Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Four or Six coresFollow

#1 Aug 13 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
Sorry, I did post on the Sticky first but got no response.


Now that the NDA has been lifted, can anyone say for certain if the FFXIV beta, at this point, is using six CPU cores? It would be very much appreciated.

I'm going to build a new machine and I'm leaning towards one of the AMD hexacores because the FFXIV main site recommends six cores and the Intel hexacores are $$$.
#2 Aug 13 2010 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
***
1,673 posts
I have a hexacore but I am sure there are people with quad cores playing beta, maybe even dual core. I haven't really been asking people what their specs are.
#3 Aug 13 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.
#4 Aug 13 2010 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,673 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.


I'm curious as to what you are basing this off of.
#5 Aug 13 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
According to a beta player with a 1055T, the game does use all 6 cores if available, but 2 are utilized more than the other 4.

____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#6 Aug 13 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
**
749 posts
Quote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.


As i stated in another thread:

Quote:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/mindinversion/rsz_1ffxiv_low.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/mindinversion/rsz_ffxiv_high.jpg

AMD X6 1090T @ 4.1Ghz [I know the screenshots say 3.5, I forgot to turn off Cool N' Quiet]
Gigabyte 890FX-UDA5 Motherboard.
8 Gig OCZ reaper DDR3 2000 @ 1870
Gigabyte 5870 1 gig GDDR5 @ 950 stock O/C.
CoolIT ECO A.L.C. closed loop water cooling.

Yep, the X6s run like sh**. :D
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#7 Aug 13 2010 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
Geffe the Meaningless wrote:
Yogtheterrible wrote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.


I'm curious as to what you are basing this off of.


Basing it off of many different sites' benchmarking and testing the hexacores in comparison to other processors. I forget the exact reasons why the AMD hexacores perform poorly but in most cases they don't perform as well as AMD quadcores. I would go find the sites that have done the comparisons but I'm downloading FFXIV right now so it takes too long to look stuff up. Just google the processor and you'll find the info.
#8 Aug 13 2010 at 4:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
22 posts
seneleron wrote:
Quote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.


As i stated in another thread:

Quote:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/mindinversion/rsz_1ffxiv_low.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/mindinversion/rsz_ffxiv_high.jpg

AMD X6 1090T @ 4.1Ghz [I know the screenshots say 3.5, I forgot to turn off Cool N' Quiet]
Gigabyte 890FX-UDA5 Motherboard.
8 Gig OCZ reaper DDR3 2000 @ 1870
Gigabyte 5870 1 gig GDDR5 @ 950 stock O/C.
CoolIT ECO A.L.C. closed loop water cooling.

Yep, the X6s run like sh**. :D


Almost missed your smiley there. :P That is the best score for a 5870 I've seen from any CPU combo.. even an i7 860 overclocked to 4.2 only hit 4827.

So can we call the x6 performance problem in FFXIV debunked? lol

Edited, Aug 13th 2010 6:12pm by Athan10
#9 Aug 13 2010 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
AMD's big draw is on multitasking environments and a better ratio of performance per dollar. Intel tends to take the lead on gaming.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#10 Aug 13 2010 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
AMD's big draw is on multitasking environments and a better ratio of performance per dollar. Intel tends to take the lead on gaming.


I have hopes for bulldozer, assuming they end up being compabtible with the AM3 sockets and 890 series chipsets.



____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#11 Aug 13 2010 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
Athan10 wrote:
seneleron wrote:
Quote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.


As i stated in another thread:

Quote:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/mindinversion/rsz_1ffxiv_low.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/mindinversion/rsz_ffxiv_high.jpg

AMD X6 1090T @ 4.1Ghz [I know the screenshots say 3.5, I forgot to turn off Cool N' Quiet]
Gigabyte 890FX-UDA5 Motherboard.
8 Gig OCZ reaper DDR3 2000 @ 1870
Gigabyte 5870 1 gig GDDR5 @ 950 stock O/C.
CoolIT ECO A.L.C. closed loop water cooling.

Yep, the X6s run like sh**. :D


Almost missed your smiley there. :P That is the best score for a 5870 I've seen from any CPU combo.. even an i7 860 overclocked to 4.2 only hit 4827.

So can we call the x6 performance problem in FFXIV debunked? lol

Edited, Aug 13th 2010 6:12pm by Athan10


I was going to say,... Those are pretty sweet scores.


#12 Aug 13 2010 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,536 posts
I got a hexacore but no beta so it doesn't matter what i have to say in this case but as for computer performance its definitely outdoing my single core in my laptop :P.
____________________________
MUTED
#13 Aug 13 2010 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.



I don't prefer AMD or Intel. I choose the CPU that works best for the purpose of the machine being built regardless of brand.

From everything I've read though, the AMD hexa cores seem to run about the same as the AMD quad cores in applications that use fewer threads, but dominate the quads in applications that use more threads.

I'm just curious to know whether FFXIV, in particular, benefits from the extra two cores.

Intel i7 920 is about the same price as the t1090 X6. The intel has more power per core but the X6 beats it in multi threaded applications and the X6 is future proof. This is all based on reviews/etc. I've read on newegg and tomshardware.


