlayStation and Wii.  And, Mantle is its competition with nVidia, due to its tie in with its CPU and GPU.

There is speculation of an AM4+ socket for a larger FX core line.  I think Roberts is looking ahead, seeing that he may be able to tailor the programming around a system that can tap into a potential 16 cores or more by the time his game launches.  So, no, I disagree with the herd mentality of Intel.  AMD will give more bang for the buck for Star Citizen.

JT



Last edited by VADM JT Kerry on 06/05/14 6:01; edited 1 time in total


_________________
 

VADM JT Kerry, 7th Fleet Chief of Communications, USS Astoria, "Lucky" 7th Fleet, Starfleet Command, UFP
Christian M. Hanson
Tactical - Captain

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 943

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

I appreciate you weighing in JT :-)



_________________

HunterAP

user avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

It's not all about cores, nor is it all about processor frequency.  It's a widely known fact that even though AMD has more cores and higher frequencies, that the Intel CPU's still perform as well, if not better than the AMD CPU's.  Don't believe me, here's some real world benchmarks:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

http://www.maximumpc.com/pc_performance_tested_2014

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8-Core-Black-8350/1538vs1489

 

Of the CPU's in question, the Intel benches out as 2% slower in multi-threaded operations.  Your 8 cores, extra frequency, and double power bill comes out to a 2% performance increase.  In single threaded or dual threaded operations, the Intel CPU leaves the AMD CPU in the dust.

I have no emotional attachment to one CPU or the other.  I look at the hard numbers.  Intel is superior in game performance.  Intel's cores are simply better.  AMD needs more cores and needs to run at higher speeds to match the performance of the Intel.  That's not to say that the AMD CPU's suck or anything.  I think that the 8350 is a fantastic CPU.  I just think that the Intel Core i5 4670 is better.  I have provided links to empirical data that shows this.



_________________
HunterAP

user avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

I realize that I used the 4670 instead of the 4570.  The 4670 is about $15 more than the 4570.  The performance difference is insignificant.

 

I didn't address your stability claim, but stability is partly component choice, partly luck.  Motherboard choice makes a huge difference.  I use Asus and MSI for my motherboards.

But when it boils down to it, everyone has a different experience.  Check the Newegg CPU reviews:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116898 (i5 4670) 90% 5 star, 3% 1 star

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116896 (i5 4570) 85% 5 star, 1% 1 star

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284 (FX-8350) 85% 5 star, 3% 1 star

 

I have NEVER had a random crash on my current i5 gaming system.  It is rock solid, and has been for almost three years.  There have been game bug related issues, but not system issues.  My primary development machine is also an i5.  It was a Phenom II for a while, but I started having heat related issues.  I have found that my AMD systems have heat related issues more frequently than my Intel systems.  I believe that's due to the higher power usage (and more heat) in the AMD systems.  (in the case of the 8350 vs the 4670, the AMD uses 80+ more watts under load. (213 vs 132))

Now, computers that I service professionally have all kinds of issues.  Dell, HP, etc, are all made with crap components.  Businesses use them because they're all the same.  You can buy the same exact system build for several years, image it, and deploy it.  Quality takes a back seat to quantity.  The same is true whether the systems are AMD or Intel based.  So I'm not at all surprised if the computers you deal with in business are garbage.  That's pretty standard.  It has nothing to do with the CPU.

 

With regards to Mantle, it's an API.  It will work with AMD or Intel, ATI or Nvidia.  Benchmarks have shown that it improves AMD more than Intel, but Intel already has a significant advantage in most game benchmarks, so this brings AMD closer to Intel performance.  Here's a chart showing many CPU's with DX11 vs Mantle:

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-mantle-vs-directx-benchmark-performance-comparison/8/

One of the big takeaways for me from this chart are the minimums...  AMD minimums are un-playable, and that's across the board for all AMD CPUs whether they're with DX11, or with Mantle.

