Estimated FPS on the Following Computers :
Hurrdurr - Lothranis
Posts: 1,468 Arc User
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
1.
Quad Core Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz
HD 4870
4GB RAM
2.
i5 750 @3.2Ghz
5850 1GB
8 GB RAM
Post edited by Hurrdurr - Lothranis on
0
Comments
-
I wouldn't know but with FPS meaning frames per second the person who could work it out would probably need to know what type of graphics card yours using0
-
With number one, in an optimized windows 7 environment, you will get about 18-26FPS in archosaur, and 35-65 in the rest of the world. I know because I had almost the exact same system till my vid card blew out.
As for #2, I'd say about 30% higher than #1. but I'm just guessing there.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
I have comp similar to 2nd one you wrote and with max graphic on everything I have between 30-150 fps depending on location. Sometimes if I run 2 accs and have few other programs open my fps drops to under 10 in west arch but usually it stays around 30 there.
I never checked fps with lowered graphic since I never use it.[SIGPIC]http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=41151390001&dateline=1327598157[/SIGPIC]
101 Psy since my avatar won't show it0 -
As far as I know, this game isn't optimized for graphic card or multi-core CPUs. I have friends with very high end systems and they still get under 10 fps in west arch or in full 80v80 tws. My computer is pretty good, and PWI is the laggiest game I run, for whatever that's worth.....See, I can hyper a nub up like the rest of yas!0
-
This is how PWI calculates it, tested and proven.
When you need the max FPS that your system can handle, PWI will set your fps to 1~4. If PWI deems you unfit, will crash your client for fun.
When you don't need the FPS, PWI will set your FPS to 100+.
That is how pwi works, we just learn to deal with it.0 -
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
is about 25-40 in both the ram isnt enough to get a better frap ratio but the i5 makes the things smoother i've playig with a alienware m18 x with some of the "proest" thingies and the game is runnig almost like the laptop of my gf xD which is a toshiba with a core i5 750 at 360 ghz 1 on Graph and 4 on ram, the thing isnt the machine, is the game xD0 -
#1 is all around a better set up
-that Q6600 is better than any i5! (if you want the new core i series ~ i7 or GTFO-lol)
-that 4870 is better than that 5850 (ATI / Radeon I'm guessing you mean here)
-ram really wont have a HUGE impact on your gaming as one may think at least not between 4 or 8GB (and the speed of the ram really wont make a noticable real world impact even between DDR2 and DDR3)
also for gaming the GFX card is ALWAYS the BIGGEST factor
I can safely say machine set up #1 will produce the best results in gaming for you
Although I can also say, if you could I would go with or upgrade to a HD 5870 or 6990 (unless ofc you wanted to go with the current ToL (Top of the Line) HD 7970 LOL)...0 -
In what f*****g universe is Q6600 better than Core i5?/ork - Harshlands wrote: »#1 is all around a better set up
-that Q6600 is better than any i5! (if you want the new core i series ~ i7 or GTFO-lol)
Do you even know difference between i5 and i7?
Again, WTF?/ork - Harshlands wrote: »-that 4870 is better than that 5850 (ATI / Radeon I'm guessing you mean here)
5850 is better than 4870, 5850 is even better than 4890!
Ok, this is kinda correct./ork - Harshlands wrote: »-ram really wont have a HUGE impact on your gaming as one may think at least not between 4 or 8GB (and the speed of the ram really wont make a noticable real world impact even between DDR2 and DDR3)
Anyway, back to topic.
#2nd PC is overall better.0 -
Sorry you are wrong on this one, I have more precedence since I build computers for a living...
Go ahead, I challenge you - build those two and see which one performs better... And don't try throwing some lame *** benchmarks at me, those aren't "real world"...
Just in case you don't know the difference real world and 'theory' is a WORLD of DIFFERENCE... (like how a 'book smart' person is not 'street smart' and likely to not survive in that world and visa versa)... Example, like how in theory my Lamborghini will hit 210 MPH (it's "benchmark") but in the real world it will only actually hit about 202... as just one EXAMPLE for you...
Also, if you're going off MODEL numbers, those really don't mean a WHOLE lot... At least not the way you appear to be thinking of them, that the higher the number automatically means it's a better item! I know AMD/Radeon cards VERY well as they're what I stock the MOST of and cards ending in 70 or 90 are their "ToL" cards... in general... same with the Q6600 being better than the i5, just because the i5 is a 'newer generation' does NOT mean that the Q6600 is not a BETTER CPU, because it IS... Well, ofc that actually depends too, since they just released a 3rd generation of core i series CPU's (22nm ivy bridge), maybe a 3rd gen i5 COULD be better than that q6600...
