how many cores does clod use

[Rattlehead]

Upgrading always presents a few choice difficulties, especially now with Sandy Bridge, Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge all out this year.

For me, the 2500k seems like the best bang for the buck CPU, but what if Bulldozer proves as fast or faster for similar money? Then, there is Ivy Bridge that certainly will be faster than Sandy Bridge...decisions, decisions...on the other hand, if one keeps waiting for the new tech to arrive, one will wait forever.
Oh bugger.

[jayrc]

amd was my first choice but with everyone's performance issues in CloD I'm having a hard time pulling that trigger, Rof users are getting great performance with amd 965 and there overclocking them to 3.7 or 3.8 I believe without any problems. Think I might have to wait even longer still till this sim gets optimized. Anyone have any ideas on what bulldozer's bringing to the table?

[TonyD]

Ha! You’d have to be clairvoyant to know that. It is assumed that performance should match SB, although AMD claims better. It will only really be known when they arrive. Pricing will then depend on how they perform in relation to Intel’s offerings, although should be a bit keener.

I have no issues running CoD currently, with everything on ‘medium’, except Model, Effects and Terrain which I have on ‘high’ (shadows on, grass off) at 1920 x 1080. RoF I run at max. I also don’t OC my cpu, as it really makes very little difference – a couple of fps average in Black Death when raising it to 4.0Ghz. I’m not aware of any AMD cpu user having any particular hassle with CoD, other than what everyone else has, that is.

THG did a test with an i5 750 running at default speed and 4.0GHz, and there was a negligible difference in the frame rates over a number of games. Clocking your cpu will only produce a meaningful increase if it’s a bit too slow to start with, and even then the gain will not be great. There are certain routines that benefit when increasing your cpu speed, but games generally do not.

There is also no issue with running a nVidia gfx card in an AMD board; in fact THG did test each in each other’s boards at some stage, and surprisingly the GeForce was a bit quicker in the Ati board, than both the Ati card in the nVidia board, and the nVidia card in their board

[nearmiss]

The heat is building on this thread. Either bring it down or the thread will be locked.

Some of you need to go online combat and vent on some poor souls there.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by W0ef

Dude, you seriously need a mental health checkup, I'm trying to keep this post objective yet time and time again your resort to personal insults. Sad really but I refuse to bite.

I clearly mentioned the Nehalem 920 and 960, heck I can post several threads about the 950 as well if you want.

Now please at least learn to have a normal conversation, typing in caps wont make you put your point across, neither does constantly using the word idiot help stress it much.

So why don't you be a big boy for a change and come up with some proper links to reviews or unbiased tests showing how much of an impact HT has on games or how ANY of the Nehalem CPUs is prefferable over a SB 2500k or 2600k these days, or whatever it is you're trying to bring across?

You have not posted a SINGLE valid link so far, nothing.

Oh and cheers on having the best CPU in the market, you clearly have a lot of $ to throw around, grats bro, well done.

I'm not here to diss your setup, just to give the guy a proper recommendation on a gaming rig for around $1200,=

I'll happily take my 2500k and throw in say two XFIRE HD6970s or heck two GTX580s running in SLI, and hey, Ill buy me an SSD and some RAM too, for less then what your friggin processor costs.

You advicing him to get a Nehalem CPU these days with SB out is just too silly to even go into further, but I threw in ample links to point that out. You don't seem to like doing much reading though it seems. Otherwise you might have been able to get some sense.

Cheers.

P.S. About your first line. I wish you had recommended him an I7 SB at least, that would at least have reason behind it.

P.P.S. I have some funny links for you, yanno to lighten the mood a little

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/allcaps.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

Now, lets hope Nanny comes in soon huh?

Please cite were you mentioned the nehalem 920/960 directly without confusing them with another cpu. As the tests you posted show, the HT does give better performance, you have a % performance increase graph for the love of god. Then you carry it over to gamebenchmarks - they are not meant for more then 4 threads, and often less then that so it is not a fair assesment of ability. On the other hand your graph shows benchmarking software improving performance due to HT - this will only increase as programmers get better and games implement more threads. The reason I insulted you is because of idiot statements like this:
"Conclusion:
The i5-2500K is roughly as quick as, and sometimes quicker than, the i7-990X in all but the most heavily multi-threaded tasks. It's also very overclockable, and considerably cheaper. As a result, only those running professional-grade multi-thread-optimised applications should consider the i7-990X, and even then, you'd be better off buying in an i7-980X, which is nearly as fast but £50 cheaper."

Whats your point? You are not even talking about what I am, when did I EVER suggest a gulftown cpu? I didnt, you are putting up strayman arguments to knock down. My argument was that he should go for the SB i5, OR the older Nehalem i7 which has the same performance as the SB i5 when clocked at the same speed. Your links dont matter because they are IRRELEVANT to the argument I am making. He wanted the upgrade to an ivy bridge cpu = new cpu and new mobo. Its cheaper to buy a 1156 socket mobo which are very cheap now and a equavalently priced but low range 40nm i7 that will give par for par better value for money than a SB i5 because the i7 has HT, and the mobo required will be alot cheaper. The biggest change of SB is the nm shrink which allows them to default overclock the cpu and get better off the shelf performance when in reality it is just a shurnken version of the earlier processors in general. You are also being forced to pay for the added onboard gpu which he wont use.

Also love your self contradiction - you posted a chart showing that the SB i7 = SB i5 in game performance and based your argument off of that - then wtf would I suggest a SB i7 which is the most expensive options when you say HT doesnt matter? You keep contradicting yourself, not to mention arguing against a argument I NEVER made in the first place, check your ignorrance because theres no point in giving you links unless you are capable of reading in the first place.

Clock for clock example: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0k,2833-2.html

Bad OC change example: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0k,2833-9.html

Comparing a i7 SB and a i7 Nehalem: http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...dy-bridge.html

-SB of course wins in performance on equal ground (i7 vs i7) but if you consider a Nehalem i7 $ = SB i5 - then figure the i7 can use HT and the i5 cannot, then the i7 wins, not to mention the Mobo for it will be cheaper.