 

Mantle is very important.  We are finally getting low level access to the GPU hardware.  This has been a long time coming.  Microsoft has been dragging their feet with it, but AMD has gotten Microsoft to get off of their butt, and they're going to offer low level access in DirectX 12.

Once DirectX 12 gets here, Mantle will go the way of Glide.  Developers don't like developing for multiple APIs.  But by that time, we'll have to buy new video cards to take advantage of DirectX 12 anyway.



_________________
VADM JT Kerry
VADM JT Kerry
Engineering - Vice Admiral

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 1207

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

OK. Let's start with the Newegg stats.  What I get out of this is that more people are buying AMD for home built rigs:
i5-4570:  98 reviews/83 5 star=85%
i5-4670:  70 reviews/63 5 star=90%
FX-8350:  1,558 reviews/1,323 5 star=85%
If I based things on percentages, I'd say that there were 9% of the individuals above that may have paid too high a price point per core for what they are getting.  And, if I base my gaming experience on being with a crowd that tends to share more, it seems that 91% of that crowd would be running AMD processors.  But, I'm not into percentages.

Then their are those benchmarks:
 Apples and oranges - the are both round and they are both fruit. They both have sugars, can produce a tart flavor, have a skin and stuff in their centers that we eat.  They do most things similar to one another, right.  But, an apple is not an orange, and never will be.

Their are inherent short comings to benchmarking processors in general.  Where frame rates are concerned - I'm sorry, isn't that the main function of the GPU.  Their are many things on the system that can get in the way of transferring the data that translates into these frames per second from the Internet connection to the monitor (the monitor - the better the resolution, the more bandwidth is needed from the GPU).  The use of software to detect this is also problematic because it isn't reading the output from whatever cable you are using to transfer the images to your display.  It's running cycles of whatever parameters that it has coded in it, which which isn't told to us and may or may not be correct for the defined setup.  Then there is a difference in driver base for the system boards, the memory is read differently by the processors, the north/south bridge chips are configured differently. 

There would only be one test that could pit processor against processor accurately and that would be a single core bit stream test directly through the pins on the processor, using a device that is configured for this and can access both the Intel and AMD processors the same way.  Good luck with that because there is an inherant problem with this idea, you can't test a single core on an Intel - their cores are tied together in I/O pairs.  (Graphics out there may show some flow of data over individual cores, but it isn't telling you what the data is and what the flow is within the core - all you know is the core is being used.)  So, in the end, you may as well be comparing the FPS on the same Intel processor with the same GPU base (the video cards will be configured differently) in a Mac and pit it against a PC and then blame all the short comings on the processor.  It doesn't pan out.

As far as FPS, having a device that detects the flow of data from the cable, that would go to and from the monitor would be more suited - or software that detects that flow of information.  But determining FPS on the CPU isn't a good assessment of the processor.  I have burned DVDs while playing STO and doing PvE's with no problem on my AMD Phenom II x6 2.8GHz and it barely hit 70%, most of the time there were cores not being used.  I paid $90 for that processor.  I did have choppiness, at first, with the hanger module in Star Citizen, but it wasn't the processor.  I was running a Radeon HD 6450 w/2GB DDR3 memory.  As soon as I overclocked the GPU from 650Mhz to 720MHz, and bumped the RAMDAC from 400MHz to 500MHz, it all smoothed out.  I bought that card for $45.  Time for an upgrade.  But, I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to buying PC equipment.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to Intel.  I just want to pay a fair price.  The only way I can truly look at it i s that these companies are touting there wares as the top of the line, so you have to take that to heart.  AMD offers their top of the line desktop CPU, the FX-9590, without embedded video and 8 cores and at 4.7/5.0 GHz for $330.  Intel offers the Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E 3.6GHz (Turbo 4GHz), which is new and has 6 cores for $1046 with embedded video I cannot disable.  I am not independantly wealthy.  When I spend $1046, I am going to buy more than just a processor.
  
