Sim City V

[mykalberta]

As with most games I am likely going to way 2-3 months before taking the plunge.

The small land area for cities really bothers me.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Just looking at getting a new computer built and wondering if what I got will run this thing when it comes out.

- Intel Core i5 3570 Quad Core Processor LGA1155 3.4GHZ Ivy Bridge 6MB
- Corsair Vengeance Blue CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1600
- Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 7200.12 1TB SATA 32MB
- XFX Radeon HD 7870 Core Ed. 1000MHZ 2GB 4.8GHZ GDDR5 DVI HDMI 2XMINIDP PCI-E Video Card

Since I haven't ordered any parts yet should I be looking to upgrade the video card or will this set up run without any issues?

I have a Q6600, Raedon HD 6770 1GB that runs it on high with no signs of slowdown, I can't imagine you would have any issues.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The small land area for cities really bothers me.

I'll admit, it did sort of bother me too. I loved the massive land plots in Sim City 4 because you could make a city with a huge-ass footprint and it would give you enough space to fit things in so as to be aesthetically pleasing and efficient. You could choose a large plot and make your own Calgary, or pick a small one stuck up against a body of water that runs into / relies on neighbouring cities in the region (for workers and industry) and make Vancouver.

[Nehkara]

There will be a total of 10 regions and 80 city sites at launch.

• Cape Trinity (3)
• Cliffside Vista (2)
• Whitewater Valley (5)
• Viridian Woods (16)
• Horizon Archipelago (11)
• Titan Gorge (16)
• Reflection Atoll (7)
• Discovery Delta (16)
• Endeavor Island (2)
• Sunrunner Bay (2)

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Just looking at getting a new computer built and wondering if what I got will run this thing when it comes out.

- Intel Core i5 3570 Quad Core Processor LGA1155 3.4GHZ Ivy Bridge 6MB
- Corsair Vengeance Blue CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1600
- Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 7200.12 1TB SATA 32MB
- XFX Radeon HD 7870 Core Ed. 1000MHZ 2GB 4.8GHZ GDDR5 DVI HDMI 2XMINIDP PCI-E Video Card

Since I haven't ordered any parts yet should I be looking to upgrade the video card or will this set up run without any issues?

That rig will run anything currently out just fine. You have no worries at all.

[TorqueDog]

HOOT, upgrade to an i7. Other than that, give'r.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

HOOT, upgrade to an i7. Other than that, give'r.

Why bother? Games don't use hyper-threading, so unless you are going to also be doing Photoshop, Premeire/Aftereffects, 3D modelling, music recording or any other CPU intensive application work, the i5-3570k plays games identical to the i7-3770k.

TL;DR It's a waste of an extra 100$ if you are not going to be using the machine for heavy application use.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why bother? Games don't use hyper-threading, so unless you are going to also be doing Photoshop, Premeire/Aftereffects, 3D modelling, music recording or any other CPU intensive application work, the i5-3570k plays games identical to the i7-3770k.

TL;DR It's a waste of an extra 100$ if you are not going to be using the machine for heavy application use.

For 25% more on-die cache I would definitely spend the extra $100 - pretty much the single most important aspect of a modern CPU, to the point where I'd choose a CPU with more cache than a CPU with a higher clock speed every single time.

I also wouldn't categorically state that games don't use hyperthreading - if you inspect a running game in task manager for thread count, I bet many, many games utilize more than one thread. Even if a game did utilize few or no threads, the larger cache would be even more beneficial, since more of the data and instructions related to that single thread would occupy the cache.

[Icon]

I want this NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Icon

I want this NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO

~31 days.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

For 25% more on-die cache I would definitely spend the extra $100 - pretty much the single most important aspect of a modern CPU, to the point where I'd choose a CPU with more cache than a CPU with a higher clock speed every single time.

I also wouldn't categorically state that games don't use hyperthreading - if you inspect a running game in task manager for thread count, I bet many, many games utilize more than one thread. Even if a game did utilize few or no threads, the larger cache would be even more beneficial, since more of the data and instructions related to that single thread would occupy the cache.

Very very few games on the market utilize hyper-threading, and even the ones that do utilize it have minimal benefit (like .5% at most). Synthetic benchmarks inflate the importance of HT because they do in fact use it for physics modeling, but real-world game tests show the benefit is marginal, and sometimes even has a negative impact on the final results.