So again, go ahead, I challenge you ~ build those two computers and you'll see #1 WILL perform better... I never said #2 wouldn't be worthy of gaming, but #1 WILL certainly perform better... ADD: and I honestly don't care if it's only by one FPS, that wasn't the question "how much better is one than the other"...0 -
OMG, you're such a PRO(troll)!
How do you compare two CPU-s or GPU-s if you don't use benchmark?
Explain me that? Please, I beg you! How do you compare two CPUs?
In every single benchmark I saw, Intel Core i5 750 is FASTER than Intel Q9650. And Q9650 is FASTER than Q6600. That means Intel Core i5 750 is FASTER than Q6600.
Even Core i3 is FASTER than Q6600.
And I'm talking about GAMES.0 -
Personally, I'd go with the i5 system. I would almost always recommend going with the CPU that has newer architecture. Generally speaking, newer processors will be more efficient than old ones. The i5 also has a slightly lower max TDP, so it should run a bit cooler. You'll also get the benefit of Turbo Boost. Also, it just doesn't make sense to purposely buy older tech when newer stuff is constantly coming out. You'd be far more likely to be able to upgrade your CPU down the line if your system had a LGA 1156 socket (the i5) than if you had a LGA 775 socket (the Q6600), should you choose to.
4GB of memory is plenty for running PW. My first computer I played PW on only had 1GB of DDR2 memory, and somehow I managed to run the game just fine.
As far as the GPU goes, the 4870 would probably get you better performance, but the 5850 will work just fine.
Something to really take note of is that PW's game engine is just plain stupid. Even if your computer is total overkill for this game, you'll still find that you'll get horrible framerates in heavily populated areas. For example, I'm running a Phenom II hexacore CPU @ 4.0GHz, with 16GB DDR3 1866 memory, and an overclocked Radeon HD 7970, and I still get like 15 FPS when I go through West Arch.Zektera - Blademaster
Djeserit - Assassin
TranquilSoul - Barbarian
Torsti - Cleric
Heartbourne - Seeker0 -
Sunaro - Lost City wrote: »Personally, I'd go with the i5 system. I would almost always recommend going with the CPU that has newer architecture. Generally speaking, newer processors will be more efficient than old ones. The i5 also has a slightly lower max TDP, so it should run a bit cooler. You'll also get the benefit of Turbo Boost. Also, it just doesn't make sense to purposely buy older tech when newer stuff is constantly coming out. You'd be far more likely to be able to upgrade your CPU down the line if your system had a LGA 1156 socket (the i5) than if you had a LGA 775 socket (the Q6600), should you choose to.
4GB of memory is plenty for running PW. My first computer I played PW on only had 1GB of DDR2 memory, and somehow I managed to run the game just fine.
As far as the GPU goes, the 4870 would probably get you better performance, but the 5850 will work just fine.
Something to really take note of is that PW's game engine is just plain stupid. Even if your computer is total overkill for this game, you'll still find that you'll get horrible framerates in heavily populated areas. For example, I'm running a Phenom II hexacore CPU @ 4.0GHz, with 16GB DDR3 1866 memory, and an overclocked Radeon HD 7970, and I still get like 15 FPS when I go through West Arch.
In terms of future expandability yes, I would recommend the socket 1155 build, IF this was a BUILD. Although I do not believe the OP included the fact of whether these were machines to be built or already owned or what... So, say OP has a family member who will give him one of the two I would personally pick #1 for the immediate performance difference. Though like I said, you are correct that if he was planning on building one of these two I would still go with building #2 because in the future he could always 'upgrade' to an i7... So, I like and agree with your post b:victory Though we don't know the exact situation I was merely answering the question at its face value initially (even though we're now tearing it apart LOL)... Another example, say he was a customer of mine who had a computer that had a socket 775 mobo with a fried CPU (but everything else was good) and he was going to prospectively buy a Q6600 to put in it to make it work again, that would still be cheaper than potentially building a whole new computer just because he 'thought' the i5 would automatically be better... Could me a million different things so now I'm kinda wonderin why we're tearing it apart, I like that other troll who thinks he knows more than me when this IS what I do for a living. You are also certainly correct that the 4870 Would perform better than the 5850, and that, that does not necessarily make the 5850 a bad card though...
I can tell that you know your stuff b:victory
As far as your comment on the Angelica engine: I have to agree with because I run a brand new build specs as follows:
i7-3770k, with 32GB Kingston 2133 RAM, and 2x HD-7970 in XFIRE w/ a OEM overclock.
and it's the same ~ just avoid west arch no matter how good your computer is, because there it doesn't matter if you have a super-computer, you're still going to only get like 15~20 FPS ROFL (it depends on how many cat shops are up mainly)...0 -
I think the only way I would actually recommend the Q6600 as a 'fresh build' would be in the example that I had a customer who made it clear that they did not plan on upgrading [anytime soon] (Which I've had PLENTY of 'budget builds' that the customer has made it clear to me that they will not be upgrading). Then I would still have to recommend the q6600 since it would perform better than that i5... Though yes, still, for expandability room I would recommend a socket 2011 or 1155 M/B...0
-
You still didn't answer my question. How do you compare two CPU or two GPU without using benchmarks?