The 9590 ($330) may run hotter: but, a mid tower is roomy - $45; and, and can get with 3 120mm fans @$7 each - $21; and, a big $50 heatpipe, copper cooler; add 2 R7 260's @ $95 ea - $190; and, a SSD SATA6 250GB - $135; and, a 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s HDD - $100; a Blu-ray Burner - $85; and, a multicard-USB2/3-eSATA reader device $30 = $986 with $60 left over for shipping.

Sorry, I would rather buy a complete PC than dump a big chunck of change on a processor.  Rule of thumb when buying PC parts is to leave headroom in all the parts but the processor and there spend only what you can afford.  I can't afford the top of the line desktop processor from Intel, but I can afford a whole system with AMD's.

JT



_________________
 

VADM JT Kerry, 7th Fleet Chief of Communications, USS Astoria, "Lucky" 7th Fleet, Starfleet Command, UFP
HunterAP

user avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts:

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

For your first point, I will concede that more people are purchasing AMD CPUs than ever before.  However, when you state that the FX-8350 has outsold the 4570 and 4670, you have to observe that the FX-8350 has been out longer than the 4000 series processors from Intel.  The previous generation, the 3570, which was the first competitor to the 8350, has over 1600 reviews on Newegg.  I only referenced Newegg to show that customer satisfaction for the CPUs that we were discussing was pretty even.  Frankly, I don't care which CPU is more popular.  I care only for the real world performance.

There would only be one test that could pit processor against processor accurately and that would be a single core bit stream test directly through the pins on the processor, using a device that is configured for this and can access both the Intel and AMD processors the same way.

The people providing the benchmarks are not idiots.  They set the benchmarks up to be a fair as possible.  They choose motherboards that have similar feature sets.  If there are any discrepancies, they indicate them.  If you choose to ignore the data because you believe there's no way to compare the performance fairly, and base your decisions solely on number of cores, frequency, and price, then you're doing yourself a great disservice.

The only way I can truly look at it i s that these companies are touting there wares as the top of the line, so you have to take that to heart.  AMD offers their top of the line desktop CPU, the FX-9590, without embedded video and 8 cores and at 4.7/5.0 GHz for $330.  Intel offers the Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E 3.6GHz (Turbo 4GHz), which is new and has 6 cores for $1046 with embedded video I cannot disable. 

I don't look at their top of the line products.  I specifically stated in my original post that i7's are unnecessary for gaming.  Matter of fact, I don't recommend i7's to anyone.  I wouldn't spend more than $250 on a CPU, period.  (I typically try to stay at or around $200)

I recommended the Core i5 4570 ($199) or the 4670 ($239), and you recommended the AMD FX-8350 ($189).  When comparing these CPU's, I provided data from several sources which shows that the Intel CPU's significantly outperform the FX-8350 in games.  I even provided data that shows that with Mantle, the AMD CPUs still don't match the performance of the i5's.  For me, for gaming, this makes the $10 difference worth it.  But you're more than welcome to do your own research to see how these compare.  There are dozens, if not hundreds of reviews for these CPU's on the net.

 

And let me be clear...  I am only recommending the i5 for GAMING.  I we weren't talking about gaming, I'd probably recommend the 8350.  The 8 cores will make your computing experience better across the board.  Just about every productivity software out there will be better with the 8350.  Editing video, Photoshop, 3D modelling, compiling code, etc...  

But gaming is going to be better on the i5.  In many cases, 20%+ better.  Honestly, I don't think I've seen a game benchmark where the 8350 beats the i5's, unless the benchmark results were posted by AMD, or they're comparing against the first gen i5's.