Hundreds of benchmarks of the Gen 2 and Gen 3 i5/i7s have shown this same thing (i5-2500k vs i7-2600k or i5-3570k vs i7-3770k). This isn't even to mention that a 3770k runs hotter than the already hot 3570k, and consumes more power.

http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hy...ading-in-games

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...k_6.html#sect0

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Very very few games on the market utilize hyper-threading, and even the ones that do utilize it have minimal benefit (like .5% at most). Synthetic benchmarks inflate the importance of HT because they do in fact use it for physics modeling, but real-world game tests show the benefit is marginal, and sometimes even has a negative impact on the final results.

Hundreds of benchmarks of the Gen 2 and Gen 3 i5/i7s have shown this same thing (i5-2500k vs i7-2600k or i5-3570k vs i7-3770k). This isn't even to mention that a 3770k runs hotter than the already hot 3570k, and consumes more power.

http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hy...ading-in-games

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...k_6.html#sect0

We'll have to agree to disagree. X-Plane and FS X both heavily utilize multiple cores as an example. Civ 5 specifically listed a quad core CPU as a recommended system requirement. I'm cherry picking of course, but a lot of the discussion about multicore support in games centers around FPS type games, which are notorious for being single threaded. All those benchmarks in your links show is that the frame rate limits exist somewhere other than the CPU. But trust me, I can take X-Plane and make _any_ system crawl, and none of it has to do with GPU horsepower.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out Simcity V likes multiple cores too - it makes no sense that they wouldn't have background threads for the various underlying simulation layers.

In the end I doubt it matters much, but for $100 either way you might as well get the big boost to on-die cache.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

We'll have to agree to disagree. X-Plane and FS X both heavily utilize multiple cores as an example. Civ 5 specifically listed a quad core CPU as a recommended system requirement. I'm cherry picking of course, but a lot of the discussion about multicore support in games centers around FPS type games, which are notorious for being single threaded.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out Simcity V likes multiple cores too - it makes no sense that they wouldn't have background threads for the various underlying simulation layers.

In the end I doubt it matters much, but for $100 either way you might as well get the big boost to on-die cache.

i5s still have 4 physical cores, they just don't have 4 virtual cores that a program may or may not utilize.

And a 6MB cache vs 8MB cache makes a near 0 difference in gaming. It's really not a matter of opinion, it's been beaten to death over the last 2-3 years by enthusiasts.

The most improvement in the most optimized games you will see with an i7 @ $350-$360 is generously 5%-8% because of HT and the increased cache.

So an i5 @ $225 (on newegg atm) which would be a baseline of 100% performance in games vs a 3770k @ $330 (on newegg) at 108% =

i5-3570k = $225 = $2.25 per performance point
i7-3770k = $330 = $3.06 per performance point (best case scenario)

Especially in a new build, that extra $100 would be far better spent elsewhere, either on a better videocard (which for $100 will show far superior performance gains) or on an SSD (which will give better overall PC performance, though no FPS gains). This is really the best reason to get an i5 over an i7 if your primary function is gaming.

If I have $500 for my CPU/GPU budget, your PC would be far better with an i5-3570k ($225) and a 7870 ($260) at ~$500 after tax, rather than a 3770k ($330) and a 650 Ti ($160) at ~$500 after tax.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/548?vs=680

Especially considering the 7870 gives a 40+% FPS improvement over the 650 Ti.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

I like compooters cuz they let me play mah storys and bowser teh interwebz.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why bother? Games don't use hyper-threading, so unless you are going to also be doing Photoshop, Premeire/Aftereffects, 3D modelling, music recording or any other CPU intensive application work, the i5-3570k plays games identical to the i7-3770k.

TL;DR It's a waste of an extra 100$ if you are not going to be using the machine for heavy application use.

Just to clear up any confusion, he's not looking at the i5-3570k, he's looking at the i5-3570 non-k. And I was suggesting a non-k as well.

As Scott said, I'd pay an extra hundred bucks to know that my processor can take whatever I can throw at it, including future games. Consider that while it can be said many games don't fully utilize hyper-threading today, that will undoubtedly change as we push the envelope further.

