The Computer Hardware forum is the place to discuss hardware. Important! Asking for Windows keys or circumventing the copy-protect to accommodate multiple installs can lead to a moderation with revoked community permissions.
Finding some interesting things about crysis 3 (Intel vs AMD CPU's)
- Feb 8, 2013 8:55 pm GMT
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]
[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.
[/QUOTE]
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
[/QUOTE]
So running your car off road is a bad way to test performance on a freeway. Got it.
[/QUOTE]
AWFUL analogy.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 8, 2013 9:07 pm GMThartsickdiscipl wrote:04dcarraher wrote: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.hartsickdiscipl wrote:
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
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.
loosingENDS Wisdom:My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 8, 2013 9:17 pm GMT04dcarraher wrote:hartsickdiscipl wrote:04dcarraher wrote: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.
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.
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
[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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 8, 2013 9:25 pm GMThartsickdiscipl wrote:04dcarraher wrote:hartsickdiscipl wrote:
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.
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+loosingENDS Wisdom:My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE] 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+- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 8, 2013 9:26 pm GMT04dcarraher wrote: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+hartsickdiscipl wrote:04dcarraher wrote:
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.
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.
That's true, but there are multiple games where it's not.
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE] 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+[/QUOTE]
That's true, but there are multiple games where it's not.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- [QUOTE="04dcarraher"][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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE] 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+[/QUOTE] 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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 8, 2013 10:46 pm GMT
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.
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.:|
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 8, 2013 11:02 pm GMTFalse, 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.ferret-gamer wrote: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.04dcarraher wrote: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+hartsickdiscipl wrote:
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.
Edited on Feb 8, 2013 11:18 pm GMT Edited 3 total times.loosingENDS Wisdom:My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][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.
[/QUOTE] 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+[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 1:11 am GMT
ACER Iconia W500 Tablet, 120GB SSD, Windows 8 Pro/Android 4.0 RC2
CPU: AMD Z-01 (ID:1821h, B0 stepping),RAM: 2GB DDR3-1066, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 6250M
----
DELL Studio XPS 1645 laptop. 512GB SSD
CPU: Intel Core i7-740QM, RAM: 8GB DDR3-1333, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5730M 1GB VRAM
----
BitFenix Prodigy Mini-ITX
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K, RAM: 8GB DDR3-1600, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7950 OC (1Ghz) 3GB VRAM
----
Desktop PC
CPU: Intel Core i7-2600, RAM: 16GB DDR3-1600, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB VRAM[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
I wasn't debating with the TC. Why did you quote me?
[/QUOTE] SKatEDiRt has AMD FX 8150 Zambezi which is not Phenom II. [/QUOTE] You might want to read the stuff you are replying to, so you actually understand the context of what is going on.[/QUOTE]
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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 11:03 am GMT
-------------------------
AMD Phenom II 1100T X6 @3.66GHz | Gigabyte Radeon HD 7950 3GB | Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 AM3+ | 8gb Kingston Hyper X Blu @1466| 500w Corsair Builder Series | 500gb Western Digital HDD | Antec Three Hundred Illusion Mid Tower |
STEAM ID: alex2143 (Toxic_Seahorse)
Currently Playing: Tales of Graces f (PS3),Metro: Last Light (PC), Persona 4 (Vita)
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][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-
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.
[/QUOTE] 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.
[/QUOTE]
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
[/QUOTE] 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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 1:01 pm GMT
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][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.
[/QUOTE]
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
which is why my analogy was good
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 1:14 pm GMT
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][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.
[/QUOTE]
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 7:47 pm GMT
-------------------------
AMD Phenom II 1100T X6 @3.66GHz | Gigabyte Radeon HD 7950 3GB | Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 AM3+ | 8gb Kingston Hyper X Blu @1466| 500w Corsair Builder Series | 500gb Western Digital HDD | Antec Three Hundred Illusion Mid Tower |
STEAM ID: alex2143 (Toxic_Seahorse)
Currently Playing: Tales of Graces f (PS3),Metro: Last Light (PC), Persona 4 (Vita)
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
So stress-testing CPUs with real games is a bad way to test CPUs for games. Got it.
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE] 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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:20 pm GMTloosingENDS Wisdom:
My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][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.[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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 ,- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:21 pm GMT
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][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.[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:32 pm GMT
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][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?
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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 , [/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:33 pm GMTloosingENDS Wisdom:
My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][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?
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE] lol , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:40 pm GMT
i5-3570k@4.5ghz/CM Hyper 212+/Gigabyte Z77-D3H/8GB Corsair DDR3/Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC 1GB/128GB Samsung 830 Series SSD/1 TB WD Caviar Black HDD/Creative X-FI Xtremegamer/DVD Burner+Blu-ray/CM 692 case/Acer H233H 23" 1080p/Panasonic TCP50-VT25 50" 3d Plasma TV/Klipsch Promedia 2.1/Antec Earthwatts 650 watt PSU/Vista X64
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE] lol , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples. [/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:45 pm GMTloosingENDS Wisdom:
My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[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.[/QUOTE] 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 , [/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Feb 9, 2013 8:46 pm GMTdeal with it?hartsickdiscipl wrote:04dcarraher wrote:lol , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples.hartsickdiscipl wrote:
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.
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.
flawed examples...Edited on Feb 9, 2013 8:51 pm GMTloosingENDS Wisdom:My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting
Was xbox 360 based on a 9800 pro of 2003 ?
No, it was based on a 8800GTX of 2006
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[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.
[/QUOTE] lol , no shogun 2 only uses one core, And arma 2 maxes out one core and barely touches the rest. not good examples. [/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE] deal with it? :lol: flawed examples...
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
