CPU Recommendations

[Victorion]

12 minutes ago, Sudako said:

As long as you arent needing to use AVX2 insctructions skylake is great but when using AVX2 in high cpu usage right now  the cpus get incorrectable errors that will bluescreen the system. the microcode update has been release by intel but only MSI has released a Bios update with it so far.

 

yeah, it´s not that common, but true - I guess another point for haswell and sandylake :)

[idisdain]

Get a i7 5820k from what i hear it's the best cpu for gaming on the market. Apparently they rival xenon 8 cores of 2015, it only has 6 cores as well. It's only around 400 dollars, however you will need to upgrade your ram to ddr4. In which case will cost you around 50~100 depending on if you want 16 or 8 gig's. So about 500$ and at that point ya might as well upgrade your graphic's card instead or as well.

[Demec]

So is this game running fine for anyone?

 

I have win 10, i7 3930k, 16gb 2133 ram, r9 295x2, 500GB EVO SSD and the game runs very very poorly. 

Like i was trying to play a game that looks like a mobile game but feels like i was playing PC game with tablet.

 

Does not really matter what settings i use, the spell effects makes fps dive hard. Even single sprint effect makes fps drop ALOT.

 

GTA V runs flawlesly with nearly  ultra settings, grass off since it puts you in disadvantage while fighting at hills.

And it seems like the game is not using much resources at all even there is plenty available.

 

 

[Sudako]

Demec turn of you crossfire for BnS the game has very very very bad SLI and cross fire profiles  i get better preformance out of 1 GTX 980 ti then two

 

another thing is the game  doesn't have a true fullscreen mode that can be entered with setting you must press  alt and enter at the same time to enter the real fullscreen mode

[ScarletAcacia]

7 minutes ago, Demec said:

So is this game running fine for anyone?

 

I have win 10, i7 3930k, 16gb 2133 ram, r9 295x2, 500GB EVO SSD and the game runs very very poorly. 

Like i was trying to play a game that looks like a mobile game but feels like i was playing PC game with tablet.

 

Does not really matter what settings i use, the spell effects makes fps dive hard. Even single sprint effect makes fps drop ALOT.

 

GTA V runs flawlesly with nearly  ultra settings, grass off since it puts you in disadvantage while fighting at hills.

 

 

With my old built: A10-5800k (oc; integrated gpu disabled), hd7850 (oc), and some other mid end parts, still playable with almost all high setting. Had to disable of effects such as ambient occlusion and some flares nevertheless. 

 

I don't have win10 so I'm not sure: maybe it's your os, or maybe ur cpu which is near to impossible. Somethings wrong that's for sure 'cause looks like ur spec is okay.

 

Edit: Oh right!!! Thanks Sudako, yeah it's the SLI!!!!

[Eladriel]

5 hours ago, Aluvis said:

Hey guys, looking to buy a new CPU since I'm currently experiencing really long loading screens (45-60 seconds) with a loading time from launcher to the pin being 2-3 minutes.

 

Right now, I'm running an AMD A4-5300 APU dual core processor that clocks ~3.4 Ghz, but I notice that during the loading screens that the CPU usage is maxed to 100% with BnS taking everything it can sometimes going above 95%. From what I've read, Blade and Soul, like many MMOs apparently, rely on single-core usage which can conflict with AMD processors that seem to typically rely on multi-core performance. However, this doesn't seem true during loading screens (since the usage is maxed), so I'm wondering if there's different processes during loading and during gameplay. Also, the recommended CPUs for the game is pretty much any quad-core Intel processor, or an AMD Phenom II x4 or better.  Basically, it comes down to this:

 

Question 1: Does the game really maximize on single-core performance?

Question 2: If so, does this differ from loading and from actual gameplay?

Question 3: If so, would a quad-core processor really be necessary to get, well, any time below what I'm currently experiencing compared to a dual-core?