The thing that sold me on using the i7: old roommate was rendering a 1080p HD scene in 3dsmax and playing Modern Warfare 2 on maximum everything at full frame-rate. It's nice to know that you've got all the horsepower you will need for the near future.

[HOOT]

I'm sorry for getting this thread derailed but I thank everyone for their answers and explanations.

I'm on somewhat of a budget and since my old HP computer is one of those micro cases I had to start from scratch right from a new case, this is the first time I've gotten into computer games. I already went from the Radeon 7850 1GB to 7870 2GB video card. Started the process thinking the $600 range and now sitting around the $950 w/shipping & taxes. And TBQH I don't think I will get the use out of the i7 from the sounds of it, at least not enough to continue spending more money. I can always change that if I continue to play games and/or games go in that direction.

Glad to hear I won't have issues with Sim V!

[TorqueDog]

Oh yeah, Sim City V will scream regardless of CPU. Plus your board will be able to support either processor if you do decide at a future date to upgrade.

Although... maybe consider an SSD for your boot partition?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

As Scott said, I'd pay an extra hundred bucks to know that my processor can take whatever I can throw at it, including future games. Consider that while it can be said many games don't fully utilize hyper-threading today, that will undoubtedly change as we push the envelope further.

I've heard this song and dance since the first HT-enabled Xeon came out in 2002. There's just far too much coding involved without much output worth to really bother. Even in application work, HT only increases performance by 10%-25% depending on the applications actual support for HT.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=551

Heck, look at SLI-support. SLI/XFire has been around in one form or another since the Voodoo2, but most games have a very varying degree of improvement from 2/3/4 cards, which all variate based on the card, the game, the motherboard architecture, and the drivers. SLI-support is made for gaming, and still most game makers can't be bothered to start working on improving SLI performance until they are a few patches past release.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I've heard this song and dance since the first HT-enabled Xeon came out in 2002. There's just far too much coding involved without much output worth to really bother. Even in application work, HT only increases performance by 10%-25% depending on the applications actual support for HT.

I might be misunderstanding your wording, because this isn't how HT works. The application has no awareness of hyperthreading - it's up to the OS CPU scheduler to assign threads to available execution cores, and the application gains the benefits for free.

What I think you might be saying is that game developers don't significantly leverage parallelism in their game engines, and that this makes a massively multi-core(tm) processor less important relative to spending the money elsewhere for bigger bang for your buck in that specific workload - and that's a fair and accurate assessment. But I don't think it applies equally to all workloads; flight simulators, in my example, benefit greatly from increased parallelism.

We should revisit this when SCV launches - it'll be easy to gauge the effect of multiple cores by setting CPU affinity on the process and doing some benchmarking.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I might be misunderstanding your wording, because this isn't how HT works. The application has no awareness of hyperthreading - it's up to the OS CPU scheduler to assign threads to available execution cores, and the application gains the benefits for free.

What I think you might be saying is that game developers don't significantly leverage parallelism in their game engines, and that this makes a massively multi-core(tm) processor less important relative to spending the money elsewhere for bigger bang for your buck in that specific workload - and that's a fair and accurate assessment. But I don't think it applies equally to all workloads; flight simulators, in my example, benefit greatly from increased parallelism.

We should revisit this when SCV launches - it'll be easy to gauge the effect of multiple cores by setting CPU affinity on the process and doing some benchmarking.

Game engines have to be coded to take advantage of CPU scaling beyond 2-3 cores. Very few even properly utilize multiple physical cores, let alone multiple virtual cores. Titles that tend to assign extra processes like physics to the CPU take more advantage of multiple cores because the physics process is separate from the game process. The main program loop (which itself is - in computer time - almost on constant hold while it waits for user input), the graphics thread, AI and physics are the most likely users of your CPU cores (and will only be used properly if the engine is optimized in such a way). Beyond that, use kind of falls off a cliff.

Sure, Task Manager may show a game using 50+ threads for minor workloads, but these are all low-calc tasks, and only 1 or 2 heavy workloads are being processed at once, hence you have limited scaling beyond 2-3 cores even in modern titles. This is why HT really helps on chips like the i3-2100, because being only a dual core, the HT can expand that so it can act better than it actually is. However on a quad core, the advantage tapers off noticeably.