New PC Advice needed.

[Paper Tiger]

I found this in a review of the Intel quad 6600 processor posted by DriverHeaven.net

"Many of you by now are probably reassuring yourselves that Quad core right now is “overkill”, however support for threaded applications is gaining momentum all the time. If we look at the next generation consoles (Playstation 3 and Xbox 360), both of these systems use multiple cored processors and game developers are already praising the potential in such an environment. With the release of Supreme Commander (which utilizes as many cores as you can throw at it), I noticed gains over dual core systems when playing larger maps near the population unit limit cap, specifically when playing against multiple (and high level) AI opponents. Other forthcoming games (among the many) which will apparently use Quad core will be Unreal Tournament 2007, Half Life 2 Episode 2 and Alan Wake. As you can see these are high quality AAA list titles so the future is positive for Quad Core in a gaming environment."

Just for your information.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Other Means:

-AIUI, no game works with Quad core, in fact very few applications do. It will make a difference in creating video or some specialised applications but nothing more than that.-

yup, that's what my computer 'man' tells me too. He thinks I'd be better with a dual core. But I read on Amazon (I think) that it's only a matter of time before new games take advantage of the new technology. And some of the guys with quads appear to be very happy with them. At the very least, a quad core can't perform worse than a dual core?

Given infinite cash, no. But why not save some and put it towards extra RAM?

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Other Means:

AIUI, no game works with Quad core, in fact very few applications do. It will make a difference in creating video or some specialised applications but nothing more than that.

Not true.

All apps work with Quad cores like with single cores. What they often don't do yet, is to use all the available cores simultaneously.

But that's only a matter of time. The software developers are right now in the phase to start to use compilers optimizing for multicores.

I'm absolutely sure, CMx2 will some day also be compiled that way. But since switching to a new compiler-mode can add some substantial addititional coding, this has no priority for CMSF right now.

The more cores, the better.

[ February 03, 2008, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

AIUI, no game works with Quad core, in fact very few applications do. It will make a difference in creating video or some specialised applications but nothing more than that.

Not true.

All apps work with Quad cores like with single cores. What they often don't do yet, is to use all the available cores simultaneously.

But that's only a matter of time. The software developers are right now in the phase to start to use compilers optimizing for multicores.

I'm absolutely sure, CMx2 will some day also be compiled that way. But since switching to a new compiler-mode can add some substantial addititional coding, this has no priority for CMSF right now.

The more cores, the better. </font>

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Other Means:

What's the difference between using one processor, and not using multiple ones at once? Apart from switching overhead.

Just to be precise: a Quad processor is only one processor, too. Butit has four cores.

The difference in using multiple cores over one core is parallelism. The cores can calculate things parallel, which results in a much higher performance, if a program is able to create different threads and spread it over the available cores.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

What's the difference between using one processor, and not using multiple ones at once? Apart from switching overhead.

Just to be precise: a Quad processor is only one processor, too. Butit has four cores.

The difference in using multiple cores over one core is parallelism. The cores can calculate things parallel, which results in a much higher performance, if a program is able to create different threads and spread it over the available cores. </font>

[Pandur]

Other Means;

exactly this what is showen in your picture was what i ment. its the same for me.

no wonder why the performance is so bad on a system wich would have twiche the recources used.

Paper Tiger

honestly i would stay, at least for a while, with your 3Ghz single core.

as of now you can expect that no matter howmany cores you may have, you can just use the power of one(1) in total, in CMSF. i would have 4.26 Ghz(or 2x2.13Ghz) but in fact just have 2.13 Ghz to spare for hte game, wich leaves me with slower performance than your system has currently i think.

[handihoc]

Another issue (I think) is that while I'm saying I'm getting lower performance than I should on my system, someone with a very similar system may be getting perfect play. I'm not sure on this, but that's the impression I get.

And yes, Other Means, your pic shows pretty much what I get on my task manager.

[Pandur]

Another issue (I think) is that while I'm saying I'm getting lower performance than I should on my system, someone with a very similar system may be getting perfect play. I'm not sure on this, but that's the impression I get.

sometimes i think that too, but more than that, i think its largely caused by the fact that not everyone pushes the scenarios up to the limits. realtime players(there are quiet a bunch ) may constantly play "mini" scenarios, viewed from a WeGo players standpoint, and they report no performance hit, becouse its simply not enough units.

so one playes a biger battle(huge and large QB´s for example), has shuttering and reports problems, the other player with the "same" system playes a smaler game(up to small to medium QB´s as example) and reports that he has no problems at all. i think that is what we largely see.

[vincere]

Hmmm, I'm getting the impression that there's no definitive answer on the whether CMx2 uses dual core or will do?

I guess dual core is the way to go.

Any thoughts on ATI over NVidia? or should I just avoid the latest NVidia cards?

[Vanir Ausf B]

v1.04 will make CM much happier with multi-processors, but there is no specific "optimization" for tapping into additional cores. That will take some dedicated development and testing time that we don't have right now.

Link

[Vanir Ausf B]

BTW, it's not true that there are no games that use quad core processors, although they are rare presently. Supreme Commander does (although it only uses 3 of the 4) as does Unreal Tournament 3 (any game using the Unreal 3 engine will use all 4 cores.)

