HD3650 is capable of DX10
All ATI (AMD) GPUs since HD2xxx series are capable of at least DX10.0
System Requirements?
- Thread starter rwil
- Start date
- Status
HD3650 is capable of DX10
All ATI (AMD) GPUs since HD2xxx series are capable of at least DX10.0
on AMD vs. IntelFrom test I have seen w7 is simply faster,than Vista and XP. Vista is slowest.
I wonder how w2000 would fare,it was godsent in my p3 700 times.
Drivers and Radeons:
Ugly thing,Oblivion forces me to stick with manufacturer drivers,few versions behind ati's, because it was almost instant system restart in my case.
Why not AMD processors,may I ask? Cheaper and more reliable. No i7 equivalent though.
In Poland i3 is not that much cheaper,than PhenomIIx4 955 BE with 4 cores,unlocked multiplier (which means it's pIIx4 965) . Quite fast at that,beats most,if not all intels for that price. Mobo can be also dirt cheap,as AMD doesn't like to introduce new CPU slot all the time.
Why use the Death Star when the Millennium Falcon is good enough?
Intel Hex vs. AMD Hex
Intel is paying more for same thing. Remember,we have different perspective,when it comes to income:good paid job in Poland nets comparable earnings to low paid one in UK.I don't know about other countries,but I suspect civilized ones are on same level as UK,more or less. Small match exercise for anyone:gaming Pc for 3000 PLN (about 900 $,around 620 pounds. Would you go for AMD or Intel in that case? OS can be skipped.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Intel is 'paying more for the same thing' as long as you leave the i7 out of the comparison. The i7, even the cheapest ones, blow everything AMD offers out of the water - for example the i7 920 costs about 260 euro's, way less than the fastest AMD CPU's.
All in all I would put my money for a processor on intel, for a GPU on ASUS right now.
All in all I would put my money for a processor on intel, for a GPU on ASUS right now.
You are forgetting mobo costs. Intel,right? New CPU,hello,new socket.
Intel faster at synthetic test is no news. It's been always like that. AMD is more gaming oriented. Not to mention so far,except packing/unpacking my old AXP 2400+ is fast enough for me.
All in all it's personal. Ati or Nvidia? Intel or AMD?
AMD lacks high end CPUs,comparable to strongest i7.
And P2 x6 is barely faster in gaming compared to P2 x4.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Care to elaborate?
There are btw some very interesting articles about building a gaming pc at tomshardware.com. Also it turns out that for gaming purposes, you really note the difference between a single and dual core system. A tripple core adds a little to the performance of a gaming system too, especially when multitasking. After that, a fourth, sixth or eight core adds little to a game's performance.
This has some interesting implications. For gaming purposes, there is a phenom II X3 processor with a tripple core - I forgot the name - that performs really well with games. It costs about $90. Add to that the fact that a decent AMD mobo can support even the latest processors because unlike intel, AMD systems are quite future proof. I still think that if you want to go for raw power you should get an i7, but AMD does indeed has some compelling alternatives.
On Newegg (USD)
i7 920 (four core) $279.99 @2.66GHz
Phenom II X4 940 BE $135.99 @3GHz
Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition $309.99@3.2GHz
so yeah...
Also if you have a game that can use dual cores, tri core is a big jump in system stability (system runs on third core)
Tylerryan79
Emperor
In my experiance the system doesnt need its own core. Unless your running background programs while gaming(burning a movie or some other cpu intensive program) you dont need to consider that. I have an i7860, and i feel like half the cores are never getting worked, for the most part. Im excited how civ v will have up to 8 threads, this will make the investment in more than 2 cores
worth it, i hope.
worth it, i hope.
