Vishera vs Devil's Canyon - A casual comparison by an average user - Page 9 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #81 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 09:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tivan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CravinR1 View Post

Even sc2 on ultimate is completely enjoyable on a fx6300. Intel fps only are noticeable in benches. I have i7 and 83xx and both game well. The 83xx just suffers a few fps for 1/3 the cost. Best performance no budget get a i7. Best bang for buck on any budget get a 83xx and spend the difference on better GPU.

Unless you're crazy like me and want 100fps vsync stable 99% of the time in single threaded games! But yeah I have not encountered many situations where an FX at 4.2-4.5 wasn't keeping the 60fps with my settings. (though I can't make a statement about high+ settings. Or Mmo's because I don't play these beyond their single-player part.)

Anyway, I'm looking forward to more results from the OP! (though most of the tests seem to be at ultra, for some reason. Isn't that more of a gpu benchmark than a casual setting? I was just thinking average users lower their settings to hit 60fps most of the time, but maybe I thought wrong.)

It's because running tests at settings I don't intend to use is about as pointless as owning a yaht and never leaving the Gobi .
I would say that there are relatively few people who buy $300 + video card to run at medium settings at 1024 x 768 resolutions.

Much more utility in showing how they perform at settings people actually use, anything else has very little value.


I posted this in the AMD section because there are many people considering the purchase of the 1150 platform. The information here will hopefully help them decide if there are any gains that will make the money invested worthwhile. It will be of little use to them if they want to run a medium level card at medium settings and low resolutions.
If you think that it would be helpful to demonstrate that, make your own thread and have at it smile.gif.
doritos93 likes this.

FX8370E 5839mhz MSI 990FXA GD80 - custom water http://valid.x86.fr/3jk1vz
FX - 9370 @ 5740mhz MSI 990FXA GD-80 with an H-100 proof.gifhttp://valid.canardpc.com/s04jcj
I like MSI motherboards and this is why smile.gif
8350 @ 5.2 ghz on a stock cooler proof.gif PM me! smile.gif
cssorkinman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #82 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 10:02 AM
PC Gamer
 
F3ERS 2 ASH3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

It's because running tests at settings I don't intend to use is about as pointless as owning a yaht and never leaving the Gobi .
I would say that there are relatively few people who buy $300 + video card to run at medium settings at 1024 x 768 resolutions.

Much more utility in showing how they perform at settings people actually use, anything else has very little value.


I posted this in the AMD section because there are many people considering the purchase of the 1150 platform. The information here will hopefully help them decide if there are any gains that will make the money invested worthwhile. It will be of little use to them if they want to run a medium level card at medium settings and low resolutions.
If you think that it would be helpful to demonstrate that, make your own thread and have at it smile.gif.

And that is why I question his relevance.. mind you this is also the same spat that @Tivan was saying in the 83xx owners club and wanted to completely say that they where terrible chips.. which you are proving quite otherwise

CSS, One thing that I notice with the min FPS drops on AMD chips is that a lot of that is during load screens, has always been the case from I can see.. never did any real testing on it.. what do you take of it

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Asus sabertooth rev 2.0 BIOS 1503
Coolermaster Haf Stacker
FX 8350 @5.1 @1.7v :O
XSPC Raystorm RS240 + Swiftec D5 pump and 360 Rad
2x AMD XFX 280x DD @ 1210/1700
Rosewill Capstone 750w PSU


post-flame-small.gif5 GHz Overclock Club post-flame-small.gif
F3ERS 2 ASH3S is offline  
post #83 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 10:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by F3ERS 2 ASH3S View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

It's because running tests at settings I don't intend to use is about as pointless as owning a yaht and never leaving the Gobi .
I would say that there are relatively few people who buy $300 + video card to run at medium settings at 1024 x 768 resolutions.

Much more utility in showing how they perform at settings people actually use, anything else has very little value.


I posted this in the AMD section because there are many people considering the purchase of the 1150 platform. The information here will hopefully help them decide if there are any gains that will make the money invested worthwhile. It will be of little use to them if they want to run a medium level card at medium settings and low resolutions.
If you think that it would be helpful to demonstrate that, make your own thread and have at it smile.gif.

And that is why I question his relevance.. mind you this is also the same spat that @Tivan was saying in the 83xx owners club and wanted to completely say that they where terrible chips.. which you are proving quite otherwise

CSS, One thing that I notice with the min FPS drops on AMD chips is that a lot of that is during load screens, has always been the case from I can see.. never did any real testing on it.. what do you take of it

I've noticed that many times my FX when paired with the 7970 would establish a minimum frame rate at a single point during a benchmark that was 10 % + ( sometimes greater than 20%) lower than any other sample taken during the benchmark. Often times at a scene change or the beginning of a particular benchmark. Bioshock infinite expressed this tendency and captured it well in file it produced, if you have the game, I'd recommend trying it. Start bench option 2 followed by option 1 . Let me know what you find out as well .

