CoD new engine vs IL2 old engine & graphics

[The Kraken]

As you noted yourself, Il2 is more limited by the amount of objects you put into a mission, not the graphics themselves. Cliffs of Dover will hopefully have some optimisations here, and multicore processing will also help to a certain degree compared to Il2, but in the end you will always need more CPU power with more active objects in a mission.

Which is also the main difference to WoP, because not only is the world there tiny and without too many AI objects, but CoD will definitely have more refined flight model, ballistics, damage and radar/line of sight calculations (and who knows what else). So don't expect the same performance there.

Graphics alone should probably not be too demanding; we've heard and seen quite often by now how much the game is to support mid-range hardware (whatever that means in the end). I'd expect that CoD can look much better and still run faster than Il2 when you take out the AI aspect (i.e. free flight missions). That is also true for WoP of course.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

As you noted yourself, Il2 is more limited by the amount of objects you put into a mission, not the graphics themselves. Cliffs of Dover will hopefully have some optimisations here, and multicore processing will also help to a certain degree compared to Il2, but in the end you will always need more CPU power with more active objects in a mission.

Which is also the main difference to WoP, because not only is the world there tiny and without too many AI objects, but CoD will definitely have more refined flight model, ballistics, damage and radar/line of sight calculations (and who knows what else). So don't expect the same performance there.

Graphics alone should probably not be too demanding; we've heard and seen quite often by now how much the game is to support mid-range hardware (whatever that means in the end). I'd expect that CoD can look much better and still run faster than Il2 when you take out the AI aspect (i.e. free flight missions). That is also true for WoP of course.

Good points, that makes since. Hope I can play with at least medium settings with what I have, could be a while before I can afford new MB,Ram,Core i7 and latest display adapter.

But one of my points was, because of the new graphics engine am thinking there will be improvements across the board (no matter what your hardware is) like no more buildings popping in and out. That is huge to me.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

You can answer your own question with a high degree of accuracy by running FSX on your PC. [spoiler: CPU = bottleneck]

So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

With the arrival of Sandy Bridge it's a pretty easy choice. Either go for the Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K. Custom PC magazine was raving about them - the i5-2500K in particular, which beats or matches the mighty Core i7-980X in many tasks for a quarter of the price. (no thanks to Intel for the confusing naming scheme )

Planning to upgrade myself in the near future with the i5-2500K.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K

The more I think about it, sure would like to see CoD in all its glory. Laying off of the credit card is going to take a lot of will power on my part.

I see hardware prices are much better than years past............

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...664&CatId=6982

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...013&CatId=3433

Looks like I could get it done for about $500. Very tempting

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by kendo65

With the arrival of Sandy Bridge it's a pretty easy choice. Either go for the Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K. Custom PC magazine was raving about them - the i5-2500K in particular, which beats or matches the mighty Core i7-980X in many tasks for a quarter of the price. (no thanks to Intel for the confusing naming scheme )

Planning to upgrade myself in the near future with the i5-2500K.

Uh what? No it doesnt, please post where you saw this. Its alittle misleading, the only way it could beat the 980 is if it was running a limited amount of threads, like say 4 (1 per core) while the 980 has 6 cores but can only use 4 threads and since the quad has a higher native clock it beats it. But the new intel cpu's are a rip off, most have integrated graphics which you have to pay for in the chip cost and are a money waste. Also they are no faster than the previous I7 generation, what they did was change the architecture from 40->32nm which reduces net heat from the CPU and therefore allows a higher stock clock speed. In reality a normal i7 (like a 930/940) can outperform the new range when OC'ed properly. The current new range of intel CPU's are there mid-low range sandy bridge, the high range wont come until end 2011/2012 so until then the 980+ is king (also is 32nm unlike other 1g i7s).

[David198502]

i considered to buy the i7-2600k gpu, as its pretty cheap. but as i dont have a clue about computers my question is if i have to buy anything else to make it run in my rig.or can i just buy the prozessor and put it in?

