Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

[RIP-JFK]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

Hi,

i would definitly take the dual core. The generation of dual- and multicore cpus is just beginning. Therefore the software industries (especially the game industry :p) will start using this technology for sure. I think there are enough parts in games (netcode, AI, geometry calculations,...) that can be "outsourced" to different threads, so the operating system's scheduler can distribute it to the different cores...the biggest "problem" that needs to be solved will be the sync between the threads, but i think the performace gain will be worth the work.
Regarding BF2, i think there are enough threads in the forums, that solve possible problems with bf2 and dual cores. Just set bf2's process-affinity to one core...maybe dice/ea will release a patch, adressing dual-core cpu's, though i doubt.
If you plan to use the memory you already got (DDR2), you should wait for the new chipset, otherwise i would suggest to take 939 and the 4800+ if u want to spend that much money. Also for doing your 3D and modelling stuff, the dual-core should be the better choice.

I'm going to upgrade my 3200+ Barton to a X2 4200+. My problem is, i recently upgraded my gpu to a ati 850xt pe agp...so i have to take an agp board. Further i want to reuse my 2 gig DDR-3200 RAM, so my choice has to be the socket 939, especially the Asrock Dual board.

[maranello]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

Hi,

i would definitly take the dual core. The generation of dual- and multicore cpus is just beginning. Therefore the software industries (especially the game industry :p) will start using this technology for sure. I think there are enough parts in games (netcode, AI, geometry calculations,...) that can be "outsourced" to different threads, so the operating system's scheduler can distribute it to the different cores...the biggest "problem" that needs to be solved will be the sync between the threads, but i think the performace gain will be worth the work.
Regarding BF2, i think there are enough threads in the forums, that solve possible problems with bf2 and dual cores. Just set bf2's process-affinity to one core...maybe dice/ea will release a patch, adressing dual-core cpu's, though i doubt.
If you plan to use the memory you already got (DDR2), you should wait for the new chipset, otherwise i would suggest to take 939 and the 4800+ if u want to spend that much money. Also for doing your 3D and modelling stuff, the dual-core should be the better choice.

I'm going to upgrade my 3200+ Barton to a X2 4200+. My problem is, i recently upgraded my gpu to a ati 850xt pe agp...so i have to take an agp board. Further i want to reuse my 2 gig DDR-3200 RAM, so my choice has to be the socket 939, especially the Asrock Dual board.

well what scares me is that what if the dual core cpu support turns out to be like the 64 bit support? when 64 bit cpus released 3 years ago everyone said that there'd be games and applications (mostly O/S) that fully supporting 64 bit cpus. now what happened? nothing...3 years passed, not even windows fully supports 64 bit cpus because of lack of drivers and etc. Basically what people paid money for 64 bit cpus (myself too, i have a laptop with 64 3700+) was a waste, no difference from intel's 32 bit cpus so far (not noticeable).

what if the same thing happens? how do you guys know for sure that dual cores will be fully supported?

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

well what scares me is that what if the dual core cpu support turns out to be like the 64 bit support? when 64 bit cpus released 3 years ago everyone said that there'd be games and applications (mostly O/S) that fully supporting 64 bit cpus. now what happened? nothing...3 years passed, not even windows fully supports 64 bit cpus because of lack of drivers and etc. Basically what people paid money for 64 bit cpus (myself too, i have a laptop with 64 3700+) was a waste, no difference from intel's 32 bit cpus so far (not noticeable).

what if the same thing happens? how do you guys know for sure that dual cores will be fully supported?

The transition from 32bit to 64bit takes a long time, but Vista will be a 64bit os, and from there, everything will change. There is a 64bit FarCry out now, plus all Steam games also suppport a 64bit os.
Also, intel 32bit performance != amd 32bit performance, since in gaming, almost any amd proc can wipe the floor with it's intel equivalent. All games will support dual core, because it is the future.Just look at quake 4, my proc is faster than a fx-57, even though it is 400mhz faster than either of my cores. Almost all of the new intel procs are dual core, and amd might release a quad core this year.

[RIP-JFK]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

Totally agree to what Sir. MatDef said.
The difference between AMD's and Intels 32Bit-Performance on 64-Bit processors lies in the architecture. AMD uses native 32-Bit code, so you dont have any slowdowns (runs like on a 32-Bit machine) whereas intel uses a complete new architecture. It only supports native 64-Bit code, so the 32-Bit applications have to be emulated. That's what makes the huge difference.

Concerning your worries about dual cores, the support of those cpu's will definitly come. Its not a big step, to take advantage of the multiple cores. U "just" need to write your apps (games) to use more threads than just one. The rest of the work is done by the operating system. As i already mentioned, independent parts of a game can be easily handled by different cores. It becomes a bit more difficult, to syncronize different threads. But nothing that cant be done.
So once again, imlo the dual core should be the better choice.

