Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AoC Processor Speed
pandakoda
Member Posts: 24
Is it true that you need at least 3.0 Ghz of processor speed minimum to play AoC?
Comments
Curious on this myself. I have a 3.4 dual core process 3 gigs (have another sitting in the drawer) of ddr2 4200 low end i know but it works. And a 8800 640 gts video card. I do have basic vista (also sitting in the same drawer) and just haven;t gotten around to installing, any idea on what kind of fps I might get?
You will need at least a P4 3.0 gig. "gig" processor speed does not have as much to do with processing speed as most think (at least with modern processors). AMD was the first to prove this back in the late 90s early 00s when they were on top. Never-the-less any decent new processor should run the game fine. The only new processors that will have issues are probably "econmy" processors or mobile (power saver Like Pent M and lower end AMD Turions) may have issues.
So if you have a 2.66 Core 2.. you will be ok
YOu can always compare your processor here > http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html
@PandaKoda no its not true. You could prob play on a single core 2.8ghz or even 2.6ghz. EG Tabula Rasa new mmorpg require a minimum of a single core 2.5ghz. With AoC if people say 3ghz it means upto that with a dual/core not each core.
To LadyReno, you will be just fine with what you have, I would expect to see fps similar to what you get in other games like EQ2 and so forth. If you do decide to put the vista on and go with dx10 AoC then you probably right now would see a minor decrease in fps. However, Vista service pack is not too far away, supposingly fixing alot of issues.
When I was at the Funcom offices they had all types of PC's there, the game is really scalable.
Thanks Avery!!
Not true at all....2.21ghz dual core AMD X2 64bit is the equivalent of a 6.30ghz single core processor according to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com . There is NO need for a 3ghz dual core. There is only half a dozen of them out atm, and i doubt even AoC needs anything that powerful
Not true at all....2.21ghz dual core AMD X2 64bit is the equivalent of a 6.30ghz single core processor according to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com . There is NO need for a 3ghz dual core. There is only half a dozen of them out atm, and i doubt even AoC needs anything that powerful
Actually some of the dual core pentium 4s are post-3 ghz. The thing is, they are capable of less processing power than than the sub-3 ghz Core2Duos.Basically, the easiest way to understand it is this: ghz is dead. It no longer measures anything. Sorry, its true. Ghz is pretty much meaningless for comparing modern processors.
Also, get an Intel. And I say this as someone who used to be a big fan of AMD. AMD's chips aren't worth it right now.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Not true at all....2.21ghz dual core AMD X2 64bit is the equivalent of a 6.30ghz single core processor according to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com . There is NO need for a 3ghz dual core. There is only half a dozen of them out atm, and i doubt even AoC needs anything that powerful
Actually some of the dual core pentium 4s are post-3 ghz. The thing is, they are capable of less processing power than than the sub-3 ghz Core2Duos.Basically, the easiest way to understand it is this: ghz is dead. It no longer measures anything. Sorry, its true. Ghz is pretty much meaningless for comparing modern processors.
Also, get an Intel. And I say this as someone who used to be a big fan of AMD. AMD's chips aren't worth it right now.
Ghz is pretty much dead with the advent of multithreading and more powerful vid cards. You vid card will be more of a deciding factor than your processor. And i still prefer AMDs to intels
More bang for the buck with less power usage. And i did say only a half dozen are over 3ghz, means very few hehehehe, sorry i didnt count them specifically
Not true at all....2.21ghz dual core AMD X2 64bit is the equivalent of a 6.30ghz single core processor according to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com . There is NO need for a 3ghz dual core. There is only half a dozen of them out atm, and i doubt even AoC needs anything that powerful
Actually I was going what I was told by the developers and not by systemrequirementlabs (which is a sucky site)
The game is multi-threaded and one dev told me couple weekends ago that a 2ghz plus dual/quad core is just fine (no matter how old the CPU), but single core wise around 3ghz and up is just fine too.
I go by what a developer says rather than systemrequirementlabs so it is true
Phenom came out a bit sucky too, AMD lost out, didnt stop me ordering 2x3870x2's though yesterday for $920
I don't know if I would have went with AMD GFX CARD untill i saw the new nvidia's.
But he can say he has 4 gpu's.hehe.
Guild Video|Forums|Guild Website+New Video|AoC official FAQ|E3'07 Official Trailer
Couldn'y agree more. Running a Core 2 Duo 2.66 overclocked to 3.0 and Systemrequirementlabs tells me I have to upgrade my CPU to either a duo core or a higher speed
Sorry but this just isn't true. There is NO code that is written well enough to make a dual core at 2.21ghz equiv to a 6.30 ghz single core. Even with the best written code you are unlikely to get a 50% effective increase from extra cores. So I'd say your 2.21ghz dual core is more equiv to a 2.8ghz single core and even that might be pushing it assuming some threading.
You do however get some nice benefits from multicore when you have multiple processes running. The most noticable effect is virus scanners and mouse drivers all run better with a game with little or no impact on the game. My logitech mouse driver was a million times better on dual core then single core.
Anyway GHZ is also not a good way to judge relative performance between different types of cpus. Even if an Intel and AMD processor had identical CPU clocks they performance would not be the same. In fact AMD would be faster. The reason is that cpu instructions operate at different speeds. CPU instuctions execute in some number of clock cycles. So an older intel cpu might take 10 cycles to execute a memory compare instruction. A new intel chip might take 6 cycles. So even both chips had the same clock speed the newer intel chip would be 40% facter doing memory compares
---
Ethion
They say you can play AOC if your computer can play Oblivion, and my old 2000 desktop at home can play Oblivion on minimum settings, and it has around a 2.4ghz single core processor i think, so that should solve your problem.
As to the rumour that dual cores stack, that is not true at all. a 3ghz dual core does not equal a 6ghz single core. The multi cores allow for easier multi tasking within programs, however they do not really add to actual speed. Think of the "max" speed of a 3hz dual core as around 3 ghz, however the speed doesnt get lowered when you open multiple programs. Its a bit more complicated than that, however - you are able to overlock easier with dual cores, and the multi tasking capability essentialy does add a little juice to the processing speed.
Thats why its pretty much unnecessary for gamers to get quad cores. Programs perform better with 3ghz dual core processor than with a 2.66ghz quad core. The extra cores in the quad core are unnecessary, becuase you arent doing any heavy multitasking. You get a higher speed out of the 3ghz and thats why the Intel Ghz 3.0ghz processor is the best buy on the market ATM for desktop enthusiasts. Of course, the Penyrn chips just came out, but they are expensive as hell.
So you'll be fine playing AoC even on a lower speed Dual core. You just wont be abe to put it on max settings. As long as you have a nice 256MB graphics card (or higher) to go alog with it and 2GB of ram you'll be fine. Alot of this talk sayign that you need these extravagant, high costing processors is pretty much a hunk of BULL - the computer hardware market is accelerating slightly faster than the actual video game development industry and thus the hardware consumers are getting are usually a step ahead of what developers construct with their engines. I mean, AoC was in development how long and look how far the technology advanced? The truth is, you probably wont need higher than a 2.6 dual core if you want to play the game decently, and a 2.2 if you want to play it on minimum settings. Maybe even a little higher, if youre daring.
oh i agree...i am not saying that website is exactly right. I am just showing the performance. New cpus like the intel core2duo and amd x2 64 do not go by ghz anymore. They go by performance. An AMD rep once said via PM to me when i was shopping for a processor "We don't categorize the 4400+ as the 2.4ghz processor, but quality wise, it runs as the equivelent of a 4.4ghz single core on optimal threading." After talking with him for a while, the basic rule of thumb is for intel, the APPROXIMATE speed of the chip is the model number. 4400+ is APPROXIMATELY as fast as a 4.4ghz AMD single core, an intel e3860 is APPROXIMATELY as fast as a 3.86ghz Intel single processor. These are not exact comparisons, but will work well when purchasing software. So when your looking to build a computer for a specific software, this works very well. Hasn't failed me yet.
