WoW: Cataclysm Benchmarks!

[RussianSensation]

It's absurd to state there are no processors worth getting between $100-$200.

"Otherwise, no I don't think there are any processors worth buying between $100-200 on the Intel or AMD side if you are building a new system from scratch to last you 2 years or so and pairing it with a $300+ GPU." <-- The parameters were clearly defined in the thread.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

"Otherwise, no I don't think there are any processors worth buying between $100-200 on the Intel or AMD side if you are building a new system from scratch to last you 2 years or so and pairing it with a $300+ GPU." <-- The parameters were clearly defined in the thread.

What... no. I had to point out lunacy of your original statement before coaxing the parameters out of you.

Even then I don't completely agree that assessment. I mean it was real convenient of you to not quote the rest of my reply...

It's more accurate to state, that for some users in some situations with certain goals, it would be absurd to buy a sub-$200 processor.

I hope you're not overlooking, on accident or on purpose, what I'm actually saying. It really seems like you're not following the flow of the argument here. Because it changes, ever so slightly, and yet your reply is like trying to apply red paint over wet blue paint.

 

[RussianSensation]

What... no. I had to point out lunacy of your original statement before coaxing the parameters out of you.

I thought it was pretty obvious we are talking about pairing CPUs with mid-range to high-end videocards given the videocards compared in the thread by the OP. It would be pretty pointless to argue that AMD CPU's aren't fast enough to pair with a GTS450 or an HD5770 for example (they are of course sufficient for those cards).

I don't see how there is "lunacy" in my statement considering the record profits and market share Intel continues to experience:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/19800

If AMD Processors were such good alternatives in the market < $200, why does Intel command an 80&#37; market share? Surely, you don't believe it's because they are selling $200-$1000 CPUs to retain their leadership. My point still stands that I wouldn't recommend an AMD CPU between $100-$200 for as long as you can buy Core i5 750/760 for $170-200. There is a reason the i5 750 got an Editor's Choice recently at Xbitlabs in the $100-200 mainstream category.

I realize that if you are doing rendering, audio/video work, of course an X6 processor is superior to an i5. However, we are talking about strictly gaming, which again was defined by me from the beginning.

 

[NoQuarter]

I thought it was pretty obvious we are talking about pairing CPUs with mid-range to high-end videocards given the videocards compared in the thread by the OP. It would be pretty pointless to argue that AMD CPU's aren't fast enough to pair with a GTS450 or an HD5770 for example (they are of course sufficient for those cards).

I don't see how there is "lunacy" in my statement considering the record profits and market share Intel continues to experience:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/19800

If AMD Processors were such good alternatives in the market < $200, why does Intel command an 80&#37; market share? Surely, you don't believe it's because they are selling $200-$1000 CPUs to retain their leadership. My point still stands that I wouldn't recommend an AMD CPU between $100-$200 for as long as you can buy Core i5 750/760 for $170-200. There is a reason the i5 750 got an Editor's Choice recently at Xbitlabs in the $100-200 mainstream category.

I realize that if you are doing rendering, audio/video work, of course an X6 processor is superior to an i5. However, we are talking about strictly gaming, which again was defined by me from the beginning.

Because 80% of the market isn't enthusiasts building their machines but businesses and average joes buying OEM machines and Intel is a more recognized name? Why does it matter what the market share is when comparing performance and price. One is a good deal or not regardless of how many other people are buying it.

Your point is still ridiculous if you include mid-range GPU's like you are. MMO's like WoW are clearly more processor driven than most other games so for many people AMD CPU's still power a mid or high end GPU fine if they aren't into MMO's. You wouldn't recommend a $100 CPU because you can buy a $170 CPU. Why would you recommend a $170 CPU when you can buy a $230 CPU. Or a $230 CPU when there's a $280 CPU.

Why don't you recommend a CPU that targets a persons expected usage and price range? When you recommend what people actually want/need/can afford, AMD provides a large swath of products from $60-$170. Above that it's all Intel for sure and I totally recommend Intel for my friends that can afford it. But don't forget to add in the increased cost of Socket 1156/1366 mobos over AM3 that help keep the $160-$170 attractive for AMD.