[Papi4baby]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

Totally agree to what Sir. MatDef said.
The difference between AMD's and Intels 32Bit-Performance on 64-Bit processors lies in the architecture. AMD uses native 32-Bit code, so you dont have any slowdowns (runs like on a 32-Bit machine) whereas intel uses a complete new architecture. It only supports native 64-Bit code, so the 32-Bit applications have to be emulated. That's what makes the huge difference.

Concerning your worries about dual cores, the support of those cpu's will definitly come. Its not a big step, to take advantage of the multiple cores. U "just" need to write your apps (games) to use more threads than just one. The rest of the work is done by the operating system. As i already mentioned, independent parts of a game can be easily handled by different cores. It becomes a bit more difficult, to syncronize different threads. But nothing that cant be done.
So once again, imlo the dual core should be the better choice.

Where the F did you read this, i would like to read it, both AMD and Intel are native 32 Bit, they have 64 Bit support on the chip, and the Intel 64 Bit, is the same as AMD.

[gsxr310]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

No, FX-53, 55, 57 - and the last one in the series, the FX-60, are all single cores. The FX-60 is the last CPU AMD will introduce for Socket 939, according to Anandtech.

The FX-60 is dual core.

[Flanker]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

OMG!
I waited the whole thread to say that the FX-60 was a dual core and the last post says it! I hate you now...>_<, lol. Yea, the FX-60 is a 2.6GHz Dual Core processor, kinda like a X2 5200+.

[maranello]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

alright, let me ask you this

FX-60(or 57) or X2 4800+ (or the highest dual core so far)?

by the way, i m a senior CS research student, i know a lot about the 32 bit, 64 bit, memory registers, low level architecture, and so on and on:p


PS and i dont wanna hear about them as i am about to throw up after 4 years of CS lol

[imported_Wreck]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

alright, let me ask you this

FX-60(or 57) or X2 4800+ (or the highest dual core so far)?

by the way, i m a senior CS research student, i know a lot about the 32 bit, 64 bit, memory registers, low level architecture, and so on and on:p


PS and i dont wanna hear about them as i am about to throw up after 4 years of CS lol

The highest dual core so far is the FX60.

[Flanker]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

FX-60 = 2.6GHz Dual Core.
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ = 2.4Ghz Dual Core.

FX-57 = 2.8GHz Single Core.

Go FX-60. Can you afford this?!

[gsxr310]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

OMG!
I waited the whole thread to say that the FX-60 was a dual core and the last post says it! I hate you now...>_<, lol. Yea, the FX-60 is a 2.6GHz Dual Core processor, kinda like a X2 5200+.

Haha... I beat you Flanker. :laugh: I waited too though!

[maranello]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

FX-60 = 2.6GHz Dual Core.
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ = 2.4Ghz Dual Core.

FX-57 = 2.8GHz Single Core.

Go FX-60. Can you afford this?!

If i push it too hard, i can afford it. I just dont understand the difference between dual core and single core. Yeah i know multitasking but what are you gonna do to benefit from multitasking? Play HL2 and BF2 at the same time or what? I just dont get it. I have p4 3.0 ghz right now and even now i can alt+tab from BF2 and open CSS and play a decent round with at least 70 fps and switch to BF2 (I have 2 GB DDR2 (667 mhz)). So i dont really understand whats the huge deal with the dual cores.

[RIP-JFK]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

You will profit of the multicores, when the apps and games will make use of it. At the moment u see one thread in the task manager (bf2.exe) when starting the game. All threads u see in the task manager are running "parallel". Means the cpu-time is seperated in time-slices which are scheduled to the cpu. So physically there is always only one single thread that is running simultanously. Having two or more cores, lets you run more than one (two or more) threads simultanously. As u can imagine, a game has to handle a lot of calculations (geometry, netcode, movement, hitboxes, etc.). As soon as game developers will start programming multi-threaded, means they split up the work on different threads, u will definitly take advantage of the dual-(multi-)cores.
Hope i could make it a bit clearer.

Sorry for my english, i'm german...but i do my best

[Hephaistion]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

Don't wait for the new socket, DDR2 is not good for gaming. Low Latency DDR400 beats DDR2-533 all day long.
As a side note, it would be foolish for AMD to release this new socket as there are 1000000's of 939 based 3200-FX57's on the market, talk about cutting your own throat.

[Hephaistion]

Re: Question regarding to BF2 performance with AMD CPUs

You will profit of the multicores, when the apps and games will make use of it. At the moment u see one thread in the task manager (bf2.exe) when starting the game. All threads u see in the task manager are running "parallel". Means the cpu-time is seperated in time-slices which are scheduled to the cpu. So physically there is always only one single thread that is running simultanously. Having two or more cores, lets you run more than one (two or more) threads simultanously. As u can imagine, a game has to handle a lot of calculations (geometry, netcode, movement, hitboxes, etc.). As soon as game developers will start programming multi-threaded, means they split up the work on different threads, u will definitly take advantage of the dual-(multi-)cores.
Hope i could make it a bit clearer.

Sorry for my english, i'm german...but i do my best

Your English is superb compared to a lot of my fellow Americans on this board. SPELLCHECK SO YOU DON'T LOOK RETARDED