Please Help - CPU Recommendation

[JakobeBeef]

Hello,

I am planning on getting back to FAF soon with a new laptop. I will use it for work as well, so I am considering between two models of ThinkPads - the T570 and the T470p. I know with previous experiences of playing FAF that I need a processor with strong single thread performance and high clock speed.

The T570 has an i7-7600U processor and the T470p has an i7-7820HQ processor. I know that HQ branded processors tend to have great overall performance, but the clock speed and single thread performance are almost identical (at the time of posting, single-thread performance is rated at 2136 for the i7-7600U and 2195 for the i7-7820HQ - only about 3% difference), BUT the i7-7600U is dual core. I know that this game is designed to run on a limited number of threads, so I am not sure i this will make a noticeable difference.

I will much prefer to buy the T570 model, but will like to hear any personal opinions/experiences before I go ahead with my purchase. I personally do not mind the slightly reduced single-thread performance with the i7-7600U processor, but if it being a dual-core will result in a quite marginal decrease in in-game performance I may reconsider.

I got the CPU ratings from cpubenchmark . net

Thanks for the help!

[IceDreamer]

I have a laptop running the 4720HQ. It runs fine. If the machine with the 7820HQ is properly cooled, get it. Do not get the 7600u, that's a low-power chip and it will NOT perform even close to the 7820HQ. The primary difference beyond core count (Which does matter these days) is that thermal power envelope. It may claim to boost to 3.9GHz, but it won't do so as often, or for as long.

[RocketRooster]

Get a quad core. Supcom is life, but there is more to life than Supcom, if you follow me.

I have a Skylake in my desktop, and with a 4.4gigglehurts OC I get a CPU score of 130. Everyone makes remarks about it all the time, and I'm like, whuh, it's not even an i7 or the latest and greatest.

It does run FA like a boss though - which is why I bought it.

Laptops are more tricky. Anything over 3.5GHz is plenty. Rather skimp on the CPU a bit to getter built in graphics. But don't get a dual core. They can boost for longer though but overall you will miss the extra cores.

Oh, and, like I've learned, all the IPC in the world won't help you if your connection is crappy. That's something to consider - extra cash on a better DSL connection goes further with Supcom than money spent on processing power.

[TheKoopa]

Why not build a pc for 1/2 the price

[RocketRooster]

Why not build a pc for 1/2 the price

I was thinking the same, but some guys like to be able to tote their rigs around. Plus he needs it for work I suppose so there's that.

Personally I'd get a cheap celeron crapola jobbie for graft and build a killer rig for the fun stuff.

[BRNKoINSANITY]

He said it was going to double as a work laptop, so...... desktop is probably not an option.

Definitely the HQ processor of any type. Like was said above, the power/thermal limit is low, and the core count is low on the U series processor. It is entirely possible to play FAF on a U series. I have played an entire, 1+ hour setons game on my surface pro 4, and was not the slowest person (235ish cpu score and never thermal throttled). However, there are noticeable stuttering problems if you have multiple processes running, encoding or heavy work tasks run like crap, and the processor doesn't feel "snappy" due to the fact that it only has two cores, and the i5 part is 12 watts max (i7 may be 15? idk).

Long story short, get the HQ. My current laptop has one the 6300hq in it and I am completely happy.

[JakobeBeef]

Thanks for all of the recommendations and tips - they are very helpful.

I forgot to mention that I am considering the T570 because of the larger screen size, longer battery life, USB-C port, and lower price.

But I am quite confused on the watts & power envelope: I thought that if it is lower, than it is more efficient at processing a certain task. However, the comments mention that higher is better? Is that only true if I have a powerful cooling solution? (It will be a laptop, so I am not certain to how cool I can keep it). And any recommendations on what will keep a laptop running cool will be highly appreciated.

I have also read from other forums how important Single Thread performance is for this game, and that FA is bound to one core (maybe up to two). If this is the case, will either the i7-7600U or the i7-7820HQ make much a difference as their Single Thread performance is also the same? (both have a Frequency from around 2.8GHz to 3.9GHz).

Once again, I thank everyone for the great advice and tips.

[RocketRooster]

One thing you have to understand is that processor capability for each individual chip of a given model is a crapshoot. The CPU makers have clever people and algorithms that optimize a given cpu node and stepping in terms of cost/performance. They will try and make as many chips at this optimum as they can, but not all chips make the grade. Some cpu dies may have defective transistor or interconnect here and there, so they are able to switch off sections of the CPU and sell it as a lower spec model.

Sometimes a specific die needs higher voltage to run stably, and runs hotter. It all depends. The chipmakers bin their cpus according to performance capability - the crap ones become celerons or are sent back to be recycled.

