Finding some interesting things about crysis 3 (Intel vs AMD CPU's)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] lol , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples. 04dcarraher

 

You asked for real-world examples.  You have them.  AMD doesn't do a good enough job with their per core performance.  Deal with it.  

deal with it? :lol: flawed examples...

 

That's a cop-out.  

#102 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Also only stressing one or two cores is also not a good way to gauge a cpu's total processing abilities. Fact is that with many current multithreaded based games there is just not a huge of a difference between cpu's , 04dcarraher

This isn't a discussion about "total processing abilities."  We're talking about practical, real-world performance for gaming.  

Given that I personally upgraded from the Phenom II to the 3570k and have played probably a dozen games with both processors, I can tell you that the difference is very significant.  The numbers that I've provided have shown that to be true in quite a few different games.  While you can sit there and say that 20-25% FPS increase using the same GPU isn't that big a deal, I know that isn't true.  I know that because I'm the one playing the game, and it is a hell of a  lot smoother.  The fact is that you get anywhere from a 5 to 50%+ performance increase for gaming and many other tasks by doing this upgrade.  Deal with it.  

Gaming in general is moving forward to native multithreaded based coding where "your practical, real-world performance for gaming"  is not going to be only using one or two cores fully. Your examples are flawed because they only providing examples of mainly single core usage, where everyone knows an icore is 20-30% clock per clock. However with multithreaded based games out now show a different story and is all dependant on the gpu.  Even with a multithreaded cpu demanding game like farcry 3 and a GTX 680 an Phenom 2 980 was only an average of 8 fps behind an i7 3770k.  And when the gpu is the limiting factor at 2560x1600 theres only a whole 5 fps difference.

If and when games start becoming more demanding with real multithreaded coding then yes you will see noticable differences with average fps.

 

I gained more than 8 fps in FC3 moving from a 3.7ghz PII X4 to my current CPU.  That's with a 950mhz 560 Ti at 1080p, DX11 mode.

You and the other joker asked for games where a 3570k could put out 50% more FPS than a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4.  I provided them.  You can talk about how per core and per clock cycle performance won't be as important in the future all you want.  I proved my point.  You're calling the games used flawed, but you didn't specify that they had to be heavily multithreaded games before getting into this debate.  It's tough to make a kick when the goalposts are moving.  

#103 Posted by 04dcarraher (20081 posts) -
Im happy you gained more then 8 fps with FC 3 but benchs show a different picture, also I never asked for proof of 50% increases ,I just pointed out that using single threaded based examples are flawed, but you are ignoring the full picture that's fine.
#104 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Im happy you gained more then 8 fps with FC 3 but benchs show a different picture, also I never asked for proof of 50% increases ,I just pointed out that using single threaded based examples are flawed, but you are ignoring the full picture that's fine. 04dcarraher

 

No, you're ignoring the fact that primarily single and dual-threaded games still make up a decent percentage of what's out there.  They are real games, and those are the results.  You're just mad because I found games that prove my point.  It's good to have hardware that's good at playing ALL kinds of games.  

#105 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4184 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Put more stress on the components and you see which ones are stronger.  

That's really not even the point.  I posted my own benchmarks that showed an appreciable performance increase with the 3570k without changing the GPU.  And that was in FPS games, which are traditionally more GPU-bound.  Do I have to start posting RTS results from my own computer, since you won't accept them from a respected source?

hartsickdiscipl

This isn't about which CPU is stronger though. Everyone knows the i5 is. This is about average FPS when playing a game. You said an i5 gives a 50% performance increase in some games. I'm still waiting for relevant proof of that. Unrealistically stressing the CPU does nothing for your argument.

 

 

This is nonsense, but I'll give you your proof anyways.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6

You and I both know that the difference will only get bigger with newer games.  

:lol: They didn't even play Shogun 2, just ran the CPU stress test. You continue to prove my point. Good job.

#106 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] This isn't about which CPU is stronger though. Everyone knows the i5 is. This is about average FPS when playing a game. You said an i5 gives a 50% performance increase in some games. I'm still waiting for relevant proof of that. Unrealistically stressing the CPU does nothing for your argument.Toxic-Seahorse

 

 

This is nonsense, but I'll give you your proof anyways.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6

You and I both know that the difference will only get bigger with newer games.  

:lol: They didn't even play Shogun 2, just ran the CPU stress test. You continue to prove my point. Good job.

 

 

Anybody who has played the game knows that those results are representative of what happens when things get crowded in actual gameplay.  It has a reputation for hammering CPUs.  Good lord man.. Are you this obtuse about everything?  You just can't accept that a CPU can make a big difference in gaming performance?  What's wrong?  Did Intel kill your dog?

#107 Posted by 04dcarraher (20081 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Im happy you gained more then 8 fps with FC 3 but benchs show a different picture, also I never asked for proof of 50% increases ,I just pointed out that using single threaded based examples are flawed, but you are ignoring the full picture that's fine. hartsickdiscipl

 

No, you're ignoring the fact that primarily single and dual-threaded games still make up a decent percentage of what's out there.  They are real games, and those are the results.  You're just mad because I found games that prove my point.  It's good to have hardware that's good at playing ALL kinds of games.  

your ignoring multithreaded basis, I think your the one thats mad I can give a hoot.
#108 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Im happy you gained more then 8 fps with FC 3 but benchs show a different picture, also I never asked for proof of 50% increases ,I just pointed out that using single threaded based examples are flawed, but you are ignoring the full picture that's fine. 04dcarraher

 

No, you're ignoring the fact that primarily single and dual-threaded games still make up a decent percentage of what's out there.  They are real games, and those are the results.  You're just mad because I found games that prove my point.  It's good to have hardware that's good at playing ALL kinds of games.  

your ignoring multithreaded basis, I think your the one thats mad I can give a hoot.

 

I'm not ignoring it at all.  Why should I?  i5 and i7 are great at single and multithreaded games.  That's the beauty of it.  That and lower power consumption.  You know it's true.. you're just a sore loser.  :P

#109 Posted by 04dcarraher (20081 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

No, you're ignoring the fact that primarily single and dual-threaded games still make up a decent percentage of what's out there.  They are real games, and those are the results.  You're just mad because I found games that prove my point.  It's good to have hardware that's good at playing ALL kinds of games.  

hartsickdiscipl

your ignoring multithreaded basis, I think your the one thats mad I can give a hoot.

 

I'm not ignoring it at all.  Why should I?  i5 and i7 are great at single and multithreaded games.  That's the beauty of it.  That and lower power consumption.  You know it's true.. you're just a sore loser.  :P

Na, just have to look at the whole picture :)
#110 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] your ignoring multithreaded basis, I think your the one thats mad I can give a hoot. 04dcarraher

 

I'm not ignoring it at all.  Why should I?  i5 and i7 are great at single and multithreaded games.  That's the beauty of it.  That and lower power consumption.  You know it's true.. you're just a sore loser.  :P

Na, just have to look at the whole picture :)

 

I know.  Even the little details.  

#111 Posted by mitu123 (154467 posts) -

 

 

 

Anybody who has played the game knows that those results are representative of what happens when things get crowded in actual gameplay.  It has a reputation for hammering CPUs.  Good lord man.. Are you this obtuse about everything?  You just can't accept that a CPU can make a big difference in gaming performance?  What's wrong?  Did Intel kill your dog?

hartsickdiscipl

I played that game with my AMD cpu...holy crap what a cpu extensive game, I've seen under 20FPSs at times and couldn't even play it when it got crowded. 

Got the Intel one and it's more playable.