 

With regards to Star Citizen specifically, you cited Mantle, and I know that they're using the Crytek engine.  The Crysis 3 benchmarks and Battlefield 4 Mantle benchmarks should be fairly good indicators of how these CPUs will perform with Star Citizen.  In the mantle and Crysis 3 benchmarks, the i5 comes out on top in all of the results that I've seen.  (With the exception of the BF4 results provided by AMD, which don't mesh with the results published by Dice...  You have to take benchmark results provided by the manufacturer with a grain of salt...  or ignore it entirely)



_________________
VADM JT Kerry
VADM JT Kerry
Engineering - Vice Admiral

user avatar
Awarded:
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 1207

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

 

Hunter,

 

Sorry for not responding to your statements sooner, I was on vacation, and don't like thinking about work when I'm on the beach.  This conversation is too much like going to the office for me.  Sorry, I’m not picking a fight.  I’ve just been a student of hardware for far too long.  I started using computers in 1983 (college) TRS-80 and reading electrical schematics in 1986.  In 1986, I helped a friend troubleshoot a wiring problem.  He was trying to merge a Commodore 64 with his Amiga 1000 and added a midi connector to a Casio keyboard.  He was a music major and we found the schematics to do it in a magazine.  It took us two days to solder the wires between the systems correctly.  He had a program that would load from floppy to create orchestrated midi files with sheet music all by using the Casio keyboard.  It was pretty slick.

 

Back to the topic at hand…

 

I am not saying the guys doing the benchmarking are idiots (maybe sly as a fox, but not an idiot), but I will say that the software/hardware configurations, and especially in the processors are incomparable on the levels you and they are speaking:

(Just a note:  Pay attention to the ads on those websites.  Be a customer who makes their own decisions, and not a consumer that is suckered by the subliminal.  These guys are getting paid for advertising – some of the ads are right next to the article both of which are claiming “Intel’s the best!”  It’s like Dell, receiving kickbacks for exclusionary tactics.  Intel has large pockets, and AMD is still word of mouth.) 

    One, you do not peg frame rates on a CPU - that is the purview of the GPU.  The CPU runs in cycles per second or cycles per millisecond which equate to the GHz rating each manufacturer assigns to their processors and shouldn't be running frames per second at all.  I would never benchmark FPS for the CPU, unless I have bought an Intel processor in the past 2 years, but that would be a separate part of the chip – right – and not an actual processing core.  In that light, the Intel CPU still doesn’t have a FPS.

    Two, you would have to code the software differently for both processor lines (AMD/Intel) due to inherent differences in the internal configuration of those processors and how they interface with the system.  I have as yet to see any of these guys code for each.  And, the general coding is mainly compiled for Intel configurations and gives Intel the unfair advantage.  In my estimation, the software based benchmark comparison has been a farce since the divergence in CPU configuration starting at the advent of the Multicore 64bit CPU – AMD’s are independent cores, Intel’s are match pairs of cores.  The afore mentioned difference is just one point of contention in benchmarking - how can you compare cores when Intel’s can only function in I/O pairs: Incoming core data is received and processed, and Outgoing core data is compiled for receiving device before it leaves. In other words, Intel’s cores only do half of the processing the AMD core does, making the pass through of data seem quicker, when really it isn't because the processing of the data isn't complete until it passes through the second core.  So, when the cycles in the first core go null the benchmarking software pegs the core as faster even though the data hasn't completed its full turn and left the processor - still being contained in the second core.  This is probably the reason Intel has had problems going to an 8 core desktop system, the 8 cores only act as 4 and had the tendency to crystalize (overheat) when in a gaming environment.  The Xeon 8 core had to beef up the inert layering between the silicon layers to dissipate the heat correctly at a cost of hertz (speed) and I’ve seen the Xeon cores described as 2x2 (quad) and 4x2 (8 core), still matched pair.  The AMD server processor can go up to 16 independent cores on a chip without overheating, using a standard heatsink and fan.

