Estimated FPS on the Following Computers :

CroPsy - Heavens Tear

I wasn't talking about Mhz, Ghz and such. I was talking about games performance.

FASTER - more frames per second, in games. I was talking about that.

But I see there is no use to talk to you. And you're not gonna believe anyone that Q6600, and other Q models are just slower than newer Core ix models.
So I'll just stop. I feel sorry for people who buy PC from your advices, and I feel sorry that you can't see the truth.

Have fun recommending old, outdated, slower CPUs to your customers.

And I was talking about Q9650 with, let's say, HD 7970 vs i7-980 with HD7970. Second combination will be faster.

Now question for you: What is faster (have better performance in games)
1 - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 + AMD Radeon HD 7970
vs
2 - Intel Core i7-980 + AMD Radeon HD 7970

/ork - Harshlands58

CroPsy - Heavens Tear wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Mhz, Ghz and such. I was talking about games performance.

FASTER - more frames per second, in games. I was talking about that.

But I see there is no use to talk to you. And you're not gonna believe anyone that Q6600, and other Q models are just slower than newer Core ix models.
So I'll just stop. I feel sorry for people who buy PC from your advices, and I feel sorry that you can't see the truth.

Have fun recommending old, outdated, slower CPUs to your customers.

And I was talking about Q9650 with, let's say, HD 7970 vs i7-980 with HD7970. Second combination will be faster.

Now question for you: What is faster (have better performance in games)
1 - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 + AMD Radeon HD 7970
vs
2 - Intel Core i7-980 + AMD Radeon HD 7970

Actually, using the same exact GFX card they would be almost the same...

/ork - Harshlands58

Here, since you're a man of benchmarks I will turn your own weapon against you for proof (even though I still do not like them or entirely trust them for real world results, please DO note that in my previous post I DID say "Actually, using the same exact GFX card they would be almost the same... ")... Now this site does not have specifically the 980 listed so we're going to use the 970, the next closest model... Also, before you go hootin' and holerin' about how the 970/980 does receive better "overall" scores, or how it does perform faster for CPU intensive tasks (such as file compression, rendering, encoding, etc...) ~ that should have been obvious (DUH), BUT ~ as you've said and reiterated MULTIPLE times, we aren't talking about that, we are talking specifically about GAMING (more-so FPS)... So I would like you to take note the NOMINAL differences between the Q9650 and the 970 in direct regard to GAMING on the games this site tested:


Fallout 3
Q9650 actually beat the 970 by 1.4 FPS (something a humans eye would NOT notice IRW)

Crysis Warhead
a mere difference of 5.3 FPS (something a humans eye would NOT notice IRW)

Left 4 Dead
a small difference of 10.1 FPS (still not really noticeable especially @ such high FPS anyway [in the 120+'s])

Far Cry 2
a difference of 13.3 (still not earth breaking)

SEE THOSE RESULTS HERE

Like I have said before, in the world of GAMING the i7 really did not overtake the Q9650 until its 2nd generation... So yes, I did recommend customers in the past to get a Q9650 over ANY 1st gen i7 (let alone i3 or 5) IF their main 'thing' was GAMING... ESPECIALLY people trying to do a budget build, because where they could save money on NOT getting an i series CPU they could go with a higher end GFX card, therefore getting a better GAMING machine... Even on the 2nd gens, I recommended the C2Q series OR to WAIT for the 3rd GEN core i series...One of the biggest factors is WHAT a person plans to DO with a machine, equally important is how much money they are willing or physically able to spend. Now that the 3rd gen is out, sure I would recommend it ~ though I am still un-easy with i3 or 5, too mainstream, and I really do not do much mainstream **** so ofc my recommendation is going to be i7 or GTFO because that is their current line of PERFORMANCE CPUs...

I wonder if you could handle doing what I do, when you have a customer approach you stating "I have $x I need a PC for x reason", and build them what is best for their buck... There are so many factors when doing a build that CPU is surely not the only factor. When a customer orders or wants a gaming PC, would you offer up a 980 with a lower gfx card than a Q9650 with a higher gfx card, even today - even though they're BOTH outdated ??? IDK, maybe you don't even know, why, because you are not IN that situation. You do not build PCs for other people... I do, so yes, I do know what I am talking about... I see this **** every day... Different people want different things, different people can only afford different things... I DO, also, 'used' builds too (ofc this is usually for people REALLY on a budget), but naturally older product is easier to find used... Also, I do not do this for charity, you better rest assured that I am making something on every build, not matter how small the profit! So you have to not only factor in hardware to be used, but you have to figure "what do I get, what is my PROFIT" ??? Otherwise I don't get clothes on my back or food on my plate or the roof over my head, and the rest of my family wouldn't get those things either for that matter...

