Guild Wars 2

hi
im using phenom II x6 1090T 3.3Ghz L3 cache 6MB
HD 7850 SoC
8G ram 1333mhz DDR3

and the game run really bad….
the FPS its bitween 25-50

in World vs World in huge battles its like 10-12FPS thats a joke!
why do you leave AMD cpu and optimize the game only for Intel? because the name?

fix that

by the way if someone here have Phenom II x4 955 or above please tell type here how much FPS do you get in WvW and in huge battles in PVE/WvW

any anwer will help.

I don’t think they “optimized” anything, so Intel CPU’s just simply brute-force there way to the better FPS. I guess for some odd reason the specific “slowdown” code runs better on Intel CPU’s, maybe lucky branch prediction or some other nifty technical detail.

Also i don’t see a “best played on Intel” logo or advertisement, u normally use if u actually worked together with Intel.

AndyPandy.3471:

Intel CPU’s just simply brute-force there way to the better FPS. l.

This.

AMD’s recent cpu’s are just not up to performance standards.

i still want to know what is the minimum/avg FPS with ppl who have Phenom II x4 955/965/970/980/1050/1090/1100 or above….

thats will help alot

“toms” just released a updated analysis, maybe this helps?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Looks really bad for AMD, even the lowest Pentium dual core outperforms any AMD.

Just ???? that was published on August 27th !!!
and BTW, that was when the game actually had some optimizations. If Tom benchmarked the game again with the current builds, the minimum fps on all hardware would be MUCH lower.

I have a

Phenom II 965 @4Ghz (100% stable)
HD 6870 × 2
8 Gig ram windows 7 64 bit.

In massive WvW fights i am getting about 11 FPS unplayble imo.
In massive PvE events i gotten as low as 15 fps.
Standard questing i am anywhere between 60-100+ fps
Towns: Lion’s Arch i am getting in the fountain/Center area about 28-35 FPS.

Maybe it’s a harsh thing to say but you and all those people complaining about AMD’s poor performances shouldn’t have bought an AMD in the first place. BTW AMD’s future doesn’t look bright at all:
“AMD will announce next week that it will cut between 20 percent and 30 percent of its employees, which, given AMD’s headcount of about 11,100 workers, would amount to between 2,200 and 3,300 jobs.”
“This would be the second major reduction in AMD’s workforce since Read took over as CEO. The company announced a 10 percent reduction 11 months ago. Those cuts amounted to about 1,400”
allthingsd.com October 12, 2012

Leto.5642:

Maybe it’s a harsh thing to say but you and all those people complaining about AMD’s poor performances shouldn’t have bought an AMD in the first place. BTW AMD’s future doesn’t look bright at all:
“AMD will announce next week that it will cut between 20 percent and 30 percent of its employees, which, given AMD’s headcount of about 11,100 workers, would amount to between 2,200 and 3,300 jobs.”
“This would be the second major reduction in AMD’s workforce since Read took over as CEO. The company announced a 10 percent reduction 11 months ago. Those cuts amounted to about 1,400”
allthingsd.com October 12, 2012

Depends really i bought my setup over 2 years ago..
Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.
And so far i managed to run everything maxed out.. and it still is.. except GW 2..
But yeah i agree with you if people gonna upgrade any time soon Intel is the way to go.

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

Not sure where you get that information but the phenom was atleast 2 times cheaper then the i7 if not more…

this isnt strictly an amd thing, alot of intel users are getting really really crappy perf even with chips that cost over a grand(over 1000usd).

the fact is, I really think andy is correct in that, i dont think anet has done any real meaningful optimizations at all….sad since with proper optimization the game should be able to run far far better on Intel and AMD.

Leto: everybody is hurting, even intel, look at the finintial reports, intels also taken a sizeable hit in profits/income due to the economy….when you have a large population who are either out of work or are struggling just to make ends meat, you have less people upgrading or building/buying new systems.

