What CPU/GPU to get for your new computer (updated monthly)

[metatime]

Tomshardware Does a really good analysis of cpus and gpus for each month. I highly suggest following their guide since it's updated each month so this post on CPU/GPU won't be outdated.

The analysis is good for either low, mid or high end PCs but in this post I'll stick mainly with low end since I'm cheap.

I highly suggest to wait (at least) until the ivy family comes out before building anything.
Intel new Ivy family is coming out with their tri-gate 22nm technology.

What difference does nm make? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_nanometer
Basically more transistors on the die, less heat, less power, more powerful. That's why Intel is so far ahead because they're physically improving on the technology. Basically Intel's archeitecture is advance enough to the point that AMDs aren't hitting the price/performance ratio anymore.


CPU
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...lock,3106.html


GPU
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...view,3107.html


Motherboards
Motherboards don't make that much of a difference. I personally like Asus, Gigabyte, MSI but in the end they're just MB. Look at their warranties that appeal to you. You as a builder just have to make sure you're building with the family that the CPU is compatible with. Basically the socket type of the MB matches the socket type of the processor. Newegg is a good place to buy computer parts from. http://www.newegg.com

There's also different standard sizes like ATX, mini ATX, etc. If you get a standard ATX case than any MB can fit in there.


RAM
DDR3 comes in different speed. The JEDEC standard modules are:
800 PC3-6400, 1066 PC3-8500, 1333 PC3-10600, 1600 PC3-12800. Depending on the processor and MB, most support 1600 PC3-12800 (the higher the better)

Anything outside the JEDEC standard aren't standard and you'll have to check the MB and CPU to make sure it matches (if you're a regular builder, you don't have to worry about this). Also timings don't matter unless you wish to overclock.


Power Supply (PS)
This is probably the most technical and trickest area to learn. Basically make sure the the watts rating is at least 350-400W(for a regular setup, higher if you're using x-fire or SLI). The tricky part is the rails. Make sure to have 12 V on each rail. (which comes standard on modern PS). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_supply_rail


Cases, Harddrives (HDD), mouse, KB
Mostly a preference for each person (like Harddrive/SSD size and price). Compare prices online. Most time online is cheaper than in stores.


What if I have a Laptop?
Laptops are static by nature. The CPU/GPU are low powered version of the desktop version which means weaker performance. You can't upgrade GPU (where a lot of games depends on) but CPU you kind of can but it's not worth the effort and time to do it since the laptop isn't engineered to be upgraded in mind. You need a discrete (dedicated) gpu card as a minimum requirement in your laptop.

So if you want to buy a laptop again, you'll have to pay at least $600 minimum for one. With a mid-high end intel or amd cpu and discrete, that's $700 minimum.

Anything < $600 you're only going to find a good processor with an integrated card which does not scale well for future tasks like games.
You can build a desktop that produce the same performance about half or 2/3rds the cost of a laptop.


So I found a laptop with a discrete card, which laptop graphics card is better?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Laptop-Graphics-Cards.130.0.html

This site gives a good idea on the performance your card will get compare to other cards. Make sure your card is at least in the class 1 or 2 level. Class 3 is doable if you're tight on cash. Avoid class 4 and 5 card at all possible.


Buyer Beware for laptop
Don't look at just price to determine a laptop has a discrete or integrated card because a laptop company(sony, apple, ibm, etc) can sell laptops that has an integrated card for $800 while the laptop with a discrete card next to it will sell for the same price! So watch out when looking for a gaming laptop.

A friend of a friend that I knew, she bought a $1000 laptop with no discrete card in it and she can barely run games on it. =(
That's one area where laptop manufactures make money off the average consumer by selling them laptops that has integrated gpu for a high price.

[Xenobia]

No need to worry, as far as i know, the Ivy Bridge can still be used on a old SB board because it basically is a shrink of a SB, and with a new tri gate tech. You apparently dont know Intels dirty tricks. They will first release some weaker IB CPUs, and then slowly go stronger and stronger, that way, the enthusiasts always have to upgrade and Intel will earn a golden nose of a goat. ;) Until people enjoy to wait for years, they still can safely use a good SB type, which in some term can still outperform those startup-IBs with cutted wings.