Also, benchmarks tend to bother me (yes I am going back to the whole benchmark thing), because that's someone else testing something else on whatever THEY are testing it on. Like the tests above, do they REALLY prove that the Q9650 and 970/980 ARE SIMILAR as I have stated, NO, not really. Well, lets analyze that for a second... First of all who is to say that running a different video card wont produce different results [yes different results of the CPU, because almost everything can alter the load the CPU endures](in this case FPS/GAMING), who is to say running a different resolution will not produce different results. There are SO many factors to building/buying, having and running a PC that NO benchmark can 100% "prove" something... Surely not either one of our claims that one CPU is better or faster than the other... How about different ram, or different manufacturers of certain specific components, how about the M/B in question. Like I said, WAY too many factors... The "benchmarks" I used here actually do show the Q9650 and 970 (and 980 imho) as being really darn close to each other in GAMING / FPS... But who is to say if I didn't up the ram, or change the M/B or the running resolution or physical display size that the results wont be different (almost any other component could affect the CPU load when changed), different enough that one does blow the other out of the water... Insert REAL WORLD DIFFERENCES...

Back to the being a builder thing again... So, you build what is best for the job and for the buck... Why do you think servers don't have gfx cards, because they don't do anything gfx dependent. Why do you think gaming machines have gfx cards the size of a cinder block, and sometime 2 or 3 or 4 or even more gfx cards the size of cinder blocks, because all they do is game! Why do you think someone who keeps archives would want the BEST CPU on the market, so they don't have so much down time compressing and un-compressing those archives... So, you build the best with what you can for what you need it for... I would never try to facilitate 256 GB of ram in a desktop PC for the same reason I would never try to install an HD 7970 in a server... In a server RAM and HDD capacitance is very important, as where gfx is very important to a gaming PC. Here, think of it this way: for the same reason you can "skimp" on the gfx card on a server, would be the SAME reason you can "skimp" on the CPU for a gaming PC... Of course if money is no object to a customer you can always just say "hey, just get the current ToL" no matter "WHY" they want it or "WHAT" they want it FOR... Which personally for those types of customers I always present them with two options, I always present them with what I think would suit their needs and then some, and then I ofc offer the 'flat out' "complete ToL"... (top of the line)...

So... now if we yet again go back to the OP (back ontopic) which machine would be better for PW (or GAMING).., no competition, machine number 1... If the original poster stepped to me as a potential customer and said "I care about NOTHING OTHER THAN which machine can play PW better" and did not care about ANYTHING else including future expandability there would be no competition -- he would wind up walking away with machine number 1. In all technicality that is ALL that he asked too, he did not ask which one is best for archiving or which would make a better server, or which has the most headroom for expandability, he wants to know which will have better FPS... So, AGAIN I reiterate machine number ONE is the best for that job... Now obviously if he said "well, I can get either one now, but I may want to upgrade it and make it better in a few months" well ofc that would change my recommendation... I will only reiterate ONE MORE TIME, that if he said "naa' I wont be upgrading anytime soon" or was specific "naa' I wouldn't be upgrading for at least 3 years" then the answer is STILL machine number ONE... Hell take the money you saved and go buy an extra game, would probably be to follow from my mouth...

//END THREAD ~ ROFL

TempleSlave - Lost City

/ork - Harshlands wrote: »

//END THREAD ~ ROFL

I only skimmed your post, but it seemed pretty ignorant.

The Angelica engine is single threaded and doesn't even use DX9 to it's full extent. It's not even optimized for C2D, though in it's legacy code it might support MMX, but I doubt it. This application is THAT old.

Using any modern machines to try to figure out benchmarks is laughable.

CroPsy - Heavens Tear

Let's get back to the start of this topic, where you said that Q6600 (not Q9650) is better than i5-750.
Then you turned wheel and started talking about Q9650 vs i7-980.

And it's not important if someone wants this or that for some amount of money. We were comparing CPUs, not people who buy those CPUs.