AMD has needed to kitten can alot of people for a while, so I wouldnt take this to mean they cant afford to keep them, but more that they are cutting out alot of wasted space types(i got a friend whos aunt works there….her jobs safe,but she says a large number of under performing employees and some decent ones will be getting the axe soon)

AMD wont go under, Intel cant let that happen, because, and this is the thing, If AMD goes under, intel gets sued by the govt for being a monopoly, and Intel really dosnt want that at all…infact they dont want it so much that they would likely give AMD money if it came to that, just to insure that AMD dont dissapear…

come x get x some.5648: why are you running that ram and cpu at such low clocks…….that cpu is built to overclock and wont show its true potential if you dont…..

people need to stop attacking and blaming AMD and AMD users for something that Anets screwed up, Do not make me link all the intel users with high end 2500k/2600k/3**0k chips that are having the same problems, i have already done it more then once……

the fact is this game needs alot of optimization to run as intended….

to me, the toms review smacks of incompetance not only in toms end but in anets for lack of optimizations.

first the toms review tests the 8 core and lower chips at 3ghz, the 8120 the lesser 8 core defaults to 3.1 pre-turbo, 3.4 turbo on 8 cores, 4.0 turbo on 4 cores…..
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-8120.html

anybody runnin an fx chip below 4ghz really is wasting their potential, even the worst 8120’s i have seen will do 4.2 at stock volts…

I could go on, since most reivews also only use Multi overclocks rather then htt(fsb) and multi(really shows a boost) they also never list what they are running the cpu/nb clock at(higher the better 2500mhz minimum tho)

long story short, toms does crappy reviews these days….their results show far worse perf then i get at 2560×1440....

Im guessing that Anet are using intels compiler and not patching out the bias , so all non-intel chips get the slowest code path that the compiler can create, and all intel chips get the most optimal code path
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
TLDR of the link, intels compiler artificially puts any chip not made by intel at a sizable disadvantage by sending them a much slower unoptimized codepath.

…The benchmark for elementary mathematical functions was 26.9% better when the CPU was identified as an Intel than when it was identified as anything else, probably due to the VML. The tests for high precision math was better for both AMD and Intel, probably due to the GMP.

if you read the thread/topic all the way down you will see, even intels most up to date compiler pulls this crap of intentionally crippling any chip thats not got an intel cpuid, with via you can easily change the cpuid to that of an intel chip and gain a HUGE boost in perf……

so its not all about amd being inferior design wise, but also the fact that most benches seem to be compiled with intels compiler set to create exe’s that detect the cpuid and send different code paths based on that(rather then feature flags that would be more fair)

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

depends on where you live, i have friends who live places where amd chips are less then 1/2 sometimes less then 1/4 the price of comparable intel chips, not to mention the markup on decent motherboards…..

remember people here arent just form the same country/state your from.

Jazhara Knightmage.4389:

if you read the thread/topic all the way down you will see, even intels most up to date compiler pulls this crap of intentionally crippling any chip thats not got an intel cpuid, with via you can easily change the cpuid to that of an intel chip and gain a HUGE boost in perf……

so its not all about amd being inferior design wise, but also the fact that most benches seem to be compiled with intels compiler set to create exe’s that detect the cpuid and send different code paths based on that(rather then feature flags that would be more fair)

Really? That’s some crazy BS, that reminds me of when websites operated like crap on Mozilla/Firefox but ran great on IE. Same for iPad browser compared to Android browser, and making the Android browser flag as Safari or IE just made the webpage respond better…

If you look up the myriad of benchmark CPU comparison sites like this one…

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Intel at present blows away AMD cpu’s for desktop gaming performance. I wager Intel is making a lot of money at present from serious Guild Wars 2 gamers upgrading their systems, haha.

come x get x some.5648:

i still want to know what is the minimum/avg FPS with ppl who have Phenom II x4 955/965/970/980/1050/1090/1100 or above….

thats will help alot

I run an overclocked X4 955. Per PVE content I get very satisfactory fps averaging anywhere from 40 to 80++ fps. In World vs World I get a respectable 35 to 45 FPS for small scale skirmishes, however once the inevitable HUGE ZERG hits where there is a mass of players on both sides, the AMD Phenom 2 X4 955 is unable to keep up with the mass of calculations going on around me and I drastically drop to <15 FPS which leaves me at a disadvantage.

It is what it is….

Am hoping some good “Black Friday” sales come up with the upcoming holidays …. so that I can upgrade my CPU, Motherboard….

