I agree for current game engines 100%, but since development for next-gen will be centered around 8 physical cores, even though they're weak, I'm concerned that in a year or so we'll be seeing games that actually require 6-8 cores to properly run.
Of all the possible barriers to entry this is the lowest.64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...
So there is essentially no real difference between 8 physical cores, and 8 threads from 4 cores? At least for gaming.
I'm sure I will, but it's good to know I won't have to
I don't need to max everything out, you're right. I'm crazy about frame rate, need my 60fps, but other than that I'm good.
The question now is will my i7-3770,GTX660 run this better than ps4
64 Bit OS is one way to make you buy the game on consoles...
So glad I stopped putting off my new build. My E6850 and 8800GT had great times together but we haven't had fun in a while. Just built a 4770K / GTX 770 ACX rig so I am good to go. Still deciding if I'm buying this on PC or PS4 though.
Great. Gonna have a hard time deciding between an i5 and an i7 if the former's days are that numbered.
8 cores or 8 threads? I got a quad core 3770k and gtx 780. I Better be able to run this on max 1080p60
So, is it going to be a 2011 socket? Eh i knew i should have gone with a 3820 instead of a 3570k. At least i could have kept my mb with that.When it comes to CPU's I think any i7 in the 3xxx line and up is going to hold you this generation. AMD has some decent 8 core CPU's but Haswel-E is coming sometime and I intent to keep an eye out for that since I have the motherboard that supports it.
8 cores or 8 threads? I got a quad core 3770k and gtx 780. I Better be able to run this on max 1080p60
My i7-920@3.8Ghz is still holding the line. My cpu is so old, but it's still kicking. Hopefully my 680 takes most of the brunt force.
So, is it going to be a 2011 socket? Eh i knew i should have gone with a 3820 instead of a 3570k. At least i could have kept my mb with that.
The 9000 ones are. They were launched at 3930K prices iirc and didn't come anywhere close to them in terms of performance. They were just a dick waving exercise from AMD to say they had a 5GHz processor, which they didn't really as that was the turbo speed.
As for the rest they're still poor next to Intel's offerings. I have moderate hopes for Kaveri mind.
You could do that on a Hyper 212, all depends on the silicon lottery. What cooler are you using? Temps seem pretty poor for that clock speed.
Interesting, I'll look into that, thanks!Antec Kuhler 620.
Works really well. 65C at 4.8 ghz is about the max temp I see while gaming. Could probably get to 5 ghz but I've hit a voltage wall and it requires too much voltage to be stable at 5 ghz. The silicon lottery is a bitch.
We've had multicore consoles for years, albeit on a totally different CPU architecture, and that didn't lead to games on PC becoming highly threaded.
I'd be impressed if we even get to using all 4 cores of an i5 within the next couple of years, it'd be good progress.
AMD FX-9xxx line is terrible, stick to Intel if you want to upgrade.
Generic heatsink and fan. I thought that 85c was pretty high so I downclocked to 3.3.
This is what I keep hearing. Just apprehensive to pull the trigger since I'll have to buy a new MOBO as well.
This happens every generation. Why anyone would buy anything less then a mid-range gaming pc right before a new generation of consoles comes out is beyond me. Ports always take a huge hit, performance wise, with a new generation comes out.Sounds like a lazy port if it needs that as minimum, oh, ubisoft you say?
Haswell-E will be on LGA 2011-3, they've changed the socket slightly. You'll need a new mobo, plus it'll be using DDR4 as well which again means a new mobo.
Your CPU is still pretty great tbh. It'll still perform better than AMD's 83xx line up in games.
Multithreading doesnt work that way. It means that engine create jobs that are distributed as threads to CPU and how CPU handles them, is irrelevant to the engine.
So for example if You have 2 cores running at 2ghz and 1 core running at 4ghz, You'll calculate both threads in the same time on both configurations [if scaling is 100% and there is no additional load on any of those cores of course].
So something like i5 2500k will always be faster in handling code than 6 jaguar cores, probably twice faster 95% cases.
And games will be centered around 6 cores, not 8. Two cores are locked for games on both next-gen consoles.
Not interested in the game, but would've loved to see how my 3570k@4.5GHz and GTX 670 would've stacked, horrible Ubisoft optimization 'n all.
Having 64 bit executables is nice though.
Reading the overreactions in this thread is (as always) funny.
Not interested in the game, but would've loved to see how my 3570k@4.5GHz and GTX 670 would've stacked, horrible Ubisoft optimization 'n all.
Having 64 bit executables is nice though.
Reading the overreactions in this thread is (as always) funny.
Just like how i3s do in Battlefield 4, which is optimized for 8 cores.
What do you think about the 2gb limitation on my 760? The new consoles have more access to VRAM, with slower GPUs and CPUs. How does that bode for a 2gb 'modern' gpu trying to run at 1080p?
What do you think about the 2gb limitation on my 760? The new consoles have more access to VRAM, with slower GPUs and CPUs. How does that bode for a 2gb 'modern' gpu trying to run at 1080p?
I'm more surprised that it still manages to hold it's own. My cpu is going on almost 5 years old. It's damn near ancient by tech standards. Granted I'm on my second heatsink for it.
I don't even think i'll upgrade until a new refresh comes out maybe a year or two into the new console gen.
Well tickle me pink. I guess I may have to re-asses and sell my MB with the CPU and memory then.
Will probably sell the Sabertooth X79, 3930k, and 16GB Samsung memory around February if Haswell E is out. If not then I will do it in 2015.
Wait, Durante said that frame rate is CPU dependent. So why does getting a better GPU always increase frame rate by gobs. What am I missing here?
Someone needs to show the devs GTA V thats running into 512MB total memory
I take it that my AMD fx4100 coupled with a 7870 and 8GB DDR3 won't cut it?
bit upset by this new, i only just upgraded to an i5 3570k, with a gtx 680 and 16 ram, we shall see.
Beautiful poem, sir.on the fringe of the future
where cores now matter
and high vram reigns supreme
i've been safe for far too long, grown fat and overly comfortable
this is scary
bit upset by this new, i only just upgraded to an i5 3570k, with a gtx 680 and 16 ram, we shall see.
VR-Zone expect it in the second half of 2014, they've a pretty good scoop on it here http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-core-i7-ivy-bridge-e-core-i3-haswell-lineup-detailed/37832.html
My i7-920@3.8Ghz is still holding the line. My cpu is so old, but it's still kicking. Hopefully my 680 takes most of the brunt force.
lol, also show the devs how good the skyscrapers look in gta v compared to frostbite 3's skyscrapers in the bf4 beta, its quite a stark contrast, i thought frostbite was the shit, but rockstar must know somehing the others don't.
You'll be fine on console settings with 2GB VRAM.