I proved that i5-750 was faster than Q6600, you proved that Q9650 is slower than i7-980.
And I'll say it again, in games.

I don't see any point of further discussion or any point of recommending #1 rig instead of #2 rig.

/ork - Harshlands58

TempleSlave - Lost City wrote: »

I only skimmed your post, but it seemed pretty ignorant.

The Angelica engine is single threaded and doesn't even use DX9 to it's full extent. It's not even optimized for C2D, though in it's legacy code it might support MMX, but I doubt it. This application is THAT old.

Using any modern machines to try to figure out benchmarks is laughable.

Who is the one that is ignorant if you cannot even read a post in its entirety... No further comment since you're not up to date on the entire thread or even my last post for that matter...

So, go away troll, since you are CLEARLY a troll and or the other guys friend...

/ork - Harshlands58

CroPsy - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Let's get back to the start of this topic, where you said that Q6600 (not Q9650) is better than i5-750.
Then you turned wheel and started talking about Q9650 vs i7-980.

And it's not important if someone wants this or that for some amount of money. We were comparing CPUs, not people who buy those CPUs.

I proved that i5-750 was faster than Q6600, you proved that Q9650 is slower than i7-980.
And I'll say it again, in games.

I don't see any point of further discussion or any point of recommending #1 rig instead of #2 rig.

You're clearly an un-educated individual and you have proved so more than once (to me anyways). Rig #1 is better than rig #2 for reasons we've both stated. For whatever reason you're being ignorant and saying #2 is better just because it has a better CPU... Which is clearly ignorant. Here's a tip: find a college/university and take some computer classes, then talk to be in about 20 years... I have been in I.T. for 30 years now so little you have to say is going to affect me... Even your troll friend just said something about Angelica being so old, so even more iteration that CPU will REALLY have minimal influence on the operation of PW... So you should coach your troll friends a little better next time before they post !!!

I am officially not even looking at this thread any longer, I cannot take the ignorance in it!

CroPsy - Heavens Tear

I said before, Radeon HD5850 is faster (have higher performance) than HD4870 and even 4890.

Tremblewith - Heavens Tear

TempleSlave - Lost City wrote: »

I only skimmed your post, but it seemed pretty ignorant.

The Angelica engine is single threaded and doesn't even use DX9 to it's full extent. It's not even optimized for C2D, though in it's legacy code it might support MMX, but I doubt it. This application is THAT old.

Using any modern machines to try to figure out benchmarks is laughable.

This.

The Angelica game engine used in this game dates back to 2004, when Archasaur Studio's created the original Perfect World. This game engine has been tweaked to it's full extent over the years. It has memory leaks to the extreme, and crashes for people due to client-based issues.

It can't use multiple cores, and doesn't thread - at all. Computers after 2002-2003 era began pushing two or more cores in the hardware, so this game engine was already outdated when it was created. It is mostly CPU-based, unlike game engine's nowadays, which are GPU-based.

I personally have pretty much the best system you can currently have. i7 procsessor, 3.5ghz (could oc to 5.2 stable), nvidia geforce gtx 560 2gb, liquid cooling, etc... I still crash every 15-20 minutes when playing the game. I've re-installed, and run 15-20 verifications in total. The issue is on multiple computers, and I got tech support by a member here on the forums - even he was unable to find a solution for me.

The problem is the game doesn't work well with newer hardware, minus a fast CPU. This specific version of the game engine has a lot of issues. Forsaken World, for example - uses a heavily modified version of the same game engine (a lot of PWE games use the same game engine). The differences are huge, but the underlining issues are still there. The engine does all the graphical rendering with your processor, instead of your graphics card. Smilies are re-written in the boutique due to client issues, constant memory leaks, no mult-threading/multiple core usage.

Take a look at Forsaken World. That game, as well as most other game's by PWE that use the Angelica game engine, all have auto-pathing that moves around the obsticals to get the player to the destination 100% of the time. In PWI, that's not possible. In Forsaken World, they didn't originally allow people to fly. When they finally allowed people to fly, it become very obvious that they just added the feature in randomlly one day, and never really edited the client to be ready for this enormous feature. People were saying massive rubberbanding, and it just looked weird - allowing players to get into areas of the game that they shouldn't be.