Question 4: What processor(s) would be good to run this game on? Not talking maximized FPS, or any high-end specs, but anything better than this. Stating what processor you're currently using would also be helpful :)

 

Thanks :)

 

Specs:

 

OS: WIndows 10 Home Edition

CPU; AMD A4-5300 APU

GPU; Radeon HD 7800 Series

MoBo, Model: MSI, FM2-A75IA-E53 (MS-7792)

Hard-Drive: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB SSD

Memory: 8GB DDR3 RAM

 

 

 

 

Didn't read the whole thread so i don't know if any1 told you this already but heres my piece of advice. My loading screens +fps in game were awfull,24man poh was like 8-10 fps even on all low settings, thou my hardware is newer then B&S at least the graphic card.

GTX 660

Intel i5-2300,2.8ghz

Now i don't know if all that is better or worse then your composition,but it was weird seeing my fps so low cause i remember when i played on chinese server 2 years ago i had a lot better fps.

Then after seeing some forum posts i saw probably main reason of why is that,at least if you don't have beast of PC.

I was playing on windows 10 lol,apparently this game was made and more optimized for windos 7 or directx9. So what i did was just reinstalled a clean windows 7 and my fps in poh 24man is around 25-30 (outside poh 40-60) now on all high (+5) settings only what i do in game at poh is ctr+f to remove other players.

 

Now for some people windows 10 might not cause problem cause they probably have beast computers setup,but check forum,check google a bit and you will see that the game works better on windows 7.

Now before buying new hardware try installing windows 7 and see how it goes,if it can help you spend less amount of  money or no money at all then im glad if i helped :)

[idisdain]

8 minutes ago, Demec said:

So is this game running fine for anyone?

 

I have win 10, i7 3930k, 16gb 2133 ram, r9 295x2, 500GB EVO SSD and the game runs very very poorly. 

Like i was trying to play a game that looks like a mobile game but feels like i was playing PC game with tablet.

 

Does not really matter what settings i use, the spell effects makes fps dive hard. Even single sprint effect makes fps drop ALOT.

 

GTA V runs flawlesly with nearly  ultra settings, grass off since it puts you in disadvantage while fighting at hills.

And it seems like the game is not using much resources at all even there is plenty available.

 

 

According to one guy who had windows 10, after he uninstalled it and went to windows 7 the game ran much better. There might actually be a conflict with windows 10 and this game. But that's gonna have to be your call if you want to go through that trouble to check. Like i said i only heard one person say it.

[Sudako]

im running windows 10 and the game just find just having to ajust my sli config to stay at 120 fps at all times even in 24 man raids and such

[Seemslegit]

5 hours ago, Aluvis said:

Hey guys, looking to buy a new CPU since I'm currently experiencing really long loading screens (45-60 seconds) with a loading time from launcher to the pin being 2-3 minutes.

 

Right now, I'm running an AMD A4-5300 APU dual core processor that clocks ~3.4 Ghz, but I notice that during the loading screens that the CPU usage is maxed to 100% with BnS taking everything it can sometimes going above 95%. From what I've read, Blade and Soul, like many MMOs apparently, rely on single-core usage which can conflict with AMD processors that seem to typically rely on multi-core performance. However, this doesn't seem true during loading screens (since the usage is maxed), so I'm wondering if there's different processes during loading and during gameplay. Also, the recommended CPUs for the game is pretty much any quad-core Intel processor, or an AMD Phenom II x4 or better.  Basically, it comes down to this:

 

Question 1: Does the game really maximize on single-core performance?

Question 2: If so, does this differ from loading and from actual gameplay?

Question 3: If so, would a quad-core processor really be necessary to get, well, any time below what I'm currently experiencing compared to a dual-core?

Question 4: What processor(s) would be good to run this game on? Not talking maximized FPS, or any high-end specs, but anything better than this. Stating what processor you're currently using would also be helpful :)

 

Thanks :)

 

Specs:

 

OS: WIndows 10 Home Edition

CPU; AMD A4-5300 APU

GPU; Radeon HD 7800 Series

MoBo, Model: MSI, FM2-A75IA-E53 (MS-7792)

Hard-Drive: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB SSD

Memory: 8GB DDR3 RAM

 

 

 

 

Buy an SSD , your CPU is fine .

[Sudako]

when the game is back up ill run BnS in  window 7 8 and 8.1 VM's to see if there is any change depending on OS

[Demec]

Well yeah i can disable the crossfire but i believe that "fullscreen" is actually just windowed fullscreen hence the xfire is not on in the first place. I will try alt+enter once this greatly timed EU maintenance is done.

