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

  • 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
If next-gen consoles do have 8 core CPUs, then the gap between AMD and Intel will be much lower. The only reason why games run better on the Intel CPUs is because developers develop their games to NOT use more than 2 to 4 cores. Since Intel has the core to core power advantage, it runs better on Intel. If games were developed to use multi-threads/cores past 4, then we might see the FX-8320 and 3570k trading blows between one and another in gaming performance. Oh well....hopefully next-gen consoles push proper multi-core +4 forward.ShadowDeathX
We can expect Sony to push for 8 threads.
#-48 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Doesn't include vishera, but here are some CPU benchmarks:

crysis_3-beta%20proz.jpg

Never in my life have i seen a cpu have such an impact on a game. coff bs coff. lol 

It doesn't show an 8 core Piledriver e.g. AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core.
#-47 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]yes I call it bs._SKatEDiRt_

 

You're wrong.  I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k.  Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound.  With the overclock the difference is massive.  Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.  

:/ lol

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

#-46 Posted by NailedGR (997 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You're wrong.  I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k.  Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound.  With the overclock the difference is massive.  Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.  

hartsickdiscipl

:/ lol

Breaking news: +25% performance and +250% cost = crushing

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

#-45 Posted by NailedGR (997 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You're wrong.  I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k.  Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound.  With the overclock the difference is massive.  Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.  

hartsickdiscipl

:/ lol

 

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

Breaking news: +25% performance and +250% cost = crushing

#-44 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4089 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You're wrong.  I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k.  Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound.  With the overclock the difference is massive.  Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.  

hartsickdiscipl

:/ lol

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

I'd love to try one. Hell, I'll even buy the mobo if you buy the CPU for me! Not many people have $400 to spend on a 3570K and a good mobo.

#-43 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2569 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You're wrong.  I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k.  Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound.  With the overclock the difference is massive.  Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.  

hartsickdiscipl

:/ lol

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

buy what?

#-42 Posted by darksusperia (6898 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

:/ lol

_SKatEDiRt_

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

buy what?

he was referencing you buying a 3570K
#-41 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2569 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

darksusperia

buy what?

he was referencing you buying a 3570K

if i had the money to throw around i totally would

#-40 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

:/ lol

NailedGR

 

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

Breaking news: +25% performance and +250% cost = crushing

 

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not.  Yes, that's crushing.  Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.  

#-39 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4089 posts) -

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

 

What are you laughing at?  Why don't you buy one and try it yourself?

hartsickdiscipl

Breaking news: +25% performance and +250% cost = crushing

 

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not.  Yes, that's crushing.  Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.  

I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

#-38 Posted by darksusperia (6898 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Breaking news: +25% performance and +250% cost = crushing

Toxic-Seahorse

 

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not.  Yes, that's crushing.  Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.  

I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

Depends on what he was doing. In regards to games, it depends which ones and how cpu bound they were. I assumed it may have been a 955 so...( I dont actually know what phenom he had - 955 was very popular however) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=701
#-37 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not.  Yes, that's crushing.  Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.  

darksusperia

I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

Depends on what he was doing. In regards to games, it depends which ones and how cpu bound they were. I assumed it may have been a 955 so...( I dont actually know what phenom he had - 955 was very popular however) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=701

I was talking about games though.

#-36 Posted by darksusperia (6898 posts) -

[QUOTE="darksusperia"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

Toxic-Seahorse

Depends on what he was doing. In regards to games, it depends which ones and how cpu bound they were. I assumed it may have been a 955 so...( I dont actually know what phenom he had - 955 was very popular however) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=701

I was talking about games though.

I know, but alas theres not many comparison tools around. If it was say ARMA2 or Planetside 2. I could definately see a 50% boost easily.
#-35 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Breaking news: +25% performance and +250% cost = crushing

Toxic-Seahorse

 

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not.  Yes, that's crushing.  Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.  

I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

 

Why are you so shocked?  Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980.  Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps.  50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.   

 

#-34 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not. Yes, that's crushing. Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.

hartsickdiscipl

I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

Why are you so shocked? Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980. Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps. 50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.

Multi-threaded AI code exmple

DIEP.png

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

AMDVisheraFX8350ReviewShogun21.png

Note that FX-4170 (two module/4 threads) almost rivals FX-8350 i.e. the Shogun game has pretty bad multi-threading.

From http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/prozessoren/amd-fx-8350/test/amd_fx_8350,577,3006018,2.html

Anno 2070 DX11 @ 1920x1080

FX 8350 : 78 fps

Core i7 2700K: 96 fps i.e. 22 percent higher.

Core i7 3770K: 103 fps i.e. 32 percent higher.

