15FPS Nvidia 770 + AMD 965 Quad

Go and look at the benchmarks you linked, JDM's CPU is barely any better than mine yet thanks to some maintenance is working fine.

 

lol to the guy who hates amd and doubted the performance

 

The AMD 965 is in no way at all i slow processor. There are hundreds of processors literally slower than it. In my opinion if someone wanted a mid level build i would recommend it because I know it can handle Battlefield 4 and many other games. It is in no way a super processor. But it does the job.

 

you would recommend a 5 year old discontinued budget processor for a mid level gaming build. ok.

i'm a little curious as to how your temperatures were actually affecting your performance. if you managed to play battlefield games - which are optimized to use 100% of available processing power - then i'm intrigued as to how you managed to overheat solely with beamng which should have been mainly using a single core. also you never seem to mention that your performance degrades over time as your processor heats up - a symptom very common with overheating. you also didn't mention a single hard crash or bluescreen, which is what your processor probably would have done if it was operating with a completely malfunctioning cooling system - especially while playing battlefield.

overall, nothing you've said in this thread indicates that your problems were actually caused by overheating and multiple posts of yours indicate that you never even *checked your temperatures at all* even after several posts mentioning that you should check them. my original post, of course, was under the impression that your processor simply wasn't quick enough under normal circumstances - as i have found in the past.

if you're getting a constant 40 FPS with very few fps-dips in vegetated maps now then more power to you. i couldn't reproduce the same performance on my previous build with more recent AMD hardware.

i don't hate AMD. they are perfectly good processors targeted to home desktops and budget gaming rigs. but they do not perform very well in comparison to intel processors when it comes to games like beamNG where lots of the computation is only happening in a single thread.

 

emphasis on the text in red. They are still easy to obtain. That doesnt mean that I agree with the recommendation, but they do still work. Bizarrely you can still buy athlon 2 series chips but AMD pack them in FM2 instead, although some of the APU's do beat them now (think the highest passmark score for an APU is in the 1500 - 1600 range) but they cost nearly twice the price of the athlon FM2's which are not all that far behind, referencing the cost and passmark score in the next section, honestly I think on a shoestring budget the athlon FM2 chips are not a bad choice provided you are using external graphics.

entirely false. It is highly counter intuitive to optimise a game to use 100% processing power. You normally optimise to use as little as possible. Sure I have the settings turned to almost bare minimum but I can play battlefield 3 without lag on my laptops intel 3217U which is a low voltage model ivy bridge core i3 dual core at 1.8ghz, the laptop also only has HD4000 graphics. I can turn the settings up a bit from where they are and can play some scenes smoothly, but a few do then kick up lag spikes ranging from just a slight jutter to powerpoint slideshow, its the graphics settings that make most difference here so if anything it is most likely being bottlenecked by GPU more so than CPU.

For reference. Passmark scores below -
intel core i3 3217U: 880
AMD Athlon II X3 460: 1184, cost me £75 2 years ago.
AMD Phenom II X4 965: 1196, if I recall was around the £100 range 2 years ago but I could be wrong.

AMD Athlon X4 760K: 1430, costs £60 approx.
AMD A10 6800K: 1568, costs £105 approx.

BeamNG also runs on the core i3, low-normal settings, postFX off. JDM's original reported issue was that it wasnt even running on all lowest settings, if a 3217U can run it above lowest, then there is something wrong for the phenom to not be able to run it.

I think its more likely that there was some sort of obscure problem with your build if you could not run BeamNG smoothly.

- - - Updated - - -

You can have a microATX FM2 motherboard from about £30. ATX on the site I am on right now starts from £60 but you may be able to go cheaper.
Combine the 760K with a microATX build, thats a functional quad core CPU and motherboard for just under £100. The board is not high end, only single GPU and its SATA II and USB 2.0 only. But when buying on a shoestring, sorted.
However the 760K doesnt have onboard graphics and the assumption with the FM2 socket is that you are using an APU with on board graphics. Even so, well under £150 you can have a motherboard and APU, use the APU graphics and then buy a proper card in lets say 6 months time.

On a tight budget, AMD is hands down the best choice.

When you can budget for it though, intel is undisputed champion.

 

I never checked the temperatures on the cpu. I felt the tubes on the h60 and the block and they werent hot and the air channeling through the raidator wasnt either. So i made the assumption. Relax on the attitude man. This is a friendly forum to communicate with other people in the same interests. Got a bad vibe from your post. Yes the 965 is an old processor and I know it is not a high performance processor. I have an intel i7 3770k that I usually use man. I did recommend the 965 for a friends build 1 1/2 years ago and he still uses it, plays every game he wants to play without issue. It's a good processor dont hate it completely. I love intel processors and I love AMD, if you do not have a lot of money you can get an AMD rig that will do everything you will need for less than an intel rig. The processor was running at 800mhz and surprisingly enough ran live for speed just fine at 800mhz lol. I monitored the cpu while in lfs and it stayed at 800mhz. My studies with battlefield games was when I had the system setup a long time ago. I didnt test it recently but i would get the same results.

