Server CPU's for gaming

[fasterthanlight]

I need a little help on decisions for my next gaming PC. It involves a CPU question which is why it is placed here.
I am looking at a Dual GPU 2011 motherboard and I believe it only takes the Xeon vs the Ivy bridge CPU's.
Question is, is there a benefit or loss of benefit by running dual Xeons vs a single I7 hex core. In particular; Xeon E5-2609 CPU's.

I want to be able to CRUSH any CPU bottleneck.

 

[LigTasm]

You're not going about crushing CPU bottlenecks the right way. Those Xeons are slow (2.4ghz) and locked. Since games don't really multi thread well, the average is two cores used with some doing better, higher clock speed per core is more important than total cores.

Unless you want to fold or do some kind of number crunching, you're looking at a $4000 motherboard and CPU combo that games as well as a dual-core i3. A highly clocked quad-core SB/IB chip would perform better and cost 1/10th as much. Hex core i7 are great as well, they can be overclocked nicely and share the same cores if you need to feel like you're a 6c/12t boss and have cash to throw away (also good for SLI/CF with more PCI-E lanes).

 

[extide]

You're not going about crushing CPU bottlenecks the right way. Those Xeons are slow (2.4ghz) and locked. Since games don't really multi thread well, the average is two cores used with some doing better, higher clock speed per core is more important than total cores.

Unless you want to fold or do some kind of number crunching, you're looking at a $4000 motherboard and CPU combo that games as well as a dual-core i3. A highly clocked quad-core SB/IB chip would perform better and cost 1/10th as much. Hex core i7 are great as well, they can be overclocked nicely and share the same cores if you need to feel like you're a 6c/12t boss and have cash to throw away (also good for SLI/CF with more PCI-E lanes).

This is true. Your best bet would be a single chip 2011 or 1155 setup that is highly overclocked. If you get a Sandy Bridge E like a 3930K to ~4.8Ghz you wil be set for a long time, plus you will have 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0

Don't bother with xeons, as mentioned they will be slower because of the low clockspeed and no overclockability.

Multi-Socket setups ARE great for folding though

 

[fasterthanlight]

You bring up very valid points. I see Asus has a dual cpu board for $600 and I can throw in 2 of the 2609's for about $700.
A good single cpu board could be $400 and the cpu would be $600. I am not sure the board from Asus would take dual 2011 Ivy's. Cost wise, its close enough for me.

board in question is the
ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS Dual LGA 2011

 

[LigTasm]

This is true. Your best bet would be a single chip 2011 or 1155 setup that is highly overclocked. If you get a Sandy Bridge E like a 3930K to ~4.8Ghz you wil be set for a long time, plus you will have 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0

Don't bother with xeons, as mentioned they will be slower because of the low clockspeed and no overclockability.

Multi-Socket setups ARE great for folding though

Actually, I looked up the part he is looking at and its the 4c/4t CPU, retail is like $300 so scratch my previous price statement. Still too pricey to be worth while, especially since its an 80w part with no HT. Thats not bad but not even worth the effort. For the price of two of those one 3930k will dominate it.

You bring up very valid points. I see Asus has a dual cpu board for $600 and I can throw in 2 of the 2609's for about $700.
A good single cpu board could be $400 and the cpu would be $600. I am not sure the board from Asus would take dual 2011 Ivy's. Cost wise, its close enough for me.

board in question is the
ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS Dual LGA 2011

A single 3930k will still be faster. MOAR COARS is not the answer here Most of the single 2011 boards are NOT $400, you don't have to automatically get the RIVE to game on it. I used a budget MSI mATX X79 board and got better clocks at lower voltages than both my expensive-as-hell OC'ing boards with the same CPU (RIVE and X79-UD7).

 

[fasterthanlight]

"A single 3930k will still be faster. MOAR COARS is not the answer here Most of the single 2011 boards are NOT $400, you don't have to automatically get the RIVE to game on it. I used a budget MSI mATX X79 board and got better clocks at lower voltages than both my expensive-as-hell OC'ing boards with the same CPU (RIVE and X79-UD7)."