#-33 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

ronvalencia

 

Why are you so shocked? Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980. Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps. 50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.

 

Multi-threaded AI code exmple

DIEP.png

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

AMDVisheraFX8350ReviewShogun21.png

 

From http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/prozessoren/amd-fx-8350/test/amd_fx_8350,577,3006018,2.html

Anno 2070 DX11 @ 1920x1080

FX 8350 : 78 fps

Core i7 2700K: 96 fps i.e. 22 percent higher.

Core i7 3770K: 103 fps i.e. 32 percent higher.

 

 

 

 

 

Why am I looking at this?  We're talking about the 3570k versus Phenom II.  

#-32 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Why are you so shocked? Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980. Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps. 50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.

hartsickdiscipl

Multi-threaded AI code exmple

DIEP.png

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

AMDVisheraFX8350ReviewShogun21.png

From http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/prozessoren/amd-fx-8350/test/amd_fx_8350,577,3006018,2.html

Anno 2070 DX11 @ 1920x1080

FX 8350 : 78 fps

Core i7 2700K: 96 fps i.e. 22 percent higher.

Core i7 3770K: 103 fps i.e. 32 percent higher.

Why am I looking at this? We're talking about the 3570k versus Phenom II.

TC's post has FX 8350. Phenom II vs 3570K is changing TC's topic. Anyway, my posted Shogun table has Phenom II entry.

#-31 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

Multi-threaded AI code exmple

DIEP.png

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

AMDVisheraFX8350ReviewShogun21.png

 

From http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/prozessoren/amd-fx-8350/test/amd_fx_8350,577,3006018,2.html

Anno 2070 DX11 @ 1920x1080

FX 8350 : 78 fps

Core i7 2700K: 96 fps i.e. 22 percent higher.

Core i7 3770K: 103 fps i.e. 32 percent higher.

 

 

 

 

ronvalencia

 

Why am I looking at this? We're talking about the 3570k versus Phenom II.

TC's post has FX 8350. Phenom II vs 3570K is changing TC's topic. Anyway, my posted Shogun table has Phenom II entry.

 

You quoted me, so I assumed you were trying to make a point to me.  

The Phenom II results in Shogun reinforce my point when compared to the 3570k.  

#-30 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"][QUOTE="way2funny"]

Why is that BS? Just because theres finally softwware to take advantage of the better CPUs Intel has?

hartsickdiscipl

yes I call it bs.

You're wrong. I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k. Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound. With the overclock the difference is massive. Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.

The TC's post was about FX-8350 not Phenom II X4. You can't apply Phenom II to FX-8350.

#-29 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]yes I call it bs.ronvalencia

 

You're wrong. I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k. Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound. With the overclock the difference is massive. Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.

The TC's post was about FX-8350 not Phenom II X4. You can't apply Phenom II to FX-8350.

 

I wasn't debating with the TC.  Why did you quote me?

#-28 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

For the record my 8350 got me about 25-50% improvement in games over my 955, it overclocks to 5ghz easily and I can run like 4 VMs while gaming without an appreciable drop in performance.

 

And I didn't have to buy a new motherboard.

#-27 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You're wrong. I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k. Even at stock speeds this thing crushes my old CPU in games that I thought were entirely GPU-bound. With the overclock the difference is massive. Yes, there are some games where I gained little or nothing due to being truly GPU-bound, but those are rare.

hartsickdiscipl

The TC's post was about FX-8350 not Phenom II X4. You can't apply Phenom II to FX-8350.

 

I wasn't debating with the TC.  Why did you quote me?

SKatEDiRt has AMD FX 8150 Zambezi which is not Phenom II.
#-26 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

The TC's post was about FX-8350 not Phenom II X4. You can't apply Phenom II to FX-8350.

ronvalencia

 

I wasn't debating with the TC.  Why did you quote me?

SKatEDiRt has AMD FX 8150 Zambezi which is not Phenom II.

You might want to read the stuff you are replying to, so you actually understand the context of what is going on.
#-25 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

It's the difference between getting comfortable and enjoyable framerates in some games while using the same GPU, and not.  Yes, that's crushing.  Especially when the difference is as much as 40-50% more FPS in some games.  

hartsickdiscipl

I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

 

Why are you so shocked?  Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980.  Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps.  50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.   

 

That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

#-24 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] I call BS. Do you have any proof of a 50% performance increase going from a Phenom II to an i5?

Toxic-Seahorse

 

Why are you so shocked?  Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980.  Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps.  50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.   

 

That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

#-22 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Why are you so shocked?  Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980.  Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps.  50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.   

 

hartsickdiscipl

That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

Well games with poor multithread support... Its been shown multiple times when games are properly coded and fully use all cpu cores the difference between cpu speed even out at high resolutions.

