EA and quad cores

[prescient]

EA trying to sell quad cores for intel? all new titles depending on cpu not gpu
while games should depend more on gpu

starting from battlefield games to Bulletstorm and look at this :

Dragon Age 2 recommended :

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent / AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8 GHz or equivalent

VGA: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater / NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater

lol a 8800gts? am below sys requirements with an HD 6870 and a top notch
c2d at 4 ghz, i wont be shy to prove to EA that games will deppend
on an up to date gpu at the end more than a 2.4 quad cpu , i never go below 100 fps in any of their
quad cores games .

dragon age 2 dx11 high settings 110 fps

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Good for you...
I don't think they are but it is nice that they list that stuff so people know what to buy when their computer isn't exactly "running it" that good

 

[alexsubri]

I only have the demo but I have 8x AA and 16x AF activated. It won't let me go on Very High, motion blur, and another option because it's the DEMO. I get 80-100 FPS on my 5850 Crossfire, ashame that the demo took some features out, this game was really well coded for Directx11

 

[Easy Rhino]

EA trying to sell quad cores for intel?

maybe it's just that games are now finally requiring quad cores...

 

[jasper1605]

I wish I could pull 100 frames. This game destroys my 5850 on dx11 very high on a 5760x1200 setup 8fps avg

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

There's a huge difference between games claiming to use quads and those that actually do. The supreme commander games are the only ones I've found so far that will actually fully use a quad. Crysis claimed to, but during a heavy physics event like a nuke it tops out at 30% cpu usage, 15% with better performance if you use CCC. Only other exapmle I can think of is gta which does much better on a quad than a dual.

 

[AltecV1]

the real answer is that the game is a xbox360 port thats why it is recommended a tri core and seeing as intel does not have a tri core it is listed as a quad

 

[Jstn7477]

Team Fortress 2 uses a ton of CPU, which is retarded. I needed a 3.2GHz AMD PII X4 955BE with multicore rendering enabled to even maintain 50-60 FPS in the game, yet maxed out it used 30-50% of my HD 5770.

 

[DrPepper]

Okay and the problem is ?

There was a whole bunch of people making a big deal when dual cores came out saying they could run stuff with a single core without a problem and now it's the same for quad, hexa and octa cored cpu's.

 

[ctrain]

Team Fortress 2 uses a ton of CPU, which is retarded. I needed a 3.2GHz AMD PII X4 955BE with multicore rendering enabled to even maintain 50-60 FPS in the game, yet maxed out it used 30-50% of my HD 5770.

source engine has always loved CPU, which is why performance went up massively when they added multithreading.

more things are threaded in later versions of the engine too, like the sound engine.

 

[Mussels]

actually, he's having a sook that he can... run the game.


forgive me anas, because this is going to be sarcastic and harsh... but did you realize those requirements are based on stock CPU's? of course a 4GHz C2D is going to shit over a 2.4Ghz quad. you overlclocked.


also, nice to see you ran on high (DX10) and not very high (DX11) with most of the advanced graphics features disabled. If you ran them up higher you'd notice they're GPU dependant... so wait, what was your argument again? that running on medium settings (which you truly are running) gets you good FPS?

 

[Zubasa]

I just LOLed.

 

[prescient]

also, nice to see you ran on high (DX10) and not very high (DX11) with most of the advanced graphics features disabled. If you ran them up higher you'd notice they're GPU dependant... so wait, what was your argument again? that running on medium settings (which you truly are running) gets you good FPS?

did you look up that settings screen i posted ? am not on dx10 am on dx11 and on high not medium settings . no need to use very high on my mid range rig .
i made my point on my first post so no need to be repetitive .
i dont see what is so funny about me proving that EA games are scamming their so called
4 cores optimization

 

[erocker]

did you look up that settings screen i posted ? am not on dx10 am on dx11 and on high not medium settings . no need to use very high on my mid range rig .
i made my point on my first post so no need to be repetitive .
i dont see what is so funny about me proving that EA games are scamming their so called
4 cores optimization

How does the game run with your system at stock settings?

 

[95Viper]

EA trying to sell quad cores for intel? all new titles depending on cpu not gpu
while games should depend more on gpu

starting from battlefield games to Bulletstorm and look at this :

Dragon Age 2 recommended :

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent / AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8 GHz or equivalent

VGA: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater / NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater

lol a 8800gts? am below sys requirements with an HD 6870 and a top notch
c2d at 4 ghz, i wont be shy to prove to EA that games will deppend
on an up to date gpu at the end more than a 2.4 quad cpu , i never go below 100 fps in any of their
quad cores games .

dragon age 2 dx11 high settings 110 fps

It would be nice, if you would quote the real requirements(minimum and recommended).
As, the minimum shows that you can play it with lesser tech, but you would get better results with the recommended playing on DX10 and DX11.

All they are doing is giving the average user info to base a purchasing decision on; as, not every one out there is as tech savvy as you.

Plus, I did not see where they publish or state any frame per seconds rates at whatever resolution and settings for the hardware. Just general requirements.
They aren't trying to sell Duos, Tris, Quads, Hexas, or etc.... it just your perception.

It is a generalization. No need to bash EA.

