[NEW MERCENARIES] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
Which AMD processor for Vindictus?
Was wondering if anyone know which AM3+ CPU to handle Vindictus at a constant 60 fps. I have a gigabyte amd based motherboard so dont tell me to switch to intel. I was thinking about this CPU AMD FX-8350 Black Edition Vishera 8-Core 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz Turbo). Is that any good? Also, I have a gtx 1070.
Comments
Ryzen isn't an AM3+ CPU...
But let me tell you right now that first you will never get a constant 60 FPS in this game especially not with an AM3+ cpu. Smooth gameplay during your battles and raids? Sure. but your fps won't stick at 60 FPS everywhere you go, it's just not going to happen with this game. Especially if you're on maxed out video settings.
I'm using an Intel 8700K CPU, the very best consumer processor out right now, cost me $400 and still my FPS doesn't stay at 60 all the time. Triple A game titles like Wolfenstein: The New Colossus which is far more demanding than this game (compare that game's system requirements to Vindictus) I get a very stable 60 FPS at all times no matter what but my FPS is always jumping around on Vindictus. Battlefield 1 I can play with maxed out video settings and my FPS is locked at 60, never changes. The game is just terrible at making use of high end gaming computers and system components. My GPU is a 1070ti and I've got 16 gigs of DDR4 RAM. I still get lag spikes when I go to channel 1 and of course my FPS is taking a hit.
The optimization of this game is just too shitty to ever get a stable or constant 60 FPS.
That being said while none of us will ever get a constant 60 FPS for this game the gameplay is still very smooth during battle and that's where it matters the most. Previously I was using an FX-6300 CPU and even with that I didn't really get any terrible lag during my raids, game was very playable, I can't really remember any lag with that but I definitely wasn't anywhere near 60 FPS during raids either, I think maybe around 30-45 or so, somewhere around there. But that was on lowest video settings so keep that in mind. I would start lagging at the high video settings. But I find playing on highest video settings is silly because all it does is put more **** in your way of doing the most important thing in the battle which is defeat the boss - you play better with lower video settings, less effects in your face while you're trying to beat that boss. So even with this high end system I play on my graphics settings are turned down to 'Normal' or a bit lower I think because the only point I see in playing on 'Highest' is if I wanted to show off to people watching me play the game how good my graphics are and I don't stream or anything so it's pointless. And I'm a veteran in this game, been playing since 2010 beta, I know what I'm talking about lol Maybe if you're into vanity and want your game to look pretty you'll want highest video settings but for best performance as a player in the game then lower video settings is a must.
The AMD FX-8350 looks like your best bet for your AM3+ board, your gameplay should be pretty smooth in most of your battles. And it's the best of the best for your mobo so why not get it. The thing is though, this game favors Intel CPUs so you're always going to be at a disadvantage there getting worse performance compared to a similarly priced Intel CPU. Still your game will run fine during battle on that FX-8350, just you may not be able to at highest video settings, you might need to lower that a bit, test it out see how it is.
So yeah I'd recommend that AMD FX-8350 BE. Just skimming Newegg it's got a full 5 eggs, looks like a greate AMD chip.
Single Core is for games that are made for Single Core.
Multi Core is for games that are made for Multi Core.
Graphics cards certainly help offset some parts of games like Vindictus, but the game mostly relies on the CPU, and it's designed for Single Core.
Then again, if you have a good Multi Core then one of those cores can likely handle Vindictus just fine. I've never had lag solo, only when grouping up with other players, and I have a Quad Core.
All CPUs are vulnerable to spectre hardware bug (security issue) and basically all intel CPUs are vulnerable to both spectre and meltdown bug (major security issue). It's all over the media now so you can search and read up on it. Jan 10th is supposedly when the embargo is lifted on this issue and we'll get more info.
If you have any intel CPU then you should apply the hotfix patch available now for Windows/Mac/Linux. And go to your motherboard manufacturer's website and update the BIOS/chipset drivers (or wait for the release if they haven't yet).
(Just a warning this hotfix may decrease your PC performance. There is not enough benchmarks out there to confirm it 100%).
I would keep watching on whether intel or amd fixes this issue with a new core architecture for next gen CPUs before buying anything.
If nothing is fixed, then I would buy the 2nd gen Ryzen from amd which is said to be revealed Feb 2018.
Spectre bug is less severe compared to meltdown and if intel doesn't fix the hardware bug and keeps relying on software fix by your OS then don't buy from them.
And I suspect/hope this 'incident' brings down next gen CPU prices down; either amd trying to win consumers over or intel trying to keep their customers.