In the past it used to be the case that mobile cpus were the ones that were the most stable at a given performance level at the lowest possible voltage and wattage. I'm not sure if the binning process works that way anymore, since these days CPUs run turbo boost and thermal throttling - the clock speed will boosted if the cpu is kept cool enough or throttled below stock speed if it becomes too hot.

Laptops are notorious for having relatively poor cooling given the form factor constraints and you won't get the benefits of boosting as much, if at all. It's impossible to say how well your chosen model of laptop will be engineered or how well fabbed the cpu is, but it is possible that a "slower" CPU with the same boost clock as a higher tier item might perform the same. The only way to know is to spend money and try it...

Where core count and IPC is concerned, remember that the sim speed will largely be determined by the slowest PC taking part in a team game.

And people have the wrong idea about core counts. The operating system has dozens, if not hundreds of threads running concurrently. Even if your game is only single-threaded, the operating system must still timeslice and context switch between processes and their threads. This switching has a performance cost and the more cores you have, the easier it is for the scheduler to give all threads a slice of the pie and the less it is necessary to context switch away from the game running in the foreground, even if it is single-threaded. Yes, it isn't a substantial increase compared to dedicated multi-threaded use by the game, but there is a noticable reduction in stuttering and everything just feels smoother.

It's anecdotal, I know, but my previous PC was a 2.4ghz Kentsfield Core 2 Quad. Vanilla supcom gave it a hard time, and it was worse on a core 2 duo yorkie at 2.8GHz I'd swapped it out with as a test.

Don't waste your cash on dual core. That ship has sailed. If it must be a laptop, get the fastest Intel quad core you can afford.

[BRNKoINSANITY]

I think a common misconception is that the frequency of the processor (ghz) has everything to do with single thread performance. While this was true years ago, and even between brands, it is no longer the case at all. A high end xeon processor at 2.2 ghz can stomp the single threaded crap out of a lot of i5s at 75% higher frequency. On the same note, an FX AMD cpu running at 5 ghz will still lose in single threaded to an intel CPU at 4.2 ghz.

As to the wattage of a CPU, the mobile U series chips are no longer binned desktop chips, they are specifically manufactured extremely low power chips, and are not capable of the speeds (generally) or core counts (mostly) of desktop chips. They are very impressive in their own rights, but can not compare to a "real" cpu.

Supcom is a single threaded task, not locked to a single core. A hyper threaded dual core is NOT the same as a quad core CPU. Basically, with more cores you are not necessarily gaining speed directly on SupCom, but you ARE giving your PC more places to stick random crap. Yeah, your game is basically taking up two cores (grossly oversimplified) but your operating system, windows update, that webpage in the background, etc are not also fighting for those same two cores. The experience generally gets smoother the more cores you have. (Ryzen 7 is fantastic for workstations for this reason).

Long story short, Dual cores are worthless moving forward in the computer world, Higher watts generally give you a higher clock/performance threshold, and you should probably also look for something with dedicated graphics in the vein of a 1050 if you are going to be gaming on this computer.

[IceDreamer]

/SNIP

Oh what a fantastic post! You, Sir, have no idea how nice it is for me to see there's someone else around who really knows his stuff now. Great response

I think a common misconception is that the frequency of the processor (ghz) has everything to do with single thread performance. While this was true years ago, and even between brands, it is no longer the case at all. A high end xeon processor at 2.2 ghz can stomp the single threaded crap out of a lot of i5s at 75% higher frequency.

Wish I could say the same here While the rest of your post is completely on point, this bit is a bunch of crap.

- Intel's CPUs from i3 all the way to Xeon, in a given generation, run the same architecture. A Sandy Bridge Xeon @ 2.2GHz runs identically in single threaded performance to a Sandy Bridge Core i3 @ 2.2GHz.
- Intel's single thread/IPC has improved only marginally over the past 5 years. This is why the 2700K is still considered a good chip by many.
- There is no sensible situation in which a Xeon will outperform an i5 at single threaded tasks. Situations where this may occur are limited to: Programs requiring Xeon-specific instruction sets/hardware features (You are not running these at home, ever), and a comparison of the very latest Xeon (Kaby Lake, 4C8T) to a much, much older i5, and even then the Xeon is running higher clocks, not lower. In fact I cannot think of ANY situation in which a 2.2GHz Xeon of any generation would beat a 3.85GHz i5 of any generation.

Summary - Since across Intel, platform IPC hasn't moved much, frequency IS in fact a very good measure of relative single thread performance, even across a sensible number of generations. Additionally, AMD's new Ryzen core appears to perform roughly on par, to within about 5%, clock for clock, losing single-thread benchmarks because it doesn't clock as high as Kaby Lake. So yeah, we're now back at a point where frequency is a good indicator of single thread performance, across both generation and vendor.