Originally Posted by sherlock
Is it not common in benchmarks and OCs to disable all power saving features
If you disable power saving features, then complain about power consumption then you're just plain dumb...The point kinda works because the person who does care about power will not disable those features, but someone who doesn't care will disable them.
Originally Posted by j3st3r
And therefore, they run like poo compared to the Intel equivalent.
They run slower, but it's completely unnoticeable 90% of the time, to say "they run like poo" makes it sound unplayable, the only game any AMD CPU will ever have trouble maxing out will be Starcraft, and that's only if you absolutely must have 60fps, as seen here
.On a side note, Intel can easily get to unstable FPS too in that game
Originally Posted by j3st3r
If modern processors, including the FX, do fine with 'lightly threaded' game why does the Intel CPU get 60+ fps in F1, Skyrim, SC2, WoW, Metro?
Erm, I get 60fps most of the time in a heavily (130+ mods) modded Skyrim at stock...My CPU is barely the limitation, and when it is the i5 3570k next to me also shows a bottleneck. I can't really speak for the rest as I haven't played them on this rig/don't play them ever. (I don't think I've heard of anyone recently playing F1, actually...WoW I know was maxed out on a HD4890 and Phenom II but then that was before the graphical updates and SC2 still is playable by far...Metro, I was running it well on HD4890 CFX with a Phenom II, let alone an FX-4170 @ 4.5Ghz and a HD7950.)
Originally Posted by Alatar
SC2 in heavy situations.
The same can be said of Intel in admittedly rare situations, however, games like Starcraft 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc can bring PCs to their knees because they need so much single-threaded CPU power...A Core i5 3570k @ 4.4Ghz still gets single digit FPS in a game that's mostly unupdated in terms of CPU optimization since 2008.
Originally Posted by almighty15
I love watching people arguing over Heaven or using a benchmark to show how AMD can compete, or resorting to the old 'but it keeps up in BF3 and Crysis 2' argument.
Heaven's not a game and BF3 and Crysis 2 are not the only 2 games in the world...
Not a single game in top 20 most played in STEAM games list can use more then 4 threads....
Infact a very very large amount only use 2 threads.......
And yet AMD owners only want new games benchmarked as people only play new games right? And old games don't matter
The problem with that logic is, there's only 2 games on the top 100 that I can't play at stable FPS due to my FX, and one of those
is exactly the same as Intel, (10 player games with the largest fleets starts to lag like crazy in the late-game battles) the other one..well, that's one game that Intel runs well and AMD can't really do playable settings from what I've heard. Oh no! Call the fire department! Call the police! I can't play Planetside 2! (A game I've never even had any intentions of picking up, anyway)
Originally Posted by almighty15
Originally Posted by SoloCamo
So from that point of view, we should throw Quake 3 into these reviews? 99.9% of single threaded games can easily be maxed on any current processor. I fail to see why they are brought into the discussion when we have new games that actually push the cpus and are far better to judge with. Technology isn't going backwards. Game engines are no different.
Dude, the biggest problem with reviews is that they only concentrate on the average framerate and not the framerate that matters, the minimum...
AMD CPU's produce low minimum FPS in single/dual threaded games because they have a low IPC.
That is just pure fact and a result of own personal experience...
And why bring old games into the mix? Did you not see the STEAM games chart? People are STILL PLAYING OLD GAMES
The only modern games that have really really good multi-threading support if BF3 and Crysis 2, they are 2 shing examples of multi-threading done right..
Do I have to drag out the CPUz validations of my i5 and my FX again? You're talking out of your rear end if you think that AMD has significantly lower minimum FPS than Intel, it scales as with the CPU performance...They do have lower than a faster Intel CPU, but all things equal it's normal...It's like saying a HD7870 is slower than a HD7950. There's most likely 2-3 games total
that I'd get unplayable FPS on AMD but not on Intel right now, that includes minimum FPS.
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm
Yes, Quake 3 should be thrown into the mix. We are testing CPUs here so you fire up a good single threaded game, set the resolution to 800x600 and detail as low as it will go, and bask in the results. We are not testing the game...we are testing the CPUs. So if one CPU was running Quake 3 at a 800x600 resolution at 150fps and the other at 300 fps this would tell us that one CPU had double the single thread performance of the other (in reality you need to do several games and average them to rule out any code reasons).
If all you want to do max out any game today at 1080p at 60fps...get your self a cheap dual core (or preferably a AMD "APU") and team it up with a GPU that can do it. That requires no testing and no one wants to see benches of that. In this thread we are interested in CPU benchmarks and not how well a game engine will run. So it isn't really what they are running, but how it ran...new or old software doesn't make a lot of difference unless you are testing a specific instruction set or something. As long as there is a good range of different software tested you should get good results.
You need more than a dual core to max out BF3 MP among a few other games.
Also, testing games at low resolution shows literally nothing...Game engines act and behave completely differently to one another, all it tells you is that Quake 3 is faster at those settings on Intel than AMD, to get true results you'd still have to test the other games anyway, as they may manage to use the architecture more efficiently or many other possible things that pretty much makes low resolution gaming to test CPU differences a stupid thing to do.
Originally Posted by Heuchler
I only listen to what is on Tom's. Tom's the man.
Looks like the i7-3960X at 4.25GHz is only slightly faster than a stock x4 955.
Also, Alienware computer are the best. people with intel CPUs should only get nVidia GPUs
and if you have an AMD you should get ATI GPUs. I find threads like this very funny.
That couldn't be due to the fact most games are GPU bound? It's no use pointing it out, the fact of the matter is that most games rely on your GPU due to the massive emphasis placed on better graphics as opposed to physics, AI, stories, etc and that by the time most games are more CPU bound, they'll also probably be more multi-threaded letting the FX get closer to the i5.
Originally Posted by tonyco
Originally Posted by Brutuz
Nah, I dislike this ASRock, it has bad vdroop or something; I set 1.41v in the BIOS and it decides to go for 1.3v while dropping down to 1.2v sometimes, if I still had my UD3 I probably would, plus the UEFI lags something fierce and I'm considering going for whatever the Socket 2011 equivalent for Haswell is if they release an i7 3820 equivalent,
Off topic, but it might be helpful: I'm running the same motherboard as you and had a similar problem, but if you set the "cpu load-line calibrator" to either 1/4 or disable you should get very little vdroop if any at all. Also try the new beta bios v2.11, it has better memory support.
Awesome! Thanks, I'm a bit scared to flash my BIOS (Currently on 1.8 I believe) as for some reason my RAM won't work at 1866Mhz despite working at it before, I think it's the motherboard or the CPU.