Gibbel.5734:

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

Not sure where you get that information but the phenom was atleast 2 times cheaper then the i7 if not more…

Off more then enough online stores.

a 920 is …. hell these days a 950 is the same price as a 965 was

Teknobug.3782:

Jazhara Knightmage.4389:

if you read the thread/topic all the way down you will see, even intels most up to date compiler pulls this crap of intentionally crippling any chip thats not got an intel cpuid, with via you can easily change the cpuid to that of an intel chip and gain a HUGE boost in perf……

so its not all about amd being inferior design wise, but also the fact that most benches seem to be compiled with intels compiler set to create exe’s that detect the cpuid and send different code paths based on that(rather then feature flags that would be more fair)

Really? That’s some crazy BS, that reminds me of when websites operated like crap on Mozilla/Firefox but ran great on IE. Same for iPad browser compared to Android browser, and making the Android browser flag as Safari or IE just made the webpage respond better…

um… stop spreading misleading information.

GW2 isn’t built with ICC in the first place, and theres certainly no dispatcher used that would sabotage AMD performance in this game.

AMD is slow because its a bad design (and because the latest client is loading the cpu heavier), not for any other reasons then that.

Aida64 doesn’t use ICC either >.>

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Gibbel.5734:

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

Not sure where you get that information but the phenom was atleast 2 times cheaper then the i7 if not more…

Off more then enough online stores.

a 920 is …. hell these days a 950 is the same price as a 965 was

I wonder where your from cause the cheapest i7 950 according to pricewatch (holland) is 235 Euro atm! 2 years ago it was between 400-600 euro’s … back then the AMD phenom II was some where around 150 euro.

So in the Netherland the price/performance was beter on the Phenom II 965 2 years ago…

http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/

Jazhara Knightmage.4389:

AMD has needed to kitten can alot of people

OMG why would they do that to a kitten?!

On a serious note, My laptop has an A6 APU + Radeon 6520G and i get around 20 FPS, My Desktop with a 955BE @ 3.8GHZ and 560Ti gets around 60, it always has even in beta. I know a lot of people have issues but im not one of them unless im playing on my laptop for obvious reasons.

@ come x get x some

try and lower your graphic settings. Test each one because the direct x over head is not small on your cpu. It might get you better frames rates.

I had to do it because those directx calls were taxing on my cpu and ram. Medium setting and mid high had the around the same frame rates for me. 15-30

Anet is optimizing their client. I did get better rates compared to the beta; however now I play low settings because I was a buttery 40-50 frame rates.

laptop

cpu i5 -2410m
gpu 540m nvidia
4 gb 1333 ddr3 ram – my bottle neck

I would not expect a C++/direct-x product to be using an Intel compiler even if it was biased. Also there was a lawsuit on that settled in 2009, so presumably if there were issues that compiled code for AMD chips non optimally, it’s been resolved.

I am not sure it was ever intentional, as why would Intel want to get embroiled in that mess? It could have simply been that it selected some module which was written for known perfomance improvements on intel chips – but I was not there

@Jazhara Knightmage.4389 like noted GW2 uses the default VS2010 compiler+linker, also the performance boost by ICC is none existent for most games, while the ICC does some crappy loop unrolling job and adds crashes.
Most game company’s don’t use intels compiler, since there are no real speed gains over the much more stable VS one. The other problem is that while u develop the game u always use VS compiler, since its 10 times faster to compile code, therefor the whole development time u test with the VS compiler, therefor u should be really carefully to than ship a way less tested ICC release.

ICC is good for plugins or ffdshow, but more complex programs should stay away.

I think at this point an time AMD might as well just packup there CPU department and stick to there GPUs cause at the rate there going, there GPUs will soon out perform there CPUs….lols not to mention I think there spreading there resources to much as it is to do both :/.

I’ve been with AMD since I started building PCs (12+ years ago) an the 1 thing I have noticed is that they don’t make a huge performance jump very often, and when they did make a huge change is was a disaster/disapointment, and not worth upgrading my mobo for it. I still run a 955BE at 3.9GHz but I think its time to change sides CPU wise cause I really don’t like the roadmap AMD is taking with there CPU line.

Just to get my 2 cents in current prices.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition $100
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202
Intel Core i7-920 $300
Now for the facts I would buy the AMD and OC it and not think nothing about it for any game but this one. For this game in it’s current state and their will be very little changing even with patches I would buy a i3 for close to the same price.
Now for the i5 vs i7 Better prices can be found this is just a example.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504
i5 3570k 6mb L3 cache 4x 256kb L2 cache $230
i7 3770k 8mb L3 cache 4x 256kb L2 cache with Hyper Threading (not used in games) $320 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501
Your not going to get a 29% increase in FPS with the 29% higher cost of the i7 (in fact you will see little if any increase) so the winner is the i5 3570k for the best bang for the buck.

