1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Previews Early 2010 Releases

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by TheMailMan78, Jan 5, 2010.

  1. 3volvedcombat

    3volvedcombat New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,514 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    South California, The desert.
    Most the people with quads dont mind dualcore news. 555 BE beating out a e8600, is slim, and 555BE beating out Intels Dual cores might be even more slim.

    I acctualy dont mind about a 3.4Ghz dualcore. I just got happy over the 965 3.4Ghz quad core. :roll::roll:. So far the only crazy c3 revision ive seen on a 24/7 overclock is Erockers which impresses me for the voltage it takes for that c3 to do the clock.

    Also, Im a overclocker, 3.2Ghz is enough anyways, and a 3.4Ghz dualcore aint going to do much. Probably some ranking clocker is going to put it under some Liquid Nitrogen and get 100-150Mhz higher overclock out of it. But thats a maby. 555be i just dont care about XD.
     
  2. Flyordie

    Flyordie New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,870 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    247
    Well, its good enough for me to consider downgrading to the X2 555 from my X4 920.
     
  3. 3volvedcombat

    3volvedcombat New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,514 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    South California, The desert.
    It isnt about "But can it run Crysis anymore" Its now about "But can it run GTA 4" :) -3volvedcombat

    If you dare drop your quad to get a 555 BE dual core. Im going to be sad for you, I was discussing how close dual cores are becoming low end to near brink dead, and how 75% of the market is going to be coverd in quad cores and up. Even some of the x2 cores are unlocked in peoples computers to quads. And the triple cores are also being unlocked. Just not some of the Athlon series thats stuck and cant be unlocked. If you get a a 555be and plan on just clocking it to for 4Ghz 24/7 thats kinda good but, statistics should be coming in as console ports, head companys, will be using 3 cores or more for there new engines and 360 port titles. Games will run on dual cores in the future but haveing that quad for those 2010-2011 titles might be a huge jump in performance from a dual. Im just waiting, waiting and waiting.

    **EDIT** I have 2 gigs of ram, and that was good for all games months intill begining 2009. But now i need to upgrade my ram cause these games are eating my ram up like little kittle food bits. So i should have gotten 4 gigs in the first place :(. Now i can just imagine from now, hearing how they should have saved there money and not gone dual core*for some wierd reason* and how the new 800 chipsets are doing wonders with quads and overclocking, and how many games will be using quads.
    Sad part is this means ports better be getting better, or games are just poorly optimized and need all this hardware to run nicely.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  4. MilkyWay

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    733
    GTA4? My 360 can run that, its just a poorly coded port.

    555BE well its probly good for the price. Hope so because then it might have a selling point. Being fast and low power is good for those who dont want to spend a lot on a pc that can just do things, like HTPC or nettops, light gamers.
    AMD Athlons are good budget cpus but for gaming id rather have a cpu with the L3 cache unlocked and the phenoms have that.

    People always buy more than they need, a dual core with some decent cache would be fine for most tasks and gaming too but people will always buy beefier hardware and claim its future proofing (when really next year they do the same). Take buffets for example sometimes just because its a buffet people eat more. People buy cars with large engines just to go to work. People think bigger is better when it might not really be the case.

    ITS ALL POINTLESS! but we still do that anyway.

    Its not wonderful news but its a C3 which is lower power, lower voltage and higher clocking. Maybe not much better but its a small improvement.

    EDIT: its not aimed at our market its for a different market, different users for different hardware, like cars not everybody needs the same type of vehicle.
     
  5. 3volvedcombat

    3volvedcombat New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,514 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    South California, The desert.
    Exactly,
    It isnt about "but can it run Crysis" Its about "but can it run GTA4" :roll::roll:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2016
  6. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (2.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    GTAIV requires a quad to run decently I can max it out stock 60fps with my 4890. It's not poorly coded it's that there is so much stuff going on physics wise. Each character has their own physics and vehicle's driving and crashing etc take's alot out of the CPU. If you tried to run it using a dual core and a 5970 I'd still get better fps because it's not a graphically intense game. (I explain this almost all the time to people)
     
  7. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,401 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,410
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Quoting yourself? I guess I will explain, since it doesn't seem to obvious. When running at resolutions like 1920x1200 or even higher (especially with eyefinity, some games (beyond GTA 4) get close to capping out a 1GB card, and when hardware is the game, future proofing is also. I don't play GTA 4 on PC, just leave that to my PS3, but it's a sign that its time to move past 1GB cards when running high resolution, hopefully that helps you understand a bit more. :toast:
     
  8. MilkyWay

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    733
    Ive seen the GTA 4 port and its not that much dissimilar to the 360 and ps3 versions. So where does the need for better hardware come into it? Poor coding although its improved over time.

    GTA 4 on the pc is more cpu intensive then graphically. Its not the best looking game by far but there is so much going on under the hood.

    A crap quad wont do much better than a decent dual especially with lower graphics settings. I wouldnt take an Athlon for gaming but id tell people spend the same on a phenom II and a medium graphics card, you will be able to surf the net and media and light game.

