Wolfenstein, yet another game recommending an i7

[jmaster299]

People keep refusing to accept the fact that quad core CPUs are no longer sufficient for gaming during this era of 8 core consoles. They stubbornly stick to what they know from the last 8 years and think it will be good enough because the CPUs of consoles are significantly underclocked compared to PCs. That some how a game optimized for an 8 core CPU will run just fine on a faster quad core/thread CPU in a PC. When faced with studios announcing the requirement or recommendation for an 8 core/thread CPU, they simply call the developers "lazy" and claim that the game is just poorly optimized.

They base that assumption on pure ignorance and on trailers they see that they think are not of sufficient quality to need such powerful CPUs. But the fact is these games are being designed/optimized to run on 8 CPU cores, 4 faster cores doesn't override that optimization. Yes it's being made for the older consoles as well, but that's not the version that is being ported to PC. Anyone who insists that quad core CPUs are enough will quickly find themselves being unable to play more and more titles.

http://www.bethblog.com/2014/05/01/system-requirements-for-wolfenstein/
 

PC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8
Intel Core i7 or equivalent AMD
4 GB System RAM
50 GB free HDD space
GeForce 460, ATI Radeon HD 6850
High Speed Internet Connection
Steam account and activation required

[Bluejay0]

Looks like Hyper-Threading is hitting games? Maybe...

[Raboo]

This has been posted before

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/146830-wolfenstein-system-requirements-and-the-rise-of-the-over-inflated-requirements/ 

[jmaster299]

This has been posted before

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/146830-wolfenstein-system-requirements-and-the-rise-of-the-over-inflated-requirements/ 

Not in the news section, and you're not a mod. The purpose of my post is about it's implications to what almost everyone thinks is the standard for PC's going forward. Even Linus improperly recommended an i5 when he made the video of his own build. People need to find a hobby other than trying to check every post so see if it's been discussed before. Other forums rightful ban users for trying to act like mods.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

People keep refusing to accept the fact that quad core CPUs are no longer sufficient for gaming during this era of 8 core consoles. They stubbornly stick to what they know from the last 8 years and think it will be good enough because the CPUs of consoles are significantly underclocked compared to PCs. That some how a game optimized for an 8 core CPU will run just fine on a faster quad core/thread CPU in a PC. When faced with studios announcing the requirement or recommendation for an 8 core/thread CPU, they simply call the developers "lazy" and claim that the game is just poorly optimized.

They base that assumption on pure ignorance and on trailers they see that they think are not of sufficient quality to need such powerful CPUs. But the fact is these games are being designed/optimized to run on 8 CPU cores, 4 faster cores doesn't override that optimization. Yes it's being made for the older consoles as well, but that's not the version that is being ported to PC. Anyone who insists that quad core CPUs are enough will quickly find themselves being unable to play more and more titles.

http://www.bethblog.com/2014/05/01/system-requirements-for-wolfenstein/

 

PC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8

Intel Core i7 or equivalent AMD

4 GB System RAM

50 GB free HDD space

GeForce 460, ATI Radeon HD 6850

High Speed Internet Connection

Steam account and activation required

It is more work and more complex to write code that will use 8 threads.

[Raboo]

Not in the news section, and you're not a mod. The purpose of my post is about it's implications to what almost everyone thinks is the standard for PC's going forward. Even Linus improperly recommended an i5 when he made the video of his own build.

Ok I was just pointing out that there was already a post on this.

[Kiwiandapple]

It is more work and more complex to write code that will use 8 threads.

 

Exactly. And I can run about 5 games here right now and show you the FPS loss of disabling hyperthreading. It's almost a joke, while I don't have all the latest games. Recommended an i7 for gaming is a little sad. 

While I do agree that quad core's are the lowest I recommend people to get for gaming. It's not that a 6/8 core is going to be a super high improvement. Look at the 8 core from AMD compared to the quad core i5 4670K in benchmarks. Where they only change the mobo/cpu. 

[Suika]

An i5-4670k still performs just as well as an FX-8350 in multithreaded situations, despite the lower core count.

 

I'll start believing it if the 8350 begins dominating the 4670k in new games.

[Victorious Secret]

More cores don't equal better. Not unless someone codes for everything to take advantage of them. Thats why the 4670K shits on the AMDs. Hell, its why the 4330 holds its own as well. What good is having cores if barely anything is even bothering to take advantage?

 

And here is the amusing part, it will take CONSOLES to get developers to code for multiple cores and threads. Why? Pretty simple. 

 

There are so many consoles out there already that developers know all the work they put into multi-core optimization will actually be used. They know that everyone with a PS4/XBO has 8 cores. That is just a fact. So it only makes sense to optimize those games for 8 cores and make use of what they have. That only leads to better optimization for PCs as well, and developers actually bothering to code for them. 

 

Do we need 8 cores in our PCs right now? Nope. I give it 2-3 years before developers really start taking advantage in amounts that make sense to invest in a 8 core CPU. 

 

Intel has shown they can play ball just find with half the cores of the AMD brethren and developers have shown that they really don't give a shit (right now) about having all those cores to play with (for now). 

[Rassilon]

People need time to accept it. Even in this thread people are comparing last gen games to this gen games.