 

[Concillian]

I think its down to personal taste.

I've always hated the way WOW looks, to the extent that I found it hard to work out what's was going on on screen. I appreciate that the graphics look better now, but I still really, really dislike the way they look. I think it was the low poly look or the perspective always looked off.

Again I know this is very subjective, but I can see where he's coming from.

They force the full screen bloom now, which really makes things look bad. I turn it off. Don't remember the command to, but that "full screen glow effect" really detracts.

As for CPU, $99 CPU an i3 is still not a bad choice. Cheaper enough than an i5 to have value, MANY games only run 2 cores, and it will rather reliably out-OC an AMD in that price range.

The WoW article shows that there are plenty of cases where the i5 is going to perform better, but how much better do you need? If the CPU is able to pull 70+ when OC'ed, it's enough that you can have pretty smooth performance, even when action is heavy and pulls it down to 50% of average.

Being dual core, it does lock you into being a "gaming machine" in that it's not as fast as an x4 in apps that can take advantage, but for most gamers this is really not a huge deal. At least for me it isn't.

 

[Axon]

The WoW article shows that there are plenty of cases where the i5 is going to perform better, but how much better do you need? If the CPU is able to pull 70+ when OC'ed, it's enough that you can have pretty smooth performance, even when action is heavy and pulls it down to 50&#37; of average.

Generally, my old B55 X4 LAN Rig gives me 60 FPS in all areas of WoW save for Ogrimmar (now, in Cataclysm) and Dalaran (during WotLK) @ 1920x1080. It also gives me 60+ FPS on SC2 on ultra. Once in a while I play TF2, also 60 FPS, and that's all I ever play. While there's no question Intel has the superior processor, the question for me is this: do I need it? My new LAN rig also provides the same experience, though it has a 6850 in there, which is a pretty nice card.

 

[Throckmorton]

They force the full screen bloom now, which really makes things look bad. I turn it off. Don't remember the command to, but that "full screen glow effect" really detracts.

As for CPU, $99 CPU an i3 is still not a bad choice. Cheaper enough than an i5 to have value, MANY games only run 2 cores, and it will rather reliably out-OC an AMD in that price range.

The WoW article shows that there are plenty of cases where the i5 is going to perform better, but how much better do you need? If the CPU is able to pull 70+ when OC'ed, it's enough that you can have pretty smooth performance, even when action is heavy and pulls it down to 50% of average.

Being dual core, it does lock you into being a "gaming machine" in that it's not as fast as an x4 in apps that can take advantage, but for most gamers this is really not a huge deal. At least for me it isn't.

Why do they force the bloom? I turn that off in every game. I don't know how anyone can stand that garbage.

 

[imaheadcase]

Is it really surprising? WoW is not graphic intensive. The engine, is the same as from launch, just modified all the time constantly.

If it had real pvp, and not the blocky style graphics I would of played that game.

 

[NoQuarter]

Why do they force the bloom? I turn that off in every game. I don't know how anyone can stand that garbage.

But the glowy blur simulates real life glaucoma. I thought that was the point of it.

 

[Swampthing]

How is this relevant? WoW's graphics are ****.

You haven't played in awhile i'm guessing. The new expansion added some features that really spruce up the game. the light rays are some of the best i've seen. First time you see them through the leaves of a tree you'll be a bit shocked at how good they are.

With everything on max the game looks pretty good overall, definately doesn't look 6 years old, and has aged MUCH better than EQ2 which came out around the same time.

 

[Genx87]

They even added in realistic looking water.

 

[Throckmorton]

Is it really surprising? WoW is not graphic intensive. The engine, is the same as from launch, just modified all the time constantly.

If it had real pvp, and not the blocky style graphics I would of played that game.

It does have real PVP

 

[Concillian]

Why do they force the bloom? I turn that off in every game. I don't know how anyone can stand that garbage.