aziantuntija
Prince
Im not sure has someone allready linked these because i admit that i didnt read the whole thread 
Here are some interesting things about civ5 cpu usage (cores) and directx11, theres also how did the civ4 use cpu and memory
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gdc-2010-borderlands,2580-2.html
urlremoved/2010/04/07/conversation-firaxis-developing-civ-v/
Here are some interesting things about civ5 cpu usage (cores) and directx11, theres also how did the civ4 use cpu and memory
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gdc-2010-borderlands,2580-2.html
urlremoved/2010/04/07/conversation-firaxis-developing-civ-v/
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Still all the Phenom II processors get murdered in benchmarks by the i7 processors. EDIT: here is the benchmark I speak of. Note how the numbers were generated by testing the processors over a variety of applications, not just games. Note how the i7 920 outperforms even the Phenom II X6 1090 BE despite the latter sporting more cores and a higher clock speed.
I am sure that there are some programs that run equally fast on either processor, but in general the i7 outperforms anything. The downside is that AMD is better at being backwards compatible - so that if you upgrade to a new processor you need not buy a new mobo per se. Also the mobo's for AMD are cheaper. The mobo's that support i7 processors are pricey.
Basically this discussion is a bit moot since if you want a good gaming experience basically all of these processors are overkill unless you are very very picky. AMD has a 3 core processor for about 90 bucks, and that processor performs really well as long as a game is not a huge CPU hog. If you want the most bang for the buck, getting that tri-core processor is probably the cheapest way to go while offering a very decent quality.
EDIT2: Also games benefit very significantly from having a dual core processor. Adding a third core ímproves stability of the system quite a bit, but it adds very little to the performance of the games. So a third processor might indeed provide a performance boost while running programs in the background, but it offers little gain over a dual core if only running a game and nothing in the background.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Sorry for overlooking this post for so long. Yes indeed I made a note in a post above on the added cost of the mobo for an intel before noting this post.You are forgetting mobo costs. Intel,right? New CPU,hello,new socket.
Intel faster at synthetic test is no news. It's been always like that. AMD is more gaming oriented. Not to mention so far,except packing/unpacking my old AXP 2400+ is fast enough for me.
All in all it's personal. Ati or Nvidia? Intel or AMD?
AMD lacks high end CPUs,comparable to strongest i7.
And P2 x6 is barely faster in gaming compared to P2 x4.
Indeed intel mobo's are more expensive, but also keep in mind that the X58 chipsets are performing really well. Cheaper mobo's with an AM2+ or AM3 socket may not even fully use the PCI bandwidth so that these mobo's do not perform very well when combined with the newer video cards. This is easely overlooked by most, but in order to really get the most out of the latest video cards you need a mobo sporting chipsets that it can fully utilise these cards. In order to get the most out of the better video cards you need to look at the pricier AMD mobo's too.
So yes, even the cheaper mobo's for intel i7 processors are more expensive, but they genuinely perform better than cheaper AMD mobo's too. If AMD is more gaming oriented then they suck at doing that, because in games AMD either gets murdered by intel there too, or at best they are on par. See here, here, and here to see just how bad AMD is behind intel when it comes down to performance.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
EDIT2: Also games benefit very significantly from having a dual core processor. Adding a third core ímproves stability of the system quite a bit, but it adds very little to the performance of the games. So a third processor might indeed provide a performance boost while running programs in the background, but it offers little gain over a dual core if only running a game and nothing in the background.
This is what I was saying, only better explained, thanks
This is what I was saying, only better explained, thanks
Between an i7 and the MoBo you can build a decent AMD rig, I'm incredulous that a top of the line ATI Radeon wouldn't work fine in an AM3 MoBo
Tylerryan79
Emperor
http://dualshockers.com/2010/05/29/pre-e3-preview-civilization-v/
This article confirms dx9 can be used. I wasnt sure if it had been or not, so there you go. It also mentions a seperate map making program for modding, and changing game rules. This may be new info 2, I hadnt heard about it atleast.
This article confirms dx9 can be used. I wasnt sure if it had been or not, so there you go. It also mentions a seperate map making program for modding, and changing game rules. This may be new info 2, I hadnt heard about it atleast.