[Troll2k]

The new 2nd generation i5 and i7 cpus(Sandy Bridge) use a new socket.The 1155.It requires a new motherboard to match.I believe the new motherboards also use ddr3 ram.So depending on what you have now you might need that too.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Uh what? No it doesnt, please post where you saw this. Its alittle misleading, the only way it could beat the 980 is if it was running a limited amount of threads, like say 4 (1 per core) while the 980 has 6 cores but can only use 4 threads and since the quad has a higher native clock it beats it. But the new intel cpu's are a rip off, most have integrated graphics which you have to pay for in the chip cost and are a money waste. Also they are no faster than the previous I7 generation, what they did was change the architecture from 40->32nm which reduces net heat from the CPU and therefore allows a higher stock clock speed. In reality a normal i7 (like a 930/940) can outperform the new range when OC'ed properly. The current new range of intel CPU's are there mid-low range sandy bridge, the high range wont come until end 2011/2012 so until then the 980+ is king (also is 32nm unlike other 1g i7s).

I got the info from a magazine - Custom PC (UK) that did a fairly extensive test of the Core i5-2500K and the i7-2600K in their current issue.

I don't have the magazine to hand (in work currently), but the gist was that in all but very highly multi-threaded applications the Sandy Bridge processors are on a par or even beating the 980.

For gaming their recommendation was the i5-2500K. For video editing the i7-2600K was better. The i5-2500K was roughly on a par with the 980 in gaming (1fps lower in Crysis in their test, better in some other games).

As for being a "rip-off" they're actually very good value - gaming performance comparable to a 980 for a quarter of the price. (I take your point though that the 980 probably STILL is the ultimate processor for those wanting the maximum flexibility or for dealing with heavily multi-threaded apps, but for practical gaming and general purposes I think the Sandy Bridge are a great deal)

Others can make up their own minds but personally I can settle for a 1 fps difference if I'm saving 600 notes

(By the way the 'K' versions of the new processors are massively overclockable too)

---------------------------------

Edit: 28 Jan
I've read reviews in 2 other magazines since writing the above and they both back up Custom PC's view. In fact, if anything I wasn't forceful enough in my response above. I'll remedy that here - Sandy Bridge is described by Custom PC as "rendering almost every other processor redundant and pointless. The only reason you should look any further than the fastest LGA1155 CPU you can afford is if you use heavily multi-threaded, professional applications..."

The other mags (PCPRo and PC Format [if I remember correctly ) are making equally enthusiastic noises.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by kendo65

I got the info from a magazine - Custom PC (UK) that did a fairly extensive test of the Core i5-2500K and the i7-2600K in their current issue.

I don't have the magazine to hand (in work currently), but the gist was that in all but very highly multi-threaded applications the Sandy Bridge processors are on a par or even beating the 980.

For gaming their recommendation was the i5-2500K. For video editing the i7-2600K was better. The i5-2500K was roughly on a par with the 980 in gaming (1fps lower in Crysis in their test, better in some other games).

As for being a "rip-off" they're actually very good value - gaming performance comparable to a 980 for a quarter of the price. (I take your point though that the 980 probably STILL is the ultimate processor for those wanting the maximum flexibility or for dealing with heavily multi-threaded apps, but for practical gaming and general purposes I think the Sandy Bridge are a great deal)

Others can make up their own minds but personally I can settle for a 1 fps difference if I'm saving 600 notes

(By the way the 'K' versions of the new processors are massively overclockable too)

Yep, the 980 is not at all a good choice for cost v performance unless you want to have it for a long long time (as I intend to use it for 4+ years).
The main thing I was trying to say is the sandbridge CPU is in fact no better then the 40nm i7 range, all you need to do is OC the i7 and they are about the same power, except SB cpu's are more expensive and contain a inbuilt gpu which is completely uneeded.
Basically current SB are glorified laptop cpus

(there is some talk I believe of the late 2011 SB cpus being 1366 socket. But get a decent mobo so you can upgrade later, it will save you $ in the long run.