It is ‘mostly’ true that hyperthreading isnt used by games….at the moment.
BUT.. keep in mind that with a hyperthreading capable CPU, the CPU has the capacity to run other programs and windows processes on those threads aswell as run GW2.. its always nice to have that extra headroom in terms of performance.

The performance increase isnt vast ..but it is there, and atm its likely there not due to the game using hyperthreading ..but becouse other processes are using it, freeing up the cores/threads that the game does use.

its not cost effective atm ..but if you have the money ..its a nice bit of ‘future proofing’ ..granted ‘future proofing’ never really works 100% lol..but it will add to the usuage lifespan of your computer before you need to upgrade again.

Just think ..you would be kicking yourself if you bought a 2500k instead of a 2600k or 2700k then in 2 years games started using hyperthreading and actually ended up needing hyperthreaing for high performance.

Well this is for gaming not other programs and their not going to make a game that 90% of the people have to buy/build a new PC to run/buy their game to play anytime soon.

According to Steam’s hardware survey, majority STILL uses dual core, which is a bit shocking- I’ve used quad cores since 2009 or so when they first hit the market.

scootshoot.6583:

If you look up the myriad of benchmark CPU comparison sites like this one…

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Intel at present blows away AMD cpu’s for desktop gaming performance. I wager Intel is making a lot of money at present from serious Guild Wars 2 gamers upgrading their systems, haha.

doubt it since most are getting what they consider acceptable perf, saying that would also be like saying 2500k and 2600k owners are upgrading to the new x series chips because they are getting kitteny performance in this game(check the number of such chips with fps complaints in this section….you will be shocked, far out number the amd complainers.)

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Teknobug.3782:

Jazhara Knightmage.4389:

if you read the thread/topic all the way down you will see, even intels most up to date compiler pulls this crap of intentionally crippling any chip thats not got an intel cpuid, with via you can easily change the cpuid to that of an intel chip and gain a HUGE boost in perf……

so its not all about amd being inferior design wise, but also the fact that most benches seem to be compiled with intels compiler set to create exe’s that detect the cpuid and send different code paths based on that(rather then feature flags that would be more fair)

Really? That’s some crazy BS, that reminds me of when websites operated like crap on Mozilla/Firefox but ran great on IE. Same for iPad browser compared to Android browser, and making the Android browser flag as Safari or IE just made the webpage respond better…

um… stop spreading misleading information.

GW2 isn’t built with ICC in the first place, and theres certainly no dispatcher used that would sabotage AMD performance in this game.

AMD is slow because its a bad design (and because the latest client is loading the cpu heavier), not for any other reasons then that.

Aida64 doesn’t use ICC either >.>

Never said Iwas sure they used ICC, but it wouldnt shock me, it does shock me that they would use vc compiler having seen how much better gcc and open64 compilers tend to do over vc perf wise……funny tho, i gotta ask, why if the cpu is loaded harder am I still not seeing more then 40-45% per core (at worst) runing this game in high priority….i have also tested with it only on every other core(so the games only using 1 module at a time) no change……please explain if this games so cpu hungery why isnt it even coming close to using my cpu fully, let alone the 970x and 980x chips friends of mine have?

michaeljhuman.3940:

I would not expect a C++/direct-x product to be using an Intel compiler even if it was biased. Also there was a lawsuit on that settled in 2009, so presumably if there were issues that compiled code for AMD chips non optimally, it’s been resolved.

I am not sure it was ever intentional, as why would Intel want to get embroiled in that mess? It could have simply been that it selected some module which was written for known perfomance improvements on intel chips – but I was not there

read the linked thread, intel hasnt fixed this, they talk about it in comments lower down the page, even the latest versions of icc are bias, they also block AVX from working on non-intel chips artificially now….so nothings changed, intel is still doing all they can to ensure that they have the edge in benches.

AndyPandy.3471:

@Jazhara Knightmage.4389 like noted GW2 uses the default VS2010 compiler+linker, also the performance boost by ICC is none existent for most games, while the ICC does some crappy loop unrolling job and adds crashes.
Most game company’s don’t use intels compiler, since there are no real speed gains over the much more stable VS one. The other problem is that while u develop the game u always use VS compiler, since its 10 times faster to compile code, therefor the whole development time u test with the VS compiler, therefor u should be really carefully to than ship a way less tested ICC release.