    The Athlons are cache crippled, intel cpus are all the same really.

    EDIT: Crysis was just clearly a poor coded game, warhead was a bit better but those 2 games engine needs strong hardware to run, i think they packed to much into the game. With Cry Engine 3 it will be able to run on consoles so it needs to be able to run good on that hardware so your guaranteed it will run okay on pc's.

    I was saying if a 360 can run gta 4 great no slowdown why does it take a decent pc.
     
  9. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,401 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,410
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    The view distance is what I noticed, it's a pretty massive difference, beyond that, there wasn't anything else to write home about, just poorly ported. It might be a CPU taxing game, but at 1680x1050, it won't let me with a 4870x2 run the game maxed out, I can run everything maxed, except view distance, that has to be at 40%, and when setup like that it says it would be using 1100mb of video memory :/

    But as far as a dual core athlon goes, they game fine, trust me I'm using one, even at stock clocks they are ok, but they OC FAR easier than the phenom's, and once clocked up, I never had an issue with any games.
     
  10. MilkyWay

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    733
    yeah it had the view distance changed because on a 360 its hardware limited on pc there are so many different hardware types

    but they should be on parity at the same level of detail
     
  11. 3volvedcombat

    3volvedcombat New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,514 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    South California, The desert.
    Its a joke Kurgan. The games poorly coded, so you need alot of hardware for this demanding game to run. Expensive quad cores, over 3 gigs of ram, a Hd 4850 or more to run at 1440x900 maxed. And thats overclocked, Remeber the old days when crysis was "poorly coded" and computers had a hard time running the game smoothly. Now its gta 4 thats even more intensive and harder many computers to even run smoothly. So the joke is, sense this HD 5970x2 card we have been imaginating this whole time, making up specifications for it, i bring up the gaming part saying "but can it run GTA 4" :wtf:

    Also a side note. GTA 4 uses all your video memory. While you play the game for 5-10 minutes, even at low distance settings, it still uses all your video memory, and alot of desktop RAM and starts pausing frames, and stuttering alot. Theres a custom fix i remeber seeing in a thread to fix this video card memory issue. Dosnt bother me anymore with sli 260's With some Nhancer driver mods, im running the game smoothly.

    For alot of people 1-5 hours of game play and they need to restart the game because frames slowly drop. Its a very demanding game really. Has no idea of a Level of detail cap. I can still see 100 feet infront of me with View distance at 1 from the max of 100.

    so basicly you know your hardware is 1337 if "But can it run GTA4"

    If it can, its beast, If it cant, its still beast for every other game practicly.
     
    1Kurgan1 says thanks.
  12. a_ump

    a_ump

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,681 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Location:
    Smithfield, WV
    ...i never understood why people always called crysis poorly coded. Hello it still imo has the best looking visuals ever, the only game that i would say compares and maybe outdoes it is Stalker:CS or the newer one with some dx11 features. I mean duh the best looking game is going to tax even the best of hardware out. This is one thing i've argued for a long time n why i've always thought that it was coded perfectly fine is that when i was running 24fps in crysis, it felt like 60fps in CSS, or roughly 35fps in FC2. The fact that Crysis always felt extremely smooth for how low the FPS were is why i've always thought it was coded perfectly fine. Who are we to state it was coded poorly? have any knowledgeable programmers seen the actual code and stated it was? i believe it was all speculation and assumptions just bc it wouldn't run maxed on the best hardware that was out at the time.

    GTA4 however i agree was quickly ported to PC, hence poorer performance with much better hardware compared to whats on the 360.
     
  13. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,401 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,410
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Eh, I felt Age of Conan comes close to Crysis and runs better, I mean obviously it's not quiet at Crysis, but being an MMO it has other stress issues to deal with and I was able to run that maxed out with a single 3870.

    Crysis at anything under the extreme high setting (or whatever it was called) ran just fine, it was just that maxed out setting, it ran like crap, even now videocards are just finally starting to hit playable frame rates at 1920x1080, and the games what 3 years old?
     
  14. a_ump

    a_ump

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,681 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Location:
    Smithfield, WV
    u make a point, i def agree that the noticable difference from high to very high didn't warrant the perform hit. But then wasn't it the first Dx10 game, so it is quite possible, being the first dx10 game, that the dx10 wasn't implemented as well as it is today in games.

    Back on topic, i was really hoping when i saw this title that it would speak of an HD 5890 with 384-bit bus and 1536MB of GDDR5 ram with say 950mhz/1300mhz(5200GDDR5) clocks. That'd be badass
     
  15. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,401 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,410
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Yep, I'm waiting for that 5890, or whatever card comes with over 1gb ram, I just hope they annoucne it soon instead of waiting on NV, which I have a feeling they will do :(
     
  16. 3volvedcombat

    3volvedcombat New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,514 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    South California, The desert.

