Guild Wars 2

Stop suggesting Business CPUs to Gamers. i3/i5’s are not intended for hard gaming unless you want a mid-to-low system and don’t care that much about high performance. There are plenty of i7’s out there with more L3CACHE (which helps tremendously with gaming).

And the price difference between i3/i5 to i7’s is not even that large of a margin. Go with an i7

Crawford.4135:

Stop suggesting Business CPUs to Gamers. i3/i5’s are not intended for hard gaming unless you want a mid-to-low system and don’t care that much about high performance. There are plenty of i7’s out there with more L3CACHE (which helps tremendously with gaming).

And the price difference between i3/i5 to i7’s is not even that large of a margin. Go with an i7

Please learn about the performance on each of the CPU line on GW2 before making suggestions like these.

Crawford.4135:

Stop suggesting Business CPUs to Gamers. i3/i5’s are not intended for hard gaming unless you want a mid-to-low system and don’t care that much about high performance. There are plenty of i7’s out there with more L3CACHE (which helps tremendously with gaming).

And the price difference between i3/i5 to i7’s is not even that large of a margin. Go with an i7

You really have NO idea what you are talking about. The i5’s, are what’s actually recommended for “hard gaming” over i7’s in a large majority of games, unless you can benefit from hyperthreading in particular programs, be it Photoshop, Maya, 3D Studio Max, etc. etc.

Just an FYI, what is considered “business cpu”, would be the Xeon and Opteron series.

Fermi what is your performance in this game?

Maybe is better to buy console and play MMOs there… but problem is there is no GW 2 on consoles

Could arena.net add support of directx 11.2 or maybe in future directx 12 …

Fermi.2409:

Behellagh.1468:

Don’t confuse the CPU and GPU components with something you could find in a PC.

Actually, the new consoles are more or less off-the-shelf parts in a somewhat customized configuration . The PS4 and XB1 are both using 8core tablet CPUs of differing (fairly low) clockrates. The PS4 is using a 7850-level GPU (close to 7870, iirc, in physical setup/specs but a low clockrate once again holds it back), while the XB1 is a decent bit behind at 7790 or 7770 level, I forget which. It’s really just the RAM setups that are different from normal PCs, slightly, but that’s not going to allow huge amounts of power to be suddenly be pulled from rather weak parts.

Behellagh.1468:

They aren’t running a full operating system. There is no need to allow random hardware being attached. The whole device driver and HAL portions of an OS simply isn’t needed. The XBox One OS isn’t going to be installed anywhere else and Microsoft has said that other than borrowing the Tile UI it has no shared code between Windows, Tablet or Phone OSes.

Even so, they’re running ‘full’ OSes now, even if they may not quite up to snuff with Windows or Linux. This is actually a bit of a resource drain; iirc, each console has a core or two dedicated purely to OS matters.

Really, the new consoles aren’t anything like what the older ones were. As it is, you can match their power (or at least the Xbox One’s, the PS4 is a little harder) with an equal budget, and they’re already behind when it comes to running newer games. The XB1 can’t even run Titanfall@60 FPS constant for god’s sake at 792P.

As someone who worked in custom hardware solutions, I’m not talking PCs here, a Windows/Linux PC has a very specific set of hardware capabilities that aren’t found in either the XBox One or PS4, so to me they aren’t “PCs”. They are like a PC but that could be said about the previous generation.

Just because the current consoles use x64 cores and a GPU based on ones found in existing PCs doesn’t make it a PC. It simply makes sense to use commodity class of cores and GPUs when designing their “system on a chip”. Sony learned this lesson the hard way with the PS3. Calling them a PC is like saying that since a lot of the technology in the Oculus Rift is found in smartphones that the Rift is a smartphone.

Also it’s not technically a “full” OS. It has no driver model for one. It’s customized to run only at that set of specific hardware. Android is more of a “full” OS than either OS on the current consoles.

Behellagh.1468:

As someone who worked in custom hardware solutions, I’m not talking PCs here, a Windows/Linux PC has a very specific set of hardware capabilities that aren’t found in either the XBox One or PS4, so to me they aren’t “PCs”. They are like a PC but that could be said about the previous generation.

Except the last generation wasn’t quite as off-the-shelf as this one, especially for Sony.

Behellagh.1468:

Just because the current consoles use x64 cores and a GPU based on ones found in existing PCs doesn’t make it a PC.