Not true at all....2.21ghz dual core AMD X2 64bit is the equivalent of a 6.30ghz single core processor according to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com . There is NO need for a 3ghz dual core. There is only half a dozen of them out atm, and i doubt even AoC needs anything that powerful
Actually some of the dual core pentium 4s are post-3 ghz. The thing is, they are capable of less processing power than than the sub-3 ghz Core2Duos.Basically, the easiest way to understand it is this: ghz is dead. It no longer measures anything. Sorry, its true. Ghz is pretty much meaningless for comparing modern processors.
Also, get an Intel. And I say this as someone who used to be a big fan of AMD. AMD's chips aren't worth it right now.
Ghz is pretty much dead with the advent of multithreading and more powerful vid cards. You vid card will be more of a deciding factor than your processor. And i still prefer AMDs to intels
More bang for the buck with less power usage. And i did say only a half dozen are over 3ghz, means very few hehehehe, sorry i didnt count them specifically
More bang for the buck only for cheap processors. You're still getting less bang overall, and I really don't think the little money you save is worth it. They just have no technical competition with the Core2Duo line at all. And Yorkfield uses even less power than the Core2Duo OR AMD's chips - meaning AMD is seriously in trouble.Basically, AMD decided to sit on its laurels, instead of going for a knockout blow on intel while they were down, and Intel restructured, and launched far superior lines.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Not true at all....2.21ghz dual core AMD X2 64bit is the equivalent of a 6.30ghz single core processor according to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com . There is NO need for a 3ghz dual core. There is only half a dozen of them out atm, and i doubt even AoC needs anything that powerful
Actually some of the dual core pentium 4s are post-3 ghz. The thing is, they are capable of less processing power than than the sub-3 ghz Core2Duos.Basically, the easiest way to understand it is this: ghz is dead. It no longer measures anything. Sorry, its true. Ghz is pretty much meaningless for comparing modern processors.
Also, get an Intel. And I say this as someone who used to be a big fan of AMD. AMD's chips aren't worth it right now.
Ghz is pretty much dead with the advent of multithreading and more powerful vid cards. You vid card will be more of a deciding factor than your processor. And i still prefer AMDs to intels
More bang for the buck with less power usage. And i did say only a half dozen are over 3ghz, means very few hehehehe, sorry i didnt count them specifically
More bang for the buck only for cheap processors. You're still getting less bang overall, and I really don't think the little money you save is worth it. They just have no technical competition with the Core2Duo line at all. And Yorkfield uses even less power than the Core2Duo OR AMD's chips - meaning AMD is seriously in trouble.Basically, AMD decided to sit on its laurels, instead of going for a knockout blow on intel while they were down, and Intel restructured, and launched far superior lines.
He's right. In fact, I'd venture to say it isnt worth it to get AMD chips at any price level. On even clock speed Intel outperforms AMD on every aspect. AMD lost their lead bigtime and are starting to pay for it. AMD's chips are no competition for the Intel. Id pay the little extra money for a far superior chip, IMO. Buying AMD chips simply arent worth it. And "GHZ" isnt exactly dead. Multi cores isnt a factor in it at all, again just becuase you have multiple cores doesnt mean it will perform faster - clock speed is the deciding factor in terms of processing speed. Cores simply distribute data easier and lighten the load on the processor, making multitasking easier. It effectivley only increases processing speed by very little. Your video card may be more of a deciding factor, but the processing unit is still what makes everything happen. Have a slow processor and you have a slow computer, simple as that.
Basically, its best to get a nice high end video card with a moderate processor, if you want to game and you only have so much money to allocate. But I wouldnt sacrifice all of your CPU power for just a little boost in the video card. Thats just silly, and will hurt your gaming than improve it. CPU is still important.
The problem with multicores is that they are misleading...
When I bought an AMD 2200 single core and upgraded to an AMD single core 3300 I would know that my performance would be a 50% increase. That would happen right out of the gate. Suddenly things took a lot less time and everything was faster.
However If I upgraded instead to a dual core 4400 I would not see 100% increase in performance. In some cases I would see NO increase in performance. And I would never see 100%. The reason being that the base core clock speed in my example for the single core and the dual core would be the same. So a process or a single thread would be no faster on the new computer then the old computer. Now you would in fact see some improvements because the operating system will run processes on different cores. But generally speaking if you open task manager at any time you will see that most processes aren't doing much. If you fire up a game and look you will see you computer is all hot and heavy processing one process.