It's been stated months ago, that the game will be playable with Dx9,
but still, nice to read it again from another source
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
You can indeed build a decent AMD rig, no doubts about that. I am saying that the best AMD processors, even the latest 6 core ones, are outperformed by any i7 processor, even the cheapest. And the best AMD processors are more expensive than the cheapest i7. Yes i7 mobo's are more expensive, but a cheap mobo in the category that can support i7 processors is still a class mobo, while the cheaper AM3 socket mobo's are crappy and not that well suited for gaming at all.
The latest video cards can indeed work on any AM3 mobo, but when combined with the cheaper mobo's you will not get the most out of your video card simply because the chipsets on the cheaper mobo's are not good enough to make the most out of them. The video cards will work, but they will not work well. It is like getting a sportscar with a top engine, and then use bio-fuel that allows the car to accelerate like a station wagon and allows top speeds of a whooping 50 mph. If that is what you are going for then that is fine, but then you may as well get a station wagon. Top video cards work better when combined with a top mobo, and every mobo that can sport an i7 is good. If you pick a really cheap mobo with an AM3 socket then you should not bother combining it with a top video card.
If you want to build a good AMD gaming rig you really need a top processor, and a good mobo. The better AM3 mobo's are not that cheap either, so between the top processor from AMD - which is more expensive than a cheap i7 - and the mobo - which is cheaper than an i7 mobo but a good mobo is not that much cheaper - you can pretty much get an i7 with a cheap x58 mobo for the money. The i7 intel rig will outperform the AMD rig.
AMD is better than intel in terms of upgrading because with intel, switching to a new processor in a year or two means upgrading to a new mobo too. This is not the case with AMD, which has great backwards compatibility. In the end it depends on the amount of money you will want to spend, naturally. If you are looking for a top budget processor, there is an AMD phenom II x3 that outperforms everything in it's category. It costs $90 or so and is king of the price/performance ratio. If you are looking for a top system you need to look at the intel line. The cheapest i7 outperforms any AMD processor. Combining a top AMD processor with a cheap mobo will not result in a top rig. If you want a top AMD rig, you need to combine a good mobo with the fastest AMD processors, and in that price range I would just not bother and pick an i7 instead. Combining a top processor with a budget mobo is just not the way to go. Anyone with experience with building a gaming rig can tell you that.
Phenoms x6 aren't made for gaming. Surprise,huh. They are comparable to top P2x4 in most games,they were made to came closer to i7 in other tasks.
Look Far Cry is nice game. FPS. And looks,like it likes intel very much. Too bad I don't like FPS's too much.
Is it better,yes. Is it more expensive,yes. If I have AM2+ mobo,are you going to tell me,that changing it for few more fps is viable option,especially throwing quite a lot of money for that ? We aren't discussing pure power aspect,because there is nothing to discuss about. But upgrading AMD right now much easier,than intels. Even if it's not optimal and will end in using 80% of power of my new,bought under limited budget gfx card.
Personally (means,it's not an argument) few stories of intels burning under harsher circumstances are enough to me.
Thank you for giving me something to think about. I wasn't really decided,now I'm even less. Guess I will see in the autumn again.
Look Far Cry is nice game. FPS. And looks,like it likes intel very much. Too bad I don't like FPS's too much.
Is it better,yes. Is it more expensive,yes. If I have AM2+ mobo,are you going to tell me,that changing it for few more fps is viable option,especially throwing quite a lot of money for that ? We aren't discussing pure power aspect,because there is nothing to discuss about. But upgrading AMD right now much easier,than intels. Even if it's not optimal and will end in using 80% of power of my new,bought under limited budget gfx card.
Personally (means,it's not an argument) few stories of intels burning under harsher circumstances are enough to me.
Thank you for giving me something to think about. I wasn't really decided,now I'm even less. Guess I will see in the autumn again.
- Status