ICC is good for plugins or ffdshow, but more complex programs should stay away.

thats pretty funny considering how many large studios have bragged in the past bout working with Intel and using all their tools, game and normal software companies, its the 3rd most used compiler, behind vs and gcc.

personally when i bother to compile myself i use updated cygwin because, its easy and faster then vs….

would love to see a compile of this game with sse2-3-4 and avx support…..bet that would boost perf nicely…..add in FMA support and i bet amd chips would actually start to compete…..(would have to use open64 or gcc’s newer builds for that, since icc blocks avx on non-intel chips)

Teknobug.3782:

According to Steam’s hardware survey, majority STILL uses dual core, which is a bit shocking- I’ve used quad cores since 2009 or so when they first hit the market.

thats alot of what I have been saying, this game was made dx9 to make it widely accessible, but the game isnt, it runs like kitten poo on most hardware, even extremely high end stuff like the 970x and 980x(chips that cost over a grand not counting board and ram)

I honestly think anet didnt test as they built and didnt think as they built, and now they are trying to make the game run acceptably on average hardware….

most gamers arent like those of us who build our own systems, who know how to get the most out of the hardware we have, they dont understand this stuff beyond “the box says i can run it”

check out the steam hardware survay,
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
notice how many people have what most of us would call kitteny systems?

notice how many people anet is missing out on due to the kitteny perf of the game on average systems?

and they imply this games going to go to console……i would love to see an xbx360 or ps3 try and play this game…..

the 2 reasons to use dx9 rather then 10 or 11
1. easier to port to consol.
2. let XP users play the game.

the first isnt valid because the games far to cpu bound to work well on a console.

the second isnt really valid since any system still running XP is likely to be in the same boat as consoles, to little horsepower(computepower) to run the game properly…..

all this tells me is, somebody kittened up and didnt work on optimization as they coded the game…….

come x get x some.5648:

hi
im using phenom II x6 1090T 3.3Ghz L3 cache 6MB
HD 7850 SoC
8G ram 1333mhz DDR3

and the game run really bad….
the FPS its bitween 25-50

in World vs World in huge battles its like 10-12FPS thats a joke!
why do you leave AMD cpu and optimize the game only for Intel? because the name?

fix that

by the way if someone here have Phenom II x4 955 or above please tell type here how much FPS do you get in WvW and in huge battles in PVE/WvW

any anwer will help.

Unfortanatly i’d say something is haywire with your system’s configuration.
i have the exact same amd cpu as you do. but i’m running a a 5900 series hd with 2gb video ram and 6gb ddr 3 system ram.
and i can run gw2 with everything set at full and get consistently 60 fps or better lowest is ever dropped to was 40 during a large wvwvw battle and only for a few secs.
so the amd phenom II x6 1090T 3.3Ghz that i’m using or your using isn’t the issue.

i’d be looking at the type and quality of your ram modules, the type and quality of your mother board, whether or not your power supply is adequate to power every thing especially the gpu.
and if you computer is a dell, gateway, hp. (basically store bought) then that’s more than likely is 95% why you having issues as none of them are configured correctly for gaming.

@hobieone: impossable, amd cant game, just ask all the know it all fanboi’s on this forum…you need intel K seires or X series to play games decently!!!!

nah.. you don’t need K or X series to play the game decently….. i’m using the lowly i5-3450 and can play the game decently…… but yeah, get an Intel…..

naaa you need a k or x series and high end videocard or you cant possibly play this game decently…..i have been told this enough times lately it must be fact.

There is serious optimization issues in this game on AMD systems. Doesn’t matter what AMD cpu you have, an intel cpu with 1/5th the processing power will beat it in this game.

It’s not just AMD, optimization is literally non existent for nvidia cards too. I get the same 10-12 FPS in large events, it’s a joke.

Esrever.8613:

There is serious optimization issues in this game on AMD systems. Doesn’t matter what AMD cpu you have, an intel cpu with 1/5th the processing power will beat it in this game.

except when it dosnt, check around, the low fps threads and threads related to this issue come from many i5/i7 2500k/2600k/3**0k users with high end videocards as well….this isnt limited to AMD users, it may be more common for amd users, but its far from limited to amd users.

there are also alot of AMD users like myself not suffering from the major performance issues that both amd and intel users have been posting about…..