 

An Intel/AMD forum war? I'll contribute my opinion!

I prefer Intel but as others said, AMD is better when you are on a budget. It gets the job done well. The only problem I've had with my CPU is that for some reason there's no voltage control for the CPU so it's running at 4.2GHz on stock voltage. (I'm certain it could go well over double stock speeds if I could change the voltage. I've reached 5.4GHz before and kept it at that for a while before dialing the multiplier back.)

 

I have the same processor. Chugs games along well but my graphics is crappy. Live for Speed runs >100 fps. Getting a 2gb graphics card this week!!

 

I purchased an $80 gigabyte mobo that I thought was atx but it's micro atx. Then I found out that I could have gotten an fm2+ mobo which is backwards compatible with my cpu and compatible with new ones for cheaper. bummer.

 

Based on your sig, you are getting a gt 610. That thing is slower than integrated graphics on anything newer than sandy bridge.

 

Don't got off the amount of memory on a graphics card to see performance.

gt610 benchmark: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+610

the 7540d gpu in my 60 dollar apu benchmark: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+7540D

my 7540d hardly manages low settings gets about 35fps but sometimes dips passing leafy trees

 

Dang I'd at least get a 640 they have them cheap on tiger direct.

 

the gt610 is a horrible card, if anything, youll probably get LESS performance then you had before, and for comparison:

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...orce-gt-610-vs-intel-hd-graphics-4000-desktop as you can see, the intel hd 4000 is better, and if i knew what gpu you use right now, i would compare that

 

I wouldn't say it's horrible, just bad for gaming. My 8400gs is bad for gaming but it's a great card imo

 

when a integrated gpu, BY INTEL, beats it, thats how you know its horrible -_-

 

Yep, the thing is based off a 520, and runs ddr3. Even a 7730 will massively outperform it.

 

The 610 is horrible. I don't know why they make it. I sold my old HD 6750 for about 70 bucks on eBay so you could consider looking for a used card.

 

Let's get back to the ACTUAL topic, shall we?

I agree with this statement. The Phenom series of CPU's are sufficient even nowadays because they are so modification friendly. I have had the same CPU for about three years, and it is much the same as the one you are using temporarily. I have the Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition. The only out of the box difference is a slightly higher clock speed. But it is what you do with it in the BIOS that makes ALL the difference.

I could show you 3DMark CPU scores and all these other tests I have done, but the reality is that overclocking these CPU's makes them perfect for most games. I have used mine at 4.0 GHz for three years. Back in 2010 it kicked the competition's ass, and it still does now. From a $120 CPU that I purchased over three years ago, I couldn't ask for more.

The perfect example of how well this CPU still performs is running BeamNG Drive.
On ALL HIGHEST settings with ALL POST FX defaults, I get 55-60 fps on Dry Rock at spawn. Minimum dip to 35 on the whole island.

Now, to rule out the impact my GPU has on this, I turned down all graphics settings to low(est). I then went to Grid Pure and loaded a few D-15s.
1-157fps
2-100fps
3-78fps
4-50fps
5-43fps
6-31fps
7-27fps
8-25fps- Want proof? YOU GOT IT

That's all you need to know. All fps measurements were taken in real time (no slow mo) at 1440x900 windowed to allow screenshots. In fullscreen I can get 5 more fps each time.

In short, I believe i am set for at least a couple years to come. As this game and others get more efficient at rendering/utilizing multicore CPU's , those numbers will undoubtedly go up.
AND YES, if there are budget minded gamers out there who want a dirt cheap CPU recommendation, AMD Phenom CPU's excel in this game and all other genres.
I am done here.

 

umm, btw, the gpu does all the graphical work so no matter what you have the settings at, it wont affect cpu stuff, only the gpu -_-

 

Exactly... In the first shot I was showing how the CPU plays well with a modern GPU in a normal game situation. A general statement on how the game performs.

The second screen was of a completely unrealistic situation in which there was no scenery (no graphical detail really at all) and an unnecessary amount of vehicles. A pure test of the CPU itself doing physics engine calculations to produce the resultant frame rate.

Clarification: the first shot was to prove that the game in general works well with that CPU.... The second was for the CPU test.

AND yes, Graphical settings do have a large amount to do with the strain on a CPU. AKA: Bottle-necking?? It is the CPU that handles:
Physics
Sound
Animation & Animation Interpolation <graphics settings
Particles <graphics settings
Decals <graphics settings
Polygons <graphics settings

While the GPU handles:
Textures & Bumpmaps
AA & AF
HDR & Bloom
Resolution

The CPU is a middleman. The less work it has to hand off to someone else, the more clearly its actual performance can be measured. Run the same test yourself for fun. I'd like to see.