Steam Specs

[ahddib]

My PC won't blink an eye about running this. I would preorder now if possible.

[Ravenhurst]

Wow - so it actually IS a pure 64-bit application??

That is amazing news! 32-bit is for a museum anyway


With hyper threading on my crazy Dual Xeons run with 16 cores - guess that should be sufficient

DDR3 1366
GTX 570 OC
Windows 7 64 Bit

...
Bring it on!

[Rabiator der II.]

Unfortunately, the current AMD Opteron/FX designs are not REAL cores in the truest sense because of the way the FPU is shared between two cores. It is however closer to 16 REAL Cores than the current Intel options I have seen.

Closer to 8 REAL cores for the FX, you mean?

The FX-83xx has four modules which one could count as 8 cores if one overlooks the shared FPU. Not 16 even with a lot of goodwill.

Now there are Opterons like the AMD Opteron 6380 that have eight modules. But the prices are pretty hefty. Alternate.de offers the Opteron 6380 for 1049.- Euro. Which is probably more than most X fans want to invest

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

[OT]

Now there are Opterons like the AMD Opteron 6380 that have eight modules. But the prices are pretty hefty. Alternate.de offers the Opteron 6380 for 1049.- Euro. Which is probably more than most X fans want to invest

Yes, there is a 16-Core/8-Module Opteron, which I have mentioned before in another thread (and was mentioned again here in reaction to my intentionally silly 16 REAL core suggestion).

Unfortunately, the current AMD Opteron/FX designs are not REAL cores in the truest sense because of the way the FPU is shared between two cores. It is however closer to 16 REAL Cores than the current Intel options I have seen.

Closer to 8 REAL cores for the FX, you mean?

The FX-83xx has four modules which one could count as 8 cores if one overlooks the shared FPU. Not 16 even with a lot of goodwill.

No-one was saying there was currently a 16-Core FX, the point I was raising that the 16-Core/8-Module approach (in the Opteron) is closer to a REAL 16-Core processor than any comparable Intel options (i.e. 16-Thread/8-Core Sandybridge E).[/OT]

But all this is really quite off-topic.

[mcerd1]

looks like I might need a new graphics card then - still running an old 1Gb GTX285 (670 MHz version) that I've had for 4 years now....


but the question is will I get away with the rest of the machine ???
i7 920 (no OC at the moment)
6Gb of corsair 1333MHz
on an ASUS P6T DELUXE V2

[laminblake]

i7 will do fine, 6gigs of ram will work but 8 is recommended motherboard is fine. Just make sure you are running a 64bit version of windows (i'm sure you already do since you have 6 gigs of ram, if not you aren't using all 6 gig potential)

[shea]

looks like I might need a new graphics card then - still running an old 1Gb GTX285 (670 MHz version) that I've had for 4 years now....


but the question is will I get away with the rest of the machine ???
i7 920 (no OC at the moment)
6Gb of corsair 1333MHz
on an ASUS P6T DELUXE V2

I would say you will be fine,i was talking to Illuminatus i think and he runs a i7 920 and 6 gigs of ram(same as me)and he said X Rebirth runs fine,but i think i will upgrade to 12 gig ddr3 though

[mcerd1]

Just make sure you are running a 64bit version of windows

No problem there, I've been on x64 win7 since the last RC version

[notaterran]

Regarding TC, that engine is a relic from a different era (the dual-core spec was about having a freed core, not because the engine was multi-threaded). Terran Conflict couldn't live to its full potential even in powerful systems because it only used a fraction of the computer's resources.

[robalexhall]

Can anyone comment how the game runs on amd cpu?

Intel are faster but that can be anything from 20% to 80% clock for clock over amd depending on optimization.

Worst case not one single amd cpu is going to meet the recommended spec.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Can anyone comment how the game runs on amd cpu?

Intel are faster but that can be anything from 20% to 80% clock for clock over amd depending on optimization.

Worst case not one single amd cpu is going to meet the recommended spec.

IF the threads are heavy on integer maths and do not use a lot of FPU/SSE instructions then I would expect the AMD solution to be much faster overall (comparing X module AMD with X core HT Intel). However, it is all guess work and supposition at this point.

[Zloth]

It is a real silent system. I hate noisy computers...

I've found that singing along with the music (or at least whistling if it goes too high) makes computer noise irrelevant.

[Night Nord]

Can anyone comment how the game runs on amd cpu?

Intel are faster but that can be anything from 20% to 80% clock for clock over amd depending on optimization.

Worst case not one single amd cpu is going to meet the recommended spec.

IF the threads are heavy on integer maths and do not use a lot of FPU/SSE instructions then I would expect the AMD solution to be much faster overall (comparing X module AMD with X core HT Intel). However, it is all guess work and supposition at this point.

Games are mostly floating-point. So far we know that EgoSoft using task system for pathfinding and physics (at least). Both are heavy on floating-point operations.

In general, AMD Bulldozer is terrible for games, but good for office work. Compilation is also like 5 times faster on AMD's then on Intel. But games... nope, they are bad here.

[Oldman]

Can anyone comment how the game runs on amd cpu?

Intel are faster but that can be anything from 20% to 80% clock for clock over amd depending on optimization.

Worst case not one single amd cpu is going to meet the recommended spec.