In WvWvW i never drop below 25-30fps, tho i avoid WvWvW due to all the bugs and invisable enemies.

in pve i am never below 45fps and normally am at my dynamic vsync limit of 60fps, 45 is doing large events…..

thats at 2560×1440........once again, i say this isnt limited to amd users or low end cpu users, there are just serious issues with the game that need addressed by heavy optimization by anet….

people will mention WoW and say people had the came issues with it when it came out, this isnt true, the people complaining about perf on WoW where those using really old systems that where enlarge well below the minimum specs, those who complained at or above min specs had other issues(like heavy av software running slowing everything down)

WoW SUCKS but, blizzard did alot of work to make the game run decently on as wide a range of hardware as possible, its part of why the games so low poly and the textures are so low res, I was in the beta, they did put alot of effort into optimizing the game to run on as wide a range of hardware as possible.

Anet dont seem to have done this, they may have tested a little, but the fact is, this game runs very poorly for many people no matter teh cpu/gpu they use, on the other hand there are some people who get decent fps even with really crappy hardware….

I have an old OLD friend( like from 95/96) who is currently playing on an OLD DTR laptop with dual core Athlon 64 with a true 1950XT in it……he gets decent fps in everything but zergs and WvWvW, there it drops to sub 20, every where else he says at native res of the lappy he gets 30+(1280×1024 res lappy)

hes only playing on that old thing because his desktop and better laptop both are down due to lightining strike(hit a poll 3 houses down from him, blew right past his ups’s and killed every thing that was turned on/plugged in…..waiting on insurance and ups companies to pay him so he can replace dead hardware), shockingly, he says the game is quite playable on that unit so hes in no real rush to get it replaced(because if eh was, he wouldnt get as much out of the insurance company/warr coverage)

I love this game,I respect Anet but, anybody whos looked around and read the issues people on all sides are reporting, i see as many intel users with issues as amd…..more if you count the ones who are upset they cant install with sub-required spec intel video…..

Gibbel.5734:

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Gibbel.5734:

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

Not sure where you get that information but the phenom was atleast 2 times cheaper then the i7 if not more…

Off more then enough online stores.

a 920 is …. hell these days a 950 is the same price as a 965 was

I wonder where your from cause the cheapest i7 950 according to pricewatch (holland) is 235 Euro atm! 2 years ago it was between 400-600 euro’s … back then the AMD phenom II was some where around 150 euro.

So in the Netherland the price/performance was beter on the Phenom II 965 2 years ago…

http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/

Erm, i wouldn’t get a Phenom II cpu for 150 and be proud of my purchasing decision. It would be one of the crappier dual or tri cores and be kittened inthe clock speed. I was referring to the x4 965 (which is out performed by the 920, and priced comparably).

The only reason why the 965 is that cheap now, is because of
1. oversaturated stocking.
2. AMD can’t push crapdozers while the superior Phenom II’s are still available.

that 920 is 300 because its out of production, and stock is extremely limited. (prices are actually rising)

You can usually pick a 950 up at a bundling discount for $200 + the costs of the mainboard.

You don’t pay 100 for a cpu and expect the performance of a 200+ cpu.

Teknobug.3782:

According to Steam’s hardware survey, majority STILL uses dual core, which is a bit shocking- I’ve used quad cores since 2009 or so when they first hit the market.

AMD and laptops takes a good portion of the blame here.

please explain if this games so cpu hungery why isnt it even coming close to using my cpu fully, let alone the 970x and 980x chips friends of mine have?

A multithreaded application doesn’t need to use all cores to be reaching a bottleneck on the cpu. Adding up the cpu usage and factoring in thread load balancing, the game uses 2 and a half cores at the most.

I expect cpu culling and physics are throttled by the engine load in the first cores.

A threaded application that isn’t multi core optimised would be more impacted by load balancing, that is, on a 4 core cpu, 25% of each core would be used to add up to 100% load. This would mean the game is at it the fullest possible load, yet the cpu is only loaded 25% all up.

