Wolfenstein, yet another game recommending an i7

[jmaster299]

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?

They set specs based on how the game is optimized and what hardware is best to run the game based on that optimization. It is not based on any sort of combination of what people are likely to have in their systems. 

[flibberdipper]

They set specs based on how the game is optimized and what hardware is best to run the game based on that optimization. It is not based on any sort of combination of what people are likely to have in their systems. 

I know...

[Misanthrope]

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.

 

The purpose of the section is news, not lecturing people about the benefits of i7. 

[mc141]

Either im fps blind or a a core2 extreme and a 7870 seem as good as my 290x and an i7 on current games. going from an core 2quad 2.33 and a 2004 $50 ati card to an core2extreme and an amd 7870 on same machine was the only huge jump i saw as I never used benchmark software till recently. I usualy dont use ultra mode as I dont seem to see a difference. On both setups. I couldnt bench mark my systems any more as I droped the core 2 extreme down to a $50 video card since its only a media center dvr/ xbox360 extender pc and put the 7870 into my kids pc. What am I doing wrong if im not seeing a difference I setups.

[deathjester]

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.

 

Thief recommended an I7. How about that I3 Ivy Bridge beating an 8350 on a R9 290x. This is not a rinky dink GPU they tested it on.  They also overclocked the 8350 to 4.5ghz. It was only 1 fps behind the I3 Ivy on the OC. 

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

 

That is a single player game though. How about MMO's. If anything is going to be CPU bound it is going to be an MMO. Welp, we have a "next gen" MMO. Elder Scrolls Online. The game is horrid but we have benchmarks. The 8350 did better than in Thief. It BARELY lost to a Ivy Bridge I3.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-performance,3789-8.html

 

I think you people need to accept something. 1) Devs seem to like making up specs, and there are new consoles out, with one not selling well that they want to promote. 2) There is no "AMD equivalent" to an I7 so that recommendation is ridiculous. 3) People like me who have an I7? Watch as One thread is at 100 percent usage, another thread is at most 50, and the other 6 threads are barely used. 

 

That is with Dark Souls 2 and MXGP loaded at the same time...You don't need an I7 to game with and you sure as hell don't need an I7 to game with on a GTX 460. I just showed this to a friend who thought he needed an I7 lol. Put on 2 games and task manager and showed him my cpu usage. He was convinced from IGN that he needed an I7 to play Watch Dog's. 

[Keudn]

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

Consoles have 8 cores because developers can specifically code to use all the cores since they have access to much lower level apis than someone coding with DirectX and they know they are coding for everyone with the exact same specs

[nosirrah123]

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.

Jesus dude, calm down, no need for insults, we try to keep it friendly here.

[Kamina]

A quad core i5 is about as fast as an 8 core fx chip when all cores are used, if not a little bit faster in some cases. FX has half the IPC, that means each core has about half the speed for a single i5 core.

 

Consoles utilize about 6 cores and the other 2 cores do other tasks. They have 2 modules with 4 cores in each.

[nosirrah123]

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.

 

Yeah, remember this is coming from the developer who bragged all about how good the graphics in their game would be, then quietly downgraded them. It would be a very similar tactic, and sadly not beneath them in any way.

[deathjester]

Consoles have 8 cores because developers can specifically code to use all the cores since they have access to much lower level apis than someone coding with DirectX and they know they are coding for everyone with the exact same specs

 

The API is even more impressive than you think, and we will have it soon on the PC. Only 6 cores are available to game developers. 2 are locked to the OS. Infamous Second Son which is probably the only decent looking game on these consoles had a tech article where they discussed it being on 6 cores.

 

Add to this they are 1.6 ghz (PS4) and 1.7 ghz (Xbox One) AMD x2 mobile chips with absolute garbage cache and much slower than an AMD desktop chip clock for clock. So at best you could say these are like 6300fx's at like maybe 1.2 ghz? 

 

To be fair they only have to not bottleneck a 7770 in TFLOPS on the Xbox One and a 7790 on the PS4. PS4 has a weaker CPU (Xbox OC'd theirs by 100 mhz in late development for absolutely no reason except it looks better on stats), but the PS4 has GDDR5 that can be used for VRAM, over DDR3 and ESRAM helping it out a little.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7528/the-xbox-one-mini-review-hardware-analysis/2

 

Add to all this the AMD "8 cores" share cache, so they are really like hyperthreading. This is why an I3 has beat an 8350 in a lot of these "next gen" games. None of these next gen games are really cpu dependant other than BF4, and you don't need an I7 to play BF4.