The two bugs have the same origin, and a similar solution - 'serializing' which, from what I can tell, is like a verification of sorts?
In any case, all CPUs have and will have those two bugs, and all CPU manufacturers have to find a way to stop the exploits.
And for all of you who are like "why not just remove the origin of the exploits" - imagine being unable to run any modern games at all because your CPU is so slow that nothing loads fast enough to even work. That's why the whole pre-loading in CPUs existed in the first place, and that pre-loading is what's being read and exploited.
AMD, Google, Intel, all of them have the same thing. It's not like AMD magically made their CPUs load fast without needing to pre-load.
The average user will not see any performance changes after they install the patch. The change only affects heavy read/write centered tasks. IE the cloud is definitely going to be hurt, but you won't see any changes even if you are using your computer to play a game + surf the web with 40 tabs open + stream a move + play with office docs. Heck even running jmp scripts in the background wouldn't see much of a time increase. But you might see a hit if you are running 10 VNC sessions all performing a major # of read calls. (Heck tests with the Linux patch have shown that even CPU intensive Video compilations didn't have any change between being patched and not.)
That said OP has requested only an AMD chip. As mentioned, Ryzen is the only way to go. A good CPU, just ideal for things that aren't focused on games ;-)
You just might want to keep an eye out to see if some great sales appear suddenly.
I get that you love your Ryzen CPUs and it's the best of the AMD CPUs out but are you going to go buy him a new motherboard and RAM to use with it too? I doubt it.
You keep telling him to just go out and buy a Ryzen CPU when it's going to be impossible for even to use the thing in his computer. It's incompatible with his motherboard...
When he goes out and buys that Ryzen CPU then finds out he can't even use it in his motherboard you won't be able to do much to help him besides say sorry and sorry isn't going to fix anything.
Ryzen isn't even in the same price range as the FX 8350 he was looking at.
But those bugs with the CPU chips is something I should look into myself.
I thought it's common sense to upgrade new motherboard/RAM whenever u upgrade to next gen cpus /facepalm
False. That's not how the exploit works. See my above post. AMD is NOT safer than Intel; a bios/firmware update will NOT eliminate the problem. AMD will do a "patch" just like Intel, and the result will be the exact same.
All CPUs pre-load; it's not something you can magically remove with a software update, nor should you. AMD chips can be exploited in both ways, just like Intel. I don't know why you're so certain that AMD is totally immune to one of the exploits, but it's wrong.
AMD made the statement that its CPUs were immune, but that was a false statement just made to keep them from losing sales. Their CPUs aren't magic.
As for your whole "whoever uses Intel" well everyone does; AMD's CPUs are brand new, and don't have the experience that Intel does - sure, AMD has made tons of successful GPUs, but not CPUs. I'd rather back Intel.
The saddest part of all of this is that if you really want to get rid of the problem, you have to replace your hardware when the new CPUs release. People should be wary of sending them through the mail, as I'm sure many people will be looking for a way to jack their computers, and gain sensitive information the easy way.
He probably is refering to the 'meltdown' bug which ONLY Intel has.
There are 3 bugs: 1 meltdown and 2 spectre type
Intel has 1 of the spectre bugs and the meltdown bug.
AMD has the other 1 of the spectre bug which all other manufacturers(ex. ARM) also have.
meltdown bug is the one that is severe security issue which has to do with 'pre-load', more accurately "speculative execution" which the CPU tries to predict what the next operation is going to be and does some of the work ahead of the actual request. The problem arises when this "speculative execution" does not check the permission level hence possibly giving access to the kernel to a user level program using this speculative execution. This only happens with Intel CPUs. AMD also does have this "speculative execution" sort of operation, however their CPUs handle those operations abit differently and the permissions are checked. There's actually more details to it but I won't bother writing them here since most people aren't interested in all the details.
(If you want to know more there's tons of info on Intel Reddit that you can go through).
There isn't much information about the spectre bugs but I know they are harder to exploit on their own; it must be combined with other exploits to be useful.
Also, spectre is not on kernel level (it's user level) so it can be fixed via OS patching. The meltdown bug is not something that can be fixed completely without redesigning the CPU architecture.
So, technically AMD is "safer" than Intel right now but it is true that all CPUs are not completely safe.
Also, it's interesting to note Intel CEO selling his stocks before this all happened; as if he already knew about all these problems beforehand.
You nailed it, I was referring to melt down. I'm sure Intel new about this from the start and just figured they would deal with it when someone figured it out. Yes it is very strange that the CEO for Intel sold his stocks and made 28 million before this was released to the public... he definitely knew the outcome wasn't going to be good.