Jazhara Knightmage.4389:

would love to see a compile of this game with sse2-3-4 and avx support…..bet that would boost perf nicely…..add in FMA support and i bet amd chips would actually start to compete…..(would have to use open64 or gcc’s newer builds for that, since icc blocks avx on non-intel chips)

Nope u wont, first games use floats for almost everything, so SSE1 is enough for your normal vector3 and matrix math. Secondly the most slowdowns and performance problems are not in any SSE/AVX routines, but branching code, cache misses, memory access, thread synchronizations, STL containers, error handling code, drawcalls, traces and ofc the infamous locking aka mutex. Even if we add the best AVX compile using the best compiler out there, wont help much since that are loophole optimizations that hardly contribute to the actual FPS.

The best hope is DX11 and optimize branching or cache misses for AMD and they need to get there stuff together and invest in better threaded code.

i would be surprised if there was much hand written SSE optimisation at all.

Squall Leonhart.2075:

i would be surprised if there was much hand written SSE optimisation at all.

Normally the math lib is, since u can get them for free as lesser GPL. They use intrinsic and proper inlining hints, which results in “perfect” math lib code. So at least your basic vector, matrix and quaternion operations use less instructions, but u just need SSE1 for it. SSE2 comes in if u need more stable, precise matrix math to lower your operation errors adding up, thats more of a stability fix than a performance increase.
AVX is nice for image filters or special subroutines, which ofc get a huge boost, but optimizing a function by 500% that only contributes to 1% overall performance is not “worth” it. They should focus on better threaded code, since its a really hard job to write good threaded code, without extensive and lazy locking.

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Gibbel.5734:

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Gibbel.5734:

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Back then the phenom II was the best price/performance cpu by far.

never has this been the case. an i7 920 setup can be had for exactly the same price and leaves it in the dust.

Not sure where you get that information but the phenom was atleast 2 times cheaper then the i7 if not more…

Off more then enough online stores.

a 920 is …. hell these days a 950 is the same price as a 965 was

I wonder where your from cause the cheapest i7 950 according to pricewatch (holland) is 235 Euro atm! 2 years ago it was between 400-600 euro’s … back then the AMD phenom II was some where around 150 euro.

So in the Netherland the price/performance was beter on the Phenom II 965 2 years ago…

http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/

Erm, i wouldn’t get a Phenom II cpu for 150 and be proud of my purchasing decision. It would be one of the crappier dual or tri cores and be kittened inthe clock speed. I was referring to the x4 965 (which is out performed by the 920, and priced comparably).

The only reason why the 965 is that cheap now, is because of
1. oversaturated stocking.
2. AMD can’t push crapdozers while the superior Phenom II’s are still available.

that 920 is 300 because its out of production, and stock is extremely limited. (prices are actually rising)

You can usually pick a 950 up at a bundling discount for $200 + the costs of the mainboard.

You don’t pay 100 for a cpu and expect the performance of a 200+ cpu.

I already gave you a source proven to you the price off the amd chip was allot cheaper then then 920.. Specially 2 years ago.

It’s a fact that the price/performance ratio was best for amd 2 Years ago.

Now a days it’s Intel by far.

Then again maybe in your Neverland the prices of the i7 920 where equal to the phenom II 965.. But sadly i ran all out off fairydust.

It was a market rigging that appeared to throw the price/performance in amd’s favour.

Part of the problem, and one i just furthered myself here, is that people were comparing the i7 cores with the Phenom II cores, when they were usually outperformed by a cheaper i5. AMD’s marketting attempted to place the phenom cores in the same tier as the i7’s, which no amount of benchmarking could advocate them as such which only confused the cpu market and rigged the performance / price ratio in amd’s favour

Another problem is many people still buy based on clockrate, which didn’t help those not realising that the phenom II’s were usually beaten to death by the i5’s, while the latter chip often had a lower clock speed.

when the cheaper i7 860 came out, it beat the crap out of the 965 and forced amd do rearrange their pricing

Then the i5 750 launched……

the i5 750 could be had for 150
the phenom II 965 was still well over 200 at the time

Not only does the Core i5-750 outperform its like-priced would-be competitor, the Phenom II X4 955, but it also beats out the Phenom II X4 965 overall.

an article has been written here by someone else, who like me, actually did the numbers.

http://www.overclock.net/t/965382/bang-for-buck-myth

Squall Leonhart.2075:

Teknobug.3782:

According to Steam’s hardware survey, majority STILL uses dual core, which is a bit shocking- I’ve used quad cores since 2009 or so when they first hit the market.