[metatime]

No need to worry, as far as i know, the Ivy Bridge can still be used on a old SB board because it basically is a shrink of a SB, and with a new tri gate tech. You apparently dont know Intels dirty tricks. They will first release some weaker IB CPUs, and then slowly go stronger and stronger, that way, the enthusiasts always have to upgrade and Intel will earn a golden nose of a goat. ;)

It doesn't matter to me if it's intel or amd. Pick the best what's out there right now or in the future. Don't let bias views cloud your choice. Let facts and actions be the judge.

I used to pick AMD technology in the early 2000s because AMD updated from FSB to HyperTransport which gave them the best performance/price ratio.

Since than intel slowly improved on their architecture and surpassed AMD in performance/price ratio.

Intel just spent $9 billion building a new factory for their 22nm technology. http://www.techspot.com/news/42049-intel-investing-9-billion-in-22nm-manufacturing-process.html

That's putting your money where your mouth is.

[Xenobia]

9 billion? Thats nothing for them, they will get 90 billion back i guess. ;) Nope, i do not like AMD CPUs... you got that wrong. But the fact that we all have to rely on Intel as the only good performance supplier... means that we simply are kinda having a monopole and Intel certainly will abuse it. So i kinda enjoy the Radeon vs. Geforce fight, its a true competition and price would be much higher without. Its actually more expensive to build a GPU (but in real term we have about fivty fivty for a comparable type).

Hmm this forum is getting pretty techie lol. Well, cant help it, its PSO2 hardware. ;)

[metatime]

9 billion? Thats nothing for them, they will get 90 billion back i guess. ;) Nope, i do not like AMD CPUs... you got that wrong. But the fact that we all have to rely on Intel as the only good performance supplier... means that we simply are kinda having a monopole and Intel certainly will abuse it. So i kinda enjoy the Radeon vs. Geforce fight, its a true competition and price would be much higher without. Its actually more expensive to build a GPU.

Hmm this forum is getting pretty techie lol. Well, cant help it, its PSO2 hardware. ;)

This post isn't about politics or the opinion on the ethics of either AMD or Intel is ethically is better or not. That's for another discussion that I don't care to be in. I only look at price/performance and getting the best bang for the buck.

I could care less as long as I can get the cheapest, most cost effective product out there. As long as it doesn't involve people getting killed and shot to make the stuff, just do it.

Look I'm pretty sad that borders, circuit city and those other retailers are out of business but in the end most people don't go to those stores as often as they used to and just buy everything online. That's competition for you.

[Xenobia]

Ok, thanks for providing those hints, we do appreciate, maybe merge that thread with Priming. (http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194014)

[spoiler-box]
Besides: Those retailers didnt pass test of time, because every good retailer is already online (dual sells)... the other should safely disappear, when they cant meet the next gen standart. Nothing to do with ethics, we have a certain requirement in order to execute our job, means to keep up with time and provide good service.[/spoiler-box]

[metatime]

Ok, thanks for providing those hints, we do appreciate, maybe merge that thread with Priming. (http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194014)

Besides: Those retailers didnt pass test of time, because every good retailer is already online (dual sells)... the other should safely disappear, when they cant meet the next gen standart. Nothing to do with ethics, we have a certain requirement in order to execute our job, means to keep up with time and provide good service.

Yes there are reasons why business fail and that's one reason but in the end a failure is a failure.

I truely do wish for AMD for bulldozer to succeed and their future incarnations.

The more companies out there to innovate = the better.

I could care less if it was Intel, AMD or any company that builds x86 processors thats making the improvements or innovations, just do it and I'll buy it.

[Faiyez]

They will first release some weaker IB CPUs, and then slowly go stronger and stronger, that way, the enthusiasts always have to upgrade

No, not really. They'll have most of the chips in the series available on launch day, including the strongest one. Any future chip will be part of a different series even if in the same architecture.

What you are saying suggests that an enthusiast with an overclocked 2600k invariably had to "upgrade" to Sandy Bridge-E. That's ridiculous.

