I'm a gamer and I haven't upgraded my CPU in 6 years

[__RavErz__]

Originally Posted by Madengineer

But yeah, there's still a lot of people using E8400 and other similar series chips. Doubt you could play D3 or any other similar game on it though.

I can play D3 easily at max graphics with an E8400 at 3.6ghz at stock voltage... I am upgrading though anyway since I am having some bottleneck issues in more intensive games.

[Chamelion]

I had an E6600 @ 3.35ghz (possibly a little higher) from about 2008 to 2011.. Was a nice CPU, but I definitely noticed a positive difference going from that to my 2500K @ 4.6ghz.

[NNNG]

Most games are not particularly CPU intensive so this should be no surprise. All the power to the OP for not spending money on things he does not need. I noticed basically no difference between a Q6600 @ 3.4 and i5-3570K @ 4.4 for the same reason. Main reason I upgraded was because I wanted to do rendering, the fan control on the P5E wasn't good enough, it was way too hot, and the front panel audio wouldn't reach the header on the motherboard.

In other tasks however, it is faster by a factor of two. While using half the power.

And lol @ D3 being intensive. 20% CPU usage here with CPU at stock.

@ Elvis, but that doesn't explain why games are not taking a standardized engine, that does fully use modern hardware, developing from that.

[Garido]

OP: I'm using an old cheapo system for gaming and it does me fine. I do drop settings to medium in most games and don't game in the highest of resolutions but am very happy with my system. I do use an SSD too. In fact, my CPU isn't even a Core 2 Duo, it's a Pentium Dual Core (retarded little brother). Works fine though. I guess we both feel pretty happy with the investment (consider the money spent over time and howe well it has performed). If I was to upgrade, I would upgrade to i5 2400 (I don't feel I'd need more power for my source engine games). I do accept newer games are taking advantage of more cores but I'm not attracted to many new titles. Maybe CS:GO.

Originally Posted by Madengineer

Define latest? And if anything, the 5850 is a pretty crap card.

The 5850 a crap card? You're talking shit again. It may be old but it's still more than enough for most games. I still get by with a rebranded 8800 series card.

EDIT: Also happy to return volley with the signature. You do realise in many cases the standard memory without the fancy heatsinks is often the same one with heatsinks attached. Case in point is some A-DATA I bought of the forums. You can buy the adata vitesta or you can buy the generic adata I bought and it's the same module/chip. Both OC to a very similar level.

[NNNG]

5850 is between the 6850 and 6870. Both of which are faster than the current generation mid-range 7770. So they would be regarded as mid-range cards by now.

EDIT: Also happy to return volley with the signature. You do realise in many cases the standard memory without the fancy heatsinks is often the same one with heatsinks attached. Case in point is some A-DATA I bought of the forums. You can buy the adata vitesta or you can buy the generic adata I bought and it's the same module/chip. Both OC to a very similar level.

There's some Samsung super-RAM. DDR3-1600 stock but does like DDR3-2400+. Without any heatsinks.

[m3k]

Originally Posted by Rory K

Very interesting article elvis. What I took away from it is that developers/publishers are being ridiculously irresponsible with their funding.......

I can't agree more, if I gave a salary of 250,000 per dev I could make a better quality game and still save money.. I can't imagine how anyone would need over 100 million dollars to make any game, especially not these shitty cod re-skins

And I believe it'd be safe to assume half these devs are paid much worse... Which probably in turn results in poor output.. But it's their money, so whatever.

And yes I've witnessed what Elvis mentioned, first hand.. People with money not trusting the designers/ developers and taking control when infact they're impeding quality output

It's terrible but only reaffirms my belief that indy games innthe future will be the sucessful ones.

[Garido]

Originally Posted by NNNG

5850 is between the 6850 and 6870. Both of which are faster than the current generation mid-range 7770. So they would be regarded as mid-range cards by now.

Still definitely relevant with modern titles

I remember how the 8800 series cards were relevant for so long. They still account for a large portion of users.

EDIT: I can still hold 120+ on a 24 player server in TF2. Until this drops massively, I'll be hanging on to my ghetto hardware.

Originally Posted by NNNG

There's some Samsung super-RAM. DDR3-1600 stock but does like DDR3-2400+. Without any heatsinks.

There you go, you don't need RAM with the fancy heatsinks

I just wanted to show that when it comes to 1333MHz RAM, there little to no difference between them. Even most if not all, offer the lifetime warranty. Some may overclock better but as always it's a gamble. So I'm not sure why he has the sig ROFL.

Let me put it this way, Kingston C9 1333MHz 4GB vs Corsair 1333MHz 4GB? What's the difference? (aimed @ Mad)

[NNNG]

There you go, you don't need RAM with the fancy heatsinks

It looks nice. The main reason I got my RAM was because it was low profile and matched the motherboard heatsinks.


The higher end RAM tends to have heatsinks though and (faster ram) does improve performance somewhat (although it's poor value). Anyway, we're going way off topic.

[Garido]

Originally Posted by NNNG

It looks nice. The main reason I got my RAM was because it was low profile and matched the motherboard heatsinks.


The higher end RAM tends to have heatsinks though and does improve performance somewhat (although it's poor value). Anyway, we're going way off topic.

If you wish to get RAM for aesthetic reasons that's fine. Go for it

Higher end RAM may not always require heatsinks but yes it can help. I don't feel it's by a large amount. Say if you're overclocking, I don't feel a heatsink on the RAM will give you a 20% gain, let alone a 10% gain, maybe not even a 5% gain. I believe it allows an overclock of a few extra MHz. But yes back on topic, keen to hear what MadEngineer has to say about the 5850 and RAM.

[elvis]

Originally Posted by NNNG

@ Elvis, but that doesn't explain why games are not taking a standardized engine, that does fully use modern hardware, developing from that.

Because a "standardised engine" is out of date the moment it's released. This is how technology works - it moves rapidly, and any title developed is going to be nothing more than a snapshot in time of what technology was (past tense). And the bigger a game, the longer it will take to develop, and the more dated it will look on release.

For people who want to see the end result of constantly chasing the "perfect game engine", look at the development history of games like Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever. Both are classic examples of developers constantly trying to stay ahead of the technology curve, and both have inevitably tragic conclusions.

[Madengineer]

Originally Posted by Garido

The 5850 a crap card? You're talking shit again. It may be old but it's still more than enough for most games. I still get by with a rebranded 8800 series card.

Yeah, It's crap. As I said, most people use them if they have no other choice. But considering the prices of 560s and 6950s etc, the move is being made.

They may perform on a "reasonable" level, but a single 5850 is in no way a good card.

[Raptor_Eye]

well i upgraded from my overclocked Q9650 (@ 4ghz) to a 3770k @ stock,

Everything with the 3770k is just smoother, max game frames did not really increase at all but average and min i did notice a decent difference.

But just general windows use etc the 3770k is just smoother, hard to explain.

and this is at stock speeds

plus it did not cost me much, i think it was like $500 for the 3770k, the mobo in sig and 16gb of ram

[NSanity]

CPU wise in general we've plateau'd. In Small-Medium Business IT there is bugger all reason to do any upgrades. If power consumption isn't a concern, the only real reason to move beyond a 2ghz+ Core2Duo is connectivity (like Sata3, USB3, etc). Just give it 2-4GB of ram, and a Sata2 ssd - done.

Unless you do content creation, vm work or other "workstation" specific tasks (or high-res gaming/e-peen ), you can simply get by with lowly i3's or even something that AMD makes.

Originally Posted by elvis

Because a "standardised engine" is out of date the moment it's released. This is how technology works - it moves rapidly, and any title developed is going to be nothing more than a snapshot in time of what technology was (past tense). And the bigger a game, the longer it will take to develop, and the more dated it will look on release.

For people who want to see the end result of constantly chasing the "perfect game engine", look at the development history of games like Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever. Both are classic examples of developers constantly trying to stay ahead of the technology curve, and both have inevitably tragic conclusions.

On the topic of engines.

I think from a reducing development time perspective - the id tech 5 engine with the ability for concurrent realtime content creation (or at least the way Carmack spoke of it - rendering in realtime, rather than work in 2D, move it into the title, check, revise, etc) is definitely the future for reducing game development costs.

The other guy who was banging on about CG artists being done and dusted for $5k is a laugh. Autodesk (if you swing that way) + Adobe annual licening alone in Australia 15k plus, add 5-6k per workstation (sorry kids, they are Hp Z800's or equivalents, downtime costs money), money for tablets, art stock etc..

I'd be surprised if you can setup a CG Artist in a professional studio for < $40k in tools/software alone.

[Linkin]

Went from 955BE to 2500K. First thing I noticed was that the 2500K ran faster at stock speeds than my tricked out 955. Used less power, also. Windows booted faster even with an SSD (2500K shaved about 5 seconds off).

So basically you upgrade for better efficiency/power usage, aside from raw power.

[Garido]

Originally Posted by Madengineer

Yeah, It's crap. As I said, most people use them if they have no other choice. But considering the prices of 560s and 6950s etc, the move is being made.

They may perform on a "reasonable" level, but a single 5850 is in no way a good card.

Please stop talking shit, it makes baby Jebus cry. The 5850 is still a relevant card by even modern standards. Many can be overclocked within close range of a 5870 too.