Under whose processors will Fallout 4 be sharpened: Intel or AMD? (Fallout 4)
I'm going to update the computer exactly to the new folich. Long wanted. Finally, there was a good reason.What percentage do you think to take? And most importantly, whose? Leaning towards either 4th gen i5 (4460 to 4690K) or AMD FX (6350 to 8350).
I know that in terms of performance and price, the flagships in these lines are not even close, but in some games, AMD processors are not inferior to Intel. I noticed that, as a rule, it is in games developed for several platforms at once, including consoles. It's no secret that console games are more geared towards multithreading, and processors for consoles are supplied by AMD.
Who's thinking about this? I understand that it is better to wait for the official system requirements. But there is money now, and in 3 months it may not be there anymore))
And let's try without Intel VS AMD holivar.
PS: no need for video cards, I know that they decide in FPS. the question right now is on what to build a new system, because core 2 duo will soon not be supported at all by game manufacturers.
Better wait for the official system requirements. Playing Fallout 4 is worth it.
I hope that the game will suit my Intel and in general in versatile requirements, not limited to only one type of processor. Because, as it seems to me, Bethesda is counting on a huge audience in their game. And yes, in my opinion the theme repeats this.
turokxxx
Yes, I did not mean that the game will be limited to only one type of processor)) I'm talking about practicality) of
course i5 will cope with a bang, this is 100%. but the difference with the quoted amd in price is almost 2 times. and I’m unlikely to play other games anymore, the old one has completely become)) I don’t really like anything)
well, I don’t consider the topic a repetition, because I ask for specific advice, and I’m not guessing on coffee grounds.
lovecreep
FX6350 flight is normal, there are no complaints about friezes and lags, it pulls everything that has come out at the moment
Well, since the game engine is the same as that of Skyrim, only improved, then I think there is something to build on. View the system requirements for Skyrim - here is some approximate information.
Geodezist89
Yes, I looked. requirements two-core - four-core say little, except for the number of cores))
Then I agree with turokxxx It's
better to wait for the official system requirements.
turokxxx
agree. the new i5, and even more so the i7, will definitely be enough for 5 years.
but the question is what can the FX-8200 for example come down to for the same purposes. especially since multithreading in games will develop, again, pure "ports" will gravitate towards this more in view of the presence of AMD processors in new generation consoles.
I don’t play COD and BF at all, from the resource-intensive ones I played only in DayZ, until I got tired of the lack of visible progress ... I can’t even remember that, besides DayZ, my percent loaded and overheated ...
lookaway
, so I'm trying to predict this) it seems that the game is being made simultaneously with the console versions, so it should be sharpened. another thing - if for consoles "absolutely" is developed separately ...
If we are talking about the middle segment of processors, then I think that the picture will be more or less even. Intels will probably be 5-10 percent more powerful in some cases. AMD has a good overclocking potential, but not everyone has experience with overclockers.
If we talk about top-end solutions, then undoubtedly Intels will be more powerful.
And in general, a slightly wrong question was posed by the author of the topic.
lovecreep
Intel is definitely more powerful, but depending on what you mean by that? If you have a desire to buy a video card for 25K and squeeze the settings to the max, then intel. If you are ready to measure yourself with cutting max settings by 10-20%, then definitely AMD (I'm not talking about the fall specifically, but in general about all games)
PS. And don't you dare confuse the 82** series with the 83** series, these are completely different chips. The first on a bulldozer, and the second on a vissher. The performance of the latter is 10-30% better. I bought 8320+970. Everyone played almost on ultra settings (I bought the computer in February). For comparison: before that there was a computer bought in February 2010. It was rather weak (the ENTIRE system unit cost 20K, the one that is now 60+), and so. I played ALL games on that old man, everything! I played The Witcher 2, ship assassin, metro 2033, starcraft, deus... I even played bioshock infinity. And you know what? In most games, it produced about 40-60 frames at (!) Max settings. Yes, yes, yes, my screen resolution was not large - 1440x900, but the fact remained that I played games exactly until games with mandatory support for 11DH appeared.
Why am I? And besides, I thought I would upgrade the computer in parts, buy a 2nd video card, buy more RAM ... but I just bought a new PC, BAM and bought it. If you are also not a picky player, then buy an 8320, and put the difference from Intel into a video card, and after 6-7 years just replace everything here a bunch of 8320 + 970 will come out around 28K). I can advise what and how if you decide to take 8320 :)
I collected different computers for myself and eventually realized one simple thing (this is a subjective opinion): you need to focus primarily on the reliability of the machine, even if, based on disparate tests, performance is expected to be lower. The difference is still not noticeable later, and a reliable car keeps acceleration better.
By reliability, I mean a minimum of freezes, lower temperatures, sharpening for most programs and operating systems.
As a result, now I have a gigabyte motherboard (although I'm still not used to the fact that these are reliable motherboards, 20 years ago it was junk itself =))), an Intel i5 3570k processor and an nvidia asus gtx-760 video. Collected two years ago. So, on this mediocre configuration for today, I don’t know any problems or bugs, incl. witcher from the first day of release without problems on ultra 30-40 fps, now somewhere around 40-50 with patches.
I had different computers built on AMD before, and always got out here and there some problems, crashes, errors. I am one of those people who do not like to constantly finish something with a file, so it's better to take a little simpler iron but from reliable manufacturers, IMHO.
AMD FX does not have a PCI-Express x16 version 3.0 controller (only in the new A8 and A10, but to put it mildly, these are not gaming processors, but rather a plug for the socket). Intel has a built-in controller since the 3rd generation of Ivy Bridge (i5-3000 and i7-3000). My i5-3470 is probably five years old (under overclocking to 4GHz - in idle 27 degrees, under load 55 degrees), and its power is enough for the same amount, it opens cards of the R9 390 or GTX980 level easily (for Fury X or 980Ti / Titan X of course already need i7)
Bethesda does not work with hardware, but all past games on the engine have favored Intel. In any case, I don't worry about my i5-3570K. Yes, and FX-x3xx will take the game out without any problems.
I can bet 100 bucks that Intel will work better. I say this as a user of the debugger and disassembler.
lovecreep
Here, try to watch this video. Maybe it will help you decide. And from my own experience I will say that the AMD FX 8350 is a very good processor. I still have all modern games running with AMD FX-8350, asus gtx 660ti, though not at maximum settings, after all, my video card is already old. (And I assembled the computer at the end of 2012, and I'm still happy with it.)
PS If you read it, write an answer.