Anno is only geared toward two cores, Shogun 2 only uses one core, and SC 2 only maxes out one core and leaves the leftovers for the other cores.

Even with a 7970 an Athlon X4 645 does not hold back enough to worry about when the game uses all its cores.

Untitled-4.png

#-21 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Why are you so shocked?  Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980.  Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps.  50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.   

 

hartsickdiscipl

That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

So running your car off road is a bad way to test performance on a freeway.  Got it.

#-20 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

04dcarraher

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

Well games with poor multithread support... Its been shown multiple times when games are properly coded and fully use all cpu cores the difference between cpu speed even out at high resolutions.

 

That depends on how intensive the game is.  A game that's well-threaded AND CPU intensive enough will run much better on a CPU with superior per core performance and an equal number of cores.  

#-19 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

GummiRaccoon

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

So running your car off road is a bad way to test performance on a freeway.  Got it.

 

AWFUL analogy.  

#-18 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -

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

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

hartsickdiscipl

Well games with poor multithread support... Its been shown multiple times when games are properly coded and fully use all cpu cores the difference between cpu speed even out at high resolutions.

 

That depends on how intensive the game is.  A game that's well-threaded AND CPU intensive enough will run much better on a CPU with superior per core performance and an equal number of cores.  

While true to a degree, you will not notice a massive difference, If the load is not over taxing on only a one or a few cores, results are very equal to one another. and since we are talking about an 8 core vs a quad there wont be any real bottlenecking with higher end gpus.

 

CPU_02.png

#-17 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Well games with poor multithread support... Its been shown multiple times when games are properly coded and fully use all cpu cores the difference between cpu speed even out at high resolutions.04dcarraher

 

That depends on how intensive the game is.  A game that's well-threaded AND CPU intensive enough will run much better on a CPU with superior per core performance and an equal number of cores.  

While true to a degree, you will not notice a massive difference, If the load is not over taxing on only a one or a few cores, results are very equal to one another. and since we are talking about an 8 core vs a quad there wont be any real bottlenecking with higher end gpus.

 

CPU_02.png

 

 

I'm not saying that a 3570k would put a big beatdown on any of the decent AMD chips in BF3, but anybody looking at that chart can see that they needed to do another run.  That just ain't right.  

#-16 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

That depends on how intensive the game is.  A game that's well-threaded AND CPU intensive enough will run much better on a CPU with superior per core performance and an equal number of cores.  

hartsickdiscipl

While true to a degree, you will not notice a massive difference, If the load is not over taxing on only a one or a few cores, results are very equal to one another. and since we are talking about an 8 core vs a quad there wont be any real bottlenecking with higher end gpus.

 

CPU_02.png

 

 

I'm not saying that a 3570k would put a big beatdown on any of the decent AMD chips in BF3, but anybody looking at that chart can see that they needed to do another run.  That just ain't right.  

You have to take that that chart with a grain of salt, one its beta, we have no idea how well its coded, plus their using a GTX 690. Even with Crysis 2 with direct x 11 with hires textures an Athlon x4 645 didnt hold back a 7970 at 1080+
#-15 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

While true to a degree, you will not notice a massive difference, If the load is not over taxing on only a one or a few cores, results are very equal to one another. and since we are talking about an 8 core vs a quad there wont be any real bottlenecking with higher end gpus.

 

CPU_02.png

04dcarraher

 

 

I'm not saying that a 3570k would put a big beatdown on any of the decent AMD chips in BF3, but anybody looking at that chart can see that they needed to do another run.  That just ain't right.  

You have to take that that chart with a grain of salt, one its beta, we have no idea how well its coded, plus their using a GTX 690. Even with Crysis 2 with direct x 11 with hires textures an Athlon x4 645 didnt hold back a 7970 at 1080+

 

That's true, but there are multiple games where it's not.  

#-14 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

While true to a degree, you will not notice a massive difference, If the load is not over taxing on only a one or a few cores, results are very equal to one another. and since we are talking about an 8 core vs a quad there wont be any real bottlenecking with higher end gpus.

 

04dcarraher

 

 

I'm not saying that a 3570k would put a big beatdown on any of the decent AMD chips in BF3, but anybody looking at that chart can see that they needed to do another run.  That just ain't right.  