I just say that Intel Core i5 750 is FASTER than Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, and that even Intel Core i3 540 is FASTER than Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600.
And I'm talking about GAMES.
Proof? i don't know if I should do this, cause I think you will just say that these results are fake or something like that.
Fallout 3
i5 750 - 86,2 fps
Q6600 - 67,4 fps
(i5 750 is 21% faster)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19908.png
Left4Dead
i5 750 - 130,1 fps
Q6600 - 101,8 fps
(i5 750 is 27% faster)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19909.png
Far Cry 2
i5 750 - 71,7 fps
Q6600 - 48,7 fps
(i5 750 is 47% faster)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19910.png
Crysis Warhead
i5 750 - 83,3 fps
Q6600 - 69,8 fps
(i5 750 is 19% faster)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19911.png
Or here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/7
Crysis
i5 750 - 34 fps (average)
Q6600 - 29 fps (average)
(i5 750 is 17% faster)
There is tons of more reviews and comparison. So now, give me some proof that Q6600 is FASTER than i5 750. You got my proof.0 -
That is hardly proof, and I am surely not stooping to your level, just knowing I am correct is enough satisfaction for me... Like I said if you do not believe me go and build two computers -- the ones listed in the OP, #1 and #2, then call me when you see which one performs better. After all, that was the question here... Hands down the fact is computer #1 would perform better than that of computer #2, at least for PW (which was the question at hand)...
//end competition as there isn't one here0 -
/ork - Harshlands wrote: »I think the only way I would actually recommend the Q6600 as a 'fresh build' would be in the example that I had a customer who made it clear that they did not plan on upgrading [anytime soon] (Which I've had PLENTY of 'budget builds' that the customer has made it clear to me that they will not be upgrading). Then I would still have to recommend the q6600 since it would perform better than that i5... Though yes, still, for expandability room I would recommend a socket 2011 or 1155 M/B...
So you advice people, who are buying NEW computer, that they buy Q6600?
Where do you live? In Somalia, so you don't have fresh supply of new hardware?
You can't even buy NEW Q6600 anymore.
Socket 2011 and 1155 are two different worlds, can't compare those two.
Socket 2011 motherboards are expensive, and that platform is for professionals who need 6 core CPUs, or people who just want to say that they have best of the best.
Educate yourself a bit. It might help you with your business.
You're awesome! Just cause you say that Q6600 is FASTER than i5-750 it must be truth!!!/ork - Harshlands wrote: »That is hardly proof, and I am surely not stooping to your level, just knowing I am correct is enough satisfaction for me... Like I said if you do not believe me go and build two computers -- the ones listed in the OP, #1 and #2, then call me when you see which one performs better. After all, that was the question here... Hands down the fact is computer #1 would perform better than that of computer #2...
You're better than Chuck Norris!
You don't have proof, you don't have facts, just your imagination. Well, if you feel good in your world that you created. Have fun.0 -
I think you're just butt hurt because you know I'm right
Here this pic is just for you
Which is exactly why I am not arguing with you (I know I am right, like I said if you really do not believe me I dare you to do the builds yourself to find that out
)... 0 -
You also seem to be FAILING to remember that this question was NOT just about CPU, it was about 2 semi specific PC's and their relation to performance for PW...
Not, JUST a CPU comparison for which would make a better web server. Not which one would be better based on the RAM alone for rendering video... WHICH ONE WOULD BE BETTER FOR PERFORMANCE FOR PLAYING PERFECT WORLD
//facepalm
Now you can continue trying to prove nothing because you're wrong, or you can finally concede...0 -
I'm not arguing. I'm giving facts, proofs. You just troll.
Let me qouote you:/ork - Harshlands wrote: »-that Q6600 is better than any i5! (if you want the new core i series ~ i7 or GTFO-lol)
You said that Q6600 is better than i5. I proved you wrong. You still troll about Q6600.0 -
CroPsy - Heavens Tear wrote: »I'm not arguing. I'm giving facts, proofs. You just troll.
Let me qouote you:
Well that's just because it is i3 and i5 are junk...
Don't even get me started on how crappy i3 is, any quad core in the Core2 series (Qxxxx) series would be better than any i3 for sure!0 -
Why are they junk? Why Core i7 isn't junk?
Difference between i5 and i7 is that i7 have HT and i5 don't. Also i7 have little more cache.
Same CPUs basically.0 -
i3 is certainly junk, I wont even go there
i5 is mainstream
i7 is performance0 -
Why is i3 junk when it have same performance as Q6600?
Did you actually ever tried to benchmark those CPUs?0 -
CroPsy - Heavens Tear wrote: »Why is i3 junk when it have same performance as Q6600?