Upcoming games that will use quad core include Alan Wake and all Valve games.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by vincere:

Hmmm, I'm getting the impression that there's no definitive answer on the whether CMx2 uses dual core or will do?

I guess dual core is the way to go.

Any thoughts on ATI over NVidia? or should I just avoid the latest NVidia cards?

Mate, my screenshot:

proves that it DOES use multi-cores. It may not do so to the highest efficiency, but it certainly uses them. If I did the same SS under 1.00 (shudder) it showed 1 core maxed and one core idle.

Also I've got a GeForce 880GTS and it's running sweet with my card.

If I were you, I'd go for whatever card you fancy regardless of SF, as SF will work with anything - the nVidia bugs were squished ooo - builds ago.

I stand corrected on "no games" but stick with the main point - don't predict an upgrade path and pay extra to do so when we don't know what direction the it will go.

[Paper Tiger]

Other Means:

-"I'm playing all the right notes, but not, necessarily, in the right order."-

Eric Morcambe to Andre Previn yeah?

classic stuff.

Given infinite cash... I like that idea. I have enough to buy something decent. A dual core would be no problemo but it's better to buy something with a longer life because I'll actually save money in the long run when I finally upgrade to a Quad core, maybe next year. I'm going to stick with my single core for a little while longer and see how bad the performance hit is before pushing on with a new processor. About the RAM, I've been told that it's not going to help game performance very much, ie fps. But I want it anyway.

[Phoenix]

Great timing on this thread, I'm looking to get a new Dell and have been debating the video card.

Anyone have input on the 8800GTS 512 vs the 256 8600GT?

I wouldn't mind saving some $$ if SF runs just as well on the 256 as it does on the 512. Plus, there's a 5 day shipping delay when ordering the 512. And who wants that?

Thanks dudes.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Phoenix:

Anyone have input on the 8800GTS 512 vs the 256 8600GT?

I don't know about the 8600, but the 8800 has some serious issues with CMSF. My 8800 at work (which is a quadcore!) runs the game terribly - my 7950 at home with much lower specs has much better performance.

You might want to look in the tech support forum for any other video cards that you might want to avoid.

It doesn't look like BFC or NVIDIA have any plans for fixing the 8800 issues.

[ February 04, 2008, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[vincere]

First let me say thanks to all for your advice.

I guess there are currently too many question marks over NVidia 8800 series at the moment. I've heard another developer complain about NVidia drivers in general.

On balance I'm decided to go for dual core.

I've always heard the maxim mor Ram is better and was looking at 64bit Vista as that supports more 4gb Ram. (a site a checked said that over 2/3Gb ram on 32bit was pointless as over that is not used). But then I see Other Means screen of loads of surpless Ram when playing the SF.

Would 4GB Ram make any difference playing SF?

[slug88]

I'm using an 8800 GTS 320mb, and I am very happy with the card overall. CM:SF runs smoothly on the biggest scenarios I can find at 1440x900 with details set to 'higher'. I also play Crysis with that resolution on nearly full detail, with more than ~30 fps throughout most of the game. If you've played Crysis you'd know this says a lot about the power of this card.

I did a lot of research on this card when I was building my current pc about 4 months ago, and I concluded at the time that an 8800 GT or GTS is *by far* the best bang for your buck right now. In December I saw 8800 GT 256mb going for ~$250, and these are cards that had comparable performance to the 8800GTS 320mb I'm using now. Look around some of the major hardware review sites, and you'll see that the 'low end' (GT and GTS) 8800's are outperforming Radeons that cost twice as much. Once again, I very strongly recommend an 8800 GT for anyone looking for sub $300 cards.

[slug88]

Also, I'll add that in the past 4 months, I've been enjoing LO:MAC, CMSF, Crysis, The Witcher, and have played through the demo's of many other recent games. I've experienced no technical issues with any game or application so far, and I haven't encountered any drivers issues whatsoever. I'm simply keeping up with the latest builds and everything works fine.

[vincere]

Hey thanks Slug88.

This seems a minefield at best. I just want to know that I don't spend £600 or so on a new rig to find that my fave game chugs along or worse.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by vincere:

Hey thanks Slug88.

This seems a minefield at best. I just want to know that I don't spend £600 or so on a new rig to find that my fave game chugs along or worse.

Vincere, just take a look at the tech support forums - the sheer number of issues with the 8800 tells you that there's something up. It's great that one specific hardware configuration runs CM well with it, but it certainly doesnt have anything to do with "keeping up with updates." Everybody in there has done that.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by vincere:

Hey thanks Slug88.

This seems a minefield at best. I just want to know that I don't spend £600 or so on a new rig to find that my fave game chugs along or worse.

This is what I bought recently and the game runs great on it, as does everything else.

You might get things a bit cheaper too.

I also got a GeForce 8800GTS.

Loving it so far.

Oh yeah, I also recently bought this PSU, as I thought I'd blown mine:

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=4B0R

It turned out I'd pulled the power switch lead connection off the mobo, so maybe you shouldn't be taking any advice from me.

*ahem* yes, anyway, I'm treating it as an upgrade, I think 450 was a bit low anyway, and now the PC is almost silent.

[ February 07, 2008, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Other Means ]