    And, three, AMDs configuration for the Phenom and FX lines of processors are configured for the whole system - forcing the other chips in the system to manage the jobs they are assigned to do: CPU-main memory management, number crunching and compiling; GPU-Video FPS assembly and rendering; S Bridge-Communication between Hardware and N Bridge; N Bridge-Secondary memory management (caching) and directing the flow of the busing system.  Intels configuration is different - mainly based on the old standard system before the multicore divergence: S Bridge-Hardware I/O to N Bridge; N Bridge-Communication and bussing between CPU, memory and S Bridge, and main memory management and caching; and, the CPU-number crunching and compiling, and now graphics management.  (I’ve actually have seen manufactured Intel based systems that had to have an identical CPU act as the North Bridge chip – it had ROM memory surrounding it that fed the processor the instructions it needed to act as a North Bridge.  It was on a Dell Laptop, and the Wang Tech doing the motherboard replacement called it an NB panel – all was soldered on a separate board.)

In the AM3(+) compatible line of processors (Phenom, Phenom II and FX), AMDs memory functions are truly separate from video memory functions (no framing).  That is ported off to the GPU without needing to process it like Intel does, which is where it belongs, before it could ever hit a core.  The system is designed to minimize the impact on the processor, so the goal in investing in an AMD system is to buy the best motherboard you can afford with a 990FX/950SB chipset for gaming, and one or two good video cards (not the best).  If you get an MBoard that will do 2 PCIe at x16 concurrent, you could get away with 2 Radeon 6670s 2GB DDR3 Crossfired and overclocked a bit (Newegg-about $55 each with shipping after rebate - as I've said in the past; I can be a cheap bastard when it comes to building a PC).   Current Intel processors have an onboard GPU, which is considered the primary GPU and has to constantly be told not to process data and pass it to the secondary GPU - your gaming card.  AMD treats memory management completely differently than Intel does. AMD 64bit processors all manage system memory directly on the processor - with the exception of video memory, which has already been addressed and ignored by the processor and passes through the North Bridge Chip to the GPU.  Intel still uses the North Bridge chip for most of those functions (the only exception here is memory allocation for the onboard Intel video which leeches away system memory and can't be turned off).

And, now for what you will buy as opposed to what you compare it to.  You take a mid-tier Intel i5 4 core chip (that processes like a dual core) and still costs more, and compare it to the top tier AMD 8 core based on software that is only taking into account the speed of doing half the processing per Intel core.  If you cut the benchmarking in half for all Intel processors, to account for an incomplete processing of data for each core, the AMD specs suddenly look very good per core, and with twice the number of high-end cores for a third of the cost. 

So, again, I compare the top of the line to the top of the line:

I7-4960X Extreme Edition – 6 cores (technically 3) - 3.6GHz base (turbo 4GHz) for $1050 (Newegg)

FX-9590 Black Edition – 8 Core - 4.7GHz (turbo 5GHz) for $330 (Newegg)

I think I will stick with AMD for my gaming rig.  If you still want an Intel at this point, well, there are some very nice bridges, here in St. Louis, that I could sell you at a discount.

JT

PS: As I said before, my $90 Phenom II x6 2.8 GHz handled SC just fine, the video card I have was the problem for the frame rates.  I over clocked it the VC and it all smoothed out. 



_________________
 

VADM JT Kerry, 7th Fleet Chief of Communications, USS Astoria, "Lucky" 7th Fleet, Starfleet Command, UFP
Wupteedo
Science - Fleet Captain

user avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Posts: 1213

Send private message
Reply with quote

re: New Rig for Star Citizen

0

Thank you, gentlemen for:  1) keeping it real enough for us non-geeks to sort-of get what you are talking about, and 2) actually logical dyad, i.e., non-flaming.  As a STO fleet and Corporate Star Citizen entity, we all benefit from your knowledge and expertise. 

Cheers

(Me wonders what the EU Geeks over at the 42UDGS would add to this thread?) 



_________________

Improvise    Adapt    Overcome
 
Posts from:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    7th Fleet Forum Index -> Group 7 Galactic [G7G] All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum