Looking to get a New Processor

[Deleted]

Shut up about Intel fanboyism. i3's and the G isn't trash. Ubisoft is terrible at optimizing games and keep digging themselves further and further down, if you're not aware of this then you must be living under a rock. With you it's always something is completely trash or it's super amazing and these wild claims pulled out of your... it's almost like your searching for a confrontation.

I'm done debating or listening to you, funny how you always manage to argue with people. Thankfully MMO-C has this awesome ignore option, welcome to mine. No need to clutter these topics with your snark comments.

@OP

With how badly the game is optimized at the moment it seems your only real option is an i5, hence why I asked which your current motherboard is, also still need to know your power supply.

I would say you need a new CPU and new GPU , which you pick first is up to you. Your GPU is quite weak.

[Vash The Stampede]

I would say you need a new CPU and new GPU , which you pick first is up to you. Your GPU is quite weak.

His GPU isn't stopping him from playing Inquisition. It's fairly close to recommended requirements for the game. His CPU is another story.

[Deleted]

Ubisoft admits Assassin's Creed: Unity is broken, offers free DLC

[Deleted]

Also, from what I understand the i3 with HyperThreading making it 4 threads is just fine as well. Then Pentium is a little lackluster in this scenario but will work with some tweaks.

[Arbiter]

Also, from what I understand the i3 with HyperThreading making it 4 threads is just fine as well. Then Pentium is a little lackluster in this scenario but will work with some tweaks.

Either way the i3 intels have similar performance to the FX six cores of AMD except double the single core performance. Duke just doesn't want to understand that it's not a problem with dual cores not being able to handle the games. Its the 2 (yes only 2) games that developers were dumb enough to restrict dual cores from playing, which both have fixes available. It's honestly sad that an i3 dual core CPU can compete with a 6 core CPU, and yet people want to act like they just so obsolete for gaming.

[Vash The Stampede]

You can add another game to that list that requires quad cores or higher. This game is called Dying Light. Though the specs are a bit strange.

MINIMUM:

OS: Windows® 7 64-bit / Windows® 8 64-bit / Windows® 8.1 64-bit

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500 @3.3 GHz / AMD FX-8320 @3.5 GHz

Memory: 8 GB RAM DDR3

Hard Drive: 40 GB free space

Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 670 / AMD Radeon™ HD 7870

Sound: DirectX® 10

RECOMMENDED:

OS: Windows® 7 64-bit / Windows® 8 64-bit / Windows® 8.1 64-bit

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4670K @3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350 @4.0 GHz

Memory: 16 GB RAM DDR3

Hard Drive: 40 GB free space

Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 780 / AMD Radeon™ R9 290

Sound: DirectX® 10

[Deleted]

Either way the i3 intels have similar performance to the FX six cores of AMD except double the single core performance. Duke just doesn't want to understand that it's not a problem with dual cores not being able to handle the games. Its the 2 (yes only 2) games that developers were dumb enough to restrict dual cores from playing, which both have fixes available. It's honestly sad that an i3 dual core CPU can compete with a 6 core CPU, and yet people want to act like they just so obsolete for gaming.

Yeah I agree and as I mentioned the i3 with Hyperthreading pretty much covers the "4 core requirement" which really isn't a requirement by the way.

[Drunkenvalley]

Fuck these games that are so incompetently made that they made a limitation as to what hardware can run it CPU-side. That is not the processor being bad in any sense whatsoever, it is instead developers deserving castration and removal from the gene pool.

[Cyanotical]

did i miss something? or can OP just go on ebay and pick up a 2600 chip and drop that in his desktop

[Vash The Stampede]

Fuck these games that are so incompetently made that they made a limitation as to what hardware can run it CPU-side. That is not the processor being bad in any sense whatsoever, it is instead developers deserving castration and removal from the gene pool.

So you're complaining that games are now requiring better hardware? Ever since the Xbox 360 and PS3 were released, gaming has been relaxing on CPUs. Games since depend on them to better feed the GPU's. That and developers who refuse to use multiple cores due to the of the amount of work involved. It's the reason why the Sega Saturn failed. I mean that thing had 5 CPUs in it I believe.

From what I figure is that games like Unity had to use more cores cause the consoles have 8 very weak cores. It's terrible performance maybe related to DX11 most of all. News is that Unity uses 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API but DX11 can only handle 10,000 calls effectively. Without Mantle or DX12 these games are going to run terrible. Whether that extra needed CPU power is used to feed the GPU more effectively or not is not disclosed.

[fixx]

So you're complaining that games are now requiring better hardware?

When devs make baseless requirements (quad core when the software is proven to run on dual core just fine) the complaints are valid.

Ubisoft is well known fo making buggy shit. Planning computer upgrades around their requirements would be clinically insane when it's easier to just boycot whole damn company for producing and forcing shit on people.

From what I figure is that games like Unity had to use more cores cause the consoles have 8 very weak cores. It's terrible performance maybe related to DX11 most of all. News is that Unity uses 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API but DX11 can only handle 10,000 calls effectively. Without Mantle or DX12 these games are going to run terrible. Whether that extra needed CPU power is used to feed the GPU more effectively or not is not disclosed.

That is more related to consoles working closer to bare metal instead of number of cores. PC games are gimped by DX11 being unable to handle excessive draw calls. Mantle will never fix the situation because game devs do not want to alienate half of the potential buyers. Only some completely manufacturer agnostic solution like DX12 will fix it.

[Drunkenvalley]

Etc.

Requiring more cores does not translate into better hardware. Let's put this into an analogy you may understand:
Coworker #1 can do two tasks at once.
Coworker #2 can work twice as fast.

If you give those two the same job, who completes it first?

You cannot come here and claim what is and isn't better hardware if you don't even understand basic multithreading.

[Vash The Stampede]

Requiring more cores does not translate into better hardware. Let's put this into an analogy you may understand:
Coworker #1 can do two tasks at once.
Coworker #2 can work twice as fast.

If you give those two the same job, who completes it first?

You cannot come here and claim what is and isn't better hardware if you don't even understand basic multithreading.

Really? That's how you think it works? All code right now is written for single core performance. Most code today is just modified code from years ago. WoW for example has been around for 10 years and it's engine was taken from Warcraft III. It's easy and cheaper to constantly modified existing code then to completely rewrite it.

Moore's Law isn't going to last forever and to make up for this the CPU's come with more CPU's. But developers don't like to rewrite code for this as it's extremely difficult. So to gain some benefits you can just try to separate certain tasks onto other cores. For example maybe some AI and sound processing can be thrown onto another core. The problem with this is that it's mostly treated like single core code, and so this code needs to be synced. That's why the more cores some applications use the less utilization there is per core.

On the other hand if the application was written from the ground up for multicore use, you could literally stream the code to all available cores. This is much easier to do with things like video encoding as it doesn't matter which piece of data finishes first. But in a game this can be a very difficult problem to tackle but not impossible. Multi-core CPU Raytracing would be an amazing thing to see in games. There's been good examples of Ray Tracing working with DX11. Ray Tracing is extremely CPU dependent and makes good use of CPU cores.

Does Dragon Age Inquisition really need Quad cores? You tell me cause it looks like it does. Seems two cores two threads would be unplayable. The game seems to plateau at 6 cores 6 threads. Could a i3 or G3258 play the game? Certainly if you lower settings and overclock the CPU. But should you be buying a dual core to play Inquisition? No, absolutely not. The benchmarks speak for themsevles. A G3258 would get 20 fps at 1024×768 Ultra settings. An i3 would get 40 fps. But an i5 would get 60 fps. From the looks of it an i7 gets 72 fps.

Dual cores are dinosaurs.

[Drunkenvalley]

Etc.

"It's just a design problem!"

Yeah. No shit, Sherlock. Welcome to multithreading 101.

[fixx]

On the other hand if the application was written from the ground up for multicore use, you could literally stream the code to all available cores. This is much easier to do with things like video encoding as it doesn't matter which piece of data finishes first. But in a game this can be a very difficult problem to tackle but not impossible.

For multiplayer games its practically impossible because you can't control the latency between threads and this is why MMORPGs will never run better on multiple cores than higher IPC. Only way would be setting cores exlusive to the game but it's not possible to set from the game, only from the OS.

PS4 and XB1 can multithread games better because those can exclusively reserve cores unlike desktop computers.

[Deleted]

Not sure why we even try.

Of course a budget CPU like the Pentium or i3 is going to be lower performing than a more expensive i5 or i7 when the CPU requirements are higher, it's not exactly rocket science.

It's like saying a 280X gets you better performance than 750ti, oh really? No shit

Ubisoft and a few others just need to get their shit together. In no way can you point fingers at the CPU manufacturers offering budget options. The i3 has 4 threads as mentioned a few times by the way.

[Arbiter]

Duke, I thought you're whole argument was about choosing AMD over Intel on a budget because of these reasons, so why are you comparing performance for Pentiums, i3s, i5 and such.