I'm no expert on AMD cpu's versus Intel cpu's....far from it, but I can't imagine Egosoft haven't taken AMD cpu's into account when designing X Rebirth.
One thing that I've looked at though on the web recently (in the past couple of months), is how AMD compares with Intel in actual games environments.
From what I can gather, as a layman, is that it's quite surprising sometimes to see that AMD fair quite well in comparison to their Intel counterparts.
It's not always a question of straightforward power, it can sometimes all depend on the game programming as to how the cpu is utilised.

It can be very confusing to see some reviews on cpu's, even an i5 intel cpu can in some cases give as good a performance as some flavours of i7.
AMD also in these same tests seem to hold their own quite well, given price considerations.
AMD have recently brought out the new FX 9370 & FX 9590, so it will be interesting to see how these compare to the Intel ones, on price/performance reviews. (there may be some reviews already, but at the moment I haven't had much time to investigate ) though the price for these is obviously/surprisingly a step up from the usual.

I've got an AMD based computer that roughly comes under the 'minimum', specs. for X Rebirth. I'm also building up an Intel based comp. (i5) and apart from getting a graphics card and another retail version of Win 7 I'm almost there!
This one in build 'should' take me well into the recommended specs. for running X Rebirth, so it will be interesting to compare the differences between the two computers in a real 'X Rebirth' game environment. Both the computers have the exact case design (HAF X) more or less the same make and wattage psu. and hard drive, and ram. The only real difference will be of course motherboard, cpu & Graphics card.
Something I will have to find out though (as a matter of interest) is whether the new AMD cpu's still fit/work with some previous AMD motherboards.
I know that obviously a 'powerfull top end' computer will/should run X Rebirth at optimal settings, but most people have more modest setups, and this is still going to be the main criteria for sales in the near future.
Some people won't bat an eyelid at spending £1000 or more on a computer upgrade, others are not so fortunate.
In my opinion the requirements for running X Rebirth at a reasonable setting shouldn't be unobtainable for most 'users'.


Oldman

[Cycrow]

Can anyone comment how the game runs on amd cpu?

Intel are faster but that can be anything from 20% to 80% clock for clock over amd depending on optimization.

Worst case not one single amd cpu is going to meet the recommended spec.

I'm no expert on AMD cpu's versus Intel cpu's....far from it, but I can't imagine Egosoft haven't taken AMD cpu's into account when designing X Rebirth.

They wont have taken AMD processors into account. The game wont have any idea what kind of procesor is in the PC.

[JClosed]

It is a real silent system. I hate noisy computers...

I've found that singing along with the music (or at least whistling if it goes too high) makes computer noise irrelevant.

You have a very strong case here...

But - one of the reasons I hate noisy computers is that they have to be placed in the same room I use for making recordings (soundsamples, instruments, voice etc.). Nothing is more distracting than a piece of acoustic guitar with a computer grinding in the background (yes you can improve a lot with right placing of the mic's and using supercardioid mic's, but it is still noticeable unless you have a decently silent computer).

But I must admit I will be an exception to the "normal computer user" (if something like that exists) rule..

[Oldman]

Can anyone comment how the game runs on amd cpu?

Intel are faster but that can be anything from 20% to 80% clock for clock over amd depending on optimization.

Worst case not one single amd cpu is going to meet the recommended spec.

I'm no expert on AMD cpu's versus Intel cpu's....far from it, but I can't imagine Egosoft haven't taken AMD cpu's into account when designing X Rebirth.

They wont have taken AMD processors into account. The game wont have any idea what kind of procesor is in the PC.

Well, no doubt you are correct, ...but this confuses me.
In the demo screens for the X3TC hardware test it clearly states that I have a "CPU Type AMD Phenom 2 x4 965 Processor"

Does this mean X3TC is more intelligent than X Rebirth!? (joking )

Oldman

[danpaul88]

No, the game (and any other application) CAN quite easily query the type of CPU if it wants to, the point is that they're not going to write different code for one type of CPU vs another, it'll generally run the same code regardless of what brand of CPU you use.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

But games... nope, they are bad here.

Actually I would disagree on AMD being terrible for Games. The actual performance difference at worst tends to be marginal say, the AMD FX 8xxx processors are i7 class performance at i5 class prices.

For physics calculations, an AMD FX has 2 x 128 bit full FPUs per module to make use of which means that (although performance may not be optimal) when comparing it with an Intel HTed Core the AMD should still come out on top (or at least equal) in multi-threaded applications.

Of course, the best approach for Physics and the like would probably be to off-load them onto the GPU.

[mcerd1]

It can be very confusing to see some reviews on cpu's, even an i5 intel cpu can in some cases give as good a performance as some flavours of i7.

thats because intel lie! (well at least they over simplify it)


I've got an i5 for my work PC (loads of CAD) - I ended up getting an i5 750 (LGA 1156) which has 4 proper cores and no integrated graphics
more like the i7's on the same socket, but without hyperthreading
(the 750 is really a basic version of the i7 8xx Lynnfield chip)

most other similar priced LGA1156 i5's at the time had 2 cores + graphics, which is a bit of different beastie (Clarkdale chips like the i5 6xx, i3 5xx, pentium 6xxx and celeron 1xxxx)

and its a totally different animal to my LGA1366 i7 at home

starting with several different micro architectures each split into several versions of the basic chip designs, then split again into the individual CPU models....
then they allocate the 5 brand names based on some rough idea of the overall performance of the model (so high end i5's have more in common with low end i7's etc....)