System Requirements
- Thread starter BL4Z3>FAS>
- Start date
I have a Gateway P-6860FX laptop, Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5GHz, 4GB of RAM, and an Nvidia 8800M GTS (similar to a desktop 9600GT). I can run Brothers in Arms Hells Highway on high settings with pretty good frame rates (the game looks AMAZING btw). My laptop is a year old, so most new systems should be able to play it.
As you guys said wait for the release I was scanning for a possible new cpu and I thought I could go for:
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33GHz 4 x
I know currently it's got a horrific high price but as HoS will be released in about a year it will surely drop the costs for this cpu. What do you think about getting this one or a quad core for HoS? Worth buying?
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33GHz 4 x
I know currently it's got a horrific high price but as HoS will be released in about a year it will surely drop the costs for this cpu. What do you think about getting this one or a quad core for HoS? Worth buying?
If youre buying when rohos is out then buy when rohos is out, a bit of overclocking can get you pretty high with a 920 dont see the advantage of the 975.
But i would wait for the 6 core processors maybe rohos wont be able to fully optimize but atleast it will be a better bang for buck.
But i would wait for the 6 core processors maybe rohos wont be able to fully optimize but atleast it will be a better bang for buck.
Running Borderlands on my i7 makes use of 50% of 4 cores and it certainly doesn't need anymore CPU 
I know it's not RO:HOS but it's the newest release on UE3 I could find.
I know it's not RO:HOS but it's the newest release on UE3 I could find.I went with an AMD phenom II 4x 940 BE. Its got hyper threading just like the i7's and is fully unlocked allowing it to be overclocked to way over the stock 3.0Ghz. I can play Crysis on it with my HD4850 and it looks flawless. UT3 looks insane on it. I highly recommend AMD Phenom II quad cores over the intel core2quads or core i7's.
Now I'm not trying to start an argument here but can you explain why you recommend Phenom over i7?
If it's price then fine, but anything else and the i7 destroys the Phenom at any clock. Also the i7 920 is more than capable of going beyond 4Ghz, let alone 3Ghz.
So if cash is a concern then Phenom is the way to go, otherwise there is no contest
If it's price then fine, but anything else and the i7 destroys the Phenom at any clock. Also the i7 920 is more than capable of going beyond 4Ghz, let alone 3Ghz.
So if cash is a concern then Phenom is the way to go, otherwise there is no contest
Last edited:
at this point i would recommend i5 myself. For gaming hypertreading isnt that usefull anyway. And you save quite some money going for a p55 mobo.
And that is comming from a 4ghz i7 user ;p.
the 940 is a fine proc to have longlivety and safe some money on the go to get a better vidcard, but it doesnt have hyperthreading (not sure why you would want it). But tbh i would rather have a 945 and an AM3 chipset then.
I hope that AMD gets back in business soon enough, the proc business needs a kick under its butt.
And that is comming from a 4ghz i7 user ;p.
the 940 is a fine proc to have longlivety and safe some money on the go to get a better vidcard, but it doesnt have hyperthreading (not sure why you would want it
). But tbh i would rather have a 945 and an AM3 chipset then. I hope that AMD gets back in business soon enough, the proc business needs a kick under its butt.
Yeah i5 is probably the best all rounder atm, I was just answering that other post and keeping in context. Although I make good use of the hyperthreading as I do a lot of video encoding.
I used to love AMD when they made the P4's look arthritic, but I can find nothing to recommend them over intel's current processors now, unless we're talking about a budget system
I was lucky and inherited an i7 965 XE (ES) from a good friend ( currently @ 4Ghz under a Megahalems ), so only had to pay for my P6T-SE and 6Gb of ram
I used to love AMD when they made the P4's look arthritic, but I can find nothing to recommend them over intel's current processors now, unless we're talking about a budget system
I was lucky and inherited an i7 965 XE (ES) from a good friend ( currently @ 4Ghz under a Megahalems ), so only had to pay for my P6T-SE and 6Gb of ram
Last edited:
Atm, Phenom II isn't really interesting anymore.
But at the time the Thuban is released, I might just get one of those Phenom II X6 monsters.
It looks like the Intel Core i9 hexacores will be priced at 1K, which isn't really interesting for the typical gamer.
The Thuban should be more than enough for most games, as fairly low-clocked dualcores can already play Crysis decently if combined with a monster GPU.
Yet, it should give more than enough parallel computing power to do other stuff.
But at the time the Thuban is released, I might just get one of those Phenom II X6 monsters.
