Server CPU's for gaming

[RamonGTP]

I get it... Let me clarify since I think I see where this all went south. My very first post in this thread was directed towards the OP, not your post preceding mine. I fully agree with what you said there.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

I get it... Let me clarify since I think I see where this all went south. My very first post in this thread was directed towards the OP, not your post preceding mine. I fully agree with what you said there.

Yes, which you then thought it was the other way and me trying to disagree/agree, and pretty much a page and a half of cross talk because of the different starting points.

I fully believe this game will make use of a nice new quad, the only worry I have is them stating that physics (PhysX) will be run off the CPU along with everything else so it works cross AMD also, from what I have seen. And with the new added rag doll and everything is said to be destructible, every tree, building etc etc, once that new 20km draw distance comes into play, I am thinking it will give the CPU a good work out, however I doubt most people will be maxing out the draw distance like in A2, which was one of the biggest frame rate killers.

I would not mind seeing this game support more than 4 cores, I always like seeing things progress before the hardware is out, then again it might also help out the AMD chips being able to make more use of the extra threads.

 

[Vaulter98c]

Blue, how can you be some blind?

He used the PS5 things as a refernece to time, I have no idea how you could be so dull to not see that, it's really not that hard to see

Don't waste your money, there aren't any games that require that much CPU power and by the time PS5 comes the system you build today will be old and devalued. Actually, you probably won't even own it anymore.

He says this for 2 reasons.

1) PS3 vs its gen of hardware is known for having and using more cores than any of its same gen brothers. So it goes to guess that by current logic by the time PS5 comes out (if sony sticks with the cell) it will have a ton of cores. Anyone with half a brain can deduce that much

2) he said BY THE TIME. Do i need to spell this out for you?

T

I

M

E

TIME, by the TIME a system comes out with as many cores as the OP's post (up to 32 threads) and by the TIME any game actually uses that many whatever the OP builds today will be old

Read that last line again, remember the word TIME, and then look at the quoted text...

Wow, it all fits together. How about that.

And to the OP and anyone arguing about Arma or any game using more than 4 cores coming out this year, not gonna happen. Sure, MAYBE if youre luck you'll see a game that will be able to push some load out to cores5 and 6, maybe even 7 and 8, but there won't be a game pushed out this year that can take advantage of more than 4 cores. Promise you that. I'll bet my house on that. Think of it this way. The game comes out this year. So it's been in dev since AT LEAST 2010, maybe earlier. No way they would have built a game to need 8+ cores just to run smoothly. Hell, I doubt any game this year even with tag on support will use 8 threads. And none will use 8 threads efficiently. Once you start adding cores, even at the same speed (which you WILL not get on SB/IB CPU's) you lose effectiveness. My 12 core 24 thread 12GB RAM 5640 SR2 rig at 3.6Ghz couldnt even keep up with my one generation older 6 GB RAM i7 920 at 3.5 Ghz with HT disabled in any game at the time, it was just creating more overhead.

And stop talking about every little detail of the game as if it's its own thread and each sperate thread gets its own private CPU thread. Your lack of knowledge in how this works is mind blowing. Literally, my mind hole just got blown all over the wall. You think adding Physx to CPU's will overtax a quad? Look how many games for years have had Physx, and other Physics apps, on the CPU, they havent bogged down one yet. And, why do you think that all these individual little areas of a game will have their own CPU? Since the dawn of CPU gaming as we know it (we'll say doom/wolfie just for shits and giggles) all those things you mention, terrain physics, bullet physics, sound, lighting, draw distance, destruction physics, AI, multiplayer, etc etc etc etc, have all been handled by a single core CPU, why do you think all of a sudden that games will put each task to its own CPU and then get bogged?

I fully believe this game will make use of a nice new quad, the only worry I have is them stating that physics (PhysX) will be run off the CPU along with everything else so it works cross AMD also, from what I have seen. And with the new added rag doll and everything is said to be destructible, every tree, building etc etc

Quit this method of thinking right now. Dev's are going to design the game to push as many of these functions onto as few as cores as possible, 2 to be ideal, but one in dire cases, because if they spent their time focusing on spreading out the load to all available CPUs (which no games do) instead of focusing on keeping the core count as low as they can, they'd be cutting off a HUGE chunk of their market they could sell to. Dev's design the games to work for the largest number of clients, in order to maximize posable sales. The game, and all games, are/is designed to NOT spread out, it's designed to stay on fewer cores. And since it's on fewer cores, a Quad at 4.2 Ghz will smoke a 48 core at 2.2 Ghz. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this point because I fear that there will be people too blind to see it as it is. But yet the question was asked and here we are on page 3 already, and the point still hasnt gotten across, so I guess I expect too much from people

Get a 2500k/2600k, OC it to 4.2 at least and youll be fine. You don't mention a resolution, I'm assuming single monitor 19x12, if so go with a 670 GPU and 8GB RAM. if anyhing higher in res, a 680. You don't need to go overboard to build a bitchin gamer rig. sub 200$ CPU OC'd @ 4.2 or higher (one click pretty much), 25$ TRUE spirit, 150-200 nice ass mobo, sub 100$ 8 GB RAM, and a 400-500 GPU, 750-850 watt PSU to keep in the nice part of the power band and 2x 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III drives and you'll be stomping over almost any rig out there right now in games. Buy a used CPU and Heatsink, even the RAM since those wont really ever go bad, new mobo GPU PSU and HDD's, mostly for warranty reasons.

175 - i5 2500k @ 4.2 Ghz
175 - nice Z68 or more pimped out Mobo
90 - Nice 1866 or 1600 DDR3 RAM, 8GB
110-130 - Nice 750 - 850 (Corsair TX series used for reference) PSU, efficient too
400-500 - 670 or 680 GPU
200 - 2x 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III drives in RAID for great speed and capacity

Youre looking between 1000-1200$ for one kick ass gaming rig that will eat the ass right out of any multi core rig you could buy. I'd bet my 48 core (4x 12 cores) rig on that, or either of my past SR rigs (one 8 core/16 thread @ 4Ghz, one 12 core/24 thread @ 3.6 Ghz), or even my old 8 socket 32 core rig.

GAMES ARE NOT designed well enough to use cores. Like many people here have said, and I'm saying, speed trumps cores. And it will continue to do so for the next to years.

But you know what, since the OP's unwillingness to see the facts is about on par with Blue's inability to see infront of himself, please, spend 4000 on a dual 2011 rig that you can't overclock. Then make a thread with your in game performance and how proud you are that you didnt listen to anyone (that you asked for advice Ironicly). Then, I will buy that game just to trounce you with my i3 2125 and i5 2500k, just so I can shit all over your xeon's scores. Please, after 3 pages if you still havent gotten the hint, please buy that system, make my day, I've dealt with idiots too much today, would be so worth the laughs to see you spend that much

 

[Deleted member 184142]

And to the OP and anyone arguing about Arma or any game using more than 4 cores coming out this year, not gonna happen. Sure, MAYBE if youre luck you'll see a game that will be able to push some load out to cores5 and 6, maybe even 7 and 8, but there won't be a game pushed out this year that can take advantage of more than 4 cores. Promise you that. I'll bet my house on that. Think of it this way. The game comes out this year. So it's been in dev since AT LEAST 2010, maybe earlier. No way they would have built a game to need 8+ cores just to run smoothly. Hell, I doubt any game this year even with tag on support will use 8 threads. And none will use 8 threads efficiently. Once you start adding cores, even at the same speed (which you WILL not get on SB/IB CPU's) you lose effectiveness. My 12 core 24 thread 12GB RAM 5640 SR2 rig at 3.6Ghz couldnt even keep up with my one generation older 6 GB RAM i7 920 at 3.5 Ghz with HT disabled in any game at the time, it was just creating more overhead.

Ever heard of UE3? It has been supporting more than 4 cores in games for a long time, the diffrence is that most of these games are GPU limited, and do not make much use of the CPU, while ARMA has always been heavy on CPU use, however there are games made with UE3 that do use more than 4 cores, such as Civilization V (see screen below), and there are other games that can use more as well, have your deed handy?

I never said anything about it needing more than 4 cores to run smoothly, the OP wants to be able to max everything as well as playing on a Dell 3007WFP (2560x1600), recommended requirements and requirements to max out a game at very high res are not even in the same ballpark, nice strawman you set up there.

And stop talking about every little detail of the game as if it's its own thread and each sperate thread gets its own private CPU thread. Your lack of knowledge in how this works is mind blowing. Literally, my mind hole just got blown all over the wall. You think adding Physx to CPU's will overtax a quad? Look how many games for years have had Physx, and other Physics apps, on the CPU, they havent bogged down one yet. And, why do you think that all these individual little areas of a game will have their own CPU? Since the dawn of CPU gaming as we know it (we'll say doom/wolfie just for shits and giggles) all those things you mention, terrain physics, bullet physics, sound, lighting, draw distance, destruction physics, AI, multiplayer, etc etc etc etc, have all been handled by a single core CPU, why do you think all of a sudden that games will put each task to its own CPU and then get bogged?

You must like creating strawmen to knock over for some reason. Please do show where I said anything about the things being run on the CPU having their own thread, thread count was almost never talked about. Also, PhysX has always run poorly on CPU vs GPU, and "all those things" that I mentioned are being run off the CPU on top of what was run on it before, which already taxed highend quadcore CPU's of the day. When talking about other shooter games you can not bring ARMA into the same fold, how its built and run had always been much more demanding than other games, and is still a demanding game today.

Quit this method of thinking right now. Dev's are going to design the game to push as many of these functions onto as few as cores as possible, 2 to be ideal, but one in dire cases, because if they spent their time focusing on spreading out the load to all available CPUs (which no games do) instead of focusing on keeping the core count as low as they can, they'd be cutting off a HUGE chunk of their market they could sell to. Dev's design the games to work for the largest number of clients, in order to maximize posable sales. The game, and all games, are/is designed to NOT spread out, it's designed to stay on fewer cores. And since it's on fewer cores, a Quad at 4.2 Ghz will smoke a 48 core at 2.2 Ghz. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this point because I fear that there will be people too blind to see it as it is. But yet the question was asked and here we are on page 3 already, and the point still hasnt gotten across, so I guess I expect too much from people

Again, you are talking about whats needed to be playable, when we are talking about whats needed to max out a game, they are not the same and you know this, stop setting up strawmen and acting like you are something great.