Threx wrote:
According to a beta player with a 1055T, the game does use all 6 cores if available, but 2 are utilized more than the other 4



This backs up my own feelings. I was leaning toward the AMD X6 for being some what future proof and if XIV benefits from the two extra cores that just reinforces it.
#14 Aug 13 2010 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
***
3,825 posts
Geffe the Meaningless wrote:
Yogtheterrible wrote:
The AMD hexacores are overrated and don't perform that well. Save your money and get an AMD quadcore if you still want AMD.


I'm curious as to what you are basing this off of.


It's all over the internet, the problem is programs are just now being optimized for quad core, and loads still don't even take advantage of more than tri-core.

I'm not a huge AMD fan (other than their ability to keep prices down and encourage upgrades by supporting sockets longer), however I think the reviews have been a bit unfair to their X6. Having said that, when software does properly take advantage... with the current offerings I have no doubt that the Intel Hexacore will destroy it.

If the OP wants to stay AMD, they should look into a AM3 specific board and there's no reason not to get the X6, just avoid the black editions with Bulldozer or whatever supposedly around the corner. AMD is overdue (and the current market allows for) a serious revision in socket.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#15 Aug 13 2010 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
549 posts
If you can wait till late on the 24th, ya should. AMD is supposed to release info about their "bulldozer" architecture. Could be nothing, but could also be significant.

There's a possibility that they'll use AM3 socket, so you could buy a less expensive AMD processor now, and upgrade late for better price vs performance(total) than just going Intel.
____________________________
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
#16 Aug 13 2010 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,673 posts
Everyone always says to wait for the next thing. If you do this, you will never buy a processor because something new is always about to come out.
#17 Aug 13 2010 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
18 posts
AMD phenom 1090T runs great if your on a budget and can't afford paying intel to keep failing.

nk497 writes "To see one of the 32nm transistors on an Intel chip, you would need to enlarge the processor to beyond the size of a house. Such extreme scales have led some to wonder how much smaller Intel can take things and how long Moore's law will hold out. While Intel has overcome issues such as leaky gates, it faces new challenges. For the 22nm process, Intel faces the problem of 'dark silicon,' where the chip doesn't have enough power available to take advantage of all those transistors. Using the power budget of a 45nm chip, if the processor remains the same size only a quarter of the silicon is exploitable at 22nm, and only a tenth is usable at 11nm. There's also the issue of manufacturing. Today's chips are printed using deep ultraviolet lithography, but it's almost reached the point where it's physically impossible to print lines any thinner. Diffraction means the lines become blurred and fuzzy as the manufacturing processes become smaller, potentially causing transistors to fail. By the time 16nm chips arrive, manufacturers will have to move to extreme ultraviolet lithography — which Intel has spent 13 years and hundreds of millions trying to develop, without success."

source: slashdot.org or go straight to the meat and potatoes. www.pcpro.co.uk/features/360292/how-much-smaller-can-chips-go

#18 Aug 13 2010 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
seneleron wrote:
Quote:
AMD's big draw is on multitasking environments and a better ratio of performance per dollar. Intel tends to take the lead on gaming.


I have hopes for bulldozer, assuming they end up being compabtible with the AM3 sockets and 890 series chipsets.


To be fair AMD is overdue for a new revision. I appluad them for retaining backwards compatability, and I want to go back to them everytime, but ultimately they are hurting their own performance. Each revision is limited to size and power specs, and each revision lasts 6ish years. Bump it down to 4 and you're still providing better support than Intel in the long run.

____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#19 Aug 13 2010 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
Quote:
AMD phenom 1090T runs great if your on a budget and can't afford paying intel to keep failing.


I wonder how a $295.00 CPU is used in a budget build... Most of the Intel recommended CPU's are cheaper than it.



To derail the derailed topic back onto my original topic:


I had thought my question was fairly simple but only two posters have even addressed it. I guess it's my fault for mentioning AMD in the first place, as that will always get fires going in those that favor Intel. I personally don't give a crap who made the CPU I use or will use. I buy the one that best suits the purpose of the PC to be built.

I'll rephrase to simplify further.

Forget Intel and AMD. There is no need to mention a brand name here. The question was not intel vs. amd.

The question was for those that have been participating in the beta, or those that might have some knowledge based on another persons experience with the beta, up to this point.


My original question rephrased:

Is FFXIV using all six cores of a hexa core, or is it only using four cores?



Edited, Aug 13th 2010 10:20pm by Nalamwen
#20 Aug 13 2010 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Well from what I've seen, it runs on 24 threads. In theory, you could run it on 12 cores with hyperthreading (unless I'm mistaken on the process). The real problem is in designing threads to balance the full load of the game across each thread evenly. This is a lot more difficult to do, and chances are you're going to wind up with only a couple cores (threads) seeing a ton of activity and the rest of the lighter work being handled by the remaining cores.

In short, I don't think you're going to see that much more performance with 6 physical cores than 4.



Edited, Aug 13th 2010 9:43pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 25 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (25)