Intel or AMD, does it matter?

Novaa · 2012-10-12, 01:53 PM

Will your choice of hardware provider affect this game? Nvidia or ATI, AMD or Intel? As you would see with nvidia physx in some games.

EVILPIG · 2012-10-12, 01:54 PM

Nvidia is tweaking their drivers specifically for PS2.

Kevlar · 2012-10-12, 01:59 PM

Yeah, physx alone has made me regret going ATI... borderlands 2 specifically

AThreatToYou · 2012-10-12, 02:38 PM

Yes. Intel processors perform better. An intel processor is not needed to enjoy the game and play it well, but it makes a huge difference in how it looks and can give you an edge in some situations. The game is confirmed to use up to 8 cores though.

Video cards, I'm not too sure. Buy the better card, really.

Darkvenom · 2012-10-12, 02:39 PM

I have a Sapphire 7950 OC and a Gigabyte GTX 670, both run the game great, but i use the GTX 670 daily and not because of the lameass physx. I love the fact that the GTX 670 has less screen tearing and of course a higher fps....just runs very very smooth. With the 7950 i tend to get more "Planetside 2 beta not responding" messages.

Intel and Nvidia are the way to go for PS2 and i've bought AMD video cards for years.

cHaM · 2012-10-13, 02:49 AM

AMD is sadly no longer competitive with Intel or nVidia. They're losing on both fronts.

I'd steer clear of any of their products for now until they start innovating again.

Jaybonaut · 2012-10-13, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by cHaM

AMD is sadly no longer competitive with Intel or nVidia. They're losing on both fronts.

I'd steer clear of any of their products for now until they start innovating again.

Honestly, very little has impressed me since the merger, and I forget how long ago that happened. AMD still makes some good video cards but I'm not a fan of their drivers.

EVILoHOMER · 2012-10-13, 04:44 AM

AMD CPUs suck but their GPUs are great, sadly their drivers suck putting them behind Nvidia.

So just go Intel + Nvidia.

The Bulldozer CPU is a good server CPU or for media encoding but it's not good for games. The thing overclocks to 5ghrz on air though, AMD just need to work on single core performance, Linux makes better use of it than Windows, I'd expect Windows 8 to make better use of it than 7.

Rago · 2012-10-13, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Yes. Intel processors perform better. An intel processor is not needed to enjoy the game and play it well, but it makes a huge difference in how it looks and can give you an edge in some situations. The game is confirmed to use up to 8 cores though.

Video cards, I'm not too sure. Buy the better card, really.

Can you hand me the Source, where this comes from ?
I got a 6 Core 1100T and a 670 @ 30 fps in larger battles
my Friend got a 2500k and a 5850 @ 58 fps in larger battles.

I know ist my Cpu limiting but im very interested in hardware facts, i think about getting a Intel if it does not get any better in the Future, hope the Sony ppl over doe the Game for more optimisation sopmeday but atm they are busy with the Balance and stuff

Goku · 2012-10-13, 08:23 AM

This game I would not go anything less than a Core i5 quad core from Intel. You are shooting yourself in the foot otherwise. For video cards I haven't had any performance issues with my 7950 in this game and it was far faster compared to my 560 Ti.

Zalastax · 2012-10-13, 09:32 AM

My friend have big problems with this game and AMD. 12FPS is his normal value. I think they need to work on that. Maybe they are using Intel compilers that generate code that is only fast on Intel processors.

You say that quad i5 is necessary, what about 2.33 Core 2 Quad? Can't test yet since I wait for Beta key.

MonsterBone · 2012-10-13, 09:39 AM

"Maybe they are using Intel compilers that generate code that is only fast on Intel processors." - or maybe AMD sucks ass

Kail · 2012-10-13, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zalastax

My friend have big problems with this game and AMD. 12FPS is his normal value. I think they need to work on that. Maybe they are using Intel compilers that generate code that is only fast on Intel processors.

You say that quad i5 is necessary, what about 2.33 Core 2 Quad? Can't test yet since I wait for Beta key.

Intel's Core i series just kicks a lot of ass is all it amounts to, and AMD hasn't had a good answer to it yet. For graphics I'm currently using an ATI HD 6900 series card, and while it's run great ever since I got it, it is noticeable that most games are tailored to nvidia (DX: Human Revolution was a nice change of pace in that regard).

Tatwi · 2012-10-13, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Jaybonaut

Honestly, very little has impressed me since the merger, and I forget how long ago that happened. AMD still makes some good video cards but I'm not a fan of their drivers.

AMD APUs are excellent for home theater PCs. The 8 core CPUs are dirt cheap and very competitive video encoding. They also play most normal GPU intensive games really well. So for the low cost segment, they are still competitive in specific uses.

However, for general computing even the Sandy Bridge based dual core Celerons give more bang for the buck than anything AMD brings. And for gaming, the Core i3 3220 beats the whole AMD line up, let alone any of the Core i5 line up which beats the i3 by 30% or more in most games.

Google benchmarks or have a look at Anandtech, X-bit Labs, or Toms Hardware, etc. for statistics on this stuff.

Goku · 2012-10-13, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Zalastax

My friend have big problems with this game and AMD. 12FPS is his normal value. I think they need to work on that. Maybe they are using Intel compilers that generate code that is only fast on Intel processors.

You say that quad i5 is necessary, what about 2.33 Core 2 Quad? Can't test yet since I wait for Beta key.

C2Q is going to be slower than most Phenom II Chips, as most bought by gamers were 3 GHz+. From what I have seen Phenom II or C2Q clocked @ 4GHz or higher seem to be handling the game decently. Shows you how much the CPU matters in this game.