Cores on cpu?

[ArtMan_NL]

I have plans to buy a new main board and cpu (i3 or i5)

 

Has the latest DCS versions advantages of a multicore cpu? I have read on a hardware website that the i3 is sufficient for full HD gaming. But the i3 has only 2 cores and the i5 has 4 cores.

 

Use A10 4 cores of a cpu?

 

Thanks for any help.

 

/Arthur

[Drona]

As far as I know, DCSW only uses 2 cores. One for sound, and one for everything else.

[Rhinox]

I do not recommend i3 for DCS. It is low-end cpu, targeted at office-pc etc. Number of cores/threads is not the only difference. For example, they have different amount of level-3 cache:

 

i3 has 3MB L3-cache

i5 has 6MB L3-cache (except for low-TDP models i5-23xxT and i5-34xxT which have 3MB too)

i7 has 8MB L3-cache (LGA1155) or 10/12/15MB L3-cache (LGA2011, depending on type)

 

(all desktop cpus)

[159th_Falcon]

True, but;

DCS is already underway on becoming multicore. How long this will take though is still very much the question.

Could be 6 months, could be 5 years.

 

So it depends on how long your system has to last. If its 2 years or longer i'd say go whit the i5.

[alexej21]

i3 is sufficient for full HD gaming

 

- of what, Angry Birds ? :lol:

[EtherealN]

i3 is sufficient for full HD gaming

 

- of what, Angry Birds ? :lol:

 

Now now, to be fair:

 

 

With configuration:

 

Retrieved from: http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

 

For general-purpose gaming they'll usually hit a graphics card bottleneck before bottlenecking on the CPU, even when said CPU is an i3.

But that's the mainstream stuff, I don't have any numbers on DCS using current-generation i3's and comparing them to current-generation i5/i7, so I would probably still recommend a K-series i5 part.

[alexej21]

EtherealN:

I got your point. I was smiling to that general comment:

i3 is sufficient for full HD gaming

 

Because it reminds me the famous: 640kb ought to be enough for anybody

(Even if Bill has never said that)

Talking about DCS and CPU without joking:

The best CPU on the market is not enough. There is no home computer which can run DCS smoothly. Buy the best which you can afford and prey.

[ArtMan_NL]

Ok, thanks guys. I'll go for the i5.

 

Ciao,

 

/Arthur

[Madone]

i3 is sufficient for full HD gaming

 

- of what, Angry Birds ? :lol:

 

Funny but wrong, my i3 2100 is running DCS on high/med settings at 40-45 FPS average, and the other games I play are fine too, btw my PC has a far better price/performances ratio than a lot of high end PCs on the market, of course with less performances, it's a ratio don't get me wrong.

Peoples shouldn't underestimate the dual cores which are still working pretty fine in 2013 games (I play Arma 3 alpha like a charm on very high settings for example, same for Planetside 2...) The i3 2100 for example at stock clock overrides some Phenom x4 955 also, so if you think performances depends of the number of cores, you're pretty missing the point.

To conclude, if you have a slashed budget, go for an i3 (not below the 2100), if you don't, go for an i5 as you seem to do.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Madone

[alexej21]

I understand what you wrote and I don't want to start a flame here.

 

On my spec. I5 2500K @4,5GHz, 7970 3GB I get <18 FPS during very stress scenes like high traffic at airfield, a lot of fire on ground etc...

 

I have most of the time 40 - 60 FPS (VSync limite, playing on TV), but stil many drops below 20.

 

Not talking about CBU, P51 guns firing, Smoking from damaged plane after new patch etc...

 

I'm sorry, but I don't trust you to have smooth play on your spec. Nobody has this game smooth.

 

Peace :smilewink:

[Madone]

I understand what you wrote and I don't want to start a flame here.

 

On my spec. I5 2500K @4,5GHz, 7970 3GB I get <18 FPS during very stress scenes like high traffic at airfield, a lot of fire on ground etc...

 

I have most of the time 40 - 60 FPS (VSync limite, playing on TV), but stil many drops below 20.

 

Not talking about CBU, P51 guns firing, Smoking from damaged plane after new patch etc...

 

I'm sorry, but I don't trust you to have smooth play on your spec. Nobody has this game smooth.

 

Peace :smilewink:

 

 

Look at the size of my screen...

[alexej21]

19 inches but I don't understand...

[EtherealN]

19 inches, probably lower resolution, thus much lower strain on the hardware.

 

If it's one of the old 1280x800, that's about 1 million pixels.

Compared to 1920x1080 ("HD"), which is about 2 million pixels.

 

If there's a GPU bottleneck happening otherwise, having half the pixel count to push would do a pretty big difference, as I'm sure you'll agree. :)

[Madone]

^^^this but it's 1440*900

[alexej21]

I was thinking that, but I don't understand how the lower resolutin matter in the CPU thread.

 

We were not talking about GPU at all. Even if we would then 1440*900 vs 1920x1080 doesn't make any big difference.

 

 

There are people who play DCS and Arma 3 on high-end PCs and complains about performance and there are also people who play DCS and Arma 3 on medium perf. PCs and have stable 50 -60 FPS on all Ultra... :music_whistling:

 

I belong to the first group.

 

But it doesn't matter, enjoy the game !

[ArtMan_NL]

Thanks for the reply's guys. Maybe i'll consider the Intel Core i5-3350P. This one is cheaper because the lack of a built in video card. It is doing 155 Euro at this moment while the i3 is around 100 Euro in the shops.

 

/Arthur

[Madone]

I was thinking that, but I don't understand how the lower resolutin matter in the CPU thread.

 

We were not talking about GPU at all. Even if we would then 1440*900 vs 1920x1080 doesn't make any big difference.

 

 

There are people who play DCS and Arma 3 on high-end PCs and complains about performance and there are also people who play DCS and Arma 3 on medium perf. PCs and have stable 50 -60 FPS on all Ultra... :music_whistling:

 

I belong to the first group.

 

But it doesn't matter, enjoy the game !

 

 

The resolution does impact the performances, that's what you can observe in a lot of in game tests, the GPU isn't working alone you know. Though don't get me wrong, I could put a screenshot of my DCS settings, but I'm far from the full High settings, I do some compromise of course, visibility on medium, trees at 6000m, shadows on medium, water on low, AAx4... it's closer from medium than high settings.

 

I don't complain about performances, I know my PC is cheap and I'm happy with that, I mean, all the games I play are ... playable lol and DCS is pretty decent with that config, and I get 20 FPS minimum in a huge fight and close to the ground (1 FPS with the CBU slideshow of course) and as you said I really enjoy the game, though I'd like some more visibility but I don't want a 30 FPS average.