Why not compare an i3 to something like an FX-4300.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1192?vs=700

So you're telling us that just because it has the word "quad core" written on the package that it should be that an i3 dual core is a dinosaur, when clearly the i3 surpasses it in multi threaded performance and destroying it in single threaded. Seems legit.

HES RIGHT GUYS DUAL CORES ARE USELESS. LETS ALL GO HOME NOW. Nearly double the power consumption must mean double the power too!

[Vash The Stampede]

For multiplayer games its practically impossible because you can't control the latency between threads and this is why MMORPGs will never run better on multiple cores than higher IPC. Only way would be setting cores exlusive to the game but it's not possible to set from the game, only from the OS.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Latency from thread syncing? No.

PS4 and XB1 can multithread games better because those can exclusively reserve cores unlike desktop computers.

Also no, and you can reserve cores.

Duke, I thought you're whole argument was about choosing AMD over Intel on a budget because of these reasons, so why are you comparing performance for Pentiums, i3s, i5 and such.

Why not compare an i3 to something like an FX-4300.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1192?vs=700

Cause the i3-4330 is $135 while the FX-8320 is $140? The FX-4300 is $100. Though I still wouldn't recommend the 4300, not when the 6300 is just $10 more.

So you're telling us that just because it has the word "quad core" written on the package that it should be that an i3 dual core is a dinosaur, when clearly the i3 surpasses it in multi threaded performance and destroying it in single threaded. Seems legit.

HES RIGHT GUYS DUAL CORES ARE USELESS. LETS ALL GO HOME NOW. Nearly double the power consumption must mean double the power too!

I've seen you link that before. Remember what I said about Ray Tracing? Look at POV-Ray 3.7 beta 23 - SMP Benchmark. Notice how the FX-4300 gets over 3x better score? They also list POV-Ray 3.7 Beta RC4 but the SMP version Symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) does a lot better on the FX-4300. The i3 barely increases with SMP.

It's interesting that they include Dolphin Emulation, cause I know that only uses two cores, but still faster on the FX-4300. Dolphin uses GCC compiler so maybe that's why? But anyway, even if you justify the i3 you can't justify the G3258. Hyperthreading does make a difference, I give the i3 that, but fake 4 cores is still fake. What you going to do with games that refuse to run on i3's? Go on the developers forums and complain to them how awesome hyperthreading i3's can be?

[tielknight]

Seeing as a i3-4340, which is 0.1Ghz faster than the 4330, http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18566305"]runs circles around the FX 8350[/URL] in most games, the i3 is a better choice 99% of the time if your purely gaming. Taking overclocking into account you can see something around a average ~15% boost in framerate, which still isn't going to put it up there with the i3.

Sure more games are coming out that can and will use more than 2 cores(some for better overall performance and some because they can't optimize for shit, like FC4 hogging the 3rd core) of a CPU, effectively locking out the G3258(or at least until consumers fix it like they did with the FC4 Dual-Core fix), but this will not happen with the i3.

Oh, and DA:I? It has a dual-core fix as well.

[Arbiter]

Cause the i3-4330 is $135 while the FX-8320 is $140? The FX-4300 is $100. Though I still wouldn't recommend the 4300, not when the 6300 is just $10 more.

So you have the option of saving $35 and taking a huge hit to all gaming performance, or you can spend $10 to take a huge hit to well...most gaming performance. Sounds like a good plan. Same argument goes for the 6300. There aren't very many CPU intensive games that can use 4 cores or more to begin with.

But yea I suppose this thread will die out with the same dumb ass arguments that don't belong, and then some other person will mention AMD a couple days from now and you'll show back up with the same arguments that keep getting proven wrong all so that you can trash on this community yet again in another forum. Why do you even bother sticking around with your mislead views?

And we can't justify a $50 CPU for people on extremely low budgets that can compete with even i5s and i7s in most games all because a couple developers thought it was a good idea to try and block out dual cores when they were perfectly capable of handling it with a fix? Keep dreaming. We will not recommend a major loss in performance in a game such as WoW or most games in general, the most common played game on these forums, just because a couple developers pulled a dick move and will probably learn very quickly from it as it wasn't a necessary move to make. Majority of the time, if you don't see a different between something like an i3 or a 8350 it's because either A) it was one of the rare games that supported more than 4 cores or B) it wasn't a demanding of enough game to need much CPU power regardless.

The whole point to my comment was, how can you sit here and ignorantly say dual cores are dinosaurs when Intel dual cores are STILL outperforming AMDs quad cores and still offering better performance in most games compared to ANY AMD CPU. It's sad that this has been an ongoing argument with you and the same information shows while you continue to focus on the few aspects that don't even matter in games to try and prove a point that has to no place.