Minimum:

• OS: Windows XP with SP3; Windows Vista with SP2; Windows 7
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater; AMD Athlon 64 X2 (or equivalent) running at 1.8 GHz or greater
• Memory: 1024 MB (1536 MB Vista and Windows 7)
• Hard Disk Space: 7GB
• Video: Radeon HD 2600 Pr• 256MB and the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 256MB cards
• Sound: Direct X 9.0c Compatible Sound Card Windows Experience Index: 4.5

Recommended:

• OS: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent; AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8GHz or Equivalent
• Memory: 2Gb (4 GB Vista and Windows 7)
• Video: ATI 3850 512MB or Greater; NVIDIA 8800GTS 512MB or Greater; DirectX 11: ATI 5850 or Greater; NVIDIA 460 or Greater

Just my 2¢.

 

[prescient]

i dunno am not restting bios just for that , but i assure you its not only this game .
i blasted through bfbc2 and bluestorm just the same way even that sys req lab
says am below recommended cpu , i never noticed the difference .
if i had a 6970 i would go very high and you would see that the c2d cpu wont bottleneck
EA quad core games

 

[Zubasa]

i dunno am not restting bios just for that , but i assure you its not only this game .
i blasted through bfbc2 and bluestorm just the same way even that sys req lab
says am below recommended cpu , i never noticed the difference .
if i had a 6970 i would go very high and you would see that the c2d cpu wont bottleneck
EA quad core games

That is not the point.
EA never said that you cannot run the game without a quad-core
What they say is that you want a 2.4 C2Q or something similar in performance.
A C2D @4Ghz is faster than a 2.4Ghz C2Q in many games.

May I ask do you even understand what equivalent means?

 

[prescient]

Recommended:

• OS: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent; AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8GHz or Equivalent
• Memory: 2Gb (4 GB Vista and Windows 7)
• Video: ATI 3850 512MB or Greater; NVIDIA 8800GTS 512MB or Greater; DirectX 11: ATI 5850 or Greater; NVIDIA 460 or Greater

Just my 2¢.

it was just funny to me to put away an E8600 beast out of the equation then ask
for a 3850 . now that is a big lol on haw that 3850 will run that game maxed out .
games are about gpus not cpus and am not sooking

 

[95Viper]

@anas>
Gawd, are you just trolling.

They(EA) never said a dam* thing about max out diddly in their requirements.

And, Sys Req Labs is an entirely different beast.

I give up... you have got tunnel vision... your perception is fixated on one thing only.
Open your mind. Take something mind expanding.

 

[Zubasa]

it was just funny to me to put away an E8600 beast out of the equation then ask
for a 3850 . now that is a big lol on haw that 3850 will run that game maxed out .
games are about gpus not cpus and am not sooking

You are the one that puts your E8600 @4Ghz out of the equation.
What is so special that you manage to run the game fine with a system that is above the requirement?

You are just complaining for the sake of complaining.
No company in the world would put an OCed processor into account.
They can't expect their customer to be overclockers.

 

[prescient]

well thread gose to the dungeon , obviously too many flamers and am not in the mood to get banned

 

[erocker]

well thread gose to the dungeon , obviously too many flamers and am not in the mood to get banned

I think you just overlooked the minimum settings. The recommended settings are mainly for people who don't overclock their computers, have many processes running, lack of maintenence and things like that. They have to account for all users, not just users who know what's actually in their computer. It's in no way some conspiracy, you jumped to that conclusion a bit too quickly.

 

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

i dunno am not restting bios just for that , but i assure you its not only this game .
i blasted through bfbc2 and bluestorm just the same way even that sys req lab
says am below recommended cpu , i never noticed the difference .
if i had a 6970 i would go very high and you would see that the c2d cpu wont bottleneck
EA quad core games

You blasted through BFBC2 with that system? wtf:

Pics and proof please. If my system doesn't blast through populated servers in BFBC2 then your C2D sure the hell doesn't. BC2 is notoriously hard on CPUs. You're either lying or you didn't patch the game and don't actually play it.

 

[Mussels]

did you look up that settings screen i posted ? am not on dx10 am on dx11 and on high not medium settings . no need to use very high on my mid range rig .
i made my point on my first post so no need to be repetitive .
i dont see what is so funny about me proving that EA games are scamming their so called
4 cores optimization

mouseover the 'high' setting, you'll notice it says you're running DX10. running DX10 with the advanced features off is not 'high' regardless of you choosing the 'high' setting.

heres some screenshots to prove my point


DX11 has a fallback for DX10 hardware. thats what high is.

Very high, actually uses DX11.

If you want to prove something, at least get your facts straight first. Run your system at stock clocks, and see how you truly fare on maximum settings (DX11 with the optional stuff enabled) and then tell me if they over-rated the requirements.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

You blasted through BFBC2 with that system? wtf:

Pics and proof please. If my system doesn't blast through populated servers in BFBC2 then your C2D sure are hell doesn't. BC2 is notoriously hard on CPUs. You're either lying or you didn't patch the game and don't actually play it.

I agree. While I may not have a ATI 6000 card, my 5870 is close enough to his 6870 and my q9650 is twice the cpu he has(I could take it to 4ghz or higher if I wanted). I averaged 80fps, yet he claims to have "blasted" though BFBC2 like he did with Dragon Age 2 which he claims to get 110fps.

BTW, BFBC2 does infact use 4 cores of a quad. I'd post pics of task manager showing this if I had the game installed right now.