I lol'd.

Now, this is not COD that I am talking about, it's ARMA2 and ARMA 3. This game puts conventional thought out the window. I believe that 2 will only use 2, but 3 may be able to use *MOAR.
The draw distance on that is driven by CPU, I believe, and can be made to view 10km. That with very high specs for graphics options.
I just want to be able to hedge my bets with the best.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

I need a little help on decisions for my next gaming PC. It involves a CPU question which is why it is placed here.
I am looking at a Dual GPU 2011 motherboard and I believe it only takes the Xeon vs the Ivy bridge CPU's.
Question is, is there a benefit or loss of benefit by running dual Xeons vs a single I7 hex core. In particular; Xeon E5-2609 CPU's.

I want to be able to CRUSH any CPU bottleneck.

More, slower cores is not the answer for a gaming machine. What you are planning on designing is a MONSTER that would crush every task BUT gaming.

Multi-threaded gaming still hasn't reached maturity yet. The most stressful games out there are using a max of 3-4 cores. Then you got your video card drivers which are also multi-threaded but use very little CPU. There are a couple odd games that can use 8 or more cores like Lost Planet 1&2, but they aren't as popular nor as graphically demanding.

Now if you intend on encoding several 3D Blu-Ray Porn movies, rendering a model of a concept sports car, and single handily curing cancer all at once while still having spare power to play a game, THEN you should build that machine. Just make sure you get the fastest Xeon's you can possibly get your hands on.

 

[bwang]

You could go with an SR-2 and a pair of E5645's OC'd to 4 GHz.
Best of both worlds - fast cores, lots of cores, SLI, all the goodies.
A 3930K is definitely a better buy though unless you're tackling mostly "workstation" tasks.

 

[LigTasm]

I lol'd.

Now, this is not COD that I am talking about, it's ARMA2 and ARMA 3. This game puts conventional thought out the window. I believe that 2 will only use 2, but 3 may be able to use *MOAR.
The draw distance on that is driven by CPU, I believe, and can be made to view 10km. That with very high specs for graphics options.
I just want to be able to hedge my bets with the best.

Haha yeah I just remember all of those AMD threads. Don't forget you only have 8 thread worth of processing with those Xeons, but 12 thread with a hex-core i7.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

A3 is not out yet, nor is there any info on how many cores it can make use of or much really about the game. The demo rig they used was an i5, my guess is it can use up to 4 cores, not much more than that, so you could be buying a chip with cores that are not even used and wasted money that could have gone into a better GPU, seeing as it is going to be a DX11 game (as far as I know), I am guessing its going to be pretty taxing on the GPU.

I will agree with everyone else that a i5-i7 OCed well will do just fine for this game, and if you just want to throw money at something, get a 3930K and OC it, the dual socket Xeon setup is a bad choice.

 

[RamonGTP]

Don't waste your money, there aren't any games that require that much CPU power and by the time there is (ETA: Whenever Playstation 5 comes) the system you build today will be old and devalued. Actually, you probably won't even own it anymore.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Don't waste your money, there aren't any games that require that much CPU power and by the time there is (ETA: Whenever Playstation 5 comes) the system you build today will be old and devalued. Actually, you probably won't even own it anymore.

ARMA is and has been a PC only game, it has nothing to do with consoles. Also, when ARMA 2 was out it was a very demanding game, it was released in early 2009 if I remember right and had a recommended spec of a 2.8GHz dual or quad core CPU and at least a 4850 or faster, considering that the 4850 at that time was the current gen card and that's just the recommended spec, that's saying allot. I played A2 allot, I had a Q9550@3.8GHz and a 4850 1GB, it was OCed also but I forget the clocks I had it at. In either case it did hammer the CPU far more than other games and even at the puny 1440x900 I was gaming at the 4850 could not max out anything. Also, A2 was able to use 4 cores with one of the updates it had, I don't really see them making use of more in A3, but it could happen, however I am pretty sure it will be able to use at least 4 cores at launch. A2:OA had a recommended GPU of a GTX 260 and an i5, you should look at some reviews of it, with "very high" settings on a 580 gets about 48FPS. A3 adds in allot of things including a doubling I believe of view distance as well as new physics and DX11, if past ARMA games say anything, my best is A3 will be very demanding.