AMD and laptops takes a good portion of the blame here.

So in the survey it’s 72% Intel and 27% AMD, yet AMD is to blame? Yes there seems to be a handful using laptops, the top graphics card are HD3000, 560Ti and 550Ti followed by a bunch of older Radeon and Nvidias.

let’s be clear here, blaming amd isn’t going to do anything for overall performance improvments this game needs.

intel chips are being heavily taxed in this game for no real reason, were talking about the sort of thrashing you expect to get from proffesional level software not a game.

amd chips are not bad they just flat out aren’t any worse in games and certainly not worse in proffesional level software where they more often than not out perform intel chips, that is just fact sorry if you don’t agree because you run an intel or are an intel fanboy but amd chips flat out perform better in most proffesional software.

now the question isn’t why are amd so bad in games in general because they aren’t, the question is why are they so badly performing in guild wars 2 which is not the case with other games.

quit already with the pointless debate of which is faster or better, the fact is this game is just as bad in intel chips as it is on amd chips, and if amd is performing so badly then just how much better can both chips do in this game?

and if your wondering i run an intel i7 i’m just not biased against amd.

Squall Leonhart.2075:

It was a market rigging that appeared to throw the price/performance in amd’s favour.

Part of the problem, and one i just furthered myself here, is that people were comparing the i7 cores with the Phenom II cores, when they were usually outperformed by a cheaper i5. AMD’s marketting attempted to place the phenom cores in the same tier as the i7’s, which no amount of benchmarking could advocate them as such which only confused the cpu market and rigged the performance / price ratio in amd’s favour

Another problem is many people still buy based on clockrate, which didn’t help those not realising that the phenom II’s were usually beaten to death by the i5’s, while the latter chip often had a lower clock speed.

when the cheaper i7 860 came out, it beat the crap out of the 965 and forced amd do rearrange their pricing

Then the i5 750 launched……

the i5 750 could be had for 150
the phenom II 965 was still well over 200 at the time

Not only does the Core i5-750 outperform its like-priced would-be competitor, the Phenom II X4 955, but it also beats out the Phenom II X4 965 overall.

an article has been written here by someone else, who like me, actually did the numbers.

http://www.overclock.net/t/965382/bang-for-buck-myth

the i5 750 was never $150. I don’t know where you were looking, the cheap i5 650s were $170 and those were dual core with hyperthreading comparable to the i3s today. The i7 860 is still $300 today.

Jazhara Knightmage.4389:

Esrever.8613:

There is serious optimization issues in this game on AMD systems. Doesn’t matter what AMD cpu you have, an intel cpu with 1/5th the processing power will beat it in this game.

except when it dosnt, check around, the low fps threads and threads related to this issue come from many i5/i7 2500k/2600k/3**0k users with high end videocards as well….this isnt limited to AMD users, it may be more common for amd users, but its far from limited to amd users.

there are also alot of AMD users like myself not suffering from the major performance issues that both amd and intel users have been posting about…..

The i3s have a 30% performance advantage over an overclocked phenom II and i5 and i7s are 50% more. 15 fps for a phenom II is 20 fps for an intel machine, both are laggy but its still not optimized for AMD. A phenom II x4 has more computational power than an pentium but the pentiums will give you better fps. Given the core utilization levels I seen, this game uses 4 cores but not efficiently at all on an AMD machine compared to an intel one.

Squall Leonhart.2075:

AndyPandy.3471:

Intel CPU’s just simply brute-force there way to the better FPS. l.

This.

AMD’s recent cpu’s are just not up to performance standards.

Im running the game smooth as butter with a 4.8 oc fx 8120.Lowest fps in wvwvw is around 25.They are Very up to performance standards

For a bulldozer at almost 5ghz, to compare it to any other Amd chip and say “they are up to it” is a bit laughable. Also, 25 fps in big zergs is not good for a chip thats almost oc to 5 ghz. My 3930k gets 45 at the lowest in big zergs at even 4.5ghz. Also what the hell is “smooth as butter?” 60-70fps? Thats horrible. My intel at the same speed as your amd gets me average 100 fps. 60 in big DEs and in lions arch with everything set at max and supersampling. Come now… 25 fps with an amd at almost 5ghz and you think this is bragging on Amd chips? Lol. Its not buddy.