You have to take that that chart with a grain of salt, one its beta, we have no idea how well its coded, plus their using a GTX 690. Even with Crysis 2 with direct x 11 with hires textures an Athlon x4 645 didnt hold back a 7970 at 1080+

Yeah it does, an athlon 645 would hold back a card half that in Crysis 2. I had a 640 @ 3.6ghz with a 6950, and when i upgraded to a 8120 i noticed large FPS increases in certain areas. Even more so in BF3, the performance increase was huge in large 64 player maps.
#-13 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

BF3 is so cpu extensive in the multiplayer, definitely on 64 man servers, it's like I need to overclock my cpu because I'm getting low gpu usage on my 670s! I've seen 40s and 50s.:|

#-12 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -

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

 

 

I'm not saying that a 3570k would put a big beatdown on any of the decent AMD chips in BF3, but anybody looking at that chart can see that they needed to do another run.  That just ain't right.  

ferret-gamer

You have to take that that chart with a grain of salt, one its beta, we have no idea how well its coded, plus their using a GTX 690. Even with Crysis 2 with direct x 11 with hires textures an Athlon x4 645 didnt hold back a 7970 at 1080+

Yeah it does, an athlon 645 would hold back a card half that in Crysis 2. I had a 640 @ 3.6ghz with a 6950, and when i upgraded to a 8120 i noticed large FPS increases in certain areas. Even more so in BF3, the performance increase was huge in large 64 player maps.

False, Athlon x4 does not hold back a 7970 in Crysis 2 at 1080+ by much, unless your running DDR2. With BF3 there are multiple aspects you have to look at, memory allocation, the fact that BF3 can use 8 cores, lack of L3 cache  on athlon etc. Still I know an Athlon x4 645 with a GTX 580 keeps up with any other quad core with 32 player maps.

Untitled-4.png

#-11 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I wasn't debating with the TC. Why did you quote me?

ferret-gamer

SKatEDiRt has AMD FX 8150 Zambezi which is not Phenom II.

You might want to read the stuff you are replying to, so you actually understand the context of what is going on.

LOL, I did read from page 1 to page 3.

hartsickdiscipl: "I just upgraded from a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 to a 3570k"...

ShadowDeathX: "If next-gen consoles do have 8 core CPUs, then the gap between AMD and Intel will be much lower"..

'etc'

There's very little point talking about EOL Phenom IIs e.g. http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/27863-five-phenom-iis-reach-end-of-life

#-10 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Why are you so shocked?  Here are 3 games in a single review where even a stock 3570k has a 50% or greater advantage over a Phenom II X4 980.  Mine was an overclocked 955, which is basically the same thing-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/863-21/ivy-bridge-22nm-review-intel-core-i7-3770k-and-i5-3570k.html

 

Factor in that my 3570k has a pretty typical OC to 4.5ghz, and it bulldozes a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 in quite a few games, not to mention other types of apps.  50% performance increase is a conservative figure in some games, as you can see.   

 

hartsickdiscipl

That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

Unrealistically stressing CPUs is an awful way to compare CPU performance in games seeing as these scenarios will most likely never happen to anyone who is playing the game to have fun.
#-9 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13593 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

Toxic-Seahorse

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

Unrealistically stressing CPUs is an awful way to compare CPU performance in games seeing as these scenarios will most likely never happen to anyone who is playing the game to have fun.

which is why my analogy was good

#-8 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] That's only 3 games... I don't really understand the benchmark either. Why is the FPS in the single digits?

 

EDIT; OHHH I see what they did. They did something in game to try and stress the CPU as much as possible. That's an awful way to compare the performance in games because 99% of the time you won't get anything like that in those games.

Toxic-Seahorse

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

Unrealistically stressing CPUs is an awful way to compare CPU performance in games seeing as these scenarios will most likely never happen to anyone who is playing the game to have fun.

 

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?

#-7 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4089 posts) -

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

 

So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games.  Got it.  

hartsickdiscipl

Unrealistically stressing CPUs is an awful way to compare CPU performance in games seeing as these scenarios will most likely never happen to anyone who is playing the game to have fun.

 

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?

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.
#-6 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] Unrealistically stressing CPUs is an awful way to compare CPU performance in games seeing as these scenarios will most likely never happen to anyone who is playing the game to have fun.Toxic-Seahorse

 

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?

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.

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 ,
#-5 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] Unrealistically stressing CPUs is an awful way to compare CPU performance in games seeing as these scenarios will most likely never happen to anyone who is playing the game to have fun.Toxic-Seahorse

 

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?

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.  

#-4 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 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?

04dcarraher

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.

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 ,

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.  

#-3 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 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 , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples.
#-2 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.04dcarraher

 

 

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 , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples.

 

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.  

#-1 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][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.hartsickdiscipl

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 ,

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.

#0 Posted by 04dcarraher (19139 posts) -

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

 

 

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.  

hartsickdiscipl

lol , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples.

 

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...