    The game is great looking, but when it first came out there were only 7 series nvidia cards/old Ati? which performed badly on the game, reports about the game and demo were that of like "WTF I got a 7800 series card, and I cant even play the game on medium!". Then 8 series came out I belive, but the cards were expensive as hell sense nvidia overpriced them on basic terms of performance. Some people baught 8600gts's and could barly play the game on a 19inch monitor on medium/high settings. Alot of people had single-dual cores, but Intels duals were expensive, in upwards of 200+ bucks right? Also if you notice in many cases the games performance in dx10 is terrable but im not blaming them, its all vista. resources and backround shit affecting that. Then after that, people like me and other modders of the game starting making autoexec.cfg files which basicly alter up to 1,000+ command lines of code in the file that tweaked very complex settings to make the game look better and run faster. Now there are a bunch of easy .cfg files you can download, that make the game look like its on Very high(prooven with screenshots) yet runs on Med/high FPS.

    Basicly the game came out ahead of its time. Then Nvidia's 8000 series was Overpriced making hope seem lost, then All this other tech like Intels Dual cores were cash out of are wallets, but People were just spending cash on there rigs just to run crysis and only crysis. Because most the hardware they had ran every other game well maxed out.

    **NOTE** They Also Realeased 2 and a half patches, for better Utilazation of SLI and Crossfirex performance and bugs, Memory leaks, and so on so forth(Added Increase In performance by sometimes huge numbers). They Decided to put dx10 into crysis but from my first hand sight, its litteraly a bull shit 10+fps cut from the game. DX9 runs fast and there are configs to make the game look better while running even smoother.

    The game is great, looks awsome, but alot of patches, tweaks, and wrong realease timing came into play to say the game was poorly coded. Also do you realize that Crysis Warhead Looked better, and alot of reports were the game ran better and was more optimized then Crysis on the v1.2 patch. There was poor code, that they better optimized while there was faster computers arrising from the market.

    And they got so good, that when I saw Crysis 2 looking awsome on a ps3 that can barly play crysis on low for its life, then i new that Crysis 2 is ganna be better optimized and coded ready for battle.
     
  17. ChewyBrownSuga

    ChewyBrownSuga

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    398 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    If you want something with over 1gb of ram why don't you just get the 285gtx in the link?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143206

    and its batman ^_^
     
    1Kurgan1 says thanks.
  18. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,401 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,410
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Because that cards slower than a 5850, and costs as much a 5870, also can't do DX11. Also I have an AMD mobo, so no SLI and I couldn't afford SLI at $409 a pop.
     
  19. a_ump

    a_ump

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,681 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Location:
    Smithfield, WV
    haha cause its performance doesn't warrant the price.....not in the least
     
  20. Marineborn

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,144 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    312
    5970X2 for the win. scuse me while i cut the front out of my case! hahahahahaha
     
  21. devguy

    devguy

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,240 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCal
    A quad is not necessary for good performance with GTA IV. The game was coded for a triple core (albiet multithreaded) processor, and from personal experience, there's no real performance difference between a quad and triple core chip on GTA IV. Although, I do agree that a dual core is cutting it slim for GTA IV.

    And if you want a 2GB card, the only option on the horizon I know of is the HD 5870 6 port Eyefinity Edition. But that will probably cost as much as a 5970, with the requirement of a DisplayPort monitor (and little tangible benefit for a non-Eyefinity setup).
     
  22. 3volvedcombat

    3volvedcombat New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,514 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    South California, The desert.
    Well AMD Users have the option to go buy a Triple core, but mainly everybody has quad cores, its like a standard. Quad is a even standard set of cores, and mainly its worth going from dual to quad, instead of dual to triple core. Besides the fact i get 80% ussage on all 4 cores of my processor, and i7's get ussage on all there cores including the logical threads. So you might of had a wierd instance. You really cant see a gain from 3-4 cores, and espicialy if you unlocked it on the same processor. Maybe it only used 3 on some wierd accasion or CAP.
    Xbox 360s are triple cored, and Ps3's are 7 cored.

    ***EDIT*** If you upgraded from a Triple core to the quad you have now in your status then it wasnt even a big upgrade at all. The cache on those AMD Athlons are disabled and criple it alot in my opinion. Phenom II 720BE's are faster in benchmarking and real world gaming, and overclock nicely, and get unlocked to quads with full L3 cache on all 4 cores running stable at up to 4.0Ghz sometimes.
     
  23. mchlor

    mchlor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    27 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Ati 5970 X2. code name "Flame thrower" coming Q1 2010.
     
  24. devguy

    devguy

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,240 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCal
    Well, I didn't upgrade from a 720BE to a quad 620 for gaming purposes. I do a lot of video encoding and the quad outperforms it well. As far as gaming goes, my Athlon 620 overclocked about 150mhz faster than my 720BE seems to make up for the lack of L3 cache. And I could get my 720 up to 3.5ghz, but my 620 up to 3.6Ghz, so the difference is minimal for me. With a good motherboard, an unlocked multiplier adds little benefit, yet makes me feel like a lazy slob. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  25. department76

    department76 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    519 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    60
    Location:
    U of WY, USA
    if this 555BE is a C3, then why isn't it plausible to expect 4.0ghz+? maybe this will finally be a real e8xxx and i5 dual core contender.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)