ARMA has allot of things other games don't, such as massive maps, not many games out there with what...a 200 sq. km free world map? A very complex AI as well as complex ballistics.

 

[RamonGTP]

ARMA is and has been a PC only game, it has nothing to do with consoles. Also, when ARMA 2 was out it was a very demanding game, it was released in early 2009 if I remember right and had a recommended spec of a 2.8GHz dual or quad core CPU and at least a 4850 or faster, considering that the 4850 at that time was the current gen card and that's just the recommended spec, that's saying allot. I played A2 allot, I had a Q9550@3.8GHz and a 4850 1GB, it was OCed also but I forget the clocks I had it at. In either case it did hammer the CPU far more than other games and even at the puny 1440x900 I was gaming at the 4850 could not max out anything. Also, A2 was able to use 4 cores with one of the updates it had, I don't really see them making use of more in A3, but it could happen, however I am pretty sure it will be able to use at least 4 cores at launch. A2:OA had a recommended GPU of a GTX 260 and an i5, you should look at some reviews of it, with "very high" settings on a 580 gets about 48FPS. A3 adds in allot of things including a doubling I believe of view distance as well as new physics and DX11, if past ARMA games say anything, my best is A3 will be very demanding.

ARMA has allot of things other games don't, such as massive maps, not many games out there with what...a 200 sq. km free world map? A very complex AI as well as complex ballistics.

ok? I'm not really sure what your point is. The majroity of what you're saying is dealing with GPU requirments which isn't what this thread nor what my reply was about. A single SB or IB i7 will easily handle Arma III

 

[MrGuvernment]

No, server cpu's are for servers, not for gaming.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

ok? I'm not really sure what your point is. The majroity of what you're saying is dealing with GPU requirments which isn't what this thread nor what my reply was about. A single SB or IB i7 will easily handle Arma III

My point was that console CPU power has nothing to do with a game like ARMA which has always been demanding on CPU's. Almost everything I talked about is handled by the CPU, the AI, ballistics, maps (tracking etc) and physics are all handled by the CPU in A3 and A2 was already a CPU hog.

 

[RamonGTP]

All of which can be handled by a single i7 which was my initial point and that has not changed.

Are you going to build an 8 core dual xeon system for Arma III? Highly doubt it. Why? Becuase it isn't needed. So I'll ask again, what exactly is your point? Or more accuratly, your point as it relates to the actual thread?

 

[evilsofa]

A $220 i5-2500k on a $150 ASUS motherboard overclocked to 4.4GHz with a single click in the BIOS would probably run rings around a dual Xeon server motherboard for gaming. Yes, even for ARMA 2 and 3.

A $4000 tile-cutting tool can maybe do almost as good a job at hammering nails as a hammer, but just use the damned hammer.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

Almost everything I talked about is handled by the CPU, the AI, ballistics, maps (tracking etc) and physics are all handled by the CPU in A3 and A2 was already a CPU hog.

And if Arma3 scales well past 6 hyperthreaded cores, then a 2P setup like the Op mentions would be useful. However, that is extremely unlikely. An overclocked SB-E setup will probably have the most benefits for the OP's situation.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

All of which can be handled by a single i7 which was my initial point and that has not changed.

Are you going to build an 8 core dual xeon system for Arma III? Highly doubt it. Why? Becuase it isn't needed. So I'll ask again, what exactly is your point? Or more accuratly, your point as it relates to the actual thread?