It looks like the Intel Core i9 hexacores will be priced at 1K, which isn't really interesting for the typical gamer.
The Thuban should be more than enough for most games, as fairly low-clocked dualcores can already play Crysis decently if combined with a monster GPU.
Yet, it should give more than enough parallel computing power to do other stuff.
More cores doesn't = more performance.
When quad cores came out, dual cores priced at the same price were a lot faster in games.
If the game won't take advantage of more than 4 cores, then a 6 or 8 core CPU is useless.
It was only until recently that quad core started to get utilized for games.
IMO, they should stick with quad core for a bit longer and increase the clocking and whatnot. This way program developers can actually push all 4 cores to the max.
6 or 8 cores would only help if you are doing a whole lot of multitasking.
Aside from some high end programs (Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, ect.) nothing will really use more than 4 cores for a while.
Best to save money and get a quality quad core.
When quad cores came out, dual cores priced at the same price were a lot faster in games.
If the game won't take advantage of more than 4 cores, then a 6 or 8 core CPU is useless.
It was only until recently that quad core started to get utilized for games.
IMO, they should stick with quad core for a bit longer and increase the clocking and whatnot. This way program developers can actually push all 4 cores to the max.
6 or 8 cores would only help if you are doing a whole lot of multitasking.
Aside from some high end programs (Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, ect.) nothing will really use more than 4 cores for a while.
Best to save money and get a quality quad core.
You are talking about games, but there is more to computers then just games.
I use SolidWorks alot, aswell as the Adobe CS4 Master Suite and I have to compile various tarballs in Linux as Debian packages aren't available all the time, all of them are heavy multithreaded applications.
Most dualcores are already overkill in various games, most of the time they only have memory latency and bandwidth issues creating a bottleneck effect for other hardware. Also, proper SMT-capable games are coming as we speak.
Thuban (Phenom II X6) will be released with a new production stepping (C4) which should be able to overclock almost aswell as the old Deneb (Phenom II X4) steppings.
I'd rather have a hexacore which can do 3,8 GHz then a quadcore doing 4,0 GHz on stock cooling.
Last edited:
Nice post, but as I said, it is of no use for gaming. Not for a while. So you're proving my point.
Considering this topic was about performance in RO: HoS, that is why I said 6/8 core CPUs would be worthless.
HoS might even released before 6/8 core CPUs come on the market.
Thuban and Gulftown are released in January next year. I doubt HoS will even be in beta status that moment.Nice post, but as I said, it is of no use for gaming. Not for a while. So you're proving my point.
Considering this topic was about performance in RO: HoS, that is why I said 6/8 core CPUs would be worthless.
HoS might even released before 6/8 core CPUs come on the market.
Also, it depends on the game. ArmA 2 might use a hexacore, a much lower clocked Q9550 outperforms even the mighty E8600, both on stock speeds.
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
FYI:
UE3 in general = 2 heavy weights: Game and Render. Then we have audio, physics, I/O + helper threads.
Do you need 6 cores? No, hardware threads will do the trick. Does it hurt? Not at all.
Context switching on windows is like 20000 CPU cycles. Pretty massive.
Protip: Heroes is not UT nor is it any other UE3 game. We are adding/changing a lot of things.
UE3 in general = 2 heavy weights: Game and Render. Then we have audio, physics, I/O + helper threads.
Do you need 6 cores? No, hardware threads will do the trick. Does it hurt? Not at all.
Context switching on windows is like 20000 CPU cycles. Pretty massive.
Protip: Heroes is not UT nor is it any other UE3 game. We are adding/changing a lot of things.
Waiting for my new PC to arrive.
Glad to see some comments on here such as "i5 is the best all-rounder" and the GTX 260 can blow UT3 away because well.. These will be my new specs:
Processor: Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz box
Memory: Kingston HyperX XMP 4GB DDR3 1333MHz CL7 dual channel kit
Hard Disk: Western Digital 1TB SATA-II 7200 rpm 64MB Caviar Green
GFX Card: EVGA e-GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked 896MB DDR3 448-bit
Glad to see some comments on here such as "i5 is the best all-rounder" and the GTX 260 can blow UT3 away because well.. These will be my new specs:
Processor: Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz box
Memory: Kingston HyperX XMP 4GB DDR3 1333MHz CL7 dual channel kit
Hard Disk: Western Digital 1TB SATA-II 7200 rpm 64MB Caviar Green
GFX Card: EVGA e-GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked 896MB DDR3 448-bit