Intel was simply so quick to admit it had both that the other companies took advantage and lied by saying they only had Spectre, and that it "doesn't affect" their chips that much, which is complete bull.
ALL of those processors use pre-load, so ALL of them have BOTH of the exploits. You can't just magically not have a exploit when that exploit is 100% caused by the same problem as another exploit. That just goes against every avenue of logic, including common sense.
Also, stop calling them bugs. They're not bugs, they're exploits. A bug is a function that exists that's not supposed to exist. Pre-loading is supposed to exist, and unneeded loops are supposed to be discarded; the phantom indications of those loops existed was already well-known and allowed. Spectre and Meltdown are exploits of that function; they're not bugs.
Yes, the word "bug" is not a correct way to describe them. They were designed that way from the beginning which makes them a faulty design.
That just sounds like this arguement in this thread: The point is, they are flawed. Doesn't really matter if I call it "bug" or "faulty design".
I am certain AMD is NOT effected by meltdown. And there are 2 spectre exploits.
1. Here is an article explaining the 3 variants (meltdown + 2 spectre) if you want to get proper information.
2. Explaining who is vulnerable to which attack; ONLY Intel is affected by Meltdown.
IMPORTANT:
In addition to all these problems, if you own a NVidia GPU you need to apply the new security patch.
Radeon(AMD) uses hardware scheduler so is imune to this problem. Nvidia apparently depends on the CPU so is vulnerable if not patched.
Source:
AND lastly, good news AMD has decreased the prices of their CPUs by 30% and announced the 2018 roadmap; Ryzen 2nd gen in April 2018.
Stop advertising AMD. It's notorious for making cheap hardware just to get sales, and Ryzen is an extremely experimental type of chip that the public has yet to test. While Intel is actually taking this issue seriously, AMD has a don't-worry-about-it attitude that's going to screw its customers over.
http://www.pcgamer.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-meltdown-and-spectre-cpu-exploits/
And seriously, the link above even states that the tests on AMD and ARM are incomplete, and that variants of Meltdown that are more precise would likely affect them anyway. It's just "easier" to exploit Intel CPUs.
Ryzen is not magic. APUs sound quite nice, but no technology is perfect. And no matter how much you don't want to be skeptical of AMD, its CPU architecture is extremely similar to Intel's - one could even say it's an outright copy.
Also, you are now accusing of AMD lying without any proof. Just because the only source of proving that AMD is unaffected by meltdown is from AMD does not automatically mean AMD is lying. I am trying to stay very unbiased here. The reason I believe AMD's statement is because as from one of the links from my previous post:
No one is saying Ryzen is magic. But a smart consumer would realize the 2nd gen Ryzen is the choice for next upgrade. There are words that the meltdown problem is not going to be fixed for Intel until at least Ice Lake because the architecture for Cannon lake and Coffee lake are pretty much set already and will be difficult to change. That means next lineup of Intel processors will still be vulnerable to meltdown.
I was also looking to upgrade my i7-4790k to a newer Intel CPU and this happened.
My suggession is still Ryzen gen 2 that's comming out in April 2018 or not to upgrade CPU at all if the benchmarks/reviews are not good enough.
30% off Ryzen CPUs + not vulnerable to meltdown + the spectre exploits can be fixed with OS update = good deal
The only way I am buying another Intel CPU is if they fix meltdown (on hardware side) and I'm on the look out for news on that but it seems it won't be fixed until 2 more generations of CPUs from Intel. (I mean I feel really betrayed that Intel CEO sold his stocks and only kept just enough to keep his CEO position. - it's against the law if he sold all of his stock in this situation. Seems to me this CEO has no intention of 'fixing' this issue.)
P.S. "AMD is notorious for making cheap hardware just to get sales" applies to the last decade. They were actually decent before Intel's core i series started.
I don't know where you get your information from but if you do some research there are indeed three exploits/bugs/design flaws/whatever you want to call them. Here is a post straight from Google:
Source: https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html
AMD didn't lie, please feel free to prove they did. Actually, maybe they did lie but it hasn't been proved yet. Since we don't have anyone that can prove they lied as of today, I think we can rest assured they're fine. Here is what AMD thinks about this whole thing:
Source: https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/speculative-execution
So please tell me why I should believe you when AMD themselves think their hardware is in a better state than Intel's.
Now before you call me an AMD shill, I've bought more Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs than AMD/ATI CPUs/GPUs. I really don't care which company I buy from, the only thing I care about is how good the product is and how much it costs.
16 cores and 32 threads for $1000 USD? That sounds like magic to me.
Also for the love of god please do some research before talking about PC hardware, this isn't the first time.