The only point you made referred to a console CPU, nothing about i7 or the like, if it was related as you said to consoles, then a i3 would be able to play it, like many games today, however that is not the case. CPU power has always been a big point in ARMA games, and as I said before you ever posted, that an i5-i7 will be enough and if you want to throw money at something a SB-E chip. So what is your point, as your post did not seem to contribute to this thread at all. You gave no suggestions other than loosely related console comparison and stating things other people have said, so my points "relate to the actual thread" far more than anything you have posted. However you seem stuck on trying to prove whose post has more "value" when my reply to your post was stating that CPU should not be over looked when building a rig for playing ARMA and that is it. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

And if Arma3 scales well past 6 hyperthreaded cores, then a 2P setup like the Op mentions would be useful. However, that is extremely unlikely. An overclocked SB-E setup will probably have the most benefits for the OP's situation.

Which is what I stated long ago.

 

[RamonGTP]

My point relates directly, you just missed it. Games will not need that much CPU power. My reason for bring up consoles was to give a time frame of when that much power may be needed be it a console port or otherwise.

All you did was bring up ARMA which isn't what this thread is about and no one disputed it's not a console port. So it was completely pointless, and even if we were talking about ARMA, it still wouldn't need the threaded performance the OP is talking about so it would STILL be a pointless subject to debate. By your own admission it wouldn't need it. So essentially you're talking a lot but not saying much of anything.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

My point relates directly, you just missed it. Games will not need that much CPU power. My reason for bring up consoles was to give a time frame of when that much power may be needed be it a console port or otherwise.

All you did was bring up ARMA which isn't what this thread is about and no one disputed it's not a console port. So it was completely pointless, and even if we were talking about ARMA, it still wouldn't need the threaded performance the OP is talking about so it would STILL be a pointless subject to debate. By your own admission it wouldn't need it. So essentially you're talking a lot but not saying much of anything.

You gave no suggestion on hardware, or any suggestion at all, other than to say what others including myself said that a 2P system is not needed or the right way to go, and listing a console as a time frame is really a bad idea, since something like that no one knows when it would come out or even if consoles survive that long. It also relates to console games only, PC games could be far past that if need be.

I did not bring up ARMA, the OP did, so yes, this thread is indeed about ARMA, or did you not care to read anything? Also, I never suggested that he get a 2P system, I said it would be a waste, I gave real points and info on the current and upcoming game as well as real suggestions and not vague references, In your post you seemed to be blowing off CPU power for this kind of game, my post gave reasons for it. Your post had nothing helpful or new in it, my post had hardware specs and suggestions of what might be needed, your post had a reference to some future non existent console hardware, so might I suggest you are the one "talking a lot but not saying much of anything".

 

[RamonGTP]

So you agree that dual Xeon isn't necessary but are still trying to argue? Brilliant.

I also said more than once a single i7 would be plenty.

Like I said, talking a whole lot and saying nothing. Go ahead, keep arguing a point you agree with.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

So you agree that dual Xeon isn't necessary but are still trying to argue? Brilliant.

I also said more than once a single i7 would be plenty.

Like I said, talking a whole lot and saying nothing. Go ahead, keep arguing a point you agree with.

I am not arguing anything, you keep asking what my point is and keep on stating I have said nothing to help the OP. Your post that I quoted had no hardware listed or suggested, it was not until later you said i7 etc.

I am not arguing the 2P point at all and have stated such many times and said it was useless before you even posted, so what your problem is with I have no idea.

My point from the get go has been that this game is not out yet and how many cores or how much use it will get out of a CPU is unknown, however, based off of past ARMA games we can assume that even a quad core will be put to heavy use, more so with all the updated and extra things being run on the CPU that I had posted.

 

[RamonGTP]

My first reply was that dual xeons isnt needed (which you agree with yet went up in arms about) after which I mentioned i7 after your very first reply to me (which apparently you agree with also) yet you continued upon the path of running off at the mouth (keyboard) about nothing for several more posts.

I don't know if you're bored, had too much or not enough to drink but I recommend you put this much effort when you DON'T agree with someone.

As far as the game, it comes out this year. You're crazy if you think it's going to require more power then high end consumer processors can deliver. You're just grasping at straws trying to find something that maybe you disagree with.

 

[Corvette]

It's unlikely that any game coming out in the next year will require hardware that isn't around. In 2009 quad-core at 2.8GHz was regular old enthusiast realm PC hardware. You can bet they won't make and release a game that won't play in a satisfying way with current (at the time of release) hardware. The next big(ish) step in enthusiast gaming PC's is IB-E which isn't out for a while and probably won't offer much above the current SB-E stock. If you have the money for a $4,000 server setup then spend some of it on whatever nice SB-E setup they recommend and keep the rest for any possible upgrade that is out at the time or release or later.

 

[dastral]

You have two choices : 4+4 (S1155) or 6+6 (S2011) even 8+8 would be overkill (not to say stupidly expensive) going dual CPU is probably even worse.
Since you were talking about Dual Xeon is assume money is not an issue... Before spending :

1° Check the memory usage of Arma2
2° Check the CPU usage of Arma2
3° Check the GPU Scaling & GPU Ram usage of Arma2
4° Check the GPU Affinity (Nvidia or ATI ?)

Now you can't do projections for Arma3, but at least you will have very reliable data that way.

As a note even if you double the performance of the 5870 (and the 6870 is similar) you're still behind a GTX680 for 2560x1600.
Now if your game is texture heavy (which makes sense for huge maps and a million things to load) the difference could be HUGE, check the last paragraph :
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/10

If you buy a computer for 1 Game, you MUST do hours of research before deciding.
Throwing 16c/32t for 4000$ won't guarantee you better results than a 1500$ PC.

Try and get a GTX680 4GB and see how it goes...

 

[cyclone3d]

No, server cpu's are for servers, not for gaming.

That depends on the CPU. Not sure how the newer CPUs are.. but for the most partit is just as cheap or cheaper to get an LGA 1366 Xeon that is the same speed as a regular i7.

I was looking at getting an i7-920 or possibly even a 950 for around $200 to replace my 920 that up and died, but found a W3565 - same as a 960 but most likely better binned for $200.. course it is a pull from a server.. but who cares.

Even new 1366 XEONs are right about the same price as new regular i7s.

 

[extide]

"A single 3930k will still be faster. MOAR COARS is not the answer here Most of the single 2011 boards are NOT $400, you don't have to automatically get the RIVE to game on it. I used a budget MSI mATX X79 board and got better clocks at lower voltages than both my expensive-as-hell OC'ing boards with the same CPU (RIVE and X79-UD7)."

I lol'd.

Now, this is not COD that I am talking about, it's ARMA2 and ARMA 3. This game puts conventional thought out the window. I believe that 2 will only use 2, but 3 may be able to use *MOAR.
The draw distance on that is driven by CPU, I believe, and can be made to view 10km. That with very high specs for graphics options.
I just want to be able to hedge my bets with the best.

Go ahead and lol all you want, it still doesnt change fact.

A single 3930k overclocked WILL dominate ANY 2011 Xeon setup in gaming. Even a single 2500k/2600k/3570k/3770k at 4.8+ Ghz will dominate a 2011 Xeon in gaming. The MOST threads a game will use is 4-6, and that is a veryh high-ball number. If you have 800 2.4Ghz cores, then it will be slower than a 4.8Ghz 3930K for gaming PERIOD.

Adding more cores won't help your Draw Distance, that is one of the game's threads, so if you have 100000 cores it will still only use 1 for that. Clockspeed is KING for games. If this game actually pegs a 6-core hyperthreaded cpu at 4.5+ghz to 100% on all cores, I would be surprised. If it doesn't then it's not using all of the cores!

My point was that console CPU power has nothing to do with a game like ARMA which has always been demanding on CPU's. Almost everything I talked about is handled by the CPU, the AI, ballistics, maps (tracking etc) and physics are all handled by the CPU in A3 and A2 was already a CPU hog.

He wasnt talking about the console CPU power, he was using the release of the playstation 5 as simply a point in time.

 

[wabbitseason]

If you have Nehalem quad OC'd at 4+, wait for haswell.

If you have below, i5-2500k.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

My first reply was that dual xeons isnt needed (which you agree with yet went up in arms about) after which I mentioned i7 after your very first reply to me (which apparently you agree with also) yet you continued upon the path of running off at the mouth (keyboard) about nothing for several more posts.

I don't know if you're bored, had too much or not enough to drink but I recommend you put this much effort when you DON'T agree with someone.

As far as the game, it comes out this year. You're crazy if you think it's going to require more power then high end consumer processors can deliver. You're just grasping at straws trying to find something that maybe you disagree with.

I never went up in arms about anything, I made factual statements about the game and its performance and your post in quotes. I attacked nor disagreed with anything about your post, other than the relation of consoles and this kind of PC only game have no relation, and using the "PS5" as a time metric is useless for anyone. Also, the game could require more than whats out right now, ARMA2 did to be able to max things out at HD res, could it be played on current hardware? Without a doubt, but this guy wants to have no bottlenecks what-so-ever and be able to max it out. Which goes back to my first point in that CPU should not be over looked.

He wasnt talking about the console CPU power, he was using the release of the playstation 5 as simply a point in time.

Yes, he did talk about console power, and its use as a time metric is useless, as no one knows when (or if) that system will ever be made.

 

[bAMtan2]

"A single 3930k will still be faster. MOAR COARS is not the answer here Most of the single 2011 boards are NOT $400, you don't have to automatically get the RIVE to game on it. I used a budget MSI mATX X79 board and got better clocks at lower voltages than both my expensive-as-hell OC'ing boards with the same CPU (RIVE and X79-UD7)."

I lol'd.

Now, this is not COD that I am talking about, it's ARMA2 and ARMA 3. This game puts conventional thought out the window. I believe that 2 will only use 2, but 3 may be able to use *MOAR.
The draw distance on that is driven by CPU, I believe, and can be made to view 10km. That with very high specs for graphics options.
I just want to be able to hedge my bets with the best.

you're kidding yourself. nothing in the world will run it faster than overclocked 2600k/3770k. you can even use 3 video cards if you like.

 

[Cobalt35]

Go ahead and lol all you want, it still doesnt change fact.

A single 3930k overclocked WILL dominate ANY 2011 Xeon setup in gaming. Even a single 2500k/2600k/3570k/3770k at 4.8+ Ghz will dominate a 2011 Xeon in gaming. The MOST threads a game will use is 4-6, and that is a veryh high-ball number. If you have 800 2.4Ghz cores, then it will be slower than a 4.8Ghz 3930K for gaming PERIOD.

Adding more cores won't help your Draw Distance, that is one of the game's threads, so if you have 100000 cores it will still only use 1 for that. Clockspeed is KING for games. If this game actually pegs a 6-core hyperthreaded cpu at 4.5+ghz to 100% on all cores, I would be surprised. If it doesn't then it's not using all of the cores!

This. I run an i7-2600K at home and I have not found one game that the cpu was a bottleneck in, even at the stock speed of 3.4GHz. At 4.8GHz which I can get to comfortably it will piss and shit all over any Xeon for gaming, irregardless of how many cores the Xeon has.

OP, you have a half a dozen (or more) people telling you the same thing... is it getting through?

 

[pelo]

No, server cpu's are for servers, not for gaming.

^^ !!

Server CPUs are binned/clocked in such a manner that they're clocked lower than their desktop brethren because of heat/TDP because that's a primary concern in servers. For gaming it's still IPC and clock speed above all else and server CPUs won't do either of those very well (clock speed, really. IPC is roughly the same but that depends on the amount of cache). You can't overclock the newer Intel server chips either and they also require ECC RAM -- both of those being major no-nos for any gaming build.

Buy yourself a 3930K with that Intel chip insurance thing and spend the rest of your money on GPUs and proper cooling then overclock to your heart's content. You'll save yourself cash and get better FPS as well going 2011 with a 3930K than any server chip.

 

[RamonGTP]

I never went up in arms about anything, I made factual statements about the game and its performance and your post in quotes. I attacked nor disagreed with anything about your post, other than the relation of consoles and this kind of PC only game have no relation, and using the "PS5" as a time metric is useless for anyone. Also, the game could require more than whats out right now, ARMA2 did to be able to max things out at HD res, could it be played on current hardware? Without a doubt, but this guy wants to have no bottlenecks what-so-ever and be able to max it out. Which goes back to my first point in that CPU should not be over looked.



Yes, he did talk about console power, and its use as a time metric is useless, as no one knows when (or if) that system will ever be made.

I wasn't talking about console power. This is the third time from two different people that needed to be explained to you. The point was you aren't going to need that kind of CPU processing for curremt or near future games. Period. weather you agree with me using "ps5" doesn't matter since you clearly don't understand the implications. If I shouldnt use ps5 as a metric to describe anything becaise it's not out then then same is true of A3 since its not out yet. Try to be consistent in your arguments.

You can split hairs all you want. In the end you're agreeing a topic which you share the same opinion on. To say that's retarded is an understatement. I'm sorry if it upsets you that we agree on this. I'm sure in the future we will disagree on a topic and get along great.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

I wasn't talking about console power. This is the third time from two different people that needed to be explained to you. The point was you aren't going to need that kind of CPU processing for curremt or near future games. Period. weather you agree with me using "ps5" doesn't matter since you clearly don't understand the implications.

You used a console, the PS5 as a performance metric, so yes, you indeed were talking about console power. My post was (I will state it again) about games like ARMA should not be confused with other games in that while most can run just fine with a i3 and a mid/highend GPU, ARMA games have not been such and that CPU power should not be over looked, period. I never agreed or disagreed with you, I pointed out a simple fact. You then asked what my point was, and I stated that, many times now, yet you seem to glaze right over it a miss the point yet again.

If I shouldnt use ps5 as a metric to describe anything becaise it's not out then then same is true of A3 since its not out yet. Try to be consistent in your arguments.

Please read my very first post where I point this out, I said that A3 is not out and how many cores it can use is unknown, but since A2 uses 4 it would be safe to assume that A3 will use at least 4 at launch, but that even then if it did use more than 4 cores if they are clocked high enough performance gains from more cores, even if it could use 24 cores or whatever number you like the impact on performance would be unknown or small.

You can split hairs all you want. In the end you're agreeing a topic which you share the same opinion on. To say that's retarded is an understatement. I'm sorry if it upsets you that we agree on this. I'm sure in the future we will disagree on a topic and get along great.

Yet again and again and again, I never agreed or disagreed with you, I made statements about the game as well as current know performance abilities on CPU's and GPU's. Good Lord man, get over the fact I used your post in quotes to make a point about people going to far either way. Your post had the sounds of others before saying that CPU has almost no impact on performance, by stating consoles, as a PS5 would probably have the CPU power of today's PC's and yet ARMA2 can make use of them, so a ARMA like game coming out on PC at the time WAY out from now that a PS5 would be on the market, it would probably be laughing at a dual socket board of today, it would be like running a game from today on a dual socket P4 setup. So as you can see the metric made no sense other than from the stance of CPU does not matter, because again, you stated no hardware and suggested no CPU (only the console metric). Which is why when you asked what my point was, I said it was to make sure that CPU is not over looked and have the OP go out and get a i3 to run ARMA games on, as was brought up before you posted.

 

[RamonGTP]

Don't confuse your own misinterpretation of what I said with what I actually said. The other person who responded to you clearly knew what I was referencing and it has been explained to you multiple times before and after his post. You being too dense to acknowledge is just your ignorance talking. And you are agreeing with me, despite your claim that you're neither agreeing or disagreeing. On everything that actually matters in this thread like dual socket not being necessary and i7 being enough. you're agreeing. The only thing you "claim" to take issue with is a topic you are intentionally twisting to make sound how you want it to sound.

 

[*foo]

There is a fair amount of good advice in this thread, mixed in with some silliness.
First - for CPU power - 2600k or IVB is plenty for gaming.
However, if you want/need more than 16GB of RAM, look at the x79 systems. 8 DIMM slots help. Also more PCIe (and gen3) if you want to run dual or triple SLI, or raid cards.

Oh, and "Xeon" does not require ECC. That is a motherboard implementation decision. I run an E5-2690 with standard DDR3 on an Intel DX79SI.