[metatime]

No, not really. They'll have most of the chips in the series available on launch day, including the strongest one. Any future chip will be part of a different series even if in the same architecture.

What you are saying suggests that an enthusiast with an overclocked 2600k invariably had to "upgrade" to Sandy Bridge-E. That's ridiculous.

Yes whenever a new architecture or family comes out, they release the CPU in different tier levels. There is no "dirty" tricks that intel does because the cost/performance isn't worth the upgrade when you compare new releases of new models in the same tier level.

There's different methods to reduce transistor size and intel choose tri-gate as a way to reduce the size.

[SolRiver]

I would wait for 22nm Ivy family to hit 2nd generation. It is far too common for these tech companies' first gen to be borderline prototype (pushing deadlines + borderline monopoly = "doesn't matter what we put out there, consumer don't have a choice" mentality).

Unless the reviews/benchmarks really break some ridiculous new ground. Otherwise I am not willing to bet my money on prototypes for a long term PC.

Just my personal take on tech purchases.

[metatime]

I would wait for 22nm Ivy family to hit 2nd generation. It is far too common for these tech companies' first gen to be borderline prototype (pushing deadlines + borderline monopoly = "doesn't matter what we put out there, consumer don't have a choice" mentality).

Unless the reviews/benchmarks really break some ridiculous new ground. Otherwise I am not willing to bet my money on prototypes for a long term PC.

Just my personal take on tech purchases.

If every new family/architecture/generation/whatever is a "prototype," there will be recalls every year which obviously doesn't happen. It does not make any sense to get a Sandybridge when you can get an Ivy uses less heat and energy and give you an increase of performance for around the same price.

People buy different specs PCs at different times so each person has a different situation.

Waiting is always good but you, as a consumer, have to know when to buy it at the best time based on your situation and the current/future technology out there.

If you wait and don't make the educated time to get the technology, you can be waiting forever.

This post only suggest that if you're interested in buying/building a new computer, at a minimum (since its close to the release of ivy) to wait until this comes out if you really want/need a new PC soon. If not you can wait.

[kyuuketsuki]

Ivy Bridge isn't particularly exciting for the desktop space. There will be modest IPC improvements and lower TDPs, but the performance will be nothing worth mentioning for the general consumer, and lower power consumption isn't a big deal either. In the mobile space, Ivy Bridge's improved power consumption and superior integrated graphics (but still inferior to Llano) is more interesting.

For the most part, the most interesting thing Ivy Bridge will do is push the price of older Sandy Bridge components down. And if you really want to upgrade to Ivy Bridge later, you can drop an Ivy Bridge into any socket 1155 motherboard with a firmware update.

[SolRiver]

If every new family/architecture/generation/whatever is a "prototype," there will be recalls every year which obviously doesn't happen.

It doesn't need a recall for me to call it a prototype. Usually the trend is that 2nd generation stabilize and bring the true power of the new technology, while first generation is just getting it out the door with lack of features consumer actually want.

Anyway, doesn't really matter (it all come down to when it benchmark). Some people like the fresh new stuffs. Me? I'm much more pessimistic and am willing to wait FOREVER. (since if i am waiting, it would mean there isn't any significant upgrade, then it would mean my old stuffs would work just fine)

[Xenobia]

No, not really. They'll have most of the chips in the series available on launch day, including the strongest one. Any future chip will be part of a different series even if in the same architecture.
I dont believe you when you say that they have the strongest IB available on launch day. For example at Nehalem, the strongest type; Which is actually a Gulftown, its nothing more than a Nehalem with the exception of a more effective stepping and lesser nm (thus its a shrink). That one been released short time before the launch of SB, which was several years behind.