Did you actually ever tried to benchmark those CPUs?
Maybe if you're talking the 3rd gen of i3, personally I wouldn't give i3 an opportunity to sit on my desk... insert the i7 or gtfo statement... I don't want some crummy 2 core i3, when I could have say a Q9650 sitting on my desk.
Here's a question Q9650 vs i7-980 CPU alone no other factors, which do you think is better ?0 -
Also you are probably having a hard time discerning when I am talking with or without personal bias... Even though I've made my above statement please note that, that does not mean I don't still build i3 PCs for customers... Everything depends on the TASK, and OTHER components too...
[A ton of this discussion has also been //offtop - the answer to OP is still PC#1 LOL]0 -
/ork - Harshlands wrote: »Maybe if you're talking the 3rd gen of i3, personally I wouldn't give i3 an opportunity to sit on my desk... insert the i7 or gtfo statement... I don't want some crummy 2 core i3, when I could have say a Q9650 sitting on my desk.
Here's a question Q9650 vs i7-980 CPU alone no other factors, which do you think is better ?
I'm saying that Intel Core i3 540 is equal to Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, when it comes to performance in games.
Do you even know difference between i3, i5 and i7?
i3 - 2 cores, 4 threads
i5 - 4 cores, 4 threads
i7 - 4 cores, 8 threads
Answer for your question: Intel Core i7-980 is better than Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650.
And this whole times I'm talking about GAMES. About CPU performance in GAMES.0 -
CroPsy - Heavens Tear wrote: »So you advice people, who are buying NEW computer, that they buy Q6600?
Where do you live? In Somalia, so you don't have fresh supply of new hardware?
You can't even buy NEW Q6600 anymore.
Sure you can, when you're OEM like me -- hell, actually any old person can buy one brand new on amazon right now too...
Socket 2011 and 1155 are two different worlds, can't compare those two.
I wasn't comparing them
Socket 2011 motherboards are expensive, and that platform is for professionals who need 6 core CPUs, or people who just want to say that they have best of the best.
I know, I have one of those too, but not as my gaming rig; no real reason to use that machine for gaming, you'll get your optimal performance in gaming out of an i7-3770k just fine, at least out of the current CPU lineup...
Educate yourself a bit. It might help you with your business.
I am, that is what all those little pieces of paper on my wall mean
You're awesome! Just cause you say that Q6600 is FASTER than i5-750 it must be truth!!!
Technically I said BETTER not FASTER (just a play on words though I suppose)
You're better than Chuck Norris!
You don't have proof, you don't have facts, just your imagination. Well, if you feel good in your world that you created. Have fun.
Answer for your question: Intel Core i7-980 is better than Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650.
Actually the Q9650 is BETTER than the i7-980, that one I know for a fact because I still own both (I am actually on one of the two right now)... The i7 didn't finally top the Q9650 until it's 2nd generation...
Response highlighted in COLOR0 -
So you want to say that Core i7-980 is FASTER than Q9650, but Q9650 is BETTER than Core i7-980?0
-
CroPsy - Heavens Tear wrote: »So you want to say that Core i7-980 is FASTER than Q9650, but Q9650 is BETTER than Core i7-980?
In terms of clock speeds, yes the i7 is faster. In terms of performance the Q9650 will perform better... Clock speeds, like model numbers, do not mean everything...0 -
Although bear in mind, the CPU all by itself really does not have too heavy of an effect on gaming, GFX is the biggest portion of gaming performance. So, of course an i7-980 with a HD 7970 is going to perform better than say a Q9650 with a 4350 for "GAMING"... Though guess what, the same can be said about the reverse. A Q9650 with a HD 7970 will GAME better than an i7-980 with a 4350 !0
![http://i1031.photobucket.com/albums/y373/vixonlilmouse/Vixon-Sig-7-1.jpg[/SIGPIC]](http://i1031.photobucket.com/albums/y373/vixonlilmouse/Vixon-Sig-7-1.jpg[/SIGPIC]){kind=link}
Categories
- All Categories
- 181.9K PWI
- 697 Official Announcements
- 2 Rules of Conduct
- 264 Cabbage Patch Notes
- 61K General Discussion
- 1.5K Quality Corner
- 11.1K Suggestion Box
- 77.4K Archosaur City
- 3.5K Cash Shop Huddle
- 14.3K Server Symposium
- 18.1K Dungeons & Tactics
- 2K The Crafting Nook
- 4.9K Guild Banter
- 6.6K The Trading Post
- 28K Class Discussion
- 1.9K Arigora Colosseum
- 78 TW & Cross Server Battles
- 337 Nation Wars
- 8.2K Off-Topic Discussion
- 3.7K The Fanatics Forum
- 207 Screenshots and Videos
- 22.8K Support Desk