[xamon]

Found the link to the detailed recommendation for this game http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=12464&game=Wolfenstein:%20The%20New%20Order&title=Wolfenstein:%20The%20New%20Order%20Minimum%20System%20Requirements

 

The minimum requirements:

• OS: Windows 7 64-bit
• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHz OR AMD Phenom II X2 545
• RAM: 3GB System Memory
• GPU: Nvidia GTS 250 OR AMD Radeon HD 6670
• DX: DirectX 11.0
• NET: High Speed Internet Connection Required
• HD: 50GB Free Hard Drive Space

The recommended requirements:

• OS: Windows 7 64-bit
• CPU: 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7-930 or  3.2 GHz Six-Core AMD Phenom II 1090T
• RAM: 4GB System Memory
• GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 6850
• DX: DirectX 11.0
• NET: High Speed Internet Connection Required
• HD: 50GB Free Hard Drive Space

As you can see the u7 is only a 930 so pretty much a i5 by today's standard. The fact that is it not really spelled out on the Steam page is pretty deceptive and I bet it cost them some pre orders/will cost them some sales.

[GeathX]

A quad core i5 is about as fast as an 8 core fx chip when all cores are used, if not a little bit faster in some cases. FX has half the IPC, that means each core has about half the speed for a single i5 core.

 

Consoles utilize about 6 cores and the other 2 cores do other tasks. They have 2 modules with 4 cores in each.

It really does depend on the work load. A 8350 can be faster than an i5 and some times equal an i7, if the cores are truly being used to their full abilities.

 

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-7/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

 

That is compared to Ivy bridge, but seeing as sandy bridge is still more than fine, the graphs show the 8350 work really well in environments which use all the cores/threads. 

[Rageodontist]

When will there be a game that can actually justify a CPU like that.

[AllstaRawR]

... Intel Core i7 or equivalent AMD...

 

Is there an true equivalent? Isn't the 8350 significantly slower in most things?

[Hidden Orange]

When will there be a game that can actually justify a CPU like that.

When pigs fly.

 

Seriously, though, when games are making use of 12 core or 6 cores plus hyper-threading. So, in a long, long time. That or a game is so poorly optimized that nothing can even run it beyond 20 FPS.

[deathjester]

It really does depend on the work load. A 8350 can be faster than an i5 and some times equal an i7, if the cores are truly being used to their full abilities.

 

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-7/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

 

That is compared to Ivy bridge, but seeing as sandy bridge is still more than fine, the graphs show the 8350 work really well in environments which use all the cores/threads. 

 

Sandy Bridge also clocked to near 5ghz from a much lower starting clock. 3.8 was the turbo on I7 Sandy and that was on 2 cores not 4. 4 core Turbo was 3.5 ghz.

 

4 core Turbo on a 4770 is 3.7 GHZ.  Add to this? Rendering is not gaming. Gaming is not rendering. As for rendering benchmarks and multicore performance? Users on this forum have benchmarked in Cinebench R 15.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/62476-post-your-cinebench-r15-scores-and-new-r115-scores-now-included/

 

Multicore

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

Singlecore

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

Singlecore matters more in games then Multicore. Why? Because even a "8 thread game" on my 4770k looks like this. 1 Thead 100 percent usage. 2nd thread 50. Remaining 6? Barely working. Mantle can change that. Direct X 12 will change that. First DX 12 game is Holiday 2015. Mantle? Not too many of those games around. I5 stil beats a 8350 in Mantle though... Not by much but it is ahead. I7? No. I7 is complete and total overkill under Mantle or a low level API though. So is a hexa. Even a I5 K OC on Mantle doesn't get much help.

 

The ONLY thing a 8350 can beat a I7 in is zipping files and it loses unzipping or it is the other way around (I forget). Gaming is not zipping files. 

[bbqsauce]

In the future games are bound to make use of more cores. How long will that be? Nobody knows. It's pretty stupid to prepare for it now. Same theory as future proofing. You are buying hardware now that may. May. Utilize its potential within 1 or 2 years. By then you could probably upgrade to something better.

Then again, you can't really compare amd and Intel directly, at price points, the 8320 sits inbetween i3 and i5. Not an i7.

In a buyer's prospective, I'd expect performance at that level. Not beating Intel in everything.

[deathjester]

In the future games are bound to make use of more cores. How long will that be? Nobody knows. It's pretty stupid to prepare for it now. Same theory as future proofing. You are buying hardware now that may. May. Utilize its potential within 1 or 2 years. By then you could probably upgrade to something better.

Then again, you can't really compare amd and Intel directly, at price points, the 8320 sits inbetween i3 and i5. Not an i7.

In a buyer's prospective, I'd expect performance at that level. Not beating Intel in everything.

 

Mantle does it now and Mantle helps worse single core performance chips the most, or non quads with hyperthreading the most (like an I3). I expect DX 12 results will look the same.

 

I wish people would test Mantle on the I3 more and the 6300FX more, instead of just the 8350 and I5/I7's. People with I5's/I7's laughed at it because the gains were past 60 fps and most were on a OC anyways which made the difference even smaller, but that doesn't mean low level API's aren't amazing.