At SB its even more dirty, they did not release a 6 cores at launch and it took them way to long till they released a 6 core of a SB. The customers who wanted a 6 core was free to get the totaly overpriced Nehalem based Gulftown. Almost 1 year after SB launch they did release a cherry picked I7 2700K in order to allow for even more OC, of course many true enthusiast do want it... but it simply came way to late. Those who still want to get one, simply have to pay for, thats exactly what they want. Intel again was delaying in order to give some boosting. They was able to push the 4 core SB sells and enthusiast customers was completly confused what to get because both the 6 core Nehalem and the 4 core SB had about same performance. However, the 4 core simply was not the real deal. Enthusiasts was either buying 2 times in a row, or they was waiting for a whole year in order to get a affordable 6 core SB, which finally does exist (took them way to long). Finally, they delayed the 6 core SB release by a very long time and was able to push the overpriced (and overproduced) 6 core Nehalem sells by doing it. Needless to say, a 2011 socket doesnt even fit at a 1155/1156, so they have to get a new board with new Intel chips. As more sockets as better for economy, so even more boards have to be thrown into the ocean... ;) AMD could never execute same behaviour, they would totaly be avoided... theyr customers love them for having less socket war.

What they did is to slowly increase the CPU performance in a artificial manner. They could have released the strongest types much sooner, but it would mean that many customers may upgrade less frequently, so they actually use it to theyr advantage, not a clean thing. Thats just the most recent stuff i noticed, but it could go back much more into the past... a lot of stuff could be revealed.

They are experts at what they doing and certainly not to our advantage. So, when you say stuff, please backup your view, else i cant believe it.

[metatime]

Ivy Bridge isn't particularly exciting for the desktop space. There will be modest IPC improvements and lower TDPs, but the performance will be nothing worth mentioning for the general consumer, and lower power consumption isn't a big deal either. In the mobile space, Ivy Bridge's improved power consumption and superior integrated graphics (but still inferior to Llano) is more interesting.

For the most part, the most interesting thing Ivy Bridge will do is push the price of older Sandy Bridge components down. And if you really want to upgrade to Ivy Bridge later, you can drop an Ivy Bridge into any socket 1155 motherboard with a firmware update.

If you look at the history of past family of prices for cpu released by AMD or Intel in the same microarchitecture, the price has been around the same as the last release. You're going to be hard press to find a cheap last generation model. Why? Because the manufactures keep the price point high while phasing the old family out while slowly phasing the new family in so there's no interruption in market price. There's really no reason to buy the last generation family since there's little to no price difference and less performance/power.

Also there's always a power improvement (within the same tier and microarchitecture) with each release especially since it's going to 22nm which is a huge difference. Most ivy's for the desktop processors are close to 3.0 GHz or higher, which is crazy and awesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_%28microarchitecture%29#Desktop_process ors

[Faiyez]

Xenobia, you obviously don't understand how the PC hardware market works. I cannot believe the amount of butthurt shown here resulting from the fact that your neighbor can buy a better chip than the one you bought a year ago. Yes, I realize that it's not only about the progress of technology, but also sheer marketing strategy. However, if anything you would have to blame the delays on lack of competition, the fact that AMD has not been able to keep up with a competitive product, rather than just crying foul at Intel's business strategy.

What you're basically arguing here is that it's not worth it to go for a launch Ivy Bridge chip because a better processor will be released EVENTUALLY.

What exactly is your point anyway? Games don't even take advantage of 6 cores. The high end consumer PC hardware that is currently available is leaps and bounds ahead of where any current software can push or stress it.

I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge (upgrading from Phenom II) and rest assured, once I get my hands on the high end 3570K or 3770K I know I'll have a machine that should cover my gaming needs comfortably for years to come (not to mention overkill for PSO2). That is all that matters.

[Xenobia]

I do not feel impressed by your inapropriate words. In overall i can outpace you in a wimp when i wish to.

My main system is a master system not only for gaming, but multimedia, encoding and much more. Those chips have to be useful for several matters, not only gaming. If i were only for gaming i would not get 6 cores at current time (worse price/power ratio).

I will soon create a gaming only system, that kind of system will run on a 4 core IB, indeed, because i go full price/power ratio and its most effective for those kind of setups. Currently i do not own a gaming only PC, i use my master system. Because my old system is out of work, i will soon need a new backup, which is usualy the master system, not specialized for a single duty.

