Should I get quad core 2.8GHz Intel Core i5
OR
Core i7 (dual core) at 3.33
This is only relative to IL2, and only these two choices are possible for me.
Thoughts?
For use in IL2 only...the dual core
Newer more modern games...the four core
Thanks... reading specs closer, looks like its actually a 2.66 quad i5 or a 2.8 quad i7... thats easier I guess..
i5 will not support the faster ddr3 ram go i7.
Answer is still the same...I have a dual core athlon 64 black edition running at 3.2 ghz two gig of mem and a 8800gt video card....it runs IL2 with everything on perfect at more than acceptable frame rates....you would not be able to detect any difference between the CPU's that you have specified for use in this game...I would go with the dual core for IL2 only.....the four core for the future....The choice is yours?
Posts: 559
Threads: 79
Joined: Nov 2007
Years ago I did a test e6600 vs q6600, e6600(dual core) was much better tha the quadcore...
MOD is LIFE!!
All Core i7's are quad core, the i7 just means that it is capable of Hyperthreading (i.e. 8 virtual threads).
I have the Core i7 975 3.33 MH and with one touch of the button it is overclocked to 3.66 MH. With this CPU, I'm able to play IL-2 in the deepest clouds/thunderstorms (cloud 1) with over 30 planes in the air and my FPS are between 45 - 60 (and ATI 4890 video card).
With the i5 (i5 just means it's not capable of Hyperthreading), if you want the greater HP, it will take you a little more effort to overclock it to get up to 3.66 MH. Remember CPU power is what flight simulators need and IL-2 is a good example.
I have an i7 920 which is the lowest priced version, with 6gb of RAM and a gtx275 nVidia on vista 64. My screen doesn't go past 1680*1050, but with the latest nVidia (openGL) drivers I am running on perfect settings, and my frame rate is a solid 60FPS (which is my monitors max). This computer was quite expensive to build, but everything I have installed has run quick and overall the machine is extremely stable.
Also with regard to future releases, I haven't read what the specs are for Storm of War, but I am sure I am ready in terms hardware for this to run sweet!
AFAIK, IL-2 is a strictly single-core, 32-bit sim. It may max out one core, but you'll see that the other core is just loafing at 1-2%, taking care of the system housekeeping. I guess the second core is useful for that (hey, you can even have a copy of photoshop running in the background, it'll just use the "free" core. That said, you can have a whole heap of slow cores, IL-2, along with most other apps, just won't see more than one, and will only run as fast as *one* of those cores. With old single-core P4's, it actually made sense to "tweak" the OS by disabling all but the essential services, running pairs of Raptors in RAID 0, hacking together absurdly complex water-cooling systems (my silliest one had *6* waterblocks, which took weeks to machine, and hose leading out to a chopped office water-cooler, so i can clock everything to goofy levels), all for a few extra fps. Not even double. Now that rig wouldn't even be considered *average* . So much for buying procs with an eye towards the future ... just doesn't seem too economically sound. The raciest rigs of a year ago are just curious relics of today. Why not hold off buying new hardware 'til there's a chunk of software *you use*, which runs too slow on your rig? (When i dime out all the settings on Crysis Demo, the frame rate gets really choppy at times - better CPUs & GPUs would help that, but ... I don't *like* Crysis as anything but a benchmark.)
Of course, if you just like building fast boxen (I shoo' used to), then disregard what i just said. Fun is fun.
-d
