One thing I want to add:
The i5 is the better choice for gaming over the i7. Because the technology that disables unused cores and increases the GHz of the used cores is getting much better results on it. The i7 is for servers or highly multi-threaded applications. The i5 has better single core support.
However, I'd still agree that an i5 is a better choice for gaming as it is cheaper for little to no loss in performance. I'd only suggest the i7 if you plan on using your comp for some other heavily multi-threaded application (e.g. video editting or streaming).
Generally it OCs better and that's the only way you're gonna play this game on 100+ FPS.
Guy on aus server has a 4.5k that he said gets 200+ fps nearly all game, there must be some magic number between 3.5 to 4.5k CPU that just holds 80-100 FPS constantly. I've also never had my GPU bottleneck until the last 2 patches, not sure if it's because I'm running sweetfx with some shaders or what but I constantly go between 1-3 MS on GPU now.
200+ fps = he's lying to you. There isn't a number "between" 3.5 and 4.5, higher is better, 4.3 ISN'T better than 4.5. If you want to make the i7 run like an i5, turn off hyperthreading.
One thing I want to add:
The i5 is the better choice for gaming over the i7. Because the technology that disables unused cores and increases the GHz of the used cores is getting much better results on it. The i7 is for servers or highly multi-threaded applications. The i5 has better single core support.
However, I'd still agree that an i5 is a better choice for gaming as it is cheaper for little to no loss in performance. I'd only suggest the i7 if you plan on using your comp for some other heavily multi-threaded application (e.g. video editting or streaming).
My information may be outdated, but I read many technical detail more than a year ago about the i5 and the i7. At that time I built a new gaming pc for myself and wanted to know what the better CPU would be. I used some benchmarks, but also read into the technical architecture data. Sadly because it is so long ago I can't remember exactly the technical details now. But as far as I remember, the boost technology that gets more voltage to one core by disabling the other cores for single threaded applications were better on the i5. The i7 in return has a faster RAM access. So the overall result I got, was that i7 is good for multiple applications or multi threaded applications, but the i5 was better for more power on applications that use less cores (=games). Maybe that has changed in that year and my information may now be outdated. Sadly the benchmarks you listed ARE more gpu heavy games. I would like to see a test with PlanetSide2 or NS2 to really see the difference.
Anyway, many games are CPU bottlenecked right now. TF2, NS2 and PlanetSide2 are all more CPU heavy. Actually while building my new PC I kept my old GForce 8800 GTS until Christmas last year and it worked fine for most games. Skyrim, GTA, RAGE and also NS2 (the last one on low details) were all playable. The graphics card died at the end of last year and I got a 660Ti now. Now I can play NS2 and PlanetSide2 on very high detail with my native resolution of 1920x1080 running around 40-60 FPS ingame in NS2.
The reason the i7 doesn't offer much more to gaming is that most games don't support (or badly support) hyperthreading. Which is basically all the the i7 has to offer. So i7 runs on 4 threads instead of it's total 8. Performs the same as the i5, maybe better (i7 DOES offer more than hyperthreading, but if you buy it, you buy it for the hyperthreading), I don't know if NS2 supports hyperthreading, I doubt it.
My information may be outdated, but I read many technical detail more than a year ago about the i5 and the i7. At that time I built a new gaming pc for myself and wanted to know what the better CPU would be. I used some benchmarks, but also read into the technical architecture data. Sadly because it is so long ago I can't remember exactly the technical details now. But as far as I remember, the boost technology that gets more voltage to one core by disabling the other cores for single threaded applications were better on the i5. The i7 in return has a faster RAM access. So the overall result I got, was that i7 is good for multiple applications or multi threaded applications, but the i5 was better for more power on applications that use less cores (=games).
Bw, for those interested in analysing where all the CPU goes, running 'p_logall' will generate a time-stamped .plog file in NS2's app-data directory, which can then be analyzed by the the util/Perfanalyser.py script (requires python3).
Is there a way to do this on just the server or client if you're running a listen server?
I just checked the wikipedia on this, and while we all know, that wikipedia can't be fully trusted, I'm curious. On the german site is written, that the i5 can increase the clock rate better than the i7. On the english wikipedia article you can't find that. So I looked into the tables for the processors and as you can see yourself, the Turbo clock rate on many i5s is higher than on most i7s. But it sure depends on the generation you have. Just look for yourself:
I just checked the wikipedia on this, and while we all know, that wikipedia can't be fully trusted, I'm curious. On the german site is written, that the i5 can increase the clock rate better than the i7. On the english wikipedia article you can't find that. So I looked into the tables for the processors and as you can see yourself, the Turbo clock rate on many i5s is higher than on most i7s. But it sure depends on the generation you have. Just look for yourself:
Some i5's have higher turbo multipliers, but the important value regarding performance in NS2 is the max turbo clockspeed. As I've calculated below, i7's have at least equal if not higher max turbo clockspeeds than i5's (only included quadcore Sandy and Ivy CPUs to ensure comparing Apples-to-Apples).
Many of those higher turbo multipliers are achieved by reducing the base clockspeed (part of Intel's push to reduce their CPU power consumption). For example, the i5 2500T has a one-core turbo multiplier of 10, but would actually perform worse than a i7 2600 with a one-core turbo multiplier of 4 because its max turbo clockspeed is 3.3GHz (for the i5) compared to 3.8Ghz (for the i7).
Wow, thank you. So the german wikipedia article must be outdated. Anyway this is really interesting. Thanks again.
It's also longer ago than I thought, that I built my pc. Because I have an i5 750, with turbo 1/1/4/4. Compared to the i7 at this time (920-960) with 1/1/1/2 it was true for this generation. But you are right. Today the i7 may be the better choice.
I've currently got in my system an:
i5 2500 non k at stock (3.3ghz I think)
7970 HD 3GB
8GB of ram.
I get very playable performance, I check with the r_stats to see what my framerate and usually it sits at 70+fps on a decent server.
I also have a gtx 295, a 5850 graphics card. There's another desktop in my house that has a core 2 quad cpu. If you guys want, I can put together a video showcasing the graphics you would get and the performance with various combinations of this. I'll prolly just underclock my cpu to 2ghz or something rather than using the other computer, which has a terrible power supply. If you want me to do that, agree with my post and reply, otherwise I won't bother.
I can't say I'm extremely pleased... but I'm VERY slowly in the process of upgrading my system.
Core 2 Duo @ 2.3 ghz
Radeon HD 6670
4 GB RAM DDR2
The game play is great for me. Where I have trouble is spectating. I've been following NS2 for a while but when I want to try to cast a match, it slows noticeably and my drawing tool hardly works as I feel it should. So until I get my upgrade, no casting. But I can still play the hell out of this great game.
i7 3840QM @ 2.8Ghz (turbo 3.8).
FirePro M6000 with 2GB (overlocked to 880/1000).
16GB mem
SSD
1920x1080
I get like 50 FPS avarage with drops to 30 on maps like tram. With everything on LOW.
I'm not pleased with performance but that's not due to the stock 30 fps. It the shitty in-battle drops that I hate. I get decent FPS all the time but as soon as I get a couple models on screen PFS drops way to much.
I tested this yesterday (239) not looking at an ONOS i got 45 FPS. Looking at the onos it dropped to 30-35.
It's like someone said a couple posts back. I turned from being a OK skulk to wtf-is-happening all the time.
Performance is the biggest problem in this otherwise fantastic game. I still love NS2 but the perf is just bleh even with a near top-of-the-line GPU, CPU and SSD. It's not good to have skulks moving two body-lengths away in one frame.
Well UWE already knows people are always complaining about performance and they state they are working on it several times. So cannot really beat the same dead horse. Right now it's about playing the waiting game to see if the game logic is improved or not. The question is how long will it take?
Comments
Decals? They would need Decals for gorge tunnel perhaps?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/7
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-21.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-22.html
For most games, the bottleneck is the GPU so most of the benefits of upgrading to an i7 (more threads, bigger cache, etc) don't matter.
However, I'd still agree that an i5 is a better choice for gaming as it is cheaper for little to no loss in performance. I'd only suggest the i7 if you plan on using your comp for some other heavily multi-threaded application (e.g. video editting or streaming).
Guy on aus server has a 4.5k that he said gets 200+ fps nearly all game, there must be some magic number between 3.5 to 4.5k CPU that just holds 80-100 FPS constantly. I've also never had my GPU bottleneck until the last 2 patches, not sure if it's because I'm running sweetfx with some shaders or what but I constantly go between 1-3 MS on GPU now.
My information may be outdated, but I read many technical detail more than a year ago about the i5 and the i7. At that time I built a new gaming pc for myself and wanted to know what the better CPU would be. I used some benchmarks, but also read into the technical architecture data. Sadly because it is so long ago I can't remember exactly the technical details now. But as far as I remember, the boost technology that gets more voltage to one core by disabling the other cores for single threaded applications were better on the i5. The i7 in return has a faster RAM access. So the overall result I got, was that i7 is good for multiple applications or multi threaded applications, but the i5 was better for more power on applications that use less cores (=games). Maybe that has changed in that year and my information may now be outdated. Sadly the benchmarks you listed ARE more gpu heavy games. I would like to see a test with PlanetSide2 or NS2 to really see the difference.
Anyway, many games are CPU bottlenecked right now. TF2, NS2 and PlanetSide2 are all more CPU heavy. Actually while building my new PC I kept my old GForce 8800 GTS until Christmas last year and it worked fine for most games. Skyrim, GTA, RAGE and also NS2 (the last one on low details) were all playable. The graphics card died at the end of last year and I got a 660Ti now. Now I can play NS2 and PlanetSide2 on very high detail with my native resolution of 1920x1080 running around 40-60 FPS ingame in NS2.
Sandy: http://www.overclock.net/t/914262/official-the-sandy-bridge-5ghz-club
Ivy: http://www.overclock.net/t/678487/5ghz-overclock-club
The most important factors in getting a good OC appear to be your CPU cooling system and getting a good chip.
sv_p_logall
sv_p_endlog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Turbo_Boost
Its the column "Turbo":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors
Some i5's have higher turbo multipliers, but the important value regarding performance in NS2 is the max turbo clockspeed. As I've calculated below, i7's have at least equal if not higher max turbo clockspeeds than i5's (only included quadcore Sandy and Ivy CPUs to ensure comparing Apples-to-Apples).
Many of those higher turbo multipliers are achieved by reducing the base clockspeed (part of Intel's push to reduce their CPU power consumption). For example, the i5 2500T has a one-core turbo multiplier of 10, but would actually perform worse than a i7 2600 with a one-core turbo multiplier of 4 because its max turbo clockspeed is 3.3GHz (for the i5) compared to 3.8Ghz (for the i7).
It's also longer ago than I thought, that I built my pc. Because I have an i5 750, with turbo 1/1/4/4. Compared to the i7 at this time (920-960) with 1/1/1/2 it was true for this generation. But you are right. Today the i7 may be the better choice.
i5 2500 non k at stock (3.3ghz I think)
7970 HD 3GB
8GB of ram.
I get very playable performance, I check with the r_stats to see what my framerate and usually it sits at 70+fps on a decent server.
I also have a gtx 295, a 5850 graphics card. There's another desktop in my house that has a core 2 quad cpu. If you guys want, I can put together a video showcasing the graphics you would get and the performance with various combinations of this. I'll prolly just underclock my cpu to 2ghz or something rather than using the other computer, which has a terrible power supply. If you want me to do that, agree with my post and reply, otherwise I won't bother.
Like what?
Higher price tag and an increased sense of smug
Core 2 Duo @ 2.3 ghz
Radeon HD 6670
4 GB RAM DDR2
The game play is great for me. Where I have trouble is spectating. I've been following NS2 for a while but when I want to try to cast a match, it slows noticeably and my drawing tool hardly works as I feel it should. So until I get my upgrade, no casting. But I can still play the hell out of this great game.
FirePro M6000 with 2GB (overlocked to 880/1000).
16GB mem
SSD
1920x1080
I get like 50 FPS avarage with drops to 30 on maps like tram. With everything on LOW.
I'm not pleased with performance but that's not due to the stock 30 fps. It the shitty in-battle drops that I hate. I get decent FPS all the time but as soon as I get a couple models on screen PFS drops way to much.
I tested this yesterday (239) not looking at an ONOS i got 45 FPS. Looking at the onos it dropped to 30-35.
It's like someone said a couple posts back. I turned from being a OK skulk to wtf-is-happening all the time.
Trust me, I am too. Even more surprising is how well it runs Borderlands 2....
I thought this would be Natural Selection: Source so I am quite disappointed that I can't run the game with proper FPS
Thousands share this opinion even if it's not posted.