AMD Bulldozer Quad core 3.6 Ghz FOR NS2?
Fule
Join Date: 2009-06-04 Member: 67683Members
Join Date: 2009-06-04 Member: 67683Members
Comments
If you pile every driver, toolbar and trojan on your PC, even a hi-end system will slow down to a crawl.
On top of that you can do pretty amazing stuff to your hardware by e.g. buying a low-quality underperforming power supply unit.
Also, at what graphics settings?
If I tone everything down to low and play @ 640x480 my NS2 runs lightning fast and looks like shit.
Finally, a reference point:
I have an "old" Phenom II X4 @ 3.2GHz, 8GB DDR III RAM @ 1333, HD6870, 24 inch monitor @ 1920x1200, NS2 installed on Vertex3 Max IOPS 120GB SSD
This runs at about 40fps with everything set to max except ambient occlusion and texture streaming.
I just want to know, if I would get 40+ fps even in the end game @ 1920x1080 resolution.
I'm just hoping to see someone with that cpu and posting his fps.
p.s. 40 fps when? No action? End game action?
The waiting on GPU and render Thread part is what interests me.
See my comment in the above thread. I've the next gen of that chip (EDIT: Vishera) running @4.1 (aka Turbo Mode), so expect much less.
Since 239, my starting in-game FPS is slightly higher while the low end is still the same.
Mike, your 6770 does have something to do with it but not as much as your processor.
P.S. Stays at 44c with stock cooler, I'm gonna be OCing it higher when i get the chance (its only a $100 chip, so no great risk). This CPU is cheap and effective if you already have an AM3 socket mobo. OC the crap out of it!
That's just it though. Do you want to spend $85 and get 45FPS late game, or do you want to spend $200 and get 120FPS late game.
As far as temperatures go, with a cheapo water cooler (59.99) I get 4.8Ghz and 45C full load with throttlestop. Its really a matter of money. Is $200 way out of budget? If so, go AMD. IF not, get the Intel.
NS2 is much more CPU dependent than most other games. Pay a little extra, get the i5 3570k and you'll be happy you did.
You also got leprechauns in your garden, right?
Pretty much everyone and anyone across the forums is complaining about the performance; some of them got pretty over-prized Intel gear.
And they complain just as well.
Unless you turn everything to low and reduce resolution way below FullHD, you won't see 120FPS.
Which makes me wonder: Do you just make those numbers up as you go or is your set of Intel-made rose tinteds really THAT reality-proof?
That's odd, because I have X4 955@3.4Ghz (+GTX560Ti), and I have to turn off shadows, bloom and occlusion, switch resolution to 1600x900, and my fps still drops down to 30-35 in some late game action. At least in pub play. In 6vs6 matches performance is much better.
Having a juicier GPU can't hurt, but the CPU will take the cake.
There are 2 ways to score at CPU performance:
a) IPC or b) simple, brute clock speed
The current Intel architecture is pretty good at IPC, while AMDs Piledriver is mainly scoring via high clocks.
Ideally, you wanna combine both both (i.e. overclock a strong IPC CPU) to get the biggest performance.
Still, NS2 somehow manages to run like a hog, even on Intel gear that's heavily overclocked which makes me sad, because as a fan who has bought 5 copies so far I'd like to see it run (smoothly) on all my friends' PCs.
Could someone who is not in bed with the Intel viral marketing divison post their real world results please?
Oh, there we go: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/128227/possible-120-fps/p1
@Neoken:
Maybe he is measuring FPS by going to the graphics menu and looking at the counter there?
My monitor is only 1280x1024 @ 75hz.
I have shadows and ambient occlusion off. Everything else is high.
Performance is great. Obviously, if I were running 1080p, this might not be the case.
I'm already heavily invested in this rig, so I'm not switching to intel at this point, but I am probably going to upgrade to the fx8350.
Anyway to actually respond to the OPs question, I would guess you would see 40-60 FPS early game tapering down to 20-30 late game on medium to high graphics settings. It will get pretty choppy at times if you turn everything up and join a 24 player server. I would suggest going with either an i5 or if you want to stick with AMD get an FX-6300 , FX-8320, or perhaps even the X4 965 and overclock it but honestly I would be afraid to try that.
Personally I have an FX-8320 clocked at 4ghz and it runs NS2 pretty smooth at high settings. I will see 150-200 fps in ready room, 60-80 fps early game (depending on the # of players in the server) , and 40-50 late game with occasional drops to 30's when theres all 24 players throwing everything they have in a fight.
Running off a 840pro SSD (doesn't really help with fps...but loads up quick
2 GTX 670's
Run it at 1080 res, Everything as high as it can go.
............Average 60 FPS (140+ in ready room
Used to be running a GTX 295 (any body wanna buy it?) it ran the game at 40 fps, (alot of settings turned down tho)
Moral of the story is, most(all?) people ain't running this game with 100+ fps with everything maxed out with BIG rigs (not that mine is) so its ok
Why is that funny? In a 7v7 I was getting 118 fps as marine start was dying on Veil.
As I said, 7v7, on veil, 118fps during marine start dying. I'm sorry that you're stuck with something that performs poorly, that may explain your anger.
AMD is decent for the money but don't expect it to rock your world. Clock rate beats cores in ns2 anyway. If you can get a dual core to 4ghz+ then it will beat a quad 3.6
When I check out r_stats, the waiting on render is always (what looks like) 8 to (on very bad days) 20 and waiting on the GPU is always 0. I was thinking of getting the fastest chip my board could take and seeing how that works, but I've just about talked myself into building an Intel PC from scratch, since this machine runs everything else I play fine so the wife or kids could get plenty of use from it.
Not gonna even try to argue that a Phenom II is better than an i5, i5 wins hands down. Problem was, I would also have needed a new mobo along with that $200 CPU, upgrade bill becomes around $300-$350 as opposed to $85 (since i wouldn't get a crap mobo with that sexy CPU), which is out of my price range atm. As is, that Phenom was the cheapest path to better FPS since i dont feel bad cranking up the clock speed, and already had an AM3 mobo.
The "Good" part is that a game engine has many segmented parts that can be completely separated from other code, expect for the public API. For example, the ass-end of a sound engine only needs to play waveforms with some effects applied. The front end of this process, however, needs to know the map to cull out or dull out certain sounds. Similarly, things like the ass-end of animations systems, also, easily fit into this scenario of something that just needs some data feed into it with little to no responses needed. Particles systems, also, are an extremely likely candidate.
The bad part is that half or more of CPU time is spent on the scripting, so even splitting up the rest of the engine into threads can only address less than 20%* of the total CPU time.