It doesn't work that way.

[Misanthrope]

People keep refusing to accept the fact that quad core CPUs are no longer sufficient for gaming during this era of 8 core consoles. They stubbornly stick to what they know from the last 8 years and think it will be good enough because the CPUs of consoles are significantly underclocked compared to PCs.

 

1) Don't open your "news" item with a grand condemnation

 

2) People are refusing nothing: No game requiring true multi-threading or multi-core is out yet. wait until the end of May to level this pointless criticism since once Watchdogs is out (and if it truly benefits greatly from 8 actual cores, though I have no reason to doubt it will for the same reasons you point out on your post, minus all the accusations) people will change their tone quickly enough. It could (and likely will) revitalize AMD and give Intel a kick in the butt to come up with better multi core processors, but until that happens there's no point in upgrading for games that are still theoretical at this point.

[jmaster299]

People need time to accept it. Even in this thread people are comparing last gen games to this gen games.

It doesn't work that way.

Exactly. Do the games need the horsepower of 8 threads? No, and that's not what educated people like myself are saying. But they are OPTIMIZED to use 8 threads, so that is what the developers are going to recommend that you use to play their games.

[xamon]

They already confirmed that the i7 they are talking about is an i7 930 the equivalent of an ivy bridge i5. I already posted that information in the other thread about the games requirements. But I do believe that next gen games will be able to use many cores and we will see more and more of then as time goes by.

[Linus_torvalds]

Intel Core i7 or equivalent AMD

AMD doesnot have i7 equivalent.

 

my friend has FX 8320 and on 4.7 GHZ it had 26k score in vantage my i7 3770 stock score is 28k

 

also he has GTX 660 and it's score was 22k when mine is 26k 

 

AMD CPU architecture sucks

[Misanthrope]

AMD doesnot have i7 equivalent.

 

my friend has FX 8320 and on 4.7 GHZ it had 26k score in vantage my i7 3770 stock score is 28k

 

also he has GTX 660 and it's score was 22k when mine is 26k 

 

AMD CPU architecture sucks

 

To play devil's advocate, their single core scores are weak, but if a game (again a game that is not even out yet, Watchdogs, but one that's coming soon enough) leverages 8 cores effectively, for the price the FX 8320 or 50 will be a damn good value.

[Jodomcfrodo]

No offense OP but turn down the superiority complex lol jeez. People above were just trying to help.

 

But anyway I agree. BF4 uses all my 4770k's cores. I5's are still good for games. They don't bottleneck much but the gap is starting to grow in game performance between I7's and I5's. When Linus did his video I'm sure he took into consideration the I7. Linus doesn't just throw stuff out there, he researches stuff. But again, the gap is widening and by next year people will probably start recommending I7's. But for now, with a few exceptions, it's not's worth the extra $100.

 

Just my $.02

[othertomperson]

People are still going on about how crap SLi is and that's been pretty good for years. I'd expect people with an interest in tech to have more of an ear to the ground, but whatever.

 

As for multi-threaded gaming, it's almost common now for games to run on six cores so obviously the i7 will perform better than the i5, but I think it's still debatable as to whether it's enough of a performance increase to justify paying the price difference.

[VSG]

The consoles don't even have a true 8 core APU. While I welcome developers treading to use more of the available resources, they aren't yet doing so as I already mentioned in a similar thread from the OP here.

[FlamingDefibs]

it seems as if all that could be said has been said - we need to wait and see how this is actually leveraged.

 

Also, "People need to find a hobby other than trying to check every post so see if it's been discussed before. Other forums rightful ban users for trying to act like mods."

 

Really? You want to go there? Other forums, and this one included, also ban people for being rude people.

[Echodamus]

Not in the news section, and you're not a mod. The purpose of my post is about it's implications to what almost everyone thinks is the standard for PC's going forward. Even Linus improperly recommended an i5 when he made the video of his own build. People need to find a hobby other than trying to check every post so see if it's been discussed before. Other forums rightful ban users for trying to act like mods.

Jeez someone is a bit angry. He was just pointing out that it has been posted before, no need to get your panties in a bunch. 

[MasterJV]

Just because a developer says its required doesn't mean its actually required. Remember when COD "required" a 64 Bit os and 6GBs of ram? My theory is that they market high system specs so people think this game will look amazing, thus making them more excited.

[flibberdipper]

Wait, i7, GTX 460, and 4GB of RAM... I call bullshit. Who has an i7 with a 460 and 4GB of RAM and uses it like a gaming rig?

[MasterJV]

Wait, i7, GTX 460, and 4GB of RAM... I call bullshit. Who has an i7 with a 460 and 4GB of RAM and uses it like a gaming rig?

You'd be surprised...

[flibberdipper]

You'd be surprised...

Good point... I want to run a 1GHz Pentium 3, 1GB or so of RAM, and a Radeon X1650 Pro.

[smjpl]

People keep refusing to accept the fact that quad core CPUs are no longer sufficient for gaming ...

 

You're saying a quad core CPU isn't sufficient to run current multithreaded games? What games actually use that many threads? Do you have any proof to back up your statement? Or are you simply stating this because the back of the game recommends an i7?