Now what about threading, threading is very difficult to program and tools today are not very mature. Meaning that when writing software it is a lot easier to not write it multithreaded then to make it multitreaded. This is why most software you buy today is NOT multitreaded. So with respect to a game you will see a tiny bit better performance on the dual core machine because all those extra processes can share the second core. So you will feel that your computer is more snappy. It will feel faster. But if you did some process intensive thing that process would likely be insignificantly faster. Maybe 10-20% not the 100% a sales guy or the number on the chip would imply... Now if you had a perfect multitreaded application and the word perfect is important, then you might see 80% or so improvement. Never the 100 you would hope for because there will have to be overhead to manage threads and make the more complex software run properly.
Where multicores really get you a big bang for the buck is in servers and now virtualization. I can't tell you how wonderful a pair of quad core cpus are in a new web server. Totally sweet
So in summary my hypathetical amd 3300 single core cpu would kick the ass of a amd 4400 dual core in just about every game on the market today.
---
Ethion
The problem with multicores is that they are misleading...
When I bought an AMD 2200 single core and upgraded to an AMD single core 3300 I would know that my performance would be a 50% increase. That would happen right out of the gate. Suddenly things took a lot less time and everything was faster.
However If I upgraded instead to a dual core 4400 I would not see 100% increase in performance. In some cases I would see NO increase in performance. And I would never see 100%. The reason being that the base core clock speed in my example for the single core and the dual core would be the same. So a process or a single thread would be no faster on the new computer then the old computer. Now you would in fact see some improvements because the operating system will run processes on different cores. But generally speaking if you open task manager at any time you will see that most processes aren't doing much. If you fire up a game and look you will see you computer is all hot and heavy processing one process.
Now what about threading, threading is very difficult to program and tools today are not very mature. Meaning that when writing software it is a lot easier to not write it multithreaded then to make it multitreaded. This is why most software you buy today is NOT multitreaded. So with respect to a game you will see a tiny bit better performance on the dual core machine because all those extra processes can share the second core. So you will feel that your computer is more snappy. It will feel faster. But if you did some process intensive thing that process would likely be insignificantly faster. Maybe 10-20% not the 100% a sales guy or the number on the chip would imply... Now if you had a perfect multitreaded application and the word perfect is important, then you might see 80% or so improvement. Never the 100 you would hope for because there will have to be overhead to manage threads and make the more complex software run properly.
Where multicores really get you a big bang for the buck is in servers and now virtualization. I can't tell you how wonderful a pair of quad core cpus are in a new web server. Totally sweet
So in summary my hypathetical amd 3300 single core cpu would kick the ass of a amd 4400 dual core in just about every game on the market today.
LOL ok lets try this the easy way. "Gig" has a little to do with it. Most importantly you are looking at the Hyper Threading (or its equavalent) technology and most importantly it's cache. Clock speed is great but realized with a dual core process you have to seprate working integers with (mostly) 2 - 4 caches storing info before processing. Like i said before if you have a Core 2 or even an AMD X2 you can run the game. Some centrinos, Pentium M/4/D, and Turions may have some issues. just check www.tomshardware.com (processor comparison chart) to compare them. a AMD X2"4400 will blow an old 3300 out of the water (prob by about 40-70%).It's all about the cache baby....... (gotta love the cheesy IT phrases)
i'd just like to add that the core2 duo cpus overclock very well.
i've had a e6600 for over a year and just the other night i decided to OC it. 2.4ghz out of the box and i've OCed it to 3.5ghz with absolutly no problems!
i don't have any liquid cooling, its all airflow-cooled. and i didn't even max it out to falure. i play current FPS games @max visuals for hours every nite, and it hasnt caused a problem. i just stopped at 3.5ghz thinking its a good number and i dont wanna push my luck:P wonder how much more i could go tho...
i remember walking into a local comp store about 10years ago and seeing a brand-new pentium 500mhz system. and i thought "wow" and looked at it in awe as if it were alien tech. now i've OC a cpu over double that. lol