[ScarletAcacia]

22 minutes ago, Seemslegit said:

Buy an SSD , your CPU is fine .

I doubt that :) low to mid setting I guess.

[Seemslegit]

6 minutes ago, ScarletAcacia said:

I doubt that :) low to mid setting I guess.

It will help him with the loading time in general :D

[ScarletAcacia]

Just now, Seemslegit said:

It will help him with the loading time in general :D

You're absolutely right, but the actual gaming is still not gonna be good though.

My little opinion (don't be serious please): There is no need to get a hundred bucks SSD to put it in a computer that can't even process well enough.

[fruitie]

2 hours ago, Yxion said:

Tom's Hardware is nothing more than a PC tabloid that gets endorsements to push whoever is paying them more money. They have been and always will be biased.

Kind of ironic when you're trying to compare amd cpus to 1k cpus that only top enthusiasts are interested in. Sorry but amd are behind intel so far. There are promises of their zen release later in the year, but we have to see how that pans out. I will say that amd seem to have a better attitude with their technologies, but you are far from unbiased.

 

On topic, old components will slow things down, the hdd/ssd has the biggest impact on loading times, the gpu usually is the most influential factor in fps and performance, though you will still want a fairly decent cpu, yet you don't need anything too fancy.

[Victorion]

Just for reference.

 

I am running Windows 10.

I can experience smaller framedrops at boss locations with alot of players but usually my FPS is 50-60 - with 60 being steady around 80-90% of the time

[Yxion]

10 minutes ago, fruitie said:

*snipped*

You make it sound like the only thing top enthusiasts are interested in are Intel. It's not a question of who is better, it's a question of is it worth spending 5x more for 1.5x better performance? Even a hardcore gamer can run everything at max on 4 4K displays on a 9590 or a high-end i7, at that point it comes down to the rest of the machine (mainly the gpus). The point is, if a 9590 and an i7 can both do everything you want, what is the point of spending more money? It is illogical.

[fruitie]

27 minutes ago, Yxion said:

You make it sound like the only thing top enthusiasts are interested in are Intel. It's not a question of who is better, it's a question of is it worth spending 5x more for 1.5x better performance? Even a hardcore gamer can run everything at max on 4 4K displays on a 9590 or a high-end i7, at that point it comes down to the rest of the machine (mainly the gpus). The point is, if a 9590 and an i7 can both do everything you want, what is the point of spending more money? It is illogical.

That's why you don't buy extreme i7s and go for the more appropriately priced i7s or go for a cost effective i5.

 

For example at just £20 more price a 6600k can outperform a 9590 in most instances:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544

 

Or spend £100 more on a 6700k if you want the extra cores.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1543

 

Most people (with reasonable demands) would be best with an i5. In any case, no-one should get an extreme processor unless they know it's something they want and can afford. If people  want to show support the little guy, then power to them. Lets just not spread misinformation by comparing a consumer cpu with one that isn't intended to be cost effective. That's not to say I think those cpus should be so much, but that's besides the point.

[Yxion]

3 minutes ago, fruitie said:

That's why you don't buy extreme i7s and go for the more appropriately priced i7s or go for a cost effective i5.

 

For example at just £20 more price a 6600k can outperform a 9590 in most instances:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544

 

Or spend £100 more on a 6700k if you want the extra cores.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1543

 

Most people (with reasonable demands) would be best with an i5. In any case, no-one should get an extreme processor unless they know it's something they want and can afford. If people  want to show support the little guy, then power to them. Lets just not spread misinformation by comparing a consumer cpu with one that isn't intended to be cost effective. That's not to say I think those cpus should be so much, but that's besides the point.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2014&cmp[]=2570

the i5 just doesnt stand up

 

however

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2565&cmp[]=2014

at least out scores, but for almost twice as much?