And with that, I get to my last reasonable point on the whole game engine. Rubberbanding. Every few major updates, it gets worse. They patch it secretly every now and then, fixing it. From the original Perfect World International to the Age of Spirits expansion, there was little rubberbanding. When genie's came out, and all that jazz - rubberbanding became a pretty big issue. Threads were created on these very forums, and finally PWE staff stated that while it's not the player's fault (they kept saying this for a very long time), they couldn't do anything about it themselves, but forwarded a memo to Wanmei. When the Tideborn expansion was released, rubberbanding stayed pretty constant. They fixed specific areas, but other areas either stayed the same, or was worse. Porting inside stuff when teleporting, constant rubberbanding on NPC heads for hours (unless you relogged, etc. After a few patches, it was a little better. When the Earth Guard expansion was released, most rubberbanding was fixed. Then the Decent expansion came. Some rubberbanding came back, other areas stayed constant, and Morai was utter **** in terms of rubberbanding.

So, over all - I'd venture to say that while the game may look nice, it's highly poorly customized for 2012. That being said, it becomes a "take it or leave it", moment.

Sympathi - Archosaur

Hurrdurr - Lothranis wrote: »

Estimated FPS on minimum settings except for distance and effect which are both set on max :
1.

Quad Core Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz
HD 4870
4GB RAM

2.

i5 750 @3.2Ghz
5850 1GB
8 GB RAM

Just to add abit of personal experience to this as i know your asking this question for your Youtube channel which i watch and I've done countless videos with this spec;

I used the Q6600 for a good three years and i would agree in the fact the proformance does seem to match up to more high-end processors these days, my exact PC build before changing was;

Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1
MSI P35 Neo Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz (Never overclocked, really easy to)
4GB RAM (DDR2-800MHz)
NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT (DDR2-512MB)
250GB SATA1 HHD Main Drive
160GB IDE HHD Slave Drive (Fraps Streaming off one to the other)

WEI Rating:
Processor: 7.1
Memory (RAM): 7.1
Graphics: 4.7
Gaming Graphics: 5.5
Primary Gard Disk: 5.9

Total Cost Build: $375 - $425

The Build is really cheap and it played PWI About 80 FPS, 30-40 FPS Archosaur, and 20-35 FPS Fraping in TW with Minimum settings (soften on, distances on, names on) and that was with Fraps 2.9 set at full-size 30 FPS.

Having moved onto a certain other game that i want to record in HD ive bought a whole new PC and i was comparing i5, i7's and other processors and i am now using this:

Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1
ASRock 970 Extreme3 Motherboard
AMD Bulldozer Octet FX-8150 3.6GHz CPU
8GB RAM (DDR3-1333MHz)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 (DDR3-4GB)
OCZ Agility 3 60GB SATA3 SSD
Hitachi DeskStar 500GB SATA2 HHD

WEI Rating:
Processor: 7.8
Memory (RAM): 7.8
Graphics: 5.6
Gaming Graphics: 6.6
Primary Gard Disk: 6.9

Total Cost Build: $825 - $860

The processor itself is a 8-core instead of using hyper-threading like the i5, and was MUCH cheaper then it.

Small conclusion, if you want a nice cheap but reliable build the Q6600 never let me down. If you want a higher rated PC but for abit more, try to get the AMD over i5, i5 and i7 your really only paying for the brand and most other processors especially by AMD can match or even beat it (FX-8150 overclocks to 4.2 quite safely) for cheaper.

Sympathi - Archosaur

Tremblewith - Heavens Tear wrote: »

I personally have pretty much the best system you can currently have. i7 procsessor, 3.5ghz (could oc to 5.2 stable), nvidia geforce gtx 560 2gb, liquid cooling, etc... I still crash every 15-20 minutes when playing the game. I've re-installed, and run 15-20 verifications in total. The issue is on multiple computers, and I got tech support by a member here on the forums - even he was unable to find a solution for me.

Just thought id say, on the previous system i had (the Q6600) i had never once, ever in the 3 years i played PWI, crashed or had any kind of graphical malfunction that wasn't caused server end.

Kinjeto - Raging Tide

I had inklings that silicon would be short of becoming and reaching its thermal limit in 2008. (Yes I still use a Q6600 ironically) We used to have over-clocking competitions at LAN parties (They still do to this day). Liquid Nitrogen, Water Cooling + Refrigeration or Mineral Oil. The material is going to be what shapes a lot of things.

Had a lot of really good links here about the future of computing and various problems. Reply if you want me to post them.