I am sure there is more but I hate typing on this iPad.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Don't confuse your own misinterpretation of what I said with what I actually said. The other person who responded to you clearly knew what I was referencing and it has been explained to you multiple times before and after his post. You being too dense to acknowledge is just your ignorance talking.

There was nothing given to misinterpret, had you given a real suggestion in your post it would not have been used as such, rather than making sense and saying "get an i5-i7", you used some odd reasoning with a make believe PS5. You can call me ignorant and try to insult me all day if you like, however, it still stands that I gave facts and points about the current and upcoming game that were helpful, yet you choose to take it personal.

First you say I am right and am really agreeing with you and now its a misinterpretation? Again, for the last time, I never agreed or disagreed with anything you said, I used your post as a point of going to far either way with how current games are viewed and gave info on the current and upcoming game to the OP, it was simple, to the point and easy to understand. You then asked what my point was and I said "a game like ARMA which has always been demanding on CPU's", and I also corrected you on things you thought were done by the GPU, which in ARMA are handled by the CPU, as I thought the question was about what it meant to the thread and not what it meant to your post, as I did not think you had taken it personally.....Yet. You then go off about me building some "8 core dual xeon system" out of no where and ask what "exactly is your point? Or more accuratly, your point as it relates to the actual thread?", which I had just answered and you have been asking the same question this whole time which is very easy to get if you read the post. However, you seem to keep on rehashing this idea that I am after you and am agreeing or disagreeing with you in some way.

There is a fair amount of good advice in this thread, mixed in with some silliness.
First - for CPU power - 2600k or IVB is plenty for gaming.
However, if you want/need more than 16GB of RAM, look at the x79 systems. 8 DIMM slots help. Also more PCIe (and gen3) if you want to run dual or triple SLI, or raid cards.

Oh, and "Xeon" does not require ECC. That is a motherboard implementation decision. I run an E5-2690 with standard DDR3 on an Intel DX79SI.

I am sure there is more but I hate typing on this iPad.

You should also note that a RAM Disk or SSD can be very helpful, when dealing with long draw distance this game has always had a problem with items "popping" in and out because of the lack of load screens and how the game is always streaming new data off the HDD it can make for a very unsmooth game play.

 

[RamonGTP]

You're absolutly right. The dual xeon system came out of no where, by me....


Because it wasn't mentioned in the original post, by the original poster, who is in-fact, not me.

I'd respond to the rest of your post but its pretty clear you don't even know who said what, much less what was meant by it.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

You're absolutly right. The dual xeon system came out of no where, by me....


Because it wasn't mentioned in the original post, by the original poster, who is in-fact, not me.

I'd respond to the rest of your post but its pretty clear you don't even know who said what, much less what was meant by it.

The dual xeon comment was aimed at me, when I had already said before you that a dual socket system is not needed, because you did not read my first post and thought I was pushing for such a system. Which I can understand, it's that you have now had time to see that post and link it to the other that I don't get why you keep on bringing it back up.

I also know full well who said what, I quoted it all in my post, it's very clear. What you do not get is that I am, nor have I ever been, agreeing or disagreeing with you, I am not. Yes, my statements will agree or disagree with you on whatever points you were making, what you don't understand is that I do not care if they agree with you or not, I made simple fact statements, I was not trying to agree or disagree with you, I could have just as easy quoted the person who mentioned i3's or the like, your post was the newest, so it got quoted.

When you asked what my point was and I answered, it would have been simple to say "ah, no I was not under playing the CPU role and an i5-i7 will be enough", rather you wanted to play dumb with the whole "whats your point" again question and push it further. I then gave the same answer again and said that had you made it clear and mentioned actual hardware everything would have been different and "Don't get your panties in a bunch." because it was not aimed at you, and I did not care if you agreed or disagreed. You then go on to ask the same question again and again and try and make it seem like I care which way you were trying to go. With me repeating over and over again that I do not care to agree or disagree with you, that my post was to give facts and info the the OP about the game and what to look out for. I have no idea how more simple I can put it.