still doesnt make sense

[airfathaaaaa]

first of all any cpu that can surpass a passmark 4000 hit is able to play 99% of the games just fine with a good gpu 

you dont need any uber alless i7 to hit a 100 fps or 120 fps on a system that probably has a 60hz monitor its a waste of power and resources 

this game is based on a modified ue3 engine which means you need a good gpu and a not so much good cpu plus memory(8 gigs is just fine) and an ssd(if you have an hdd you can enable shadow cache on amd crimson for faster load times..)

besides that whoever says i7 or an amd fx black or whatever even close is just nuts and probably a fanboy of the worst kind the game needs something similiar to a 8350 (MAX) or an i5 4460 anything beyond that is just an overkill even for a game released on 2015

[RyuKarahan]

6 hours ago, Yxion said:

AMD FX-9590 Vishera 8-Core 4.7 GHz $239

 

I love overclocking above 5GHz

And paying $1K more for Intel is dumb.

Don't buy AMD if you r going to go 24man or more. FPS stop when there is so many ppl. go Intel.

[Catgravy]

Buy what you can afford. You will always have the argument of which is better, Intel or AMD. I personally run AMD on an ASUS motherboard. I have absolutely no problems with any game that I play.

 

Like someone else mentioned... get an SSD for your hard drive. You might also check what your video card is. Mine is fairly old (in the gaming world). I run an Nvida GT650Ti. The Ti is very important. It's a helluva lot faster than a regular GT650. So look for the Ti.

[Voretechz]

I use an Intel i5 4670k and I have very little issues and never exceed 40% CPU usage.
Even with like 5 Twitch streams, Facebook, and 5 Youtube pages open. lol

[Banzatou]

5 hours ago, Yxion said:

AMD FX-9590: $239

Intel Core-I75960X $1049

 

For $800 dollars that sticker they send you better be solid gold.

 

I'm no Intel fanboy, but you're not exactly comparing apples to apples.

 

The 5960X is a hyperthreaded CPU processor containing 8-cores and 16-threads. This is meant more for those who plan to do things like heavy video editing, 3D modeling, and so on. While this also helps benefit Blade and Souls in terms of performance, it's complete overkill.

 

In addition, this cpu was released in 2015 and is meant for new gen pc parts, such as utilizing DDR4 memory, whereas the FX-9590 was released back at 2014 is meant for lower gen.

 

You can still do video edits, 3D modeling and the likes with that AMD processor as well, but if you're working for a company where you're getting paid 80k/year 3D Modeling and animating, the 5960X is the best route for the professional consumer.

 

tl;dr That Intel CPU you pointed out is not meant for solely playing Blade and Souls, so your point is N/A.

[Sudako]

10 hours ago, Yxion said:

AMD FX-9590: $239

Intel Core-I75960X $1049

 

For $800 dollars that sticker they send you better be solid gold.

Where should I start  about the AMD choice you are making about it having half the FPU or its IPC being less then half that of a  haswell or skylake chip?

 

A Bulldozer module has two 128-bit FPUs that can be paired to carry out 256-bit AVX instructions. Each modern Intel CPU core has its own 256-bit wide FPU. AMD made a bet that floating point calculations would not be essential to strong CPU performance in the long run, with Bulldozer being at the center of their planned Heterogeneous System Architecture.

 

The module’s cores, in addition to the shared FPU, share L1 instruction cache, fetch, decode, and L2 cache. Once again, a big reason for this was to minimize cost while the engineers anticipated minimal performance loss from this design. Fetch and decode have been at the center of some debate on Bulldozer’s performance and even the subject of AMD roadmaps, where they advertise “feed the cores faster” on slides detailing future microarchitecture updates, likely giving each core its own set of fetch, decode, and L1 instruction cache.

 

  Some go as far as to not call a AMD chip a true 8 core but i wont go as far as to say that. i will however say you get far less preformance out of their design.  When IPC is king thou it is hard to recommend a AMD choice when to get somewhat good preformance you need to overclock the chip to no end. Also your beloved 9590 is a 220 watt part that required a 990 FX chipset due to the increased power needed. There are a total of 15 990 FX boards on the market none of which support PCIE 3.0. I do hope to see AMD update their chipset with AM4  in the coming months for some crazario chips and Zen. But please stop trying to fool yourself and others that a AMD CPU that is out right now is worth its price.

 

BTW say hello to you fello team red members for me.