However, that doesnt mean that it is always useless for gaming, nor ineffective. I play games such as EVE Online which does fully utilize 6 cores, and PSO2 does utilize 6 cores aswell (although any 6 core is overkill). WoW does fully utilize 6 cores and a huge amount of other games. So i dont know what kind of dream you got, the reality is different, and the 6 core support is increasing. If you cant see the future then im sorry. I want my systems to be a foolproof backup and are willing to pay a extra price for something which can even back me up in 5 years because i always look long term, i dont build minimalist designs.

Besides, we certainly dont have same gaming needs, i still can crack down my rather powerful GPU when i want to go maxed. Indeed a CPU is totaly underused in most terms but a CPU should never reach full load. As long as my master system wont be overused by newer games its a fully suitable backup able to last very very very long. Of course, Intel is a ripp off as soon as you wish to have foolproof long-time performance but for a master system it can be worth it.

I remember when a guy once told me that a quadcore is a ripp off.. and i decided to get a C2D. Some years after the C2D got to weak and the quadcore would have become the safe and long lasting stuff (ultimately we got almost 100% quad support), but i lacked it because someone like you was able to decline my decision heading for "overkill". That C2D would be my backup PC, but it cant anymore execute that duty... thats why it is out of order.... thanks to the "do not get quad-guy". Every single year i can save up, is saved up cash for me.. and worth to pay more for a good CPU, sadly. Of course, there is always "better" stuff, so at some point simply have to pull the trigger, else the waiting never ends, especially at Intel. Short term got no meaning to me, i only look long term.

/bow... just for the sake of being friendly.

[Faiyez]

I'm actually on 6 cores... not as enthusiastic about it, though.... Well, I've probably saved a few seconds compressing files in winrar.

We're really arguing over nothing at this point. You'll do something that works for you and I'll do something that works for me, okay? We're BOTH going overkill, really. There are people out there who apparently have no option but to play PSO2 on the lowest settings, and those are the ones I feel for.

/bow ...back to you

[Xenobia]

Alright... seems like view war solved.


[spoiler-box]
Still want to say that i currently do mainly build SFF systems and the smallest of them are usualy for backup, so it can be easely placed in the same room (in front of me) without taking to much unnecessary space. Issue however is that i still do need high performance, in that term the only real solution i got is Shuttle and Lian Li Mini Q. The Mini Q, however is bigger than Shuttle but can handle more power and a fully sized ATX PSU, which can be useful when i want to OC and still not going big. Great for gamer system.

However, my master systems are usualy made with Shuttle, because highest power/cm3 ratio. Its always much harder to get something powerful on those because there isnt endless boards and new boards are updated less frequently than ATX/miniATX. Now i have a additional layer of difficulty and its even harder to manage all the delays Intel is creating, thus making Shuttle builds a messy thing. I have to deal with heat, TDP, size, lack of compatibility and airflow much more than on any other PC, optimizing those matters always more work than any huge system ever could create. PC assemblers generally avoid building it, and are rather grumpy about it, are telling lies such as that it cant handle heat and what else. Funnily enough my SFF does pass a 15 min 10 GB Intel Burn test without critical heat. Finally, building powerful SFF is a challenge, but i was able to execute it well, because i have experience with. Buts its not that i can adapt to new stuff just as fast on those such as on bigger systems. Big stuff is easyest to build but i have so many consoles laying around, i do appreciate small PC systems, connected directly to my plasma. Of course i do enjoy to build something unique, something which does need some skill to implement. Its not as foolproof such as the big stuff.[/spoiler-box]

[kyuuketsuki]

Most ivy's for the desktop processors are close to 3.0 GHz or higher, which is crazy and awesome.
Yeah, the highest-end desktop Ivy Bridge i5 is base 3.4GHz and 3.8GHz turbo. i5-2500k is base 3.3GHz and turbos to 3.7GHz. Not terribly exciting. Especially when my i5-2500k overclocks to 4.5GHz on air.

[metatime]

However, that doesnt mean that it is always useless for gaming, nor ineffective. I play games such as EVE Online which does fully utilize 6 cores, and PSO2 does utilize 6 cores aswell (although any 6 core is overkill). WoW does fully utilize 6 cores and a huge amount of other games. So i dont know what kind of dream you got, the reality is different, and the 6 core support is increasing. If you cant see the future then im sorry. I want my systems to be a foolproof backup and are willing to pay a extra price for something which can even back me up in 5 years because i always look long term, i dont build minimalist designs.


/bow... just for the sake of being friendly.

To be honest I doubt any games utilize > 4 cores let alone 2. As a programmer trying to introduce multicore processing to software, especially games, brings in a lot of bugs and synch issues. Also a lot more coding too....

And testing....

Don't get me wrong, more cores the better since some good software, especially windows or photoshop, handles that well, but realistically, most coders aren't that good (the good ones works at MS, Adobe. etc) and/or have the time/effort to implement multicore coding into games or general software.

[kyuuketsuki]

The problem isn't that the programmers for games aren't good. It's mostly the fact that games don't thread well (at least the portion of the load that goes on the CPU). Also, I'm not sure why anyone would debate the point: it's been demonstrated many times over that no game currently out benefits from more than 4 threads. Most do better with 2 or 3 cores and higher clocks than 4 lower clocked cores.

[Dinosaur]

it's been demonstrated many times over that no game currently out benefits from more than 4 threads. Most do better with 2 or 3 cores and higher clocks than 4 lower clocked cores.

FFXIV takes advantage of multi-core processors. That game seriously eats single/duo cores alive. Simulating 8 cores via. hypertheading nets higher benchmark scores.

[Sir Green Aluminum]

Anyone know the release date on the Intel Ivy bridge architechture? I'd maybe wait until we even hear about the US release before buying because you get better stuff or better deals on the "Older" technology.

Also, hard drive prices are up since the Thailand floods hit the hard drive factories. They're like $60ish for Western digitals for what used to be $30. You're better off using your old hard drive.

[Ioriya]

Anyone know the release date on the Intel Ivy bridge architechture? I'd maybe wait until we even hear about the US release before buying because you get better stuff or better deals on the "Older" technology.

Also, hard drive prices are up since the Thailand floods hit the hard drive factories. They're like $60ish for Western digitals for what used to be $30. You're better off using your old hard drive.

April 29th, supposedly.

[Faiyez]

Anyone know the release date on the Intel Ivy bridge architechture?

April 29th.

Edit: Ninja'd when I thought no one would answer -_-

[Mag-X]

For the record, the PSO2 character creator benchmark pushes two of my cores to almost 100% and a third to about 50%. I'm running an i5 750 @ 3.8GHz.

[kyuuketsuki]

FFXIV takes advantage of multi-core processors. That game seriously eats single/duo cores alive. Simulating 8 cores via. hypertheading nets higher benchmark scores.
From my quick research, it seems that FFXIV does indeed benefit from 4 cores, but beyond that I don't see any conclusive evidence one way or the other. Most people posting their CPU utilization only see two cores heavily used, while the others are generally around 10% utilization with spikes here and there. The benefits of additional cores beyond 4 is likely marginal at best.

From what I've read, FFXIV is built on an engine Square made with the PS3 in mind, which, if true, would seem to support that it's made with heavy thread utilization in mind, considering the nature of the PS3's cell processor. Even if so, though, it's definitely an exception to the rule. And, judging from people's CPU utilization in FFXIV, it's mostly minor things being offloaded to the additional cores, while the bulk of the work is taking place on the first 2 to 4 cores.

On a tangent:

Really, lay people just don't understand that you can't simply toss various bits of a game onto different threads and call it a day. A lot of code is going to be dependent on results from other bits of the code; if you run all these bits on different threads, all completing at different and unpredictable times, how are these different bits of code that rely on each other going to get the data they need? There are other issues, one I can think of off the top of my head: the overhead involved in scaling code between different threads. Meaning that, at some point, the overhead costs outweigh the speed gain of multiple threads, and, therefore, running more and more threads actually reduces performance. These issues are things that programmers ran into when trying to program for the PS3's cell processor, which is why you don't see the amazing things that people originally thought would come out of that architecture. Instead, in practice, it merely about matches the power of the Xbox 360 while being more difficult to program for.

The only thing about games that's really highly thread-able is the rendering engine -- which, of course, is what's handled by the GPU. GPUs happen to be highly parallized. The things running on additional CPU threads tend to be specialized things that can easily be spun-off onto their own thread: sound and networking code, for example.

Finally, you also have the issue that CPUs with lots of cores simply aren't common on the consumer market. So say some determined group of programmers spend all this time and all these resources successfully getting a game highly threaded... then what? Nobody can run the game, because their piddling little 2/3/4-core processors can't run enough threads.

[metatime]

The problem isn't that the programmers for games aren't good. It's mostly the fact that games don't thread well (at least the portion of the load that goes on the CPU). Also, I'm not sure why anyone would debate the point: it's been demonstrated many times over that no game currently out benefits from more than 4 threads. Most do better with 2 or 3 cores and higher clocks than 4 lower clocked cores.

As a programmer, it's just not worth the time and the effort to factor in code for multiple cores (called Parallel programming) and/or threads (multithread programming). It introduces other variables to account for when there's an issue so it can get time and resource consuming to deal with(lots of bugs and crashes for example) that comes with it. You'll rarely, if at all, will get applications that is optimize with all cores and/or threads.

I have known some programmers that program for decades and they don't implement parallel or multithread programming techniques into their applications.

Programmers are more interesting in getting the functionality/logic to work and getting an end result with the syntax working in their logic.

Optimization is another task if anyone is interested in doing on their own time.

Of course this is from a prospective of an average programmer and not one that works in a gaming industry that needs optimization in their games. It's mostly the big companies (like SquareEnix, Capcom, etc) that has the resources to do that. If you look at some of the smaller game companies like Runewaker, their engine are horrible.

[Xenobia]

Seriously people... thats a screenshot of my CPU usage on PSO2 character creator:

I dont feel its weak at all. In term a core isnt used well, i wouldnt even care because the system can use that core in order to make my system snappier... it will have ressources left to use in term its needed. A CPU close to full load is a mess. When i use a video recorder software, i do need additional CPU, 6 isnt to much cores (not even for gaming), its just about right to be able to make every job well, even several jobs at the same time. For a gamer system i use 4 core just because of its price, not because i truly wish to. Unused cores arnt always a waste, it does keep the system able to react under any situation. For example when 2 cores are used to the max, the system is out of ressources in order to create a additional task any fast. That kind of stuff is worse for performance, no matter its well used or not. I know how such a CPU does feel like because i once used one...lag lag lag... react? Error i dont like to react... im overused.

PSO2 can use 6 cores but not in a perfect manner (sometimes yes, sometimes no). EVEOnline however will use it close to perfect (near endless quantity)... and there is more out there who can do that. Programmers are nowadays to lazy, thats the main issue for lack of support, not the possibilitys.

Small programmer use a foreign engine, almost any of them. Just to expensive to create a new engine. Those engines are usualy pretty dated and have to be compatible with console. The consoles are delaying everything (because a developer cant anymore focus on one system only with a few exceptions, to less cash doing so) but next year we will get some improvement, finally.

[spoiler-box]http://www.pso-world.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1926&pictureid=25908[/spoiler-box]

Now playing EVE, here is a screen using HT. Usualy i dont use HT, without HT the cores are used much more even (perfect). But it still does use HT pretty well... making use of my CPU in a powerful manner. When i have a heavy war or when i am at WH space... i will have foolproof CPU performance with, it never will break. Besides, when i use 32 bit OS, i would run into RAM issues... it definitely would be a pain. That CPU is even very futureproof, while 4 core without HT isnt. It would be outperformed by that CPU... 10 working HT threads... a non HT 4 core cant compare. The 2 spare threads are not worse, because they can grant some higher system performance for content outside game, when needed.
[spoiler-box]http://www.pso-world.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1978&pictureid=26417[/spoiler-box]

[kyuuketsuki]

The PSO blog guy showed results from a hardware comparison. For the CPUs, there was only a marginal difference between even a quad-core Sandy Bridge and a dual-core Core 2 Duo. Between an i5/i7 and an i3, there was zero difference. Of course, if you want to play PSO2 while your PC renders or compiles code in the background, then sure, you'll probably want a quad-core or better. ;)

[Mag-X]

My PC still gets a score over 10,000 when running Prime95. :P

[kyuuketsuki]

Hah. Well the important point here is: if you're building a rig strictly for PSO2, definitely go big on the GPU even if you have to downgrade on the CPU side.

Also, from that hardware comparison, it looks like Llano can indeed run PSO2 at a decent resolution with reduced settings; I don't think you'd even have to turn the shaders to low. Definitely bodes well for when I get me a Trinity-based laptop/ultra-thin.

[Xenobia]

:D PSO2 is tuned in order to have it work on a VW beetle with a partially damaged engine. A bit a waste because that engine is that great that it could handle a solid bling. PSU was like rusty ore compared to it. Although all we got out of PSO2 is a raw diamond so far.

Its true that the difference vs. C2D and I3 is probably not to high, at PSO2 at least. If i would play Witcher 2 or EVE Online using that C2D i am doomed. Even in WoW the performance will be worse. Almost any other newer games will run worse, 4 core is nowadays almost a must have to be slightly future proof. The average CPU use for PSO2 on a 6 core is about 15%, EVE would take about 60% (20% at HT, it surely is insane to use), WoW around 50%. But even at uneven use, nothing is higher than 70%. I enjoy.. so i can keep my PC for eternal, no CPU upgrade needed anymore. Well worth the bucks. When we keep creating games with that low CPU use, i can keep that CPU for 10 years, a new record. Previously, more than 4 years was not possible (on C2D) because many games caused me performance issues at around Year 2010 (gotten in 2007) , and the C2D was at 100% load all the time. Thus slowing down the entire systems "snappiness", a painful experience for performance lovers. Then i upgraded 6 core at 2011... and it was just insane... what a power, feelable at every single spot. The highest difference is, that, no matter how many stuff im gonna throw at, no matter how many background tasks i do open at the same time, it does remain fully responsive and peformance will never drop. When i do same on a 2 core, then i would notice huge drops im almost certain. Compared to it, 4 or 6 core is like a immovable mountain, while 6 core is not truly possible to force it to its knees. At uneven load, the game might drop in FPS, but the unused cores will still make the system responsive for other tasks.

[Dark Emerald EXE]

So is there a cost effective (pretty much paying what you're getting) laptop out there that would handle pso2 where you could actually have moderate to highest setting and still have enjoyable time?

I was browsing around for laptops that I plan on getting when I start working again to plan to have before the english version comes out. Was looking at Asus they seem to have more of the NVIDIA graphic laptops...

[kyuuketsuki]

So is there a cost effective (pretty much paying what you're getting) laptop out there that would handle pso2 where you could actually have moderate to highest setting and still have enjoyable time?
Sure... but it's impossible to recommend one without knowing what your budget is.

[Dark Emerald EXE]

Sure... but it's impossible to recommend one without knowing what your budget is.
Hmmm preferably under 1,000.
I doubt you can get a new (i5,i7) for cheap.

I was looking at this but wasn't sure if that was an overkill for the price
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+17.3%22+Laptop+-+8GB+Memory+-+1TB+Hard+Drive/4775907.p?skuId=4775907&id=1218525518576


I know about computers in terms of parts and such but in terms of price and if it's worth it..not so much :P

Edit: Yea really it's something to work up to. Can't get at this very second. Once I start working that'll be what I'll be gunning for. I'm not a HEAVY gamer mostly what I do on this current laptop (although very old) is play FFXI (retired for now) and play gamecube games on dolphin...of course due to it's poor processor (was made !~2006-2007) I get lag spikes here and there but enough to play something.

I'd like a laptop where the things I play won't have huge issues of lag spikes and such. And since from what I've read...PSO2 seems to favor NVIDIA graphic cards over anything....preferably one with that