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

Will Mantle and Direct X 12 "rock your world" with an OC I5 or up. No. Does it make AMD better than Intel I5's at gaming? Not at all.

 

It makes gaming much more affordable to people building a gaming PC for the first time though and that is AWESOME. Add to this? Overclocking isn't near as big as we think it is. We are a vast minority who do it. I have to question why many of the big sites didn't test the lower chips. There are a ton of people out there with I3's and MANY built 6300 FX machines instead of buying a PS4/Xbox One. 

 

If this was 2 years from now and all games were Mantle games? Yeah I might pick the 8320/50 over an I5. Even when we do get DX 12 though (bout the only way this will have wide adoption unless OpenGL beats them to the punch on Steam OS), not all games will be DX 12. So are we looking at 3 years or 4 years? Like you said, it is stupid to buy for 4 years in advance when you might have a new PC by then anyways. 

[Redheadsrule13]

I'm not denying that we will eventually need CPU's with 8 or more cores, but it's certainly not now.

[bbqsauce]

@deathjester. I agree that mantle brings improvements to the table, however its not widely adopted as of now. Again, we never know if devs will fully adopt mantle(with dx12 on the horizon and all) so its best to take the info with a grain of salt.

In the end I think it will be awhile before 8 core CPUs are mainstream games requirement. I agree that many system builders are using so low end hardware its ridiculous. Everything is a possibility in the future, preparing solely for it is just a waste.keeping your system relevant for 2-3 years is best more changes/refreshing can be made then.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Not in the news section

 

Because gaming news are not tech news, save for specific mentions of new rendering or coding techniques or other strong advancements in game-related technology.

[Humbug]

Why do developers even bother with such vague system requirements? Doesn't help anyone.

 

i7 can refer to an old i7 860 which is slower than any modern i3. Or it can refer to a 4960x which is a 6 core 12 thread monster with turbo speeds upto 4Ghz at stock

[Joshua Ondangan]

Heck even if the game is ugly I'd still buy this. I've been a fan of wolfenstein since the old pixelated one. It was one of my favorite game when I was a kid.

[Rassilon]

Thief recommended an I7. How about that I3 Ivy Bridge beating an 8350 on a R9 290x. This is not a rinky dink GPU they tested it on.  They also overclocked the 8350 to 4.5ghz. It was only 1 fps behind the I3 Ivy on the OC. 

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

 

That is a single player game though. How about MMO's. If anything is going to be CPU bound it is going to be an MMO. Welp, we have a "next gen" MMO. Elder Scrolls Online. The game is horrid but we have benchmarks. The 8350 did better than in Thief. It BARELY lost to a Ivy Bridge I3.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-performance,3789-8.html

 

I think you people need to accept something. 1) Devs seem to like making up specs, and there are new consoles out, with one not selling well that they want to promote. 2) There is no "AMD equivalent" to an I7 so that recommendation is ridiculous. 3) People like me who have an I7? Watch as One thread is at 100 percent usage, another thread is at most 50, and the other 6 threads are barely used. 

 

That is with Dark Souls 2 and MXGP loaded at the same time...You don't need an I7 to game with and you sure as hell don't need an I7 to game with on a GTX 460. I just showed this to a friend who thought he needed an I7 lol. Put on 2 games and task manager and showed him my cpu usage. He was convinced from IGN that he needed an I7 to play Watch Dog's. 

Well

a) the i7 destroyed the i3 so whatever point you're trying to prove is immediately invalid

b) You're implying a game can't be optimised for intel vs amd. The Amazing Spider Man 1 game straight up didn't run on AMD processors for a while.

c)TES:O never even asked for a beefed up CPU, and it's wrong to assume all MMO's need one. They're CPU intensive only relatively. They recommended a 'Quad Core 2.3GHz or better'

d) Thief never claimed to need multi-core. They needed the very real, very tangible single-core performance delta between the i7 and the rest. That's the case with most games. As is obvious by the fact that most games that recommend one run better with an i7. It's not nearly as big as the multi-threaded difference, but it's enough to make a difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/677?vs=551

The i3 beats the 8350 because again:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/677?vs=697

single-threaded performance is better. And it lines up with the framerates.

 

Yes it's wrong to say an AMD equivalent, but I believe they mean 'as close as you can get'.

What's the last definitively 'next-gen' game you played? What's the last game with an i7 recommendation that also says it uses all 8 cores?

 

"1) Devs seem to like making up specs, and there are new consoles out, with one not selling well that they want to promote"

Devs have nothing to gain by getting one console to sell more. People will flock to the other and they still make money.  The only devs that have done this recently with no backing or benchmarks supporting what they said is Infinity Ward.

 

"Dark Souls 2 and MXGP" aren't remotely system crushers. They don't count towards the new games coming out.

[Snickerzz]

So much hate :c