FX8370E 5839mhz MSI 990FXA GD80 - custom water http://valid.x86.fr/3jk1vz
FX - 9370 @ 5740mhz MSI 990FXA GD-80 with an H-100 proof.gifhttp://valid.canardpc.com/s04jcj
I like MSI motherboards and this is why smile.gif
8350 @ 5.2 ghz on a stock cooler proof.gif PM me! smile.gif
cssorkinman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #85 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 10:22 AM
PC Gamer
 
F3ERS 2 ASH3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

I've noticed that many times my FX when paired with the 7970 would establish a minimum frame rate at a single point during a benchmark that was 10 % + ( sometimes greater than 20%) lower than any other sample taken during the benchmark. Often times at a scene change or the beginning of a particular benchmark. Bioshock infinite expressed this tendency and captured it well in file it produced, if you have the game, I'd recommend trying it. Start bench option 2 followed by option 1 . Let me know what you find out as well .

Ill have to take a look at that bench to see. but sounds about right, which that in the end would skew the actual gameplay results.. and avg fps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan45 View Post

Could that be core parking ?

Maybe, I have the hot fixes installed and see that here and there still

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Asus sabertooth rev 2.0 BIOS 1503
Coolermaster Haf Stacker
FX 8350 @5.1 @1.7v :O
XSPC Raystorm RS240 + Swiftec D5 pump and 360 Rad
2x AMD XFX 280x DD @ 1210/1700
Rosewill Capstone 750w PSU


post-flame-small.gif5 GHz Overclock Club post-flame-small.gif
F3ERS 2 ASH3S is offline  
post #87 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 10:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan45 View Post

Could that be core parking ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by F3ERS 2 ASH3S View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

I've noticed that many times my FX when paired with the 7970 would establish a minimum frame rate at a single point during a benchmark that was 10 % + ( sometimes greater than 20%) lower than any other sample taken during the benchmark. Often times at a scene change or the beginning of a particular benchmark. Bioshock infinite expressed this tendency and captured it well in file it produced, if you have the game, I'd recommend trying it. Start bench option 2 followed by option 1 . Let me know what you find out as well .

Ill have to take a look at that bench to see. but sounds about right, which that in the end would skew the actual gameplay results.. and avg fps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan45 View Post

Could that be core parking ?

Maybe, I have the hot fixes installed and see that here and there still

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan45 View Post

Just curious, I do all my gaming on my Win8.1 HTPC so no patches.

I don't know what the cause is, but you are correct, it establishes a minimum that reviewers often point to. If you look at the min, max ,average and both the minimum and maximum are lower than the competition but the average is the same or higher, that's pretty revealing.

This could also point to differences in turbo functions and power savings features, if the threshold is for upclocking is a higher load point or delayed in any way, it would reflect itself in a manner as described - particularly in reviews where they are ran in the "stock" configuration. This is part of why I chose to lock the clockspeeds.


I've wondered if it's something to do with how it spreads the load across the cores or if it's because of shared resources.

FX8370E 5839mhz MSI 990FXA GD80 - custom water http://valid.x86.fr/3jk1vz
FX - 9370 @ 5740mhz MSI 990FXA GD-80 with an H-100 proof.gifhttp://valid.canardpc.com/s04jcj
I like MSI motherboards and this is why smile.gif
8350 @ 5.2 ghz on a stock cooler proof.gif PM me! smile.gif
cssorkinman is offline  
post #88 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 11:00 AM
PC Gamer
 
F3ERS 2 ASH3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post



I don't know what the cause is, but you are correct, it establishes a minimum that reviewers often point to. If you look at the min, max ,average and both the minimum and maximum are lower than the competition but the average is the same or higher, that's pretty revealing.

This could also point to differences in turbo functions and power savings features, if the threshold is for upclocking is a higher load point or delayed in any way, it would reflect itself in a manner as described - particularly in reviews where they are ran in the "stock" configuration. This is part of why I chose to lock the clockspeeds.


I've wondered if it's something to do with how it spreads the load across the cores or if it's because of shared resources.

I really think that it is a combination of all of the above,

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Asus sabertooth rev 2.0 BIOS 1503
Coolermaster Haf Stacker
FX 8350 @5.1 @1.7v :O
XSPC Raystorm RS240 + Swiftec D5 pump and 360 Rad
2x AMD XFX 280x DD @ 1210/1700
Rosewill Capstone 750w PSU


post-flame-small.gif5 GHz Overclock Club post-flame-small.gif
F3ERS 2 ASH3S is offline  
post #89 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 12:11 PM
 
Tivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by F3ERS 2 ASH3S View Post

Only reason why I am pointing it out is that the facts in the OP from CSS are completely contrary to what Tivan is saying and this is an occuring thing within his posts.

Don't read things into what I say that I never said or meant to imply.

edit: I'll be refraining from replying to you in public now, sorry for the trouble @OP.
cssorkinman likes this.

~ Enjoy life, have a great day ~
Yes, I really am that tivvv3 guy from youtube who makes LoL videos by the same philosophy. Whoa!
Also Unconditional Basic Income advocate.
Tivan is offline  
post #90 of 547 Old 01-08-2015, 12:34 PM
PC Gamer
 
F3ERS 2 ASH3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 135
So back to what I was saying,

Have you seen the instance of low fps points at load in the benchmarks that you have already ran?

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Asus sabertooth rev 2.0 BIOS 1503
Coolermaster Haf Stacker
FX 8350 @5.1 @1.7v :O
XSPC Raystorm RS240 + Swiftec D5 pump and 360 Rad
2x AMD XFX 280x DD @ 1210/1700
Rosewill Capstone 750w PSU


post-flame-small.gif5 GHz Overclock Club post-flame-small.gif
F3ERS 2 ASH3S is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off