Well, there is a way to turn it off (and I do) they removed the option for it in the video options user interface window.

Also, there are options you can set well above ultra in the config file or through console commands. From that standpoint it's reminiscent of old games like Quake that let you really do whatever you wanted (if you knew what you were doing). Mostly affects draw distance and mics ground clutter density, but still nice if your hardware will push it.

I'm not arguing that WoW has awesome graphics, but considering the tradeoffs they have to make to allow for things like 80 vs. 80 in Tol Barad and not have major issues, I think they're good enough that the graphics do not detract from the gameplay.

 

[RussianSensation]

You wouldn't recommend a $100 CPU because you can buy a $170 CPU. Why would you recommend a $170 CPU when you can buy a $230 CPU. Or a $230 CPU when there's a $280 CPU.

Why don't you recommend a CPU that targets a persons expected usage and price range?

Intel's $170 CPU @ 4.0ghz is as fast as anything they have for games outside of Core i7 980X on 32nm that can often get to 4.4ghz-4.5ghz on air. This is why their $170 core i5 750 is such an amazing CPU. On the other hand a $100 AMD CPU will generally fall short in just about anything compared to the i5 4.0ghz. I don't look at it as $100 vs. $170 CPU. I look at it as a $700 system vs. a $770 system. For 10&#37; higher cost, I will be getting > 10% performance increase across majority of apps, not just games. A lot of people keep their system for 2+ years and the $70-$100 price difference really isn't that much, esp. when it comes time to resell your 4.0ghz Core i5 processor.

The reason for linking market share and profit margins is to highlight the fact that a lot more people think like me. This is why Intel has an 80% market share. They aren't just buying these CPUs because they are called "intel". They are buying them because they are faster and more efficient per clock, and consume less power at idle and at load.

There have been plenty of games outside of MMOs where Intel CPUs are faster. GTAIV, Supreme Commander, Far Cry 2, Dragon Age Origins, Resident Evil 5, Starcraft 2. I also do quite a bit of extracting in WinRAR and distributed computing where Intel simply crushes AMD.

Of course there is a market for $99 CPUs. Still, look at the mobile side. The majority are willing to pay $100+ to get a laptop with Intel's CPUs. The days of glory of Athlon XP+ (Barton), Athlon 64 are long behind AMD. Now they are only competitive in video/audio work/ rendering with X6s and as budget offerings. This is not the place you want to be if you are trying to build strong brand equity. On the server side, AMD is also struggling. I truly do hope that Bulldozer is a game changer because I wouldn't hesitate for a second to switch to AMD if they delivered the faster CPU. However, this market niche they carved for themselves of being the "budget" CPU brand is not doing them any favours.

 

[nyker96]

This game looks not so demanding on gpu at all. from the benchmarks, I think a 5750 can run this above 30fps at even 2560. blizzard don't seem to make games that stress the hardware that much, probably because so many people play it, they don't want to make it into a niche product for the high end systems.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The reason for linking market share and profit margins is to highlight the fact that a lot more people think like me.

You have to be joking. Profit margin numbers don't explicitly lead to the conclusion you just drew. Could they? Yes, but I laugh if you think they somehow prove "a lot more people think like [you]." Inconclusive argument.

I thought it was pretty obvious we are talking about pairing CPUs with mid-range to high-end videocards given the videocards compared in the thread by the OP. It would be pretty pointless to argue that AMD CPU's aren't fast enough to pair with a GTS450 or an HD5770 for example (they are of course sufficient for those cards).

I see. You are backtracking on your statement. Well if you think it was pretty clear what you were talking about then it should be pretty clear what I was talking about and what my counterpoint was to your original statement. But, you see, I don't think you are actually following me as you seem to just keep on going by the by, so I think we can just all stop now.

 

[Sylvanas]

Stay's at pretty much 120fps with Vsync + triple buffering and 16XCSAA @ 1980x1080. Even performance to spare for Ambient Occlusion enabled- :thumbsup: