hello, game players.
is there anyone use the I7(4 core, 8HT) or 6 core,12HT. if it is, can you show the game use the cores&HT totally, just send post the photos of task manager of WIN10.
thanks
( I have a i5 2500K, but I feel it is not powerful, all the cores are full used. I want to buy a new cpu)
An over-clocked i5 2500K really isn't that far behind more modern processors for gaming performance. Unless you are heavy into a few other areas it isn't really worth upgrading. For gaming an i7 also adds very very little over an i5. If I had your system I'd wait for either Kaby lake, maybe even Cannon lake.
Here are a few modern games with the CPU benchmark. Non-overclocked i5 2500k does very well and most can get a very good and stable over-clock on it - more than 4GHz. Even project cars is not far off really and that is a CPU heavy game.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/1000-project-cars-benchmarks/page5.html
Having said that, I would also be curious to know if the game took advantage of hyper-threading or a 6 core CPU. I expect it will take advantage of the 6 cores, less sure about hyper-threading advantage.
This game appears to be, so far, much more dependent on the GPU. That's where you need to spend your money.
Dont change 2500k that Cpu was build specialy for gaming, thats a fantastic serie that for gaming its + then enouth.
I have one on my old pc ( I5 2500k/8gb ddr3 1333/Gtx 780 ) and always love the performance when i saw i7 be worst, and the overcloking its amazing .
For gaming the future its on GPUs and we all hope that Gpu will take all that system needs,and Cpu over we dont need them.
In 2010 Gpus where 14 times faster then Cpus imagine now in 2015.
I will disagree. You still need a powerful CPU.
i5 2500k OC'ed to 4.4Ghz (a very attainable speed) is not the most powerful CPU but it is a powerful CPU. You are developing the game so this might be dumb but I'm going to bet against you and say the i5 will be sufficient. (At least for the next year/18 months)
(I don't think there is a game on the planet where it isn't sufficient and a i7 6700K is, so if you are right yours would be the first)
Our game will scale with more and faster cores. Of course, if your GPUs aren't fast enough, the CPU will be waiting on them.
Scaling is very cool and I am very glad the game has it. With Navy and even bigger maps in the future, which tends to equal more units, and maybe 8 player games at some point I have no doubt a more powerful CPU will be really worth it.
I ran the Extreme benchmark at 1920x1200 on my brothers computer just the other day, his is a i5 6600k with a 7970'OC. The average frame rate was in the 30s but the CPU frame rate was 110 or something, so that is a nice example of that
I would still say to the OP there is no need to rush into a purchase now though.
Yey for i3
People need to run benchmarks at some kind of agreed-upon settings to get answers. My six-year-old quad core with hyperthreading is more than enough to run this game according to the benchmarks I've run. It's the GPU that matters.
The benchmark seems reasonable at testing the GPU but not great at the CPU. I have seen screen shots of players with a huge number of units (far more than I tend to build). Now potentially times that by 6 on huge maps. The benchmark doesn't currently simulate anything close to that for stress testing the CPU.
I have, perhaps too indirectly, asked about CPU variations and their impacts on benchmark numbers and gotten little-to-no feedback. It's all about the GPU, I'm hearing.
There are two different benchmarks, one of which benchmarks the CPU. That's the one that folks should be posting and comparing whether we think the benchmark is simulating huge unit counts or not, I would think.
Unfortunately at the moment the DX12 CPU benchmark crashes for me when it tries to load the results page. Seems it's a bug effecting a lot of players.
But it did play exactly the same benchmark so I am not sure what it is doing. The normal benchmark does also give CPU results. Are they different?
Play ashes now with only DX 12 always crash so i can only play DX 11.
For now the DX12 has been quite disappointing,and DX 11 is more fast and more optimized ..
Nvidea really has much work ahead, i dont see any point for now play with DX 12 .
That video is from the Build i have best performance ,with new update i have lost about 55 fps and thats too mush for a almost 900 euros card .
Thanks for replys above, in fact , I have a computer, I5 2500K(OC 4.2Ghz), 16GB DDR3(because I see this game recommended ), AMD R9390(8GB memory, just bought last month, because I notice this game can be better performance use the GCN.--my original video card is 560Ti, 2GB--ye, that is right selecting)256GB SSDwin10 64Bit(the DX12 is really good for this game compare the WIN7 64 DX11)play the game in 1920*1080 size, standard video configuration by this game
I realy like the "war"(not battle or fight) , so I usually play the 3V3 models with AI by big maps.first, the game is smooth, but when my unit quantity is over 5000, the game usually "frozen"--all the units can,t be moved.the game can,t be go on.
I see the task manager, all the 4 cores are fully load 100%, the memory is only used about 4GB(why ask the 16GB?--should be more big maps in the near version? ) , the GPU is fully load 100%, but only 3.8GB video memory was used.I want to the war , I want the more and more AI&units fight with me.so that is why I want to use a new CPU. I heard the 6 core(12HT) or 8 cores(16HT) --even FX8350 --should be better than the 4 cores I 5 2500K. so if you have the cpu, pls post the task manager picture when the game full loading?
at last, the game is RTS, I still think the CPU is better than GPU
That is a very nice system. I would wait till full release to see how your CPU does as what you are experiencing may be a bug, or at the very least they are still optimising.
If I was going to build a nice high-end system which should last a fair few years but doesn't cost silly amounts of money I would be tempted by the i7 5820k (Haswell-E). It is 6 core, can be clocked above 4Ghz and the motherboards support ddr4 RAM, USB 3.1, M.2 and has more PCI-E lanes. Or if you an wait a little longer wait for the Broadwell-E and see what that brings. (more cache, more PCI-E lanes and more efficient than haswell etc. And maybe up to 10 cores if rumours are to be believed and you have a lot of money ))
Decided to compare the multithreading between DX11 and DX12:
DX11:
DX12:
As you can see both DX11 and DX12 can utilize more than 12 threads in this game. DX12 shows a significantly improved resource allocation between threads, while DX11 shows the majority of the work load left to the primary thread.
wow, thanks for sharing. DX12 CPU usage so steady and equal across all those cores, very impressive.
The CPU benchmark crashes the game to desktop for me as well. However, if I immediately restart the game, the benchmark completes properly.
The CPU benchmark assumes you have an infinitely fast GPU. I'm starting a new thread for some of this...
Ye, I agree with you about the I7 5820K, and x99 MB. it is the lower cost. maybe we should wait for the game released totally.
ye, it is really impress me, can I ask it is a CPU benchmark too?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