When it’s using PC components, it’s pretty much a PC.

Behellagh.1468:

Calling them a PC is like saying that since a lot of the technology in the Oculus Rift is found in smartphones that the Rift is a smartphone.

Not even close to being the same thing, so as a comparison it doesn’t quite work.

Behellagh.1468:

Also it’s not technically a “full” OS. It has no driver model for one. It’s customized to run only at that set of specific hardware. Android is more of a “full” OS than either OS on the current consoles.

Full in the sense that it’s a bit more comprehensive/intensive then what the PS3/360 used. It’s something that’s now eating resources to stay up fulltime, and not an insignificant amount.

This entire topic has been beaten to DEATH. So here are some closing notes that we can all agree on.

Business class CPUs vs Consumer Class CPUs make no real difference when talking about gaming. As long as your Xeons are Clocked at 3.2ghz+ they are on par with their consumer counter part (e5 = i5, e7=i7…ect). Xeon’s offer a few additional features that you wont find in a consumer based CPU (such as Virtualization Tech, Nested paging…ect). But the main differing feature is the ability to run multiple physical CPUs (you CANNOT do that with a consumer CPU). So if you have an application that will go beyond 4 cores/8threads, then that is where a Xeon is going to shine over a consumer based CPU. And, you would want to buy 2 or 4 socket motherboards and 2 or 4 Xeon CPUs to get that added Processing power. NOTHING else is a determining factor in all honesty.

Pertaining to the AMD vs Intel battle that goes on here quite abit. For GPUs’ its a legit battle, and usually ends up being user preference and driver support based. But for the APU/CPU battles, for GUILDWARS2 Intel wins. Hands down and nothing else can be said otherwise. Even AMD’s top ended FX series CPU cannot hold a candle to the single threaded performance of a 2nd gen i3 clocked at 3.2ghz. Now that all being said, if you are playing GW2 with other titles in your system, you may want to go AMD since its multi-threaded performance is close to Intels in MOST respects. But if you solely playing GW2 you only want to focus on an Intel based CPU.

Consoles vs PCs, why is this even a topic? Thats like comparing a Android Phone to a PC. Apples and Oranges. Just cause some consoles share same x86 hardware does not mean its a PC. The OS on your consoles are all bare-metal, meaning there so stripped down that a windows PC cannot be even used in a performance comparison. So this is a seriously null topic and does NOT belong on these forums.

Sticky point here – GW2 is DirectX9c. It is not mantle, DX10,DX11,DX11.2, or DX12. It MAY never be upgraded from DX9c due to the money and resources needed to do just that. Maybe if Anet starts to collect a monthly sub from china or some place, they may revert those funds. But NCSoft will be the ones that make that decision in the end, not Arena Net. So there is NO point is even talking about ANY OTHER graphical API other then DX9c and its faults, and how much Anet is pushing that API.

Now, the end of all ends here, hardware recommendations. If you are looking for average, or just above average, end user experiences in GW2 You will want to be looking at either a FX6300, FX8350, or an i3(clocked at 3.2ghz+). If you want a optimal experience you want an i5 clocked at 3.2ghz+ (or a K and push it to 4.5/4.6ghz). Your GPU should be in the range of a HD7790, R7-260x, GTX750, R7-265, GTX660, GTX 760, HD7850, HD7870, R9-270 (thats a full range of cards that are KNOWN to work very well with this game at 1080p+ resolutions, starting from $99 up to $329 – So just pick one!)

So there you have it, do we really need to flood this thread with more nonsense and misdirections? The issue is simple; GW2’s performance sucks and the only way to fix it is to throw hardware at it!

I’ll add in and say Radeon HD 7770 that can push this game at 1080P fairly well. An old guild mate said it worked good for him with his i5 3570K at 4.4 Ghz.

Avelos.6798:

I’ll add in and say Radeon HD 7770 that can push this game at 1080P fairly well. An old guild mate said it worked good for him with his i5 3570K at 4.4 Ghz.

my HD7790 will push 1080p with shaders on medium (sampling native, normal settings for reflections/shadows…ect) and maintain my FPS that I get at 1600×900.

5040×900 I turn down most settings to medium and I get exactly 1/2 FPS of the resolution I get at 1080p or 1600×900.

basically, the HD7790 is a great card for the price. I would NEVER buy one for more then 109+tax though. Thats r7-